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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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 7 of 16 , Feb 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 16 , Feb 5, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.