**Dear Rick, Dr. Starman and All,****Thanks zillions, Dr. Starman, for giving us all the dates, and Rick, thank you for asking. It's a good question, too, since so many titles have changed. Dr. Starman, one of my 1956 listings has the Oct. 22. 1908 lecture as the first of 2 in***Goethe's Secret Revelation,*but since Steiner so often gave more than one lecture in a day, this may or may not be the same as included in*The Fourth*Dimension. :) The more I research these types of things, the more admiration I have for those who *do* know. ACK! Rick, I always find out the "return policy" of where I buy books just in case I already have a "new" acquisition under a different name - I can either return it or give it to someone else.**Cheers!****Sheila****--Those who cannot hear the music think that the dancer is mad.**island.bobbs@... writes:

You wouldn't happen to know the dates of the eight lectures recently

published as "The Fourth Dimension"? All I can find out is that they

are from 1905-1908, and I can't afford to buy any more 'repeats' that

I already have, just published under different titles.******* The complete lectures in the volume are those Steiner gave on Mar. 24, 1905, Mar. 31, 1905, May 17, 1905, May 24, 1905, May 31, 1905, June 7, 1905, Nov. 7, 1905, and Oct. 22, 1908----all in Berlin.Then there are extracts dealing with higher dimensions taken from various other lectures given from 1906 to 1922.-Starmanhttp://www.DrStarman.net- Dear Folks;

Here is are a couple of quotes where Steiner clearly

states his aversion to the concept of a 'fourth dimension'. I'll post

more as I can:

"...Anyone entering the spiritual world by the methods described

above, having attained the power of touch, will know how to

distinguish whether he merely imagined his experiences while

exercising active thought, or whether he actually perceived by means

of it. Even in ordinary life we can distinguish the difference

between awkwardly burning our fingers in a flame, and picturing the

event afterwards. There is a lively difference; the one experience

really hurts while the other does not. In a higher domain the same

difference exists between what we may imagine concerning the higher

worlds, and what is really experienced therein.

"Now the first thing a man experiences in this way is true

knowledge.... Our past experiences, which can usually only be called

into our consciousness in picture form, then present themselves as a

tableau in which what is long since past, lives in the present. Just

as persons who have had a shock through being in danger of death by

drowning sometimes see - as admitted even by materialistically minded

men - a psychic picture of their life on earth; such a picture

appears to the soul of one who has rendered his thinking active. It

begins from the time in his earth-life when he first began to think

and continues to the present time. Time becomes space. That which was

the past, becomes the present. A picture is before him; the

characteristic of which is - I shall speak of this again in

tomorrow's lecture, - that because it resembles a picture, he still

has a sort of sensation of space; but this is only a feeling, for the

space thus experienced lacks the third dimension. He no longer

experiences a third dimension, only space in two dimensions; so that

he perceives pictorially. That is the reason I call this cognition

imaginative cognition for it works as does painting, in two

dimensions only; it is a pictorial cognition, working in two

dimensions.

"You may wonder, if I stand there and experience two dimensions,

what happens if I go on and once more experience in three dimensions?

"There is no difference between them. The experience of the third

dimension falls away altogether. I shall later on have occasion to

speak of the fact that in our age, because we are no longer conscious

of these things, people try to find the fourth dimension, thinking

thereby to enter the realm of the spiritual. The truth is that when

we advance from the physical into the spiritual, instead of

discovering a fourth dimension, the third falls away.... -so it will

represent an advance in the inner comprehension of the world when it

becomes known that on entering the spiritual world we do not go from

the first, second, and third dimension into the fourth, but turn back

to the second and, indeed, as we shall see, even return to the first.

That is a truth. According to the external conception of the world

prevalent in our time, which reckons numerically in a quite external

way, as there is a first, second and third dimension, there must

necessarily be a fourth; but this is not the case here. One turns

back to the second dimension and the third disappears; the student

then gains a true imaginative cognition which at first appears in his

own self as a life-tableau, so that he surveys, at the present moment

as it were, in mighty pictures, all that he went through inwardly

during his earth-life." (19 Aug. 1923,in: The Evolution of the World

and of Humanity, 1989, pp.16-18)

"To the Imaginative and Inspirational consciousness things come to

light here which can perfectly well be understood by the normal

healthy human reason, but which, in our present civilisation, are

regarded with a very great deal of prejudice. Indeed it requires a

certain freedom from prejudice to grasp the fact that everything in

the physical world is three dimensional, and is fundamentally

experienced in three dimensions, and that whatever is to be impressed

in the etheric body must pass from the plastic into the pictorial

form, from the three dimensional into the two dimensional. For as

soon as we enter the imaginative world we have nothing more to do

with three dimensions, and still less with four dimensions as is

believed to-day by certain scientists who have deviated from the main

track; we are there concerned with two dimensions only. The reason

why it is so difficult to conceive of what is thus experienced lies

in the fact that in our earthly experiences we are accustomed to deal

only with three dimensions. We picture everything in three

dimensions, and therefore when we are required to find a transition

into two dimensions, we say: Well; but the two dimensions are

included in the three; the two dimensions of a surface may be such

that the third dimension is also there.

"This cannot be the case when we enter the Imaginative world; for

no matter what a surface may be, there can be no third dimension

there, it is no longer taken into account the moment we enter the

etheric, Imaginative world. Hence mathematicians must transform all

the equations of ether, so that they do not refer to the three-

dimensional but to the two-dimensional world. This is merely

interpolated for mathematicians.

"Now if we wish to enter the world accessible to Inspiration, that

world in which we live as egos between going to sleep and waking, we

find it to be a one dimensional world; we are concerned with a world

on one dimension only. The transition into that world of a single

dimension, which presupposes that the student shall have acquired the

quality of Inspiration, of perceiving the Spiritual world in which we

live between going to sleep and waking, the understanding of that

world was in all ages possessed by the so-called science of

Initiation." (26 Aug. 1923, in: The Evolution of the World and of

Humanity, 1989, pp.188-189) - Dear Dr. Starman;

From the dates you kindly posted, I take it that

the book doesn't contain the 1923 quote I last posted, but I was

wondering if the 1922 extract was from the "Astronomy" course and if

so, did it include the stated disinclination to use the concept

fourth dimension, with the preference stated as to think in terms of

a negative third dimension, because... well, if the book doesn't

include this view, I'll post the text (it's at elib forum). Also,

Steiner said some really crucial things about the qualities of the

three dimensions, that in fact there is no 'abstract, equal' three

dimensions except in mathematical fantasy, etc. I'm sure you know the

point, and there's no doubt this has more real importance than

saddling Steiner with a concept that he clearly disagreed with... at

least, I'm waiting for as clear evidence of his support as I have for

his disagreement!

Take care and give care, Rick

Dear Dr. Starman;

From the dates you kindly posted, I take it that

the book doesn't contain the 1923 quote I last posted, but I was

wondering if the 1922 extract was from the "Astronomy" course and if

so, did it include the stated disinclination to use the concept

fourth dimension, with the preference stated as to think in terms of

a negative third dimension, because... well, if the book doesn't

include this view, I'll post the text (it's at elib forum). Also,

Steiner said some really crucial things about the qualities of the

three dimensions, that in fact there is no 'abstract, equal' three

dimensions except in mathematical fantasy, etc. I'm sure you know the

point, and there's no doubt this has more real importance than

saddling Steiner with a concept that he clearly disagreed with... at

least, I'm waiting for as clear evidence of his support as I have for

his disagreement!

******* Forgive me for taking so long to respond, but first, I've been rather busy, and second, the subject is a large one. In the last part of his life, Steiner's creations such as Eurythmy and the first Goetheanum show his practical usage of space in a new way. Besides the astronomy course, his lectures in the 1920s are filled with references to this new way of experiencing space. Eurythmy, of course, gives every individual the possibility of this experience. It's quite true that the three dimensions normal human beings experience in the present are qualitatively different from each other; in fact, even movement to the right is qualitatively different than movement to the left, although that is in the same dimension. Above and below, left and right, and backward and forward can all be experienced in a much more intense way than the abstract thinking of the mathematician, as many dancers know.

But the early lectures Steiner gave were seeking to build upon the work that had been done by mathematicians and theosophists around the turn-of-the-century, for instance, Hinton and Claude Bragdon. There was very important work done about 1900 in non-Euclidean geometry, groundbreaking efforts to go beyond the "box" of three dimensions. The "Flatland" analogy made famous in the late 1800s was extended, for instance by Hinton in his "A New Era of Thought" which was later given a still fuller treatment by P.D. Ouspensky in his "Tertium Organum" (the book the Edgar Cayce readings recommended to understand higher dimensions, written before poor Ouspensky unfortunately came under the deleterious influence of Gurdjieff). A good treatment of the entire genre is "The Fourth Dimension And Non Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art" by Linda Henderson. These ideas generated the movement of Cubism, influenced men as widely diverse as Marcel Duchamp and Kandinsky, and even had much to do with how Einstein came up with his theory of relativity.

What is the real tragedy is that all of this has been forgotten and/or distorted. The insight was not that there was a fourth dimension and that this dimension was time: that is a complete misinterpretation. What was worked out was that there was no reason to suppose that the number of dimensions did not go on infinitely; and, and as beings learned to sense each new dimension, all that had been perceived before would change its character. What a being was unable to sense as a dimension of space was perceived as changes in the dimensions of space it was able to perceive, or in other words as change in time. Ouspensky, the building upon Hinton, gives thinking exercises by which this can be directly experienced.

In reading Steiner's lectures about the fourth dimension, it would be helpful to know this background. I recommend the book mentioned above, along with Ouspensky's Tertium Organum. It's quite true that the fourth dimension as we are usually taught about it is not at all anything Steiner agreed with. Instead he said from his own experience that the fourth dimension was more like the second dimension again, in a sense. But this, as expected since the topic is geometry, is just a part of a very large study, and quoting one line from a lecture would be of little use.

-Starman

http://www.DrStarman.net