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

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

Expand Messages
  • happypick2000
    ... Dear Robert, I am grateful to you for pointing out this seeming discrepancy - it would seem Steiner would have picked up on this specific point considering
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 12, 2007
      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
      >
      > To Sheila, Charlie & All:
      >
      > I have skimmed through Heinrich Proskauer's
      > *Rediscovery of Color*. The only mention
      > I see of the problem of colored shadows is
      > near the end of the book; he says:
      >
      > "Rudolf Steiner indicated . . . 'it would
      > now be necessary to derive from Goethe's
      > principles the color phenomena unknown in
      > his time.'
      >
      > "In this direction, meanwhile, some things
      > have already been achieved. . . . Also the
      > book *Das Rätsel des Farbigen Schattens*
      > ('The Riddle of Colored Shadows'), intended
      > as a sequel to the present volume, contains
      > expostions on the basis of Goethe's principles
      > concerning relationships of phenomena not yet
      > observed by him {see Bibliography}."
      >
      > -- This is puzzling to me, since colored
      > shadows were known to Goethe; RS was disputing
      > Goethe's explanation of them. Maybe Proskauer
      > was saying that the solution to this "riddle"
      > entails some phenomenon not known to Goethe?
      >
      > I guess the thing to do now is to read that
      > other book, but, as far as I know, it has not
      > been published in English.
      >
      > I just now sent a query to JL Benson; maybe
      > he'll make it easy for me.
      >
      > Robert Mason
      >
      Dear Robert,

      I am grateful to you for pointing out this seeming discrepancy - it
      would seem Steiner would have picked up on this specific point
      considering his 10 years at Goethe's library. I wonder if this
      phenomenon might somehow involve light? It would seem doubtful,
      perhaps given Goethe's writings of the red/green "image" resulting
      from that medium? I wonder if Steiner's "The Light Course" also may be
      of some help? I wish you the best with this and apologize for not
      being of any help.

      Blessings,

      Sheila
      ____________________________________________________________________________________
    • Charlie Morrison
      Hi Robert, Sheila and all, Thanks for keeping us updated on your research Robert, and I hope you will continue to do so, it s a fascinating subject. Going back
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
        Hi Robert, Sheila and all,

        Thanks for keeping us updated on your research Robert, and I hope you
        will continue to do so, it's a fascinating subject.

        Going back to a previous post of yours, from my own point of view, I
        see no problem in using photography to determine the "objectivity" of
        colored shadows; as this could be a way of determining whether the
        colour occurs on the surface on which the shadow falls or if it
        originates in the eye of the beholder.

        This problem is very similar to the so called "rotating top illusion"
        or the "Benham disc(k)" which can be seen (among other places) at:

        http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/TopIllusion.shtml

        They call it an illusion because the colours that are experienced on
        viewing the spinning disc cannot be explained by the current colour
        theories based on Newton, so the eye must be tricked into seeing them.
        So, by this reckoning, the colours aren't actually on the disc but
        they are produced by the (over)stimulation of the retina, the same way
        that coloured shadows aren't actually on the surface but are a
        phenomenon produced in the eye.

        I would say that both coloured shadows and the colours produced by
        "Benham's disc are due to the interplay of darkness and light and are
        objectively real phenomena, just as a rainbow is objectively real or
        the coloured edges seen through a prism are objectively real.

        I doubt if this is of any help to you in your research but I think the
        whole subject is well worth thinking about. Keep us posted.

        Slainte
        Charlie M

        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
        >
        > To Sheila, Charlie & All:
        >
        > I have skimmed through Heinrich Proskauer's
        > *Rediscovery of Color*. The only mention
        > I see of the problem of colored shadows is
        > near the end of the book; he says:
        >
        > "Rudolf Steiner indicated . . . 'it would
        > now be necessary to derive from Goethe's
        > principles the color phenomena unknown in
        > his time.'
        >
        > "In this direction, meanwhile, some things
        > have already been achieved. . . . Also the
        > book *Das R�tsel des Farbigen Schattens*
        > ('The Riddle of Colored Shadows'), intended
        > as a sequel to the present volume, contains
        > expostions on the basis of Goethe's principles
        > concerning relationships of phenomena not yet
        > observed by him {see Bibliography}."
        >
        > -- This is puzzling to me, since colored
        > shadows were known to Goethe; RS was disputing
        > Goethe's explanation of them. Maybe Proskauer
        > was saying that the solution to this "riddle"
        > entails some phenomenon not known to Goethe?
        >
        > I guess the thing to do now is to read that
        > other book, but, as far as I know, it has not
        > been published in English.
        >
        > I just now sent a query to JL Benson; maybe
        > he'll make it easy for me.
        >
        > Robert Mason
      • Robert Mason
        ... Dear Sheila, As I said in my original post, reading the *Light Course* provoked this question for me. The relevant passage is at the beginning of chpt.7:
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@...> wrote:

          > I wonder if Steiner's "The Light Course" also may be
          > of some help?

          Dear Sheila,

          As I said in my original post, reading the *Light
          Course* provoked this question for me. The
          relevant passage is at the beginning of chpt.7:
          <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19191230p01.html>
          The Steinerbooks version is at
          <http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/light_course/light_course.pdf>

          It doesn't look as though I'll get *Das Rätsel
          des Farbigen Schattens*. The only copy my
          librarian could find is in the Swiss National
          Library; we can't get ILL from there. Maybe
          Benson will come through.

          Robert M
        • Robert Mason
          ... view, I see no problem in using photography to determine the objectivity of colored shadows; as this could be a way of determining whether the colour
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
            To Charlie M, who wrote:

            >>Going back to a previous post of yours, from my own point of
            view, I see no problem in using photography to determine the
            "objectivity" of colored shadows; as this could be a way of
            determining whether the colour occurs on the surface on which
            the shadow falls or if it originates in the eye of the
            beholder.<<

            Robert writes:

            It still seems to me that the primary question
            is: what does the healthy eye see? The
            accuracy of color photography is determined by
            its conformity or non-conformity with the
            colors seen by healthy human eyesight, not the
            other way around. Experiments with photography
            might raise questions that would be interesting
            for photographers, but these questions seem
            secondary at best. The objectivity of the
            colors could be determined by very simple
            experiments with eyesight, as Steiner suggests.
            It's really puzzling that those footnotes had
            conflicting and/or unintelligible info about
            results of the experiments. It would seem
            that such experiments must have been done in
            the last 80-odd years, and that the results
            should be common knowledge for physicists.
            Why is this not the case? -- Very puzzling.

            Charlie wrote:

            >>This problem is very similar to the so called "rotating top
            illusion" or the "Benham disc(k)" which can be seen (among other
            places) at:

            >>http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/TopIllusion.shtml<<

            Robert writes:

            I couldn't play that applet on the public
            compters that I use. I could play the graphics
            here:
            <http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/col_benham/index.html>,
            but I didn't see any colors. Maybe something
            to do with the flicker on the display screen?
            Anyway ... I'll take it for granted that most
            people do see colors under the right conditions.

            Charlie wrote:

            >I would say that both coloured shadows and the colours produced
            by "Benham's disc are due to the interplay of darkness and light
            and are objectively real phenomena, just as a rainbow is
            objectively real or the coloured edges seen through a prism are
            objectively real.<<

            Robert writes:

            That would be about my guess too. There's
            likely an interaction of the "visual beam" and
            the "deeds" of light AT the surfaces in objective
            space. Have you read Lehrs' *Man or Matter*?
            -- He makes a very brief, enigmatic comment
            about colored shadows; as I read it, he seems
            to assume implicitly the objectivity of the
            colors. It's a must-read book anyway, and
            the text is online at Project Gutenberg:
            <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5641>

            Gotta run,

            Robert M







            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Be a better friend, newshound, and
            know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
          • happypick2000
            ... Robert, I stand corrected [hiding red face behind book...]. Do you think it might be possible to obtain a copy of *Das Ratsel des Farbigen Schattens* from
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Mason" <robertsmason_99@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@> wrote:
              >
              > > I wonder if Steiner's "The Light Course" also may be
              > > of some help?
              >
              > Dear Sheila,
              >
              > As I said in my original post, reading the *Light
              > Course* provoked this question for me. The
              > relevant passage is at the beginning of chpt.7:
              > <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19191230p01.html>
              > The Steinerbooks version is at
              > <http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/light_course/light_course.pdf>
              >
              > It doesn't look as though I'll get *Das Rätsel
              > des Farbigen Schattens*. The only copy my
              > librarian could find is in the Swiss National
              > Library; we can't get ILL from there. Maybe
              > Benson will come through.
              >
              > Robert M

              Robert, I stand corrected [hiding red face behind book...]. Do you
              think it might be possible to obtain a copy of *Das Ratsel des
              Farbigen Schattens* from a Group - could one who teaches First Class
              help in this search? I wish you the very best on your journey, with
              apologies for my faux pas. &:|

              Blessings,
              Sheila
              >
            • Robert Mason
              ... eclipse in less than a year, which is quite extraordinary for its occurrence. . . . ... its occurrence that the moon, brightly lit in its own respect,
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
                Steve Hale wrote:

                >>. . . . we are approaching the third lunar
                eclipse in less than a year, which is quite
                extraordinary for its occurrence. . . .

                >>Anyway, it is possible to show by means of
                its occurrence that the moon, brightly lit in
                its own respect, actually lights up the umbra,
                or dark shadow-light of the earth, with a form
                of brilliance occurring on the opposite side;
                the reflective side. And this makes the moon
                take on the orange-brown color of the
                reflective side.<<

                Robert writes:

                I don't get your picture. I don't know what
                you mean by *the moon, brightly lit in its own
                respect*. It seems that the moon during a
                lunar eclipse is not "brightly lit" at all; it
                is in the earth's shadow and receives no direct
                sunlight. And I'm not sure what you mean by
                *the reflective side*. If you mean the earth-
                side that is facing the sun, I don't think that
                is orange-brown. The photos that I've seen
                taken from space show the earth colors as
                dominated by blue and white; only the desert
                areas might be close to orange-brown.

                But, as I think about it, it seems possible
                that the eclipse colors *might* bear some
                similarity to the colored shadows that Steiner
                was talking about in this experimental set-up:
                <br>
                <img width="600" height="310"
                src="http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/LightCrse/images/light7a.gif">
                <br>
                (It might not be quite clear from this picture,
                but only the light from the "left light" passes
                through the red glass before shining on the
                pole.)

                If the orangey color of the moon during a lunar
                eclipse were to be a "colored shadow" in this
                sense, then it seems there would have to be a
                second light source other than the sun.
                (Assuming the same principle at work, in the
                case of the eclipse the earth would be the
                "pole" and the visible side of the moon would
                be the portion of the screen in the "right
                shadow".) Since the moon does not appear
                completely dark during the eclipse, it would
                seem reasonable to assume that some light is
                shining on it from somewhere. So, besides the
                direct sunlight, perhaps there is some other,
                ambient light, perhaps a combination of
                starlight and the light from the extended solar
                "corona"?

                But to make the analogy fit, this second light
                in outer space would have to be "white" (i.e.
                pure light, as is the "right light" in the
                diagram), and the sunlight would have to be
                "colored" (as is the "left light" filtered
                through the "red glass" in the diagram). To
                complete the analogy, the sunlight would have
                to be the "complementary color" to the orange-
                ish of the eclipsed moon; i.e. it would have to
                be blue-ish. But where in "outer space" is the
                blue "filter" for the sunlight? -- I don't know
                of any.

                So, at first glance the analogy doesn't work.
                But, at this point, I wouldn't be too quick to
                conclude that somehow the same principle is not
                at work in Steiner's experiment and in the
                lunar eclipse. After all, I still haven't
                figured out exactly what this "principle" is.
                I'm still kinda assuming that the colored
                shadows are "objective" as Steiner said, but I
                still haven't proven this for myself. I'm
                somewhat wishing that I had an orderly garage
                workshop so I could do the experiment for
                myself, with the narrow tube for viewing as
                Steiner suggested. Maybe I'll have to break
                into a high-school physics lab?

                I'm still very much puzzled by contradictory
                reports mentioned in the footnotes that I
                quoted in my first post. This experiment is
                literally so simple that a child could do it;
                why hasn't the question of the colored shadows'
                "objectivity" been settled long ago? -- BTW, I
                haven't receive a word of reply from JL Benson
                about this.

                But maybe some bright, young Goethean physicist
                will explain the principle at work in colored
                shadows and go on to apply it to lunar
                eclipses? Maybe he is reading this thread
                right now?

                Robert M





                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Be a better friend, newshound, and
                know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
              • happypick2000
                ... Dear Friends, I am not that bright young Goethean physicist knowledgeable regarding technical/scientific aspects of lunar eclipses, but I can describe in
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Steve Hale wrote:
                  >
                  > >>. . . . we are approaching the third lunar
                  > eclipse in less than a year, which is quite
                  > extraordinary for its occurrence. . . .
                  >
                  > >>Anyway, it is possible to show by means of
                  > its occurrence that the moon, brightly lit in
                  > its own respect, actually lights up the umbra,
                  > or dark shadow-light of the earth, with a form
                  > of brilliance occurring on the opposite side;
                  > the reflective side. And this makes the moon
                  > take on the orange-brown color of the
                  > reflective side.<<
                  >
                  > Robert writes:
                  >
                  > I don't get your picture. I don't know what
                  > you mean by *the moon, brightly lit in its own
                  > respect*. It seems that the moon during a
                  > lunar eclipse is not "brightly lit" at all; it
                  > is in the earth's shadow and receives no direct
                  > sunlight. And I'm not sure what you mean by
                  > *the reflective side*. If you mean the earth-
                  > side that is facing the sun, I don't think that
                  > is orange-brown. The photos that I've seen
                  > taken from space show the earth colors as
                  > dominated by blue and white; only the desert
                  > areas might be close to orange-brown.
                  >
                  > But, as I think about it, it seems possible
                  > that the eclipse colors *might* bear some
                  > similarity to the colored shadows that Steiner
                  > was talking about in this experimental set-up:
                  > <br>
                  > <img width="600" height="310"
                  > src="http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/LightCrse/images/light7a.gif">
                  > <br>
                  > (It might not be quite clear from this picture,
                  > but only the light from the "left light" passes
                  > through the red glass before shining on the
                  > pole.)
                  >
                  > If the orangey color of the moon during a lunar
                  > eclipse were to be a "colored shadow" in this
                  > sense, then it seems there would have to be a
                  > second light source other than the sun.
                  > (Assuming the same principle at work, in the
                  > case of the eclipse the earth would be the
                  > "pole" and the visible side of the moon would
                  > be the portion of the screen in the "right
                  > shadow".) Since the moon does not appear
                  > completely dark during the eclipse, it would
                  > seem reasonable to assume that some light is
                  > shining on it from somewhere. So, besides the
                  > direct sunlight, perhaps there is some other,
                  > ambient light, perhaps a combination of
                  > starlight and the light from the extended solar
                  > "corona"?
                  >
                  > But to make the analogy fit, this second light
                  > in outer space would have to be "white" (i.e.
                  > pure light, as is the "right light" in the
                  > diagram), and the sunlight would have to be
                  > "colored" (as is the "left light" filtered
                  > through the "red glass" in the diagram). To
                  > complete the analogy, the sunlight would have
                  > to be the "complementary color" to the orange-
                  > ish of the eclipsed moon; i.e. it would have to
                  > be blue-ish. But where in "outer space" is the
                  > blue "filter" for the sunlight? -- I don't know
                  > of any.
                  >
                  > So, at first glance the analogy doesn't work.
                  > But, at this point, I wouldn't be too quick to
                  > conclude that somehow the same principle is not
                  > at work in Steiner's experiment and in the
                  > lunar eclipse. After all, I still haven't
                  > figured out exactly what this "principle" is.
                  > I'm still kinda assuming that the colored
                  > shadows are "objective" as Steiner said, but I
                  > still haven't proven this for myself. I'm
                  > somewhat wishing that I had an orderly garage
                  > workshop so I could do the experiment for
                  > myself, with the narrow tube for viewing as
                  > Steiner suggested. Maybe I'll have to break
                  > into a high-school physics lab?
                  >
                  > I'm still very much puzzled by contradictory
                  > reports mentioned in the footnotes that I
                  > quoted in my first post. This experiment is
                  > literally so simple that a child could do it;
                  > why hasn't the question of the colored shadows'
                  > "objectivity" been settled long ago? -- BTW, I
                  > haven't receive a word of reply from JL Benson
                  > about this.
                  >
                  > But maybe some bright, young Goethean physicist
                  > will explain the principle at work in colored
                  > shadows and go on to apply it to lunar
                  > eclipses? Maybe he is reading this thread
                  > right now?
                  >
                  > Robert M
                  >
                  >
                  Dear Friends,

                  I am not that bright young Goethean physicist knowledgeable regarding
                  technical/scientific aspects of lunar eclipses, but I can describe in
                  my own way viewing a total lunar eclipse throughout the moon's full
                  transit about 20 years ago. My son and I watched with telescope and
                  naked eyes the entire wonder, from beginning to end. This moon was
                  copper colored during all phases of its eclipse out here on the coast
                  of central California.

                  Blessings,
                  Sheila
                • Robert Mason
                  ... turns dark and eerily red during a total lunar eclipse. But the Moon itself is not actually reddening. Light from the sun is bending through the Earth s
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 2, 2008
                    Mathew Morrell wrote:

                    >>From our perspective here on Earth, the Moon
                    turns dark and eerily red during a total lunar
                    eclipse. But the Moon itself is not actually
                    reddening. Light from the sun is bending
                    through the Earth's atmosphere as it "curls"
                    around the Earth and throws the Moon into a
                    darkened shadow. The redness, so to speak,
                    comes from the Earth.<<

                    Carol brought this from Yahoo Answers:

                    >>The coppery glow of the totally eclipsed moon
                    is due to refraction of sunlight by the earth
                    which, during a total lunar eclipse, is causing
                    a total solar eclipse. Sunlight is bent
                    (refracted) by the thick atmosphere of the
                    earth, and it is only the red light that gets
                    through (like red sunsets).<<

                    Robert writes:

                    We might have a tendency go down on our knees
                    before the "explanations" of Science (with the
                    capital *S*). After all, Science builds
                    computers and rockets and nukes, and Scientists
                    have PhDs from prestigious universities and get
                    Nobel Prizes . . . so how could we, mere
                    uneducated peasants and proles that we are,
                    dare to contradict the "explanations" of
                    Science? To do so would show us not only to be
                    uneducated but stupid, and arrogantly stupid at
                    that.

                    But despite the amazing inventions of Science
                    and the authoritative prestige of Scientists,
                    Science is sometimes astonishingly stupid. To
                    recount an example often mentioned by Steiner,
                    the conventional "explanation" of lightning as
                    an enormous spark discharging "static
                    electricity" in the storm clouds disregards the
                    simplest, most basic facts about static
                    electricity. Common experience shows that
                    static electricity on a small scale cannot
                    exist in the presence of moisture; we get those
                    sparks only when the air is dry. Yet Science
                    somehow decided that static electricity is
                    generated on a large scale in the rain clouds,
                    and students must bow before the authority of
                    the Scientific "explanation", no matter how
                    grossly it violates common sense. And most do
                    mentally bow; such is the hypnotic power and
                    crushing authority of Science.

                    Most of us (myself included all too often)
                    simply do not have the audacity to exercise
                    simple common sense if it contradicts the
                    "explanations" of Science. Somehow, simple
                    common sense alone is not enough; we need an
                    alternative, better scientific explanation. In
                    the case of lightning, we do have a more
                    plausible explanation from the unorthodox, un-
                    authoritative neo-Goethean science as
                    exemplified in Ernst Lehrs' *Man or Matter*.
                    Lehrs explains that lightning is an electrical,
                    polaric counter-manifestation to the sudden
                    conversion of water from the imponderable, non-
                    material state to the ponderable, material
                    state in the process of the production of rain
                    during thunderstorms. -- Given this better
                    scientific explanation derived through a long,
                    arduous mental process, one might feel
                    embarrassed that one failed to use one's simple
                    common sense in the first place, in the face of
                    the orthodox Scientific "explanation".

                    So, having had a brushing acquaintance with
                    Goethean color science, I will venture to try
                    to apply a little common sense to this orthodox
                    "refraction explanation" of the reddish-orange
                    color of the moon during lunar eclipses. -- We
                    can see this orthodox "explanation" depicted
                    here by Wikipedia:
                    <html> <br> <img
                    scr="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lunar_eclipse_optics.jpg">
                    <br> </html>

                    We can see that here the earth's atmosphere is
                    envisioned as a kind of "refracting" prism that
                    "breaks up" the sunlight into a spectrum, just
                    as a prism in a high school physics book
                    supposedly "breaks up" so-called "white light"
                    into the seven colors of the "spectrum": red,
                    orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.
                    The red ends of these supposed spectra from
                    opposite sides of the earth's atmosphere are
                    bent toward the center of the earth's "umbra"
                    shadow, where the moon is situated during a
                    lunar eclipse. Thus, during the eclipse the
                    moon is bathed in this "refracted" red light
                    and therefore appears reddish. -- Such is the
                    Scientific "explanation".

                    But something is wrong with this picture. If
                    one imagines the moon moving toward its
                    position in the red light at the point of
                    eclipse, one realizes that the moon would have
                    to pass through the spectrum on one side going
                    into "totality" and then pass through the
                    spectrum on the other side coming out of
                    "totality". So the moon would have to appear
                    to change colors in sequence during the whole
                    process of the eclipse; it would have to go
                    through the blues to green, yellow, orange, and
                    then red -- and again through orange, yellow,
                    green, blue, indigo, and violet. But I have
                    seen a lunar eclipse, and I have never seen any
                    such sequence of coloration of the moon. And I
                    would guess that neither has anyone else here
                    seen any such colors on the moon. The
                    "empirical" facts don't fit the "refraction
                    explanation", so that hypothesis (and it was
                    *only* an hypothesis), no matter how "orthodox"
                    and "authoritative", must go into the round
                    file.

                    Something else also is wrong, in a theoretical
                    way, with that picture. The basic "empirical"
                    facts of the prism show that at the border of
                    darkness and light only one "end" of the full
                    spectrum is ever produced by a "refracting",
                    prism. To get the standard, seven-colored
                    spectrum, one needs to bring two borders of
                    darkness close together so that only a narrow
                    beam of light passes through the prism. Only
                    then the red-orange-yellow and the blue-indigo-
                    violet overlap in the middle and produce the
                    green. (Conversely, when a narrow band of
                    darkness is bordered on both sides by lightness
                    the prism produces the "dark spectrum": blue-
                    indigo-violet-"peach blossom" (or "purpur")-
                    red-orange-yellow.) -- So, in the planetary
                    set-up pictured in the Wikipedia "explanation"
                    at most only three colors, not seven, could be
                    produced by a "refracting" atmosphere on
                    opposite sides of the earth.

                    But what about the red of the sunset? -- The
                    basic insights of Goethe provide a far more
                    satisfactory explanation than the "refraction"
                    hypothesis. Orthodox Science may "explain" the
                    blue of the sky by "Rayleigh scattering" or
                    whatever, but Goethe grasped the simple
                    "archetypal phenomenon" that applies. When
                    darkness is viewed through a light-filled
                    "turbid" (*trübes*) medium, the blue end of
                    the spectrum appears. Thus the "turbid",
                    light-filled atmosphere during daytime appears
                    blue; as one goes higher and the air becomes
                    thinner, less "turbid", the color passes
                    through indigo to violet and finally to black.
                    And when lightness, such as that of the sun, is
                    viewed through a "turbid" medium, the red side
                    of the spectrum appears. As the medium becomes
                    more "turbid" the light appears as yellow, then
                    orange, then red, and finally darkens. (These
                    "archetypal phenomena" can readily be
                    demonstrated in the laboratory, as Steiner did
                    in the *Light Course*.) -- So the sky appears
                    blue and the sun yellowish at noon (on a clear
                    day), and the sun appears reddish at sunrise
                    and sunset. Why reddish? Because we are
                    looking at the sun obliquely through more
                    atmosphere than we are at noon, and thus
                    through more "turbidity". This is a simple,
                    large-scale manifestation of the "archetypal
                    phenomenon", and we don't need "refraction" as
                    an "explanation" of the red sunset any more
                    than we need "Rayleigh scattering" as an
                    "explanation" of the blue sky.

                    Lehrs puts the matter this way:

                    "It is also possible to produce the ur-
                    phenomenon experimentally by placing a glass
                    jug filled with water before a black ackground,
                    illuminating the jug from the side, and
                    gradually clouding the water by the admixture
                    of suitable substances. Whilst the brightness
                    appearing in the direction of the light goes
                    over from yellow and orange to an increasingly
                    red shade, the darkness of the black background
                    brightens to blue, which increases and passes
                    over to a milky white.

                    "It had already become clear to Goethe in Italy
                    that all colour-experience is based on a
                    polarity, which he found expressed by painters
                    as the contrast between 'cold' and 'warm'
                    colours. Now that the coming-into-being of the
                    blue of the sky and of the yellow of the sun
                    had shown themselves to him as two processes of
                    opposite character, he recognized in them the
                    objective reason why both colours are
                    subjectively experienced by us as opposites.
                    Blue is illumined darkness - yellow is darkened
                    light' - thus could he assert the urphenomenon,
                    while he expressed the relation to Light of
                    colours in their totality by saying: 'Colours
                    are Deeds and Sufferings of Light.' . . .

                    ". . . . Goethe . . . . had learnt from the
                    macro-telluric realm that with decreasing
                    density of the corporeal medium, the blue sky
                    takes on ever deeper tones, while with
                    increasing density of the medium, the yellow of
                    the sunlight passes over into orange and
                    finally red."

                    Steve Hale wrote:

                    >>In looking at the lunar eclipse of last
                    August 28th, I observed that the moon at no
                    time goes dark at all. It simply drifts into
                    this rather reddish coloring over a period of
                    two hours and then comes back out of the shadow
                    with its original brilliant glow. Thus, it
                    confirmed for me that it is actually the moon
                    that illuminates the umbra with its own light
                    source . . . .

                    >>. . . . the moon is self-shining . . . .<<

                    And:

                    >>. . . . a shroud of sorts that passes across
                    the face of the moon, which always bears its
                    own light. . . .

                    >>. . . . the phases of the moon have nothing
                    to do with the sun, but everything to do with a
                    shadow-sphere that surrounds the moon as a
                    shroud, and actually rotates around it. . . .

                    >>The Full Moon is when the shroud has turned
                    to move across the opposite side, and is not
                    visible. The moon shines in its true Jahve
                    brilliance, which it always bears in itself. .
                    . .

                    >>. . . . this shroud of the moon is in fact
                    the Eighth Sphere . . . .

                    Robert writes:

                    I think I'm starting to get your picture now,
                    but I'm far from ready to buy into it. What a
                    strange coincidence that this rotating "shroud"
                    of the 8th sphere is always placed where the
                    dark shadow would be if the moon were
                    illuminated only (or mainly) by the sun, and
                    what a coincidence that the moon is always
                    itself shining exactly where its surface would
                    be shining if it were so illuminated by the
                    sun! I don't see any easy way to test your
                    hypothesis most of the time, but during the
                    lunar eclipse the hypothesis breaks down. If
                    the usual, (relatively) bright moonlight (that
                    most of us take to be reflected from the sun)
                    were generated by the moon itself, then it
                    shouldn't make any difference when the moon is
                    eclipsed. If, as you say, the "shroud" during
                    the full moon is turned away from the earth,
                    then when the (full) moon is in the sun-shadow
                    of the earth (i.e. during a lunar eclipse) the
                    lack of direct sunlight on the moon should make
                    no difference in the moon's apparent
                    brightness; the eclipsed moon should be as
                    bright as any full moon, not a dull reddish.
                    So it seems to me . . . .

                    -- But, given the implausibility of the
                    orthodox "explanation" of the color of the
                    eclipsed moon, I'm more inclined to suspect
                    that Steve's (implied?) hint might be true:
                    that the same principle is at work as in the
                    phenomenon of "colored shadows". Or at least
                    we will need in the end some kind of quasi-
                    Goethean explanation. Despite all its
                    technological wizardry, orthodox Science is
                    far from understanding even the simplest
                    principles of light and color.

                    Robert Mason







                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    Be a better friend, newshound, and
                    know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                  • Robert Mason
                    ... entirety, and the so-called phases need a new explanation.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 5, 2008
                      Steve wrote:

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

                      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
                      moisture".

                      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.