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

Re: [steiner] Re: to experience thinking

Expand Messages
  • Carol
    Hi Starman, Tonight or tomorrow I will make a post on this thread. I m glad you re interested...more soon. Carol -- but I can ...
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 19, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Starman,

      Tonight or tomorrow I will make a post on this thread. I'm
      glad you're interested...more soon.

      Carol






      -- 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)."....
      > >
      >
      > And now third and finally, I'll address the specifics.
      > In the third
      > chapter of the book, Steiner has led anyone working with it
      > to the point of
      > observing his or her own thinking. As the book is a
      > dynamic, of course anyone
      > working with it will be continuing to do so through all the
      > later chapter
      > s.The effect the book can have on the student is dependent
      > upon this. You
      > will find no new or radically different description of
      > thinking in later
      > chapters, but rather the thoughts given their are
      > experienced differently
      > when you observe your own thinking of them. Chapter 8 is
      > merely a 5-page
      > recapitulation of the first seven chapters, the first half
      > of the book. In
      > the addition (actually just like a large footnote) to
      > chapter 8 which you
      > referred to, Steiner mentions "life in thinking". You
      > asserted yesterday that
      > this is some new thinking different from the self-conscious
      > thinking one
      > experiences from chapter 3 onwards. I answered that this
      > is not so. What you
      > were doing there was taking a striking phrase in a footnote
      > and making it
      > sound as if it were the enunciation of a whole new
      > doctrine. It is not.
      > Steiner is not saying that the thinking one experiences
      > from chapter 3
      > onwards is deficient, nor is he describing the fact that
      > one can only observe
      > the thinking one has already done as a problem one must try
      > to surmount. You
      > will find nowhere in the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity
      > the idea that we
      > have to try to observe our thinking as we think, in order
      > to get somewhere.
      > When he speaks in the footnote you quote from about
      > "failing to grasp the
      > essential nature of thinking" and "having only the corpse
      > of living
      > thinking", he is not referring to this fact that we can
      > only observe thinking
      > we've already done, but that people do not observe the
      > living activity of
      > their thinking and see themselves as thinker but ONLY the
      > finished thought,
      > and hence conclude that feeling or will is more "alive".
      > "Living in thinking"
      > refers to spiritually alive thinking, conscious of itself
      > (what Aristotle
      > called the "actuality of thinking"), not to the impossible
      > condition of
      > observing thinking one hasn't yet finished doing. It's not
      > that thinking is
      > not "alive" to many people because you can only observe
      > thinking you've
      > already done, as you're attempting to argue, nor is he
      > saying that the true
      > nature of thinking is "elusive" to many people because of
      > this fact, but for
      > quite other reasons. You're taking a few phrases from
      > chapters 8 and 9 and
      > contrasting them with chapter 3 (or more accurately, with
      > what one can
      > experience after working with the first three chapters),
      > but going through
      > the chapters sequentially and developing one's thinking as
      > the book is
      > intended to do would not lead to this narrow viewpoint
      > based on a few
      > snippets of text here and there.
      >
      > I recommend reading the excellent book "Rudolf Steiner
      > on his Book The
      > Philosophy of Freedom" by Otto Palmer, available from the
      > Rudolf Steiner
      > library. If you would like to discuss the book with me any
      > further though,
      > I'd suggest you do so off list, because the group as a
      > whole isn't working
      > with it and would not be able to participate. It's not a
      > path appropriate for
      > many people. Hope this is of some help.
      >
      > Dr. Starman
      >
      > http://www.DrStarman.net
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
      http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
    • Carol
      Dr. Starman said: Living in thinking refers to spiritually alive thinking, conscious of itself (what Aristotle called the actuality of thinking ), not to
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dr. Starman said:

        "Living in thinking" refers to spiritually alive thinking,
        conscious of itself (what Aristotle called the "actuality of
        thinking"), not to the impossible condition of observing
        thinking one hasn't yet finished doing."

        and

        "You will find no new or radically different description of
        thinking in later chapters"

        Hi Dr. Starman and all other who are interested in this
        topic,

        I'll be gone for a few days, but when I get back I will post
        up my take on these issues. I do happen to agree with
        Khulewind, in this regard, that there is an important change
        in how Steiner uses the word 'thinking' later in the book. I
        would agree with you that it might not be considered a
        'radically different discription', but it appears to me to be
        a 'fundamentall different discription'. I think it was
        because Steiner was not interested in stirring up our
        feelings that he avoided sounding too radical. But, an
        important shift in meaning none the less.

        Also, I will try to make a case that along with other things,
        Steiner is definitely pointing to an experience of the
        activity of thought without other percepts. I'm not sure
        what your take on this is, Dr. Starman, and one of the
        reasons I writing this 'preface' to my actual post is because
        I would ask that you mean by "not to the impossible condition
        of observing thinking one hasn't yet finished doing." I
        think I'm with you on that, but I'm not exactly sure what you
        mean. So my request is that in the next few days you might
        state explicitly, with different words maybe, what kind of
        experience you are suggesting that Steiner is NOT making.
        After reading your response, I will put out my first post.

        I look forward to this discussion for two reasons: First, I
        do highly respect your comprehension of POF- Last year you
        demonstrated quite remarkably that you have an intimate
        relationship to it, and I learned new things in that
        discussion. Second, I have a strong feeling (and desire)
        that no matter how much we do not agree, no matter how many
        ways we misunderstand each other's simplest points and no
        matter how "RIGHT" we know that we are, we can also
        demonstrate a conversation in which respect and curiosity
        lead the way. I am going to go out of my way to couch my
        understanding with modal operators of possibility like
        "might", "perhaps", "maybe" and such.

        So, I'll be checking my email over the next 3 or 4 days, but
        I won't be able to respond until I get home. Thanks

        Carol

        P.S. I will be drawing form primarily three sources:
        POF, Otto Palmer's book, "Rudolf Steiner On His Book The
        POF",
        and Khulewind's "Stages of Consciousness". I do agree with
        you Dr. Starman that there is nowhere else to find POF than
        in the pages of POF, so I will only use the other sources to
        give richer descriptions of various points I might be
        stammering to make.



        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
        http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
      • Lutz Baar
        Hi Carol! I am looking foreward to your contributions to this thread. To Dr Starman I would like to put the following question: Why do you keep calling
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 23, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Carol!

          I am looking foreward to your contributions to this thread.

          To Dr Starman I would like to put the following question: Why do you
          keep calling Steiner's addendum to the PoF "footnotes"? It is not
          like you to correct Steiner's own terms with subjective
          interpretations of your own.

          Lutz

          PS. I remember that I already reached the limmit of tree answers you
          decided to give me concerning this topic - so you could adress the
          list instead.
        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
          ... *******That s no onterpretation but a proper academic term. They are basically footnotes, little additions Steiner added when the PoF was reissued in 1918.
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 23, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            info@... writes:
            Why do you keep calling Steiner's addendum to the PoF "footnotes"? It is not
            like you to correct Steiner's own terms with subjective interpretations of your own.
            Lutz


            *******That's no onterpretation but a proper academic term. They are basically footnotes, little additions Steiner added when the PoF was reissued in 1918. They are brief comments that do not add substantially to the gist of the book, that were added over twenty years after it was first published, as Steiner reflected on how he would put certain things in that day for contemporary audiences. I could also justifiably term them 'glosses' or just 'additions'. But I'm making the point by the use of that word that nothing integral to the book could possibly be in them, since the book was a whole for 20 years without them. Therefore anyone claiming to find anything essential to the entire book in them cannot be right, since the book as it was originally published did not have these side comments or reflections. I assume from the reaction that the fellow whose thinking appears to stand behind your thinking, although you will not say so, contains this obvious error.

            Dr. Starman

            http://www.DrStarman.net
          • Lutz Baar
            ... I assume from the reaction that the fellow whose thinking appears to stand behind your thinking, although you will not say so, contains this obvious
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 23, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In steiner@y..., DRStarman2001@a... wrote:

              "I assume from the reaction that the fellow whose thinking appears
              to stand behind your thinking, although you will not say so,
              contains this obvious error."

              No need to drag in fellows standing behind....

              This discussion is about asking your second opinion on your earlier
              statement:
              "*******But there's no "other experience" to seek for. Steiner's
              philosophical works were all written to argue that when we think in
              concepts it is the human spirit that is acting and that we are
              experiencing directly."

              It looks like you are keeping this point of view. Fair enough. You
              stand to what you experience yourself. It is the right thing to do.
              But from your way to put it, I get the impression you believe there
              is such a thing like "this is what Steiner wrote". I prefer to
              say "this is what I read". Words cannot grasp concepts. They can
              only make one aware of having those wordless concepts. There is no
              content of importance in the PoF which lies *in* the words, there is
              no information to argue about. It is *through* the words the
              wordless experience they point at is to be found for oneselve. That
              goes for his "non-philosophical" books as well. If one "find
              something" and "how much" is up to the reader. What is the point of
              limiting this possible experience to ones own level, Dr Starman?
              What makes it an "obvious error"??

              Lutz
            • DRStarman2001@aol.com
              info@antropos.org writes: I get the impression you believe there ... *******I see I made an obvious error in responding again! Well, there s no one but
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 23, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                info@... writes:
                >>> I get the impression you believe there
                is such a thing like "this is what Steiner wrote". I prefer to
                say "this is what I read". Words cannot grasp concepts. They can
                only make one aware of having those wordless concepts. There is no
                content of importance in the PoF which lies *in* the words, there is
                no information to argue about. It is *through* the words the
                wordless experience they point at is to be found for oneselve. That
                goes for his "non-philosophical" books as well. If one "find
                something" and "how much" is up to the reader. What is the point of
                limiting this possible experience to ones own level, Dr Starman?
                What makes it an "obvious error"??
                Lutz

                *******I see I made an 'obvious error' in responding again! Well, there's no one but you and Carol currently showing interest on the list, but if you'd like to write about the PoF and Kuhlwind's interpretation of it that you find value in, go ahead and tell people whjat you think.  I don't see this pattern of thinking leading anywhere productive for myself. By your criteria, anthroposophy would be whatever you say it is. For that matter, anything is whatever anyone says it is. I disagree: words describe definite concepts. When a person uses a word, he means it to point to a concept, and if two people don't have the same concept when the word that stands for it is used, there's no communication possible. When I write 'triangle', if you say "Well, I read 'square'", you can forget communication. This is so elementary it's silly. I don't know where you're trying to go with all that. It sounds like Derrida, not Steiner.

                -starman

                http://www.DrStarman.net
              • LilOleMiss
                info@antropos.org writes: Dr. Starman wrote: *******I see I made an obvious error in responding again! Well, there s no one but you and Carol currently
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 23, 2002
                • 0 Attachment

                    
                  info@... writes:
                  Dr. Starman wrote:
                  *******I see I made an 'obvious error' in responding again! Well, there's no one but you and Carol currently showing interest on the list, but if you'd like to write about the PoF and Kuhlwind's interpretation of it that you find value in, go ahead and tell people whjat you think. 
                   
                  Dear Dr. Starman, Lutz, et al,
                   
                  I'm taking an interest in POF, quietly sitting here. I have my own opinions of Kuhlwind, whom I've not only heard speak but with whom I've learned not to pay attention to. Just my $0.02 worth, which isn't much.
                   
                  Cheers,
                   
                  Sheila
                  ____________________________________________________
                    IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
                • Lutz Baar
                  ... When a person uses a word, he means it to point to a concept, and if two people don t have the same concept when the word that stands for it is used,
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 24, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In steiner@y..., DRStarman2001@a... wrote:

                    "When a person uses a word, he means it to point to a concept, and
                    if two people don't have the same concept when the word that stands
                    for it is used, there's no communication possible."

                    I agree fully. A good exaple would be: 'intuitive thinking'.

                    Dr Starman continues:
                    "When I write 'triangle', if you say "Well, I read 'square'", you
                    can forget communication. This is so elementary it's silly. I don't
                    know where you're trying to go with all that."

                    I agree again. It would indeed be silly to read 'square' when you
                    write 'triangle'.

                    However, I believe that you very well know where I am trying to
                    go 'with all that', because I already explained it in my limited
                    english. Otherwise you wouldn't choose to make my last letter
                    look 'silly'. What I do not understand is why you find it neccessary
                    to build up such a 'hostile' athmosphere, like finding it a "mistake
                    to answer" to a contribution on this list??

                    Lutz
                  • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                    ... *******I don t know why you perceive things that aren t there, but first, I really don t have any idea what point you re trying to make; second, no one is
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 24, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      info@... writes:
                      >>> I believe that you very well know where I am trying to go 'with all that', because I already explained it in my limited english. Otherwise you wouldn't choose to make my last letter look 'silly'. What I do not understand is why you find it neccessary
                      to build up such a 'hostile' athmosphere, like finding it a "mistake to answer" to a contribution on this list??


                      *******I don't know why you perceive things that aren't there, but first, I really don't have any idea what point you're trying to make;  second, no one is trying to make you look silly;  and third, I don't perceive any hostility here. If you want to assert your understanding of the PoF, you have every opportunity to do so to the group. I didn't want to continue this personal exchange about it because whatever you're so intense about might not have interested the list, and also because, as I'm now saying for the 4th time, there's no point in picking up a piece of the Philosophie der Freiheit and discussing it separate from the book as a whole. If the list would like to take it up, you'll have the time to say all you want to.

                      Dr. Starman

                      http://www.DrStarman.net
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.