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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.