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

Fw: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner

Expand Messages
  • be23566
    Ayn Rand immediately dismisses intuition based on the common understanding of it as some mysterious knowledge that springs from the blue, instead she holds
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 21, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Ayn Rand immediately dismisses "intuition" based on the common understanding of it as some mysterious knowledge that springs from the blue, instead she holds to reason and rationality. The Philosophy Of Freedom gives a new description of intuition and intuitive thinking that is more difficult to immediately reject. It is an intuition that expresses itself in the clarity of pure thinking, so that it can be known and understood with more certainty. Steiner calls pure thinking "reason". Pure conceptual thinking is guided by the content of the concepts. 

      In  Truth and Knowledge  he speaks of  "intellectual intuition" :

      In intellectual intuition the content must be contained within the thought-form itself. But is this not precisely the case with pure concepts and ideas? (By concept, I mean a principle according to which the disconnected elements of perception become joined into a unity.) Causality, for example, is a concept. An idea is a concept with a greater content. Organism, considered quite abstractly, is an idea. However, they must be considered in the form which they possess while still quite free of any empirical content. Truth and Knowledge iv The Starting Point Of Epistemology Apprehension Of Thought

      POF is knowledge based on finding the conceptual intuition that corresponds to the percept and morality is based on finding the moral conceptual intuition to guide our action. This is done through intuitive thinking (pure conceptual thinking) or pure reason. What serious thinking can reject pure reason and the intuitive insight it provides?

      What seems to be commonly missed is that intuition is a faculty that can be deepened. Reason is thought in linear terms of logic technique and rationality is limited to the sense perceptible, otherwise intuitive thinking is what most thinkers would experience that are able to think in pure concepts as mathematicians and philosophers do.

      Anthroposophy explains intuitive thinking in a different way, as perceiving imaginative images of reality or something like that. POF intuitive thinking is a practice and first step to reach the deeper 
       intuitive thinking talked about in anthroposophy, I would reckon.

      Tom Last
      http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com



      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@...> wrote:
      >
      > I perceive that Ayn Rand was exactly what true freedom meant for America at the time she wrote her two tomes, "The Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged". She was determined to express her philosophy in the form of 'novel'. Only later, c. 1960, was she compelled to put it down in a form that would make it the systematic expression known as "Objectivist Epistemology".
      >
      > It seems to me that her idea of moral intuition was what drove the man to do what he had to do for himself in order to gain free creative power for himself. And, this comes at a price. The price is the uncompromising conviction that one has to do as one wills in order to be true to oneself. The Ego as one's own is where the self-creative power first manifests in true self-consciousness.
      >
      > Also, since no one took note of a question I asked concerning who was the individual at the beginning of the biopic, "The Passion of Ayn Rand", it was Nathaniel Branden.
      >
      > Regards for this wonderful discussion on Steiner and Rand.
      >
      > Juan
      >
      > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " DrStarman@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: drstarman@
      > > Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:49:43
      > > To: be23566fairoaks@
      > > Reply-To: drstarman@
      > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
      > >
      > > ****** Once you keep in mind that Steiner is saying only the person able to have a "moral intuition" of the Right thing to do in each given situation can be free, another great difference between him and Rand, the woman Nathaniel Branden called "Mrs. Logic", becomes clear. Note her total reliance on rationality and reason as the only way to find what's morally right. Intuition and reason are opposites. We don't mean the usual use of the word "intuition" in ethical individualism: it means the direct apprehension of a truth, when the mind draws a concept from the ideal world to match to a percept. Aquinas called this "intellectus" as opposed to "ratio", the step-by-step progression towards a truth (A is true of all B, C is true of all B, therefore C is true of all A). In Rand's ethics, what's morally good must be arrived at by logic. Not in Steiner's, where it requires a direct intuition of the Good. -starman
      > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: be23566 fairoaks@
      > > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:19:06
      > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life". 
      > >
      > > Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical Individualism had a primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see translator Hoernle puts it:
      > >
      > > Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas bubble up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The situations in which men live, and which are the scenes of their actions, are no less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend, therefore, on the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to a given situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in us, the concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of our ideas. In so far as this intuitive content has reference to action, it constitutes the moral substance of the individual. To let this substance express itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who regards all other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of view Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7 
      > > "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." 
      > > "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code." wiki
      > >
      > > Tom Last
      > > philosophyoffreedom.com 
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
      > > >
      > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF. Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general public, which I do.
      > > > >
      > > > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague mysticism speaking.
      > > > >
      > > > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert theosophy meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy translators, which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is obvious to anybody who wants to present POF to the general public.
      > > > >
      > > > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and turn it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah movement, by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's philosophy had been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I believe it would have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would be a major movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has been done over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even if you had the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been a separate POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that dominates anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and organizations that spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for POF except my website which has been limited by my personal limitations. Where are the fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was an opening for Rand.
      > > > >
      > > > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF pre-theosophy because I think it could be taken up as a major life philosophy of the younger generation today, if only they were introduced to it in the modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual speculation. Ayn Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present POF.
      > > > >
      > > > > Tom Last
      > > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • be23566
      I would say that the difference between intuitive thinking in the Philosophy Of Freedom and anthroposophy would be the content of thinking. I don t see where
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 21, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I would say that the difference between intuitive thinking in the Philosophy Of Freedom and anthroposophy would be the "content" of thinking. I don't see where POF goes beyond concepts and ideas as they are normally understood, while the content of intuitive thinking in anthroposophy may be pictorial images of formative forces or other unusual experiences not attainable by anyone or attained by only a few. It would be the same intuition but anthroposophy would be describing Steiner's much deeper intuitive experience, as intuition is a faculty that reaches different depths of reality.
        Tom



        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
        >
        > Ayn Rand immediately dismisses "intuition" based on the common
        > understanding of it as some mysterious knowledge that springs from the
        > blue, instead she holds to reason and rationality. The Philosophy Of
        > Freedom gives a new description of intuition and intuitive thinking that
        > is more difficult to immediately reject. It is an intuition that
        > expresses itself in the clarity of pure thinking, so that it can be
        > known and understood with more certainty. Steiner calls pure thinking
        > "reason". Pure conceptual thinking is guided by the content of the
        > concepts.
        >
        > In Truth and Knowledge he speaks of "intellectual intuition" :
        >
        >
        > In intellectual intuition the content must be contained within the
        > thought-form itself. But is this not precisely the case with pure
        > concepts and ideas? (By concept, I mean a principle according to which
        > the disconnected elements of perception become joined into a unity.)
        > Causality, for example, is a concept. An idea is a concept with a
        > greater content. Organism, considered quite abstractly, is an idea.
        > However, they must be considered in the form which they possess while
        > still quite free of any empirical content. Truth and Knowledge iv The
        > Starting Point Of Epistemology Apprehension Of Thought
        >
        > POF is knowledge based on finding the conceptual intuition that
        > corresponds to the percept and morality is based on finding the moral
        > conceptual intuition to guide our action. This is done through intuitive
        > thinking (pure conceptual thinking) or pure reason. What serious
        > thinking can reject pure reason and the intuitive insight it provides?
        >
        > What seems to be commonly missed is that intuition is a faculty that can
        > be deepened. Reason is thought in linear terms of logic technique and
        > rationality is limited to the sense perceptible, otherwise intuitive
        > thinking is what most thinkers would experience that are able to think
        > in pure concepts as mathematicians and philosophers do.
        >
        > Anthroposophy explains intuitive thinking in a different way, as
        > perceiving imaginative images of reality or something like that. POF
        > intuitive thinking is a practice and first step to reach the deeper
        > intuitive thinking talked about in anthroposophy, I would reckon.
        >
        > Tom Last
        > http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com <http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/>
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I perceive that Ayn Rand was exactly what true freedom meant for
        > America at the time she wrote her two tomes, "The Fountainhead", and
        > "Atlas Shrugged". She was determined to express her philosophy in the
        > form of 'novel'. Only later, c. 1960, was she compelled to put it down
        > in a form that would make it the systematic expression known as
        > "Objectivist Epistemology".
        > >
        > > It seems to me that her idea of moral intuition was what drove the man
        > to do what he had to do for himself in order to gain free creative power
        > for himself. And, this comes at a price. The price is the
        > uncompromising conviction that one has to do as one wills in order to be
        > true to oneself. The Ego as one's own is where the self-creative power
        > first manifests in true self-consciousness.
        > >
        > > Also, since no one took note of a question I asked concerning who was
        > the individual at the beginning of the biopic, "The Passion of Ayn
        > Rand", it was Nathaniel Branden.
        > >
        > > Regards for this wonderful discussion on Steiner and Rand.
        > >
        > > Juan
        > >
        > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " DrStarman@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
        > > >
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: drstarman@
        > > > Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:49:43
        > > > To: be23566fairoaks@
        > > > Reply-To: drstarman@
        > > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
        > > >
        > > > ****** Once you keep in mind that Steiner is saying only the person
        > able to have a "moral intuition" of the Right thing to do in each given
        > situation can be free, another great difference between him and Rand,
        > the woman Nathaniel Branden called "Mrs. Logic", becomes clear.
        > Note her total reliance on rationality and reason as the only way to
        > find what's morally right.
        > Intuition and reason are opposites. We don't mean the usual use of the
        > word "intuition" in ethical individualism: it means the direct
        > apprehension of a truth, when the mind draws a concept from the ideal
        > world to match to a percept. Aquinas called this "intellectus" as
        > opposed to "ratio", the step-by-step progression towards a truth (A is
        > true of all B, C is true of all B, therefore C is true of all A).
        > In Rand's ethics, what's morally good must be arrived at by logic. Not
        > in Steiner's, where it requires a direct intuition of the Good.
        > -starman
        > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
        > > >
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: be23566 fairoaks@
        > > > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:19:06
        > > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Subject: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
        > > >
        > > > Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical Individualism
        > had a primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see
        > translator Hoernle puts it:
        > > >
        > > > Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas
        > bubble up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The
        > situations in which men live, and which are the scenes of their actions,
        > are no less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend,
        > therefore, on the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to a
        > given situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in us,
        > the concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is
        > individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of our
        > ideas. In so far as this intuitive content has reference to action, it
        > constitutes the moral substance of the individual. To let this substance
        > express itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who regards
        > all other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of
        > view Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7
        > > > "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand
        > meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source
        > of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to
        > action."
        > > > "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's
        > primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for
        > his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a
        > moral code." wiki
        > > >
        > > > Tom Last
        > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's
        > moral ideas in life".
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy
        > terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than
        > materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is
        > independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I
        > reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF.
        > Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the
        > potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak
        > in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general
        > public, which I do.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was
        > Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for
        > Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague
        > mysticism speaking.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert
        > theosophy meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy
        > translators, which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is
        > obvious to anybody who wants to present POF to the general public.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and
        > turn it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah
        > movement, by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's
        > philosophy had been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I
        > believe it would have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would
        > be a major movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has
        > been done over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even
        > if you had the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been
        > a separate POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that
        > dominates anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and
        > organizations that spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for
        > POF except my website which has been limited by my personal limitations.
        > Where are the fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was
        > an opening for Rand.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF
        > pre-theosophy because I think it could be taken up as a major life
        > philosophy of the younger generation today, if only they were introduced
        > to it in the modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual
        > speculation. Ayn Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present
        > POF.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Tom Last
        > > > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • juancompostella
        For me, Steiner seemed to be quite clearly attempting to extend the principles contained in POF into the content of his spiritual-scientific research with
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 21, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          For me, Steiner seemed to be quite clearly attempting to extend the principles contained in POF into the "content" of his spiritual-scientific  research with his esoteric magnum opus, "Occult Science: An Outline."   The first chapter details what it means to proceed from 'mere thoughts' to  a willingness to conceptualize the unseen, or causal worlds.   I feel this chapter was intended as the first major extension of POF into the domain of the supersensible.  It seems to be very direct about it, even. - Juan

          http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/English/AP1972/GA013_c01.html


          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
          >
          > I would say that the difference between intuitive thinking in the Philosophy Of Freedom and anthroposophy would be the "content" of thinking. I don't see where POF goes beyond concepts and ideas as they are normally understood, while the content of intuitive thinking in anthroposophy may be pictorial images of formative forces or other unusual experiences not attainable by anyone or attained by only a few. It would be the same intuition but anthroposophy would be describing Steiner's much deeper intuitive experience, as intuition is a faculty that reaches different depths of reality.
          > Tom
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
          > >
          > > Ayn Rand immediately dismisses "intuition" based on the common
          > > understanding of it as some mysterious knowledge that springs from the
          > > blue, instead she holds to reason and rationality. The Philosophy Of
          > > Freedom gives a new description of intuition and intuitive thinking that
          > > is more difficult to immediately reject. It is an intuition that
          > > expresses itself in the clarity of pure thinking, so that it can be
          > > known and understood with more certainty. Steiner calls pure thinking
          > > "reason". Pure conceptual thinking is guided by the content of the
          > > concepts.
          > >
          > > In Truth and Knowledge he speaks of "intellectual intuition" :
          > >
          > >
          > > In intellectual intuition the content must be contained within the
          > > thought-form itself. But is this not precisely the case with pure
          > > concepts and ideas? (By concept, I mean a principle according to which
          > > the disconnected elements of perception become joined into a unity.)
          > > Causality, for example, is a concept. An idea is a concept with a
          > > greater content. Organism, considered quite abstractly, is an idea.
          > > However, they must be considered in the form which they possess while
          > > still quite free of any empirical content. Truth and Knowledge iv The
          > > Starting Point Of Epistemology Apprehension Of Thought
          > >
          > > POF is knowledge based on finding the conceptual intuition that
          > > corresponds to the percept and morality is based on finding the moral
          > > conceptual intuition to guide our action. This is done through intuitive
          > > thinking (pure conceptual thinking) or pure reason. What serious
          > > thinking can reject pure reason and the intuitive insight it provides?
          > >
          > > What seems to be commonly missed is that intuition is a faculty that can
          > > be deepened. Reason is thought in linear terms of logic technique and
          > > rationality is limited to the sense perceptible, otherwise intuitive
          > > thinking is what most thinkers would experience that are able to think
          > > in pure concepts as mathematicians and philosophers do.
          > >
          > > Anthroposophy explains intuitive thinking in a different way, as
          > > perceiving imaginative images of reality or something like that. POF
          > > intuitive thinking is a practice and first step to reach the deeper
          > > intuitive thinking talked about in anthroposophy, I would reckon.
          > >
          > > Tom Last
          > > http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com <http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > I perceive that Ayn Rand was exactly what true freedom meant for
          > > America at the time she wrote her two tomes, "The Fountainhead", and
          > > "Atlas Shrugged". She was determined to express her philosophy in the
          > > form of 'novel'. Only later, c. 1960, was she compelled to put it down
          > > in a form that would make it the systematic expression known as
          > > "Objectivist Epistemology".
          > > >
          > > > It seems to me that her idea of moral intuition was what drove the man
          > > to do what he had to do for himself in order to gain free creative power
          > > for himself. And, this comes at a price. The price is the
          > > uncompromising conviction that one has to do as one wills in order to be
          > > true to oneself. The Ego as one's own is where the self-creative power
          > > first manifests in true self-consciousness.
          > > >
          > > > Also, since no one took note of a question I asked concerning who was
          > > the individual at the beginning of the biopic, "The Passion of Ayn
          > > Rand", it was Nathaniel Branden.
          > > >
          > > > Regards for this wonderful discussion on Steiner and Rand.
          > > >
          > > > Juan
          > > >
          > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " DrStarman@ wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
          > > > >
          > > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > > From: drstarman@
          > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:49:43
          > > > > To: be23566fairoaks@
          > > > > Reply-To: drstarman@
          > > > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
          > > > >
          > > > > ****** Once you keep in mind that Steiner is saying only the person
          > > able to have a "moral intuition" of the Right thing to do in each given
          > > situation can be free, another great difference between him and Rand,
          > > the woman Nathaniel Branden called "Mrs. Logic", becomes clear.
          > > Note her total reliance on rationality and reason as the only way to
          > > find what's morally right.
          > > Intuition and reason are opposites. We don't mean the usual use of the
          > > word "intuition" in ethical individualism: it means the direct
          > > apprehension of a truth, when the mind draws a concept from the ideal
          > > world to match to a percept. Aquinas called this "intellectus" as
          > > opposed to "ratio", the step-by-step progression towards a truth (A is
          > > true of all B, C is true of all B, therefore C is true of all A).
          > > In Rand's ethics, what's morally good must be arrived at by logic. Not
          > > in Steiner's, where it requires a direct intuition of the Good.
          > > -starman
          > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
          > > > >
          > > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > > From: be23566 fairoaks@
          > > > > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:19:06
          > > > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > Subject: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
          > > > >
          > > > > Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical Individualism
          > > had a primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see
          > > translator Hoernle puts it:
          > > > >
          > > > > Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas
          > > bubble up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The
          > > situations in which men live, and which are the scenes of their actions,
          > > are no less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend,
          > > therefore, on the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to a
          > > given situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in us,
          > > the concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is
          > > individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of our
          > > ideas. In so far as this intuitive content has reference to action, it
          > > constitutes the moral substance of the individual. To let this substance
          > > express itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who regards
          > > all other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of
          > > view Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7
          > > > > "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand
          > > meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source
          > > of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to
          > > action."
          > > > > "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's
          > > primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for
          > > his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a
          > > moral code." wiki
          > > > >
          > > > > Tom Last
          > > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's
          > > moral ideas in life".
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy
          > > terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than
          > > materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is
          > > independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I
          > > reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF.
          > > Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the
          > > potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak
          > > in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general
          > > public, which I do.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was
          > > Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for
          > > Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague
          > > mysticism speaking.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert
          > > theosophy meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy
          > > translators, which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is
          > > obvious to anybody who wants to present POF to the general public.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and
          > > turn it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah
          > > movement, by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's
          > > philosophy had been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I
          > > believe it would have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would
          > > be a major movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has
          > > been done over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even
          > > if you had the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been
          > > a separate POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that
          > > dominates anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and
          > > organizations that spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for
          > > POF except my website which has been limited by my personal limitations.
          > > Where are the fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was
          > > an opening for Rand.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF
          > > pre-theosophy because I think it could be taken up as a major life
          > > philosophy of the younger generation today, if only they were introduced
          > > to it in the modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual
          > > speculation. Ayn Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present
          > > POF.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Tom Last
          > > > > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
          > > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >

        • juancompostella
          I know that this book also gives a prominent place to those efforts of thinking that POF would be proud to have extended on its behalf. I myself have the
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 21, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I know that this book also gives a prominent place to those efforts of thinking that POF would be proud to have extended on its behalf.

            I myself have the interesting experience of coming to all of this by way of an effort of sense-free thinking conducted some 25 years ago, which actually led me to Rudolf Steiner. Prior to this effort, which was science-based, I had never heard of this man and his extraordinary work. So, I know how important it is to think free of the senses. It gives results that penetrate into the occult, and I know how maligned that term is these days.

            Thus, I actually came to the great conviction for the truth of POF and its principles from the back-end. I experienced it before hearing about it.

            Juan

            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > For me, Steiner seemed to be quite clearly attempting to extend the
            > principles contained in POF into the "content" of his
            > spiritual-scientific research with his esoteric magnum opus, "Occult
            > Science: An Outline." The first chapter details what it means to
            > proceed from 'mere thoughts' to a willingness to conceptualize the
            > unseen, or causal worlds. I feel this chapter was intended as the
            > first major extension of POF into the domain of the supersensible. It
            > seems to be very direct about it, even. - Juan
            >
            > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/English/AP1972/GA013_c01.html
            >
            > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I would say that the difference between intuitive thinking in the
            > Philosophy Of Freedom and anthroposophy would be the "content" of
            > thinking. I don't see where POF goes beyond concepts and ideas as they
            > are normally understood, while the content of intuitive thinking in
            > anthroposophy may be pictorial images of formative forces or other
            > unusual experiences not attainable by anyone or attained by only a few.
            > It would be the same intuition but anthroposophy would be describing
            > Steiner's much deeper intuitive experience, as intuition is a faculty
            > that reaches different depths of reality.
            > > Tom
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Ayn Rand immediately dismisses "intuition" based on the common
            > > > understanding of it as some mysterious knowledge that springs from
            > the
            > > > blue, instead she holds to reason and rationality. The Philosophy Of
            > > > Freedom gives a new description of intuition and intuitive thinking
            > that
            > > > is more difficult to immediately reject. It is an intuition that
            > > > expresses itself in the clarity of pure thinking, so that it can be
            > > > known and understood with more certainty. Steiner calls pure
            > thinking
            > > > "reason". Pure conceptual thinking is guided by the content of the
            > > > concepts.
            > > >
            > > > In Truth and Knowledge he speaks of "intellectual intuition" :
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > In intellectual intuition the content must be contained within the
            > > > thought-form itself. But is this not precisely the case with pure
            > > > concepts and ideas? (By concept, I mean a principle according to
            > which
            > > > the disconnected elements of perception become joined into a unity.)
            > > > Causality, for example, is a concept. An idea is a concept with a
            > > > greater content. Organism, considered quite abstractly, is an idea.
            > > > However, they must be considered in the form which they possess
            > while
            > > > still quite free of any empirical content. Truth and Knowledge iv
            > The
            > > > Starting Point Of Epistemology Apprehension Of Thought
            > > >
            > > > POF is knowledge based on finding the conceptual intuition that
            > > > corresponds to the percept and morality is based on finding the
            > moral
            > > > conceptual intuition to guide our action. This is done through
            > intuitive
            > > > thinking (pure conceptual thinking) or pure reason. What serious
            > > > thinking can reject pure reason and the intuitive insight it
            > provides?
            > > >
            > > > What seems to be commonly missed is that intuition is a faculty that
            > can
            > > > be deepened. Reason is thought in linear terms of logic technique
            > and
            > > > rationality is limited to the sense perceptible, otherwise intuitive
            > > > thinking is what most thinkers would experience that are able to
            > think
            > > > in pure concepts as mathematicians and philosophers do.
            > > >
            > > > Anthroposophy explains intuitive thinking in a different way, as
            > > > perceiving imaginative images of reality or something like that. POF
            > > > intuitive thinking is a practice and first step to reach the deeper
            > > > intuitive thinking talked about in anthroposophy, I would reckon.
            > > >
            > > > Tom Last
            > > > http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com
            > <http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/>
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@>
            > > > wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > I perceive that Ayn Rand was exactly what true freedom meant for
            > > > America at the time she wrote her two tomes, "The Fountainhead", and
            > > > "Atlas Shrugged". She was determined to express her philosophy in
            > the
            > > > form of 'novel'. Only later, c. 1960, was she compelled to put it
            > down
            > > > in a form that would make it the systematic expression known as
            > > > "Objectivist Epistemology".
            > > > >
            > > > > It seems to me that her idea of moral intuition was what drove the
            > man
            > > > to do what he had to do for himself in order to gain free creative
            > power
            > > > for himself. And, this comes at a price. The price is the
            > > > uncompromising conviction that one has to do as one wills in order
            > to be
            > > > true to oneself. The Ego as one's own is where the self-creative
            > power
            > > > first manifests in true self-consciousness.
            > > > >
            > > > > Also, since no one took note of a question I asked concerning who
            > was
            > > > the individual at the beginning of the biopic, "The Passion of Ayn
            > > > Rand", it was Nathaniel Branden.
            > > > >
            > > > > Regards for this wonderful discussion on Steiner and Rand.
            > > > >
            > > > > Juan
            > > > >
            > > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " DrStarman@
            > wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
            > > > > >
            > > > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > > > From: drstarman@
            > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:49:43
            > > > > > To: be23566fairoaks@
            > > > > > Reply-To: drstarman@
            > > > > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
            > > > > >
            > > > > > ****** Once you keep in mind that Steiner is saying only the
            > person
            > > > able to have a "moral intuition" of the Right thing to do in each
            > given
            > > > situation can be free, another great difference between him and
            > Rand,
            > > > the woman Nathaniel Branden called "Mrs. Logic", becomes clear.
            > > > Note her total reliance on rationality and reason as the only way to
            > > > find what's morally right.
            > > > Intuition and reason are opposites. We don't mean the usual use of
            > the
            > > > word "intuition" in ethical individualism: it means the direct
            > > > apprehension of a truth, when the mind draws a concept from the
            > ideal
            > > > world to match to a percept. Aquinas called this "intellectus" as
            > > > opposed to "ratio", the step-by-step progression towards a truth (A
            > is
            > > > true of all B, C is true of all B, therefore C is true of all A).
            > > > In Rand's ethics, what's morally good must be arrived at by logic.
            > Not
            > > > in Steiner's, where it requires a direct intuition of the Good.
            > > > -starman
            > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
            > > > > >
            > > > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > > > From: be23566 fairoaks@
            > > > > > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:19:06
            > > > > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
            > > > > > Subject: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical
            > Individualism
            > > > had a primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see
            > > > translator Hoernle puts it:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas
            > > > bubble up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The
            > > > situations in which men live, and which are the scenes of their
            > actions,
            > > > are no less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend,
            > > > therefore, on the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to
            > a
            > > > given situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in
            > us,
            > > > the concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is
            > > > individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of
            > our
            > > > ideas. In so far as this intuitive content has reference to action,
            > it
            > > > constitutes the moral substance of the individual. To let this
            > substance
            > > > express itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who
            > regards
            > > > all other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of
            > > > view Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7
            > > > > > "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as
            > Rand
            > > > meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only
            > source
            > > > of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to
            > > > action."
            > > > > > "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an
            > individual's
            > > > primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is
            > for
            > > > his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to
            > a
            > > > moral code." wiki
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Tom Last
            > > > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express
            > one's
            > > > moral ideas in life".
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up
            > theosophy
            > > > terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better
            > than
            > > > materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom
            > is
            > > > independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that
            > reason I
            > > > reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF.
            > > > Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the
            > > > potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and
            > speak
            > > > in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the
            > general
            > > > public, which I do.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was
            > > > Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary
            > for
            > > > Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just
            > vague
            > > > mysticism speaking.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert
            > > > theosophy meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy
            > > > translators, which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is
            > > > obvious to anybody who wants to present POF to the general public.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy
            > and
            > > > turn it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah
            > > > movement, by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's
            > > > philosophy had been properly presented (as separate from theosophy),
            > I
            > > > believe it would have risen to the top today rather than Rand and
            > would
            > > > be a major movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing
            > has
            > > > been done over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way.
            > Even
            > > > if you had the development of anthroposophy, their could have also
            > been
            > > > a separate POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism
            > that
            > > > dominates anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and
            > > > organizations that spread the word about Rand while nothing exists
            > for
            > > > POF except my website which has been limited by my personal
            > limitations.
            > > > Where are the fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF
            > was
            > > > an opening for Rand.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF
            > > > pre-theosophy because I think it could be taken up as a major life
            > > > philosophy of the younger generation today, if only they were
            > introduced
            > > > to it in the modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual
            > > > speculation. Ayn Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to
            > present
            > > > POF.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Tom Last
            > > > > > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Durward Starman
            *******It might make thinking about Steiner s philosophy clearer to reflect on his central assertion that when we think in concepts and ideas, we draw each
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 26, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              *******It might make thinking about Steiner's philosophy clearer to reflect on his central assertion that when we think in concepts and ideas, we draw each idea from an ideal, wholly immaterial--- hence 'spiritual' --- world, by a process that he calls "intuition." (PoF, Ch. 5)

                 What this means is easier to demonstrate in person: I often have led people through the proof (by drawing lines and measuring angles with a straight-edge and protractor), that the inner angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees, or in other words a straight line. I'd do this first as an example of reason or rationality (what I pointed out Aquinas, for example, called 'ratio', the step-by-step reasoning towards a truth), so that people clearly experience syllogistic thinking or rationality first. 

                 Now, compare reasoning such as that example in geometry (you'll have to imagine it) with how you get the concepts "line", or "plane" or "point." Those concepts, the fundamental ones, cannot be arrived at by step by step reasoning, but are axiomatic---- they are what our reasoning uses once it has those. Therefore you can't get these by reason. That's what Aquinas called "intellectus", the direct apprehension of a truth without the "since this is true, this must be" reasoning process (if-then).

                 We get the direct intuition that we exist, when as children we first say "I" to ourselves about age 4; we experience we exist at a particular place, and then intuit the concept "point" to match our experience; we intuit the concept that matches our experience of "straightness" from our point of existence to another, and that becomes "line (straight line)"; and we intuit the concept "flatness" to match our experience of a flat ground beneath our feet, and that becomes the concept "plane."

                That these are ideal realities can be seen very clearly in the last-named case, by the fact that, as we human beings have matured in scientific thinking, we have realized that the perceptible reality isn't really flat but the curved surface of a sphere; so the infinite flat plane is a pure idea not found in perception. It is every bit a reality, but one we only get by the intuiting the pure concept. So when we form every new concept we are using intuition every time to draw it from the immaterial, ideal world. 

                 This of course has nothing to do with our usual, ordinary every-day use of the word "intuition", including Ayn Rand's use of it; and she attempted to develop a quite different "theory of universals" to explain the origin of concepts, which she never finished---see her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (she explained them as "integrations" of perceptions from the senses).

              Starman

              www.DrStarman.com


              To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              From: fairoaks@...
              Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:06:49 +0000
              Subject: Fw: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner

               
              Ayn Rand immediately dismisses "intuition" based on the common understanding of it as some mysterious knowledge that springs from the blue, instead she holds to reason and rationality. The Philosophy Of Freedom gives a new description of intuition and intuitive thinking that is more difficult to immediately reject. It is an intuition that expresses itself in the clarity of pure thinking, so that it can be known and understood with more certainty. Steiner calls pure thinking "reason". Pure conceptual thinking is guided by the content of the concepts. 

              In  Truth and Knowledge  he speaks of  "intellectual intuition" :


              In intellectual intuition the content must be contained within the thought-form itself. But is this not precisely the case with pure concepts and ideas? (By concept, I mean a principle according to which the disconnected elements of perception become joined into a unity.) Causality, for example, is a concept. An idea is a concept with a greater content. Organism, considered quite abstractly, is an idea. However, they must be considered in the form which they possess while still quite free of any empirical content. Truth and Knowledge iv The Starting Point Of Epistemology Apprehension Of Thought
              POF is knowledge based on finding the conceptual intuition that corresponds to the percept and morality is based on finding the moral conceptual intuition to guide our action. This is done through intuitive thinking (pure conceptual thinking) or pure reason. What serious thinking can reject pure reason and the intuitive insight it provides?

              What seems to be commonly missed is that intuition is a faculty that can be deepened. Reason is thought in linear terms of logic technique and rationality is limited to the sense perceptible, otherwise intuitive thinking is what most thinkers would experience that are able to think in pure concepts as mathematicians and philosophers do.

              Anthroposophy explains intuitive thinking in a different way, as perceiving imaginative images of reality or something like that. POF intuitive thinking is a practice and first step to reach the deeper 
               intuitive thinking talked about in anthroposophy, I would reckon.

              Tom Last
              http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com



              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@...> wrote:
              >
              > I perceive that Ayn Rand was exactly what true freedom meant for America at the time she wrote her two tomes, "The Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged". She was determined to express her philosophy in the form of 'novel'. Only later, c. 1960, was she compelled to put it down in a form that would make it the systematic expression known as "Objectivist Epistemology".
              >
              > It seems to me that her idea of moral intuition was what drove the man to do what he had to do for himself in order to gain free creative power for himself. And, this comes at a price. The price is the uncompromising conviction that one has to do as one wills in order to be true to oneself. The Ego as one's own is where the self-creative power first manifests in true self-consciousness.
              >
              > Also, since no one took note of a question I asked concerning who was the individual at the beginning of the biopic, "The Passion of Ayn Rand", it was Nathaniel Branden.
              >
              > Regards for this wonderful discussion on Steiner and Rand.
              >
              > Juan
              >
              > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " DrStarman@ wrote:
              > >
              > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: drstarman@
              > > Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:49:43
              > > To: be23566fairoaks@
              > > Reply-To: drstarman@
              > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
              > >
              > > ****** Once you keep in mind that Steiner is saying only the person able to have a "moral intuition" of the Right thing to do in each given situation can be free, another great difference between him and Rand, the woman Nathaniel Branden called "Mrs. Logic", becomes clear. Note her total reliance on rationality and reason as the only way to find what's morally right. Intuition and reason are opposites. We don't mean the usual use of the word "intuition" in ethical individualism: it means the direct apprehension of a truth, when the mind draws a concept from the ideal world to match to a percept. Aquinas called this "intellectus" as opposed to "ratio", the step-by-step progression towards a truth (A is true of all B, C is true of all B, therefore C is true of all A). In Rand's ethics, what's morally good must be arrived at by logic. Not in Steiner's, where it requires a direct intuition of the Good. -starman
              > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: be23566 fairoaks@
              > > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:19:06
              > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [steiner] Re: Pre and Post Steiner
              > >
              > >  
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life". 
              > >
              > > Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical Individualism had a primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see translator Hoernle puts it:
              > >
              > > Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas bubble up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The situations in which men live, and which are the scenes of their actions, are no less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend, therefore, on the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to a given situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in us, the concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of our ideas. In so far as this intuitive content has reference to action, it constitutes the moral substance of the individual. To let this substance express itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who regards all other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of view Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7 
              > > "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." 
              > > "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code." wiki
              > >
              > > Tom Last
              > > philosophyoffreedom.com 
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
              > > >
              > > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF. Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general public, which I do.
              > > > >
              > > > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague mysticism speaking.
              > > > >
              > > > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert theosophy meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy translators, which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is obvious to anybody who wants to present POF to the general public.
              > > > >
              > > > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and turn it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah movement, by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's philosophy had been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I believe it would have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would be a major movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has been done over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even if you had the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been a separate POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that dominates anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and organizations that spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for POF except my website which has been limited by my personal limitations. Where are the fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was an opening for Rand.
              > > > >
              > > > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF pre-theosophy because I think it could be taken up as a major life philosophy of the younger generation today, if only they were introduced to it in the modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual speculation. Ayn Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present POF.
              > > > >
              > > > > Tom Last
              > > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >

            • juancompostella
              ... *******It might make thinking about Steiner s philosophy clearer to reflect on his central assertion that when we think in concepts and ideas, we draw each
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 27, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:

                 *******It might make thinking about Steiner's philosophy clearer to reflect on his central assertion that when we think in concepts and ideas, we draw each idea from an ideal, wholly immaterial--- hence 'spiritual' --- world, by a process that he calls "intuition." (PoF, Ch. 5)
                > What this means is easier to demonstrate in person: I often have led people through the proof (by drawing lines and measuring angles with a straight-edge and protractor), that the inner angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees, or in other words a straight line. I'd do this first as an example of reason or rationality (what I pointed out Aquinas, for example, called 'ratio', the step-by-step reasoning towards a truth), so that people clearly experience syllogistic thinking or rationality first.

                Now, compare reasoning such as that example in geometry (you'll have to imagine it) with how you get the concepts "line", or "plane" or "point." Those concepts, the fundamental ones, cannot be arrived at by step by step reasoning, but are axiomatic---- they are what our reasoning uses once it has those. Therefore you can't get these by reason. That's what Aquinas called "intellectus", the direct apprehension of a truth without the "since this is true, this must be" reasoning process (if-then).

                We get the direct intuition that we exist, when as children we first say "I" to ourselves about age 4; we experience we exist at a particular place, and then intuit the concept "point" to match our experience; we intuit the concept that matches our experience of "straightness" from our point of existence to another, and that becomes "line (straight line)"; and we intuit the concept "flatness" to match our experience of a flat ground beneath our feet, and that becomes the concept "plane."

                That these are ideal realities can be seen very clearly in the last-named case, by the fact that, as we human beings have matured in scientific thinking, we have realized that the perceptible reality isn't really flat but the curved surface of a sphere; so the infinite flat plane is a pure idea not found in perception. It is every bit a reality, but one we only get by the intuiting the pure concept. So when we form every new concept we are using intuition every time to draw it from the immaterial, ideal world.

                This of course has nothing to do with our usual, ordinary every-day use of the word "intuition", including Ayn Rand's use of it; and she attempted to develop a quite different "theory of universals" to explain the origin of concepts, which she never finished---see her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (she explained them as "integrations" of perceptions from the senses).

                Starman

                I think you are explaining exactly what has to occur in adults in order that we can become "children again". This is very good. It all comes down to achieving the 'ways and means' to the spiritual concept, which you teach your students with geometry, and wherewith I'm sure, leads from there to the concepts and facts revealed by the spiritual investigator himself. This demonstrates a very thorough-going approach.

                Juan

                @

                "What we bring with us at birth contains something that is better than anything we can make of it in later life. In early childhood, the luciferic and ahrimanic forces have only a limited influence on our being. Essentially, they are active only in what we make of ourselves through our conscious life. If we retained the best part of ourselves in its full force beyond the first phase of childhood, its influence would be too much for us because the luciferic and ahrimanic forces opposing the part of ourselves that is better than the rest would weaken our whole being. Our constitution as human beings in the physical world is such that, once we are no longer soft and malleable as children, we can no longer stand to have the forces of the spiritual world continue to affect us directly. The forces that underlie our orientation in space and the formation of the larynx and the brain would shatter us if they continued to influence us directly in later life. These forces are so powerful that our organism would waste away beneath their holiness if they continued to work on us. However, for the activity that brings us into conscious contact with the supersensible world, we have to call upon these forces again.

                This leads us to a realization that is very significant if we understand it rightly. In the New Testament it is put thus: "Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3) What then seems to be the highest ideal for a human being if the above statement is correctly understood? Surely that our ideal must be to approach ever closer a conscious relationship with the forces that worked on us, without our awareness, in the first years of childhood. At the same time, we must realize that we would collapse under the power of these forces if they were immediately and too easily to affect our conscious life. That is why a careful preparation is necessary to achieve the capacities that lead to a perception of supersensible worlds. The goal of this preparation is to enable us to bear what we simply cannot bear in ordinary life."

                The Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity - Lecture I

                http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA015/English/AP1992/GA015_c01.html

                 

              • Durward Starman
                ****** I m not sure I m being understood though--- so let me rephrase it. What it means is that you can recognize a dog and a cat and a housefly
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 27, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  ****** I'm not sure I'm being understood though--- so let me rephrase it. What it means is that you can recognize a dog and a cat and a housefly and an aloe vera plant, and think logically about them (reason); but the concept that embraces them all, "organism" (entity that organizes matter into a form it can live in) you can only draw from the ideal, spiritual world by (Steiner's term) "intuition.". Some may never do so, perhaps, so the single living things are mental realities but not (for them) what concept matches all of them, the organism. Every pure idea we have ever had has been intuited this way. If we've stopped having original thoughts or learning new things, it's only something we did in the past; but if not, we experience it daily. (Ch. 5, PoF). Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition. We gain concepts by intuition just we get "percepts" (the content of a perception) by observation. -starman
                  Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
                  Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:39:00
                  To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: [steiner] Re: Intuition and Reason or Rationality as 2 separate
                  operations

                   




                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                   *******It might make thinking about Steiner's philosophy clearer to reflect on his central assertion that when we think in concepts and ideas, we draw each idea from an ideal, wholly immaterial--- hence 'spiritual' --- world, by a process that he calls "intuition." (PoF, Ch. 5)
                  > What this means is easier to demonstrate in person: I often have led people through the proof (by drawing lines and measuring angles with a straight-edge and protractor), that the inner angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees, or in other words a straight line. I'd do this first as an example of reason or rationality (what I pointed out Aquinas, for example, called 'ratio', the step-by-step reasoning towards a truth), so that people clearly experience syllogistic thinking or rationality first.

                  Now, compare reasoning such as that example in geometry (you'll have to imagine it) with how you get the concepts "line", or "plane" or "point." Those concepts, the fundamental ones, cannot be arrived at by step by step reasoning, but are axiomatic---- they are what our reasoning uses once it has those. Therefore you can't get these by reason. That's what Aquinas called "intellectus", the direct apprehension of a truth without the "since this is true, this must be" reasoning process (if-then).

                  We get the direct intuition that we exist, when as children we first say "I" to ourselves about age 4; we experience we exist at a particular place, and then intuit the concept "point" to match our experience; we intuit the concept that matches our experience of "straightness" from our point of existence to another, and that becomes "line (straight line)"; and we intuit the concept "flatness" to match our experience of a flat ground beneath our feet, and that becomes the concept "plane."

                  That these are ideal realities can be seen very clearly in the last-named case, by the fact that, as we human beings have matured in scientific thinking, we have realized that the perceptible reality isn't really flat but the curved surface of a sphere; so the infinite flat plane is a pure idea not found in perception. It is every bit a reality, but one we only get by the intuiting the pure concept. So when we form every new concept we are using intuition every time to draw it from the immaterial, ideal world.

                  This of course has nothing to do with our usual, ordinary every-day use of the word "intuition", including Ayn Rand's use of it; and she attempted to develop a quite different "theory of universals" to explain the origin of concepts, which she never finished---see her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (she explained them as "integrations" of perceptions from the senses).

                  Starman

                  I think you are explaining exactly what has to occur in adults in order that we can become "children again". This is very good. It all comes down to achieving the 'ways and means' to the spiritual concept, which you teach your students with geometry, and wherewith I'm sure, leads from there to the concepts and facts revealed by the spiritual investigator himself. This demonstrates a very thorough-going approach.
                  Juan
                  @
                  "What we bring with us at birth contains something that is better than anything we can make of it in later life. In early childhood, the luciferic and ahrimanic forces have only a limited influence on our being. Essentially, they are active only in what we make of ourselves through our conscious life. If we retained the best part of ourselves in its full force beyond the first phase of childhood, its influence would be too much for us because the luciferic and ahrimanic forces opposing the part of ourselves that is better than the rest would weaken our whole being. Our constitution as human beings in the physical world is such that, once we are no longer soft and malleable as children, we can no longer stand to have the forces of the spiritual world continue to affect us directly. The forces that underlie our orientation in space and the formation of the larynx and the brain would shatter us if they continued to influence us directly in later life. These forces are so powerful that our organism would waste away beneath their holiness if they continued to work on us. However, for the activity that brings us into conscious contact with the supersensible world, we have to call upon these forces again.
                  This leads us to a realization that is very significant if we understand it rightly. In the New Testament it is put thus: "Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3) What then seems to be the highest ideal for a human being if the above statement is correctly understood? Surely that our ideal must be to approach ever closer a conscious relationship with the forces that worked on us, without our awareness, in the first years of childhood. At the same time, we must realize that we would collapse under the power of these forces if they were immediately and too easily to affect our conscious life. That is why a careful preparation is necessary to achieve the capacities that lead to a perception of supersensible worlds. The goal of this preparation is to enable us to bear what we simply cannot bear in ordinary life."
                  The Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity - Lecture I
                  http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA015/English/AP1992/GA015_c01.html
                   
                • juancompostella
                  ... Yes, and who has to get it? Us adults, true? Does it have any significance for what it means to become as little children again? If not, then it s only
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 27, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > ****** I'm not sure I'm being understood though--- so let me rephrase it. What it means is that you can recognize a dog and a cat and a housefly and an aloe vera plant, and think logically about them (reason); but the concept that embraces them all, "organism" (entity that organizes matter into a form it can live in) you can only draw from the ideal, spiritual world by (Steiner's term) "intuition.". Some may never do so, perhaps, so the single living things are mental realities but not (for them) what concept matches all of them, the organism. Every pure idea we have ever had has been intuited this way. If we've stopped having original thoughts or learning new things, it's only something we did in the past; but if not, we experience it daily. (Ch. 5, PoF). Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition. We gain concepts by intuition just we get "percepts" (the content of a perception) by observation. -starman


                    Yes, and who has to get it? Us adults, true? Does it have any significance for what it means to "become as little children again?"

                    If not, then it's only abstractions. If so, then it goes to another level. You must be presenting this to your students for a reason, it would seem. Do it, and then give them these lectures to read on the spiritual guidance of man and humanity. See if they see the relationship. They might; and if they do, then it means that the forces inherent in the adult are reaching back to the soft, gentleness which can now retain something of the spiritual in active consciousness.

                    Juan
                  • be23566
                    Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition. I m copying down the replies to further my understanding of POF
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 27, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition."
                      I'm copying down the replies to further my understanding of POF intuition for some upcoming project, probably a video and glossary. It is the key concept of the book. I like what you have said about the corresponding concept is attained by intuition. Conceptual thinking becomes pure thinking when all perceptual content is removed. When pure thinking is influenced by intuition it becomes intuitive thinking. I am trying to see clearly what the latter means.
                      Tom Last


                      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > ****** I'm not sure I'm being understood though--- so let me rephrase it. What it means is that you can recognize a dog and a cat and a housefly and an aloe vera plant, and think logically about them (reason); but the concept that embraces them all, "organism" (entity that organizes matter into a form it can live in) you can only draw from the ideal, spiritual world by (Steiner's term) "intuition.". Some may never do so, perhaps, so the single living things are mental realities but not (for them) what concept matches all of them, the organism. Every pure idea we have ever had has been intuited this way. If we've stopped having original thoughts or learning new things, it's only something we did in the past; but if not, we experience it daily. (Ch. 5, PoF). Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition. We gain concepts by intuition just we get "percepts" (the content of a perception) by observation. -starman
                      > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
                      > Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:39:00
                      > To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Subject: [steiner] Re: Intuition and Reason or Rationality as 2 separate
                      > operations
                      >
                      >  
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@> wrote:
                      >  *******It might make thinking about Steiner's philosophy clearer to reflect on his central assertion that when we think in concepts and ideas, we draw each idea from an ideal, wholly immaterial--- hence 'spiritual' --- world, by a process that he calls "intuition." (PoF, Ch. 5)
                      > > What this means is easier to demonstrate in person: I often have led people through the proof (by drawing lines and measuring angles with a straight-edge and protractor), that the inner angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees, or in other words a straight line. I'd do this first as an example of reason or rationality (what I pointed out Aquinas, for example, called 'ratio', the step-by-step reasoning towards a truth), so that people clearly experience syllogistic thinking or rationality first.
                      >
                      > Now, compare reasoning such as that example in geometry (you'll have to imagine it) with how you get the concepts "line", or "plane" or "point." Those concepts, the fundamental ones, cannot be arrived at by step by step reasoning, but are axiomatic---- they are what our reasoning uses once it has those. Therefore you can't get these by reason. That's what Aquinas called "intellectus", the direct apprehension of a truth without the "since this is true, this must be" reasoning process (if-then).
                      >
                      > We get the direct intuition that we exist, when as children we first say "I" to ourselves about age 4; we experience we exist at a particular place, and then intuit the concept "point" to match our experience; we intuit the concept that matches our experience of "straightness" from our point of existence to another, and that becomes "line (straight line)"; and we intuit the concept "flatness" to match our experience of a flat ground beneath our feet, and that becomes the concept "plane."
                      >
                      > That these are ideal realities can be seen very clearly in the last-named case, by the fact that, as we human beings have matured in scientific thinking, we have realized that the perceptible reality isn't really flat but the curved surface of a sphere; so the infinite flat plane is a pure idea not found in perception. It is every bit a reality, but one we only get by the intuiting the pure concept. So when we form every new concept we are using intuition every time to draw it from the immaterial, ideal world.
                      >
                      > This of course has nothing to do with our usual, ordinary every-day use of the word "intuition", including Ayn Rand's use of it; and she attempted to develop a quite different "theory of universals" to explain the origin of concepts, which she never finished---see her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (she explained them as "integrations" of perceptions from the senses).
                      >
                      > Starman
                      >
                      > I think you are explaining exactly what has to occur in adults in order that we can become "children again". This is very good. It all comes down to achieving the 'ways and means' to the spiritual concept, which you teach your students with geometry, and wherewith I'm sure, leads from there to the concepts and facts revealed by the spiritual investigator himself. This demonstrates a very thorough-going approach.
                      > Juan
                      > @
                      > "What we bring with us at birth contains something that is better than anything we can make of it in later life. In early childhood, the luciferic and ahrimanic forces have only a limited influence on our being. Essentially, they are active only in what we make of ourselves through our conscious life. If we retained the best part of ourselves in its full force beyond the first phase of childhood, its influence would be too much for us because the luciferic and ahrimanic forces opposing the part of ourselves that is better than the rest would weaken our whole being. Our constitution as human beings in the physical world is such that, once we are no longer soft and malleable as children, we can no longer stand to have the forces of the spiritual world continue to affect us directly. The forces that underlie our orientation in space and the formation of the larynx and the brain would shatter us if they continued to influence us directly in later life. These forces are so powerful that our organism would waste away beneath their holiness if they continued to work on us. However, for the activity that brings us into conscious contact with the supersensible world, we have to call upon these forces again.
                      > This leads us to a realization that is very significant if we understand it rightly. In the New Testament it is put thus: "Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3) What then seems to be the highest ideal for a human being if the above statement is correctly understood? Surely that our ideal must be to approach ever closer a conscious relationship with the forces that worked on us, without our awareness, in the first years of childhood. At the same time, we must realize that we would collapse under the power of these forces if they were immediately and too easily to affect our conscious life. That is why a careful preparation is necessary to achieve the capacities that lead to a perception of supersensible worlds. The goal of this preparation is to enable us to bear what we simply cannot bear in ordinary life."
                      > The Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity - Lecture I
                      > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA015/English/AP1992/GA015_c01.html
                      >  
                      >
                    • juancompostella
                      ... Tom, let me ask you some questions: How many times have to read POF? How many times have you engaged in efforts of sense-free thinking? What were the
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 27, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > "Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition."
                        > I'm copying down the replies to further my understanding of POF intuition for some upcoming project, probably a video and glossary. It is the key concept of the book. I like what you have said about the corresponding concept is attained by intuition. Conceptual thinking becomes pure thinking when all perceptual content is removed. When pure thinking is influenced by intuition it becomes intuitive thinking. I am trying to see clearly what the latter means.
                        > Tom Last

                        Tom, let me ask you some questions: How many times have to read POF?

                        How many times have you engaged in efforts of sense-free thinking?

                        What were the results?

                        Did you ever feel that you had reached to a level of spiritual cognition with it?

                        Thanks,

                        Juan
                      • Durward Starman
                        *******I d say a glossary of Steiner s terms for his philosophy of ethical individualism (a lot of which can be found in the introduction to Michael Wilson s
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 28, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          *******I'd say a glossary of Steiner's terms for his philosophy of "ethical individualism" (a lot of which can be found in the introduction to Michael Wilson's 1964 translation of the Philosophy of Freedom) would have: intuition as the faculty of acquiring pure concepts & ideas from the ideal, spiritual world; then, perception through the senses giving us a "percept" as its content, as intuition gives us concepts; then the forming of vorstellung, representations or mental pictures, in each act of cognition connecting a concept to a percept or group of percepts. 

                            But in turning Steiner's philosophy into a system we can compare to other systems, we want to make sure we don't lose its essence. He started out the book by saying he was avoiding the usual strict definitions which were customary in philosophical treatises of his time, because what he wanted to do (and wanted anyone reading the book to do), was simply look at the facts of everyday life in a new way. In the first three chapters, he tries to turn the reader's attention away from the usual 'subjectivist' philosophy ("what the senses give us is imperfect, so we can't really know anything objectively") to what has sometimes been called the Perennial Philosophy, where our thinking is experienced as more real than what we observe with the senses. Then, in chapter 5, he brings this to the point where he demolishes all the objections of subjectivist philosophy by pointing out that, regardless of the appearance of a thing to the senses, our pure ideas which we have to match to all perceptions remain the same and trustworthy guides to truth. 

                             Today we celebrate the birthday of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who also never propounded a philosophy with a glossary of terms and such as is demanded in academia; rather, he demonstrated and lived his philosophy of life, and never let himself get dragged down by the demands of the mediocre minds that ruled academia in his time as they still rule it in ours. (There's an old Chinese saying, that "The one who thinks doing something is impossible should not bother the man who is doing it.") Steiner spent the first 20 years of his adult life writing philosophy, not only the one book we're discussing; as he wrote in his autobiography, he was born with the ability to see into the spiritual world and knew it existed, but was insistent on developing this psychic ability with scientific control, which required him to build a bridge between ordinary, everyday consciousness and the higher levels. He found a lot in some of the philosophers of his day that was positive--- but only the spirit of Goethe truly answered his needs. 

                             His first written works were his commentaries on Goethe's scientific writings (gathered together into one volume under the title "Goethe the Scientist") and then a brief work derived from that study in which he argued that Goethe's life and work demonstrated a conception of the world that he never put into a theoretical form ("The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's Conception of the World"). Out of this he began working out what we've been discussing, his Philosophie der Freiheit, publishing first his expanded PhD thesis, "Truth and Knowledge" (the title a play on Goethe's biography's title, Poetry and Truth) which he subtitled "A Prelude to a Philosophy of Freedom". In 1897 he published a fuller version of his explanation of Goethe's philosophy, "Goethe's Conception of the World", and in addition he published a number of smaller articles such as "Egoism in Philosophy" in 1899 and the article about the Rosicrucian symbolism hidden in Goethe's "Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily" ("Goethe's Secret Revelation") which led to Steiner's being invited to lecture on Theosophy (and he based his Mystery Play on it in 1910). So, for almost 20 years Steiner wrote a series of books and articles all advancing his philosophical view that we are experiencing the spirit all the time without knowing it, because it is what we think with, which is just what Goethe believed and demonstrated. His Philosophy of Freedom is just the main work advancing his philosophy, but it can be found all throughout his works. And a large part of it can be found in other German idealist philosophers such as Hegel, although Steiner felt they left out some things which were essential and were where he differed from them. 
                             
                             All hail the spirit of Goethe and Schiller, the German idealist philosophy shared by Emerson and so many other shining spirits of the past two centuries, that seeks to wake up the human being to his spiritual nature!

                          Starman

                          www.DrStarman.com


                          To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                          From: fairoaks@...
                          Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 03:54:59 +0000
                          Subject: [steiner] Re: Intuition and Reason or Rationality as 2 separate operations

                           
                          "Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition."
                          I'm copying down the replies to further my understanding of POF intuition for some upcoming project, probably a video and glossary. It is the key concept of the book. I like what you have said about the corresponding concept is attained by intuition. Conceptual thinking becomes pure thinking when all perceptual content is removed. When pure thinking is influenced by intuition it becomes intuitive thinking. I am trying to see clearly what the latter means.
                          Tom Last

                          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > ****** I'm not sure I'm being understood though--- so let me rephrase it. What it means is that you can recognize a dog and a cat and a housefly and an aloe vera plant, and think logically about them (reason); but the concept that embraces them all, "organism" (entity that organizes matter into a form it can live in) you can only draw from the ideal, spiritual world by (Steiner's term) "intuition.". Some may never do so, perhaps, so the single living things are mental realities but not (for them) what concept matches all of them, the organism. Every pure idea we have ever had has been intuited this way. If we've stopped having original thoughts or learning new things, it's only something we did in the past; but if not, we experience it daily. (Ch. 5, PoF). Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition. We gain concepts by intuition just we get "percepts" (the content of a perception) by observation. -starman
                          > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
                          > Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:39:00
                          > To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Subject: [steiner] Re: Intuition and Reason or Rationality as 2 separate
                          > operations
                          >
                          >  
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@> wrote:
                          >  *******It might make thinking about Steiner's philosophy clearer to reflect on his central assertion that when we think in concepts and ideas, we draw each idea from an ideal, wholly immaterial--- hence 'spiritual' --- world, by a process that he calls "intuition." (PoF, Ch. 5)
                          > > What this means is easier to demonstrate in person: I often have led people through the proof (by drawing lines and measuring angles with a straight-edge and protractor), that the inner angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees, or in other words a straight line. I'd do this first as an example of reason or rationality (what I pointed out Aquinas, for example, called 'ratio', the step-by-step reasoning towards a truth), so that people clearly experience syllogistic thinking or rationality first.
                          >
                          > Now, compare reasoning such as that example in geometry (you'll have to imagine it) with how you get the concepts "line", or "plane" or "point." Those concepts, the fundamental ones, cannot be arrived at by step by step reasoning, but are axiomatic---- they are what our reasoning uses once it has those. Therefore you can't get these by reason. That's what Aquinas called "intellectus", the direct apprehension of a truth without the "since this is true, this must be" reasoning process (if-then).
                          >
                          > We get the direct intuition that we exist, when as children we first say "I" to ourselves about age 4; we experience we exist at a particular place, and then intuit the concept "point" to match our experience; we intuit the concept that matches our experience of "straightness" from our point of existence to another, and that becomes "line (straight line)"; and we intuit the concept "flatness" to match our experience of a flat ground beneath our feet, and that becomes the concept "plane."
                          >
                          > That these are ideal realities can be seen very clearly in the last-named case, by the fact that, as we human beings have matured in scientific thinking, we have realized that the perceptible reality isn't really flat but the curved surface of a sphere; so the infinite flat plane is a pure idea not found in perception. It is every bit a reality, but one we only get by the intuiting the pure concept. So when we form every new concept we are using intuition every time to draw it from the immaterial, ideal world.
                          >
                          > This of course has nothing to do with our usual, ordinary every-day use of the word "intuition", including Ayn Rand's use of it; and she attempted to develop a quite different "theory of universals" to explain the origin of concepts, which she never finished---see her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (she explained them as "integrations" of perceptions from the senses).
                          >
                          > Starman
                          >
                          > I think you are explaining exactly what has to occur in adults in order that we can become "children again". This is very good. It all comes down to achieving the 'ways and means' to the spiritual concept, which you teach your students with geometry, and wherewith I'm sure, leads from there to the concepts and facts revealed by the spiritual investigator himself. This demonstrates a very thorough-going approach.
                          > Juan
                          > �@
                          > "What we bring with us at birth contains something that is better than anything we can make of it in later life. In early childhood, the luciferic and ahrimanic forces have only a limited influence on our being. Essentially, they are active only in what we make of ourselves through our conscious life. If we retained the best part of ourselves in its full force beyond the first phase of childhood, its influence would be too much for us because the luciferic and ahrimanic forces opposing the part of ourselves that is better than the rest would weaken our whole being. Our constitution as human beings in the physical world is such that, once we are no longer soft and malleable as children, we can no longer stand to have the forces of the spiritual world continue to affect us directly. The forces that underlie our orientation in space and the formation of the larynx and the brain would shatter us if they continued to influence us directly in later life. These forces are so powerful that our organism would waste away beneath their holiness if they continued to work on us. However, for the activity that brings us into conscious contact with the supersensible world, we have to call upon these forces again.
                          > This leads us to a realization that is very significant if we understand it rightly. In the New Testament it is put thus: "Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3) What then seems to be the highest ideal for a human being if the above statement is correctly understood? Surely that our ideal must be to approach ever closer a conscious relationship with the forces that worked on us, without our awareness, in the first years of childhood. At the same time, we must realize that we would collapse under the power of these forces if they were immediately and too easily to affect our conscious life. That is why a careful preparation is necessary to achieve the capacities that lead to a perception of supersensible worlds. The goal of this preparation is to enable us to bear what we simply cannot bear in ordinary life."
                          > The Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity - Lecture I
                          > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA015/English/AP1992/GA015_c01.html
                          > &nbsp;
                          >


                        • be23566
                          Spiritual cognition? I m not sure how interested I am in perceiving the spiritual worlds as this is invented anyway (in a healthy way). At some point the time
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 28, 2012
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Spiritual cognition? I'm not sure how interested I am in perceiving the spiritual worlds as this is invented anyway (in a healthy way). At some point the time would likely come that the next step would be for me to invent my own spiritual world. I notice that spiritually accomplished people have presented their version of the spiritual world to the public throughout history.

                            In the past I have personalized Christ as this seemed to work, but now I am ready to take responsibility for my own thoughts.

                            My interest is realizing my ideals (spiritual?) in the world through ethical action.

                            I'm sure I have studied the Philosophy Of Freedom more than anyone since it was written. I at least know what is in it and what is not in it, and I see how it is a clear simple philosophy that others can understand (it is written in a difficult way but turns out to be simple when you work through it). I engage in pure thinking influenced by intuition on a daily basis, most any time I want to understand anything. My intuitive capacity has increased so the corresponding concepts rise much easier during the observation. It is difficult for me to discuss an issue with someone who cannot enter pure thinking. I am conscious of applying the POF principles on a daily basis. The result is that I do a good job in grasping reality and making decisions that get results indicating I have grasped the laws at work. My cognition is limited by the temporary normal human limitations of cognition and if I have an particular emotional issue. I am conscious of what an ethical individualist is and of my striving and success in living that life.

                            I feel I am definitely on the practical path of POF and growing in it on a daily basis. I don't see POF as bringing anything dramatically new to the world or anything beyond the reach of a normal person, you can break down the separate parts and find them else where. What it is unique is how Steiner tied the parts together into a whole, an integrated (thus empowered) individual living to his highest potential, and striving to realize his ideals.
                            Tom Last
                            www.philosophyoffreedom.com

                            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > "Clearly this is one of the first terms in a PoF glossary, this meaning of intuition."
                            > > I'm copying down the replies to further my understanding of POF intuition for some upcoming project, probably a video and glossary. It is the key concept of the book. I like what you have said about the corresponding concept is attained by intuition. Conceptual thinking becomes pure thinking when all perceptual content is removed. When pure thinking is influenced by intuition it becomes intuitive thinking. I am trying to see clearly what the latter means.
                            > > Tom Last
                            >
                            > Tom, let me ask you some questions: How many times have to read POF?
                            >
                            > How many times have you engaged in efforts of sense-free thinking?
                            >
                            > What were the results?
                            >
                            > Did you ever feel that you had reached to a level of spiritual cognition with it?
                            >
                            > Thanks,
                            >
                            > Juan
                            >
                          • juancompostella
                            ... Great comments! I appreciate having this discussion very much. As I may have mentioned, I was studying Steiner s autobiography when this topic began, and
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 28, 2012
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > *******I'd say a glossary of Steiner's terms for his philosophy of "ethical individualism" (a lot of which can be found in the introduction to Michael Wilson's 1964 translation of the Philosophy of Freedom) would have: intuition as the faculty of acquiring pure concepts & ideas from the ideal, spiritual world; then, perception through the senses giving us a "percept" as its content, as intuition gives us concepts; then the forming of vorstellung, representations or mental pictures, in each act of cognition connecting a concept to a percept or group of percepts.
                              > But in turning Steiner's philosophy into a system we can compare to other systems, we want to make sure we don't lose its essence. He started out the book by saying he was avoiding the usual strict definitions which were customary in philosophical treatises of his time, because what he wanted to do (and wanted anyone reading the book to do), was simply look at the facts of everyday life in a new way. In the first three chapters, he tries to turn the reader's attention away from the usual 'subjectivist' philosophy ("what the senses give us is imperfect, so we can't really know anything objectively") to what has sometimes been called the Perennial Philosophy, where our thinking is experienced as more real than what we observe with the senses. Then, in chapter 5, he brings this to the point where he demolishes all the objections of subjectivist philosophy by pointing out that, regardless of the appearance of a thing to the senses, our pure ideas which we have to match to all perceptions remain the same and trustworthy guides to truth.
                              > Today we celebrate the birthday of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who also never propounded a philosophy with a glossary of terms and such as is demanded in academia; rather, he demonstrated and lived his philosophy of life, and never let himself get dragged down by the demands of the mediocre minds that ruled academia in his time as they still rule it in ours. (There's an old Chinese saying, that "The one who thinks doing something is impossible should not bother the man who is doing it.") Steiner spent the first 20 years of his adult life writing philosophy, not only the one book we're discussing; as he wrote in his autobiography, he was born with the ability to see into the spiritual world and knew it existed, but was insistent on developing this psychic ability with scientific control, which required him to build a bridge between ordinary, everyday consciousness and the higher levels. He found a lot in some of the philosophers of his day that was positive--- but only the spirit of Goethe truly answered his needs.
                              > His first written works were his commentaries on Goethe's scientific writings (gathered together into one volume under the title "Goethe the Scientist") and then a brief work derived from that study in which he argued that Goethe's life and work demonstrated a conception of the world that he never put into a theoretical form ("The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's Conception of the World"). Out of this he began working out what we've been discussing, his Philosophie der Freiheit, publishing first his expanded PhD thesis, "Truth and Knowledge" (the title a play on Goethe's biography's title, Poetry and Truth) which he subtitled "A Prelude to a Philosophy of Freedom". In 1897 he published a fuller version of his explanation of Goethe's philosophy, "Goethe's Conception of the World", and in addition he published a number of smaller articles such as "Egoism in Philosophy" in 1899 and the article about the Rosicrucian symbolism hidden in Goethe's "Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily" ("Goethe's Secret Revelation") which led to Steiner's being invited to lecture on Theosophy (and he based his Mystery Play on it in 1910). So, for almost 20 years Steiner wrote a series of books and articles all advancing his philosophical view that we are experiencing the spirit all the time without knowing it, because it is what we think with, which is just what Goethe believed and demonstrated. His Philosophy of Freedom is just the main work advancing his philosophy, but it can be found all throughout his works. And a large part of it can be found in other German idealist philosophers such as Hegel, although Steiner felt they left out some things which were essential and were where he differed from them.
                              > All hail the spirit of Goethe and Schiller, the German idealist philosophy shared by Emerson and so many other shining spirits of the past two centuries, that seeks to wake up the human being to his spiritual nature!
                              > Starman
                              > www.DrStarman.com

                              Great comments! I appreciate having this discussion very much. As I may have mentioned, I was studying Steiner's autobiography when this topic began, and so I have been able to focus even more intently on the developments toward the writing of "The Philosophy of Freedom". Now, the book I was lent (ILL) is the 1928 Olin Wanamaker first English edition, "The Story of My Life", which is the same as on the RS-Archive. And whenever the book's title is given, as in Chapter X, it is given as, "The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity", which I believe Steiner recommended as the title for the English-speaking world, true? But why would that be, Starman and/or Tom. I like both titles pretty equally.

                              Today is Goethe's birthday, yes, and yesterday was Hegel's. Steiner gave a great lecture on the 150th anniversary of Hegel's birth (1770) on August 27, 1920, contained in the volume entitled: Spiritual Science as a Foundation for Social Forms, lecture IX, GA 199, which gives great weight to Hegel's two main works, "The Phenomenology of Spirit", and "The Science of Logic." In these works, Steiner says that Hegel comprehended the spiritual very extensively, but only in an abstract way; his knowledge did not penetrate into actual perception. I find that very interesting.

                              An excellent lecture concerning Goethe, with special reference to his cherished trip to Italy around the age of forty, is this one: "Goethe and the Evolution of Consciousness",

                              http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GoeCon_index.html

                              It was in Italy that Goethe seems to engage in some form of spirit recollection, because two significant things occur out of this trip. He begins his natural-scientific investigations with, "The Metamorphosis of Plants", c. 1790, and his most renowned literary work, Faust, which had laid dormant for years, was renewed with Part II. Steiner indicates clearly that the reason for these events involves the renewal of a Greek influence upon Goethe.

                              Juan
                            • juancompostella
                              ... the spiritual worlds as this is invented anyway (in a healthy way). At some point the time would likely come that the next step would be for me to invent
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 28, 2012
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment

                                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:

                                >
                                > Spiritual cognition? I'm not sure how interested I am in perceiving the spiritual worlds as this is invented anyway (in a healthy way). At some point the time would likely come that the next step would be for me to invent my own spiritual world. I notice that spiritually accomplished people have presented their version of the spiritual world to the public throughout history.
                                >
                                > In the past I have personalized Christ as this seemed to work, but now I am ready to take responsibility for my own thoughts.
                                >
                                > My interest is realizing my ideals (spiritual?) in the world through ethical action.
                                >
                                > I'm sure I have studied the Philosophy Of Freedom more than anyone since it was written. I at least know what is in it and what is not in it, and I see how it is a clear simple philosophy that others can understand (it is written in a difficult way but turns out to be simple when you work through it). I engage in pure thinking influenced by intuition on a daily basis, most any time I want to understand anything. My intuitive capacity has increased so the corresponding concepts rise much easier during the observation. It is difficult for me to discuss an issue with someone who cannot enter pure thinking. I am conscious of applying the POF principles on a daily basis. The result is that I do a good job in grasping reality and making decisions that get results indicating I have grasped the laws at work. My cognition is limited by the temporary normal human limitations of cognition and if I have an particular emotional issue. I am conscious of what an ethical individualist is and of my striving and success in living that life.
                                >
                                > I feel I am definitely on the practical path of POF and growing in it on a daily basis. I don't see POF as bringing anything dramatically new to the world or anything beyond the reach of a normal person, you can break down the separate parts and find them else where. What it is unique is how Steiner tied the parts together into a whole, an integrated (thus empowered) individual living to his highest potential, and striving to realize his ideals.
                                > Tom Last
                                > www.philosophyoffreedom.com

                                Thanks, Tom. Spiritual perception as an invention is a very interesting concept to contemplate. Steiner, of course, claimed to be able to objectively investigate the outer spiritual worlds and bring the facts of these worlds to his audience in the form of concepts designed to be worked upon in order to evolve the Consciousness Soul out of the Intellectual Soul as a process of metamorphosis in the tradition of Goethe.

                                At least, it seems that way to me.

                                Juan

                              • be23566
                                I m not sure if what I said and what you said are actually in conflict. But I m not sure if I can clearly articulate this at this moment. Tom Last
                                Message 15 of 21 , Aug 28, 2012
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I'm not sure if what I said and what you said are actually in conflict. But I'm not sure if I can clearly articulate this at this moment.
                                  Tom Last

                                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "juancompostella" <juancompostella@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Spiritual cognition? I'm not sure how interested I am in perceiving
                                  > the spiritual worlds as this is invented anyway (in a healthy way). At
                                  > some point the time would likely come that the next step would be for me
                                  > to invent my own spiritual world. I notice that spiritually accomplished
                                  > people have presented their version of the spiritual world to the public
                                  > throughout history.
                                  > >
                                  > > In the past I have personalized Christ as this seemed to work, but now
                                  > I am ready to take responsibility for my own thoughts.
                                  > >
                                  > > My interest is realizing my ideals (spiritual?) in the world through
                                  > ethical action.
                                  > >
                                  > > I'm sure I have studied the Philosophy Of Freedom more than anyone
                                  > since it was written. I at least know what is in it and what is not in
                                  > it, and I see how it is a clear simple philosophy that others can
                                  > understand (it is written in a difficult way but turns out to be simple
                                  > when you work through it). I engage in pure thinking influenced by
                                  > intuition on a daily basis, most any time I want to understand anything.
                                  > My intuitive capacity has increased so the corresponding concepts rise
                                  > much easier during the observation. It is difficult for me to discuss an
                                  > issue with someone who cannot enter pure thinking. I am conscious of
                                  > applying the POF principles on a daily basis. The result is that I do a
                                  > good job in grasping reality and making decisions that get results
                                  > indicating I have grasped the laws at work. My cognition is limited by
                                  > the temporary normal human limitations of cognition and if I have an
                                  > particular emotional issue. I am conscious of what an ethical
                                  > individualist is and of my striving and success in living that life.
                                  > >
                                  > > I feel I am definitely on the practical path of POF and growing in it
                                  > on a daily basis. I don't see POF as bringing anything dramatically new
                                  > to the world or anything beyond the reach of a normal person, you can
                                  > break down the separate parts and find them else where. What it is
                                  > unique is how Steiner tied the parts together into a whole, an
                                  > integrated (thus empowered) individual living to his highest potential,
                                  > and striving to realize his ideals.
                                  > > Tom Last
                                  > > www.philosophyoffreedom.com <http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Thanks, Tom. Spiritual perception as an invention is a very interesting
                                  > concept to contemplate. Steiner, of course, claimed to be able to
                                  > objectively investigate the outer spiritual worlds and bring the facts
                                  > of these worlds to his audience in the form of concepts designed to be
                                  > worked upon in order to evolve the Consciousness Soul out of the
                                  > Intellectual Soul as a process of metamorphosis in the tradition of
                                  > Goethe.
                                  >
                                  > At least, it seems that way to me.
                                  >
                                  > Juan
                                  >
                                • Durward Starman
                                  *******I think you both are right, because in one sense the spiritual world is an objective reality you discover, but in another sense you have to create it
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Aug 28, 2012
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    *******I think you both are right, because in one sense the spiritual world is an objective reality you discover, but in another sense you have to create it first in order to find it. At least I think that's what Tom meant. -starman
                                    Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
                                    Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:15:49
                                    To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Subject: [steiner] Re: Intuition and Reason or Rationality as 2 separate
                                    operations

                                     




                                    --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Spiritual cognition? I'm not sure how interested I am in perceiving the spiritual worlds as this is invented anyway (in a healthy way). At some point the time would likely come that the next step would be for me to invent my own spiritual world. I notice that spiritually accomplished people have presented their version of the spiritual world to the public throughout history.
                                    >
                                    > In the past I have personalized Christ as this seemed to work, but now I am ready to take responsibility for my own thoughts.
                                    >
                                    > My interest is realizing my ideals (spiritual?) in the world through ethical action.
                                    >
                                    > I'm sure I have studied the Philosophy Of Freedom more than anyone since it was written. I at least know what is in it and what is not in it, and I see how it is a clear simple philosophy that others can understand (it is written in a difficult way but turns out to be simple when you work through it). I engage in pure thinking influenced by intuition on a daily basis, most any time I want to understand anything. My intuitive capacity has increased so the corresponding concepts rise much easier during the observation. It is difficult for me to discuss an issue with someone who cannot enter pure thinking. I am conscious of applying the POF principles on a daily basis. The result is that I do a good job in grasping reality and making decisions that get results indicating I have grasped the laws at work. My cognition is limited by the temporary normal human limitations of cognition and if I have an particular emotional issue. I am conscious of what an ethical individualist is and of my striving and success in living that life.
                                    >
                                    > I feel I am definitely on the practical path of POF and growing in it on a daily basis. I don't see POF as bringing anything dramatically new to the world or anything beyond the reach of a normal person, you can break down the separate parts and find them else where. What it is unique is how Steiner tied the parts together into a whole, an integrated (thus empowered) individual living to his highest potential, and striving to realize his ideals.
                                    > Tom Last
                                    > www.philosophyoffreedom.com
                                    Thanks, Tom. Spiritual perception as an invention is a very interesting concept to contemplate. Steiner, of course, claimed to be able to objectively investigate the outer spiritual worlds and bring the facts of these worlds to his audience in the form of concepts designed to be worked upon in order to evolve the Consciousness Soul out of the Intellectual Soul as a process of metamorphosis in the tradition of Goethe.
                                    At least, it seems that way to me.
                                    Juan
                                  • juancompostella
                                    ... world is an objective reality you discover, but in another sense you have to create it first in order to find it. At least I think that s what Tom meant.
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Aug 28, 2012
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:

                                      >
                                      > *******I think you both are right, because in one sense the spiritual world is an objective reality you discover, but in another sense you have to create it first in order to find it. At least I think that's what Tom meant. -starman

                                      I just have to post this chapter from Steiner's autobiography because it really says alot about what 'sense-free thinking' is.

                                      It is chapter 10, and he has finished his first 'stage of life' (1861-1891) , and off to Weimar to work in the Goethe-Schiller Institute.

                                      *****Please note that these reflections were written in 1924, which is thirty years after the first publication of POF.

                                       

                                      When I look back upon my life, the first three decades appeal to me as a chapter complete in itself. At the close of this period I removed to Weimar, to work for almost seven years at the Goethe and Schiller Institute. The time that I spent in Vienna between the first journey to Germany, which I have described, and my later settling down in the city of Goethe I look upon as the period which brought to a certain conclusion within me that toward which the mind had been striving. This conclusion found expression in the preparation for my book The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. An essential part of the general ideas in which I then expressed my views consisted in the fact that the sense-world did not pass with me as true reality. In my writings and lectures at that time I always expressed myself in such a way as to make the human mind appear as a true reality in the creation of a thought, which it does not form out of the sense world but unfolds in an activity above the region of sense perception. This sense-free thinking I conceived as that which places the soul within the spiritual being of the world. But I also emphasized strongly the fact that, while man lives within this sense-free thinking, he really finds himself consciously in the spiritual foundations of existence. All talk about limits of knowledge had for me no meaning. Knowing meant to me the rediscovery within the perceptual world of the spiritual content experienced in the soul. When anyone spoke of limits of knowledge, I saw therein the admission that he did not experience spiritually within himself the true reality, and for this reason could not rediscover this in the perceptual world.

                                      The first consideration with me in advancing my own insight was the problem of refuting the conception of the limitation of knowledge. I wished to turn away from that road to knowledge which looked toward the sense-world, and which would then break through from the sense-world into true reality. I desired to make clear that true reality is to be sought, not by such a breaking through from without, but by sinking down into the inner life of man. Whoever seeks to break through from without and then discovers that this is impossible – such a person speaks of the limitation of knowledge. But this impossibility does not consist in a limitation of man's capacity for knowledge, but in the fact that one is seeking for something of which one cannot speak in true self-comprehension. While pressing on farther into the sense-world, one is there seeking in a certain sense a continuation of the sensible behind the perceptual. It is as if one living in illusions should seek in further illusions the causes of his illusions.

                                      The sense of my conception at that time was as follows: While man is evolving from birth onward he stands consciously facing the world. He attains first to physical perception.

                                      But this is at first an outpost of knowledge. In this perception there is not at once revealed all that is in the world. The world is real, but man does not at first attain to this reality. It remains at first closed to him. While he has not yet set his own being over against the world, he fashions for himself a world-conception which is void of being. This conception of the world is really an illusion. In sense-perception man faces a world of illusion. But when from within man sense-free thought comes forth to meet the sense-perception, then illusion is permeated with reality and ceases to be illusion.

                                      Then the human spirit, living its own life within, meets the spirit of the world which is now no longer concealed from man behind the sense-world, but weaves and breathes within the sense-world.

                                      I now saw that the finding of the spirit within the sense-world is not a question of logical inferences or of projection of sense perception, but something which comes to pass when man continues his evolution from perception to the experience of sense-free thinking.

                                      What I wrote in 1888 in the second volume of my edition of Goethe's scientific writings is permeated with such views: "Whoever attributes to thinking his capacity for an awareness which goes beyond sense-perception must also attribute to thought objects which lie beyond mere sense reality. But these objects of thought are ideas. When this thinking of the idea grows strong enough, then it merges with the fundamental existence of the world; what is at work without enters into the spirit of man: he becomes one with objective reality at its highest potency. Becoming aware of the idea within reality is the true communion of man. Thinking has the same significance in relation to the idea as the eye has for light, the ear for sound. It is the organ of perception."(1)

                                      I was then less concerned to represent the world as it is when sense-free thought advances beyond the experience of oneself to a spiritual perception, than I was to show that the being of nature as revealed to sense-perception is spiritual. I wished to express the truth that nature is in reality spiritual. It was inevitable from this that my fate should bring me into conflict with the contemporary formulators of theories of cognition. These conceived, to begin with, a nature void of spirit, and therefore their task was to show how far man is justified in conceiving in his own spirit a spiritual conception of nature. I wished to oppose to this an entirely different theory of cognition. I wished to show that man in thinking does not form conceptions in regard to nature while standing outside of her, but that knowing means experiencing, so that man while knowing is actually inside the being of things. Moreover, it was my fate to knit my own views to those of Goethe. In this union there were many opportunities to show how nature is spiritual, because Goethe had striven toward a spiritual nature; but one does not in the same way have the opportunity to speak of the world of pure spirit as such since Goethe did not carry his spiritual view of nature all the way to direct perception of spirit.

                                      In a secondary degree I was then concerned to find expression for the idea of freedom. When man acts upon his instincts, impulses, passions, etc., he is not free. Then impulses of which he becomes conscious as he does of the impressions from the sense-world determine his action. But his true being is then not acting. He is then acting on a plane where his true being has not yet manifested itself. He then discloses himself as man just as little as the sense-world discloses its being to mere sense-observation. Now, the sense-world is not really an illusion, but is only made such by man. But man in his action can permit the sense-like impulses, desires, etc., really to become illusions; then he permits illusions to act upon him; it is not he himself that acts. He permits the unspiritual to act. His spiritual being acts only when he finds the impulses for action in the moral intuitions of his sense-free thought. Then he alone acts, nothing else. Then he is a free being acting from within. I desired to show that whoever rejects sense-free thought as something purely spiritual in man can never grasp the conception of freedom; but that such a conception comes about the moment one understands the reality of sense-free thinking.

                                      In this field I was at that time less intent upon representing the world of pure spirit, in which man experiences his moral intuitions, than to emphasize the spiritual character of these moral intuitions. Had I been concerned with the former should have been obliged to begin the chapter in The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity on "Moral Imagination" in the following way: "The free spirit acts upon his impulses; these are intuitions which are experienced by him apart from the existence of nature in the world of pure spirit without his being aware of this spiritual world in the ordinary state of consciousness." But it was my concern then only to describe the purely spiritual character of moral intuitions. Therefore I referred to the existence of these intuitions within the totality of the world of human ideas, and said in regard to them: "The free spirit acts upon his impulses, which are intuitions that by means of thought are selected from the totality of his world of ideas." – One who does not direct his gaze toward a world of pure spirit, and who could not, therefore, write the first statement, could also not entirely admit the second. But allusions to the first statement are to be found in plenty in my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity; for example: "The highest stage of the individual life is thinking in concepts without reference to a specific content of perception. We determine the content of a concept by means of pure intuition out of the sphere of ideas. Such a concept then shows no relation to definite perceptions." Here sense-perceptions are intended. Had I then desired to write about the spiritual world, and not merely about the spiritual character of moral intuitions, I should have been forced to refer to the contrast between sense-perceptions and spiritual perceptions. But I was concerned only to emphasize the non-sensible character of moral intuitions.

                                      My world of ideas was moving in this direction when the first chapter of my life ended with my thirtieth year, and my entrance upon the Weimar period.

                                      Notes:

                                      Cf. Einleitung zu Goethes naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften, in Kürschner's Deütsche National-Literatur, p. iv.

                                      http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA028/TSoML/GA028_c10.html

                                    • Durward Starman
                                      ******* Thanks for posting this, Juan, it has been a long time since I read it last. Steiner states clearly here what I wrote, that sense-free thinking is
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Sep 7, 2012
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ******* Thanks for posting this, Juan, it has been a long time since I read it last. Steiner states clearly here what I wrote, that "sense-free thinking" is what we use every time we draw a new concept from the ideal world by intuition. He's saying that he at first was concerned in his philosophical works with demonstrating this to be true, and limiting himself to what the experience of oneself as a spirit being is like, not going into what that self perceives outside itself in a world of spirit until later on in his life. -starman
                                        Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
                                        Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:23:18
                                        To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Subject: [steiner] Re: Intuition and Reason or Rationality as 2 separate
                                        operations

                                         




                                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > *******I think you both are right, because in one sense the spiritual world is an objective reality you discover, but in another sense you have to create it first in order to find it. At least I think that's what Tom meant. -starman

                                        I just have to post this chapter from Steiner's autobiography because it really says alot about what 'sense-free thinking' is.
                                        It is chapter 10, and he has finished his first 'stage of life' (1861-1891) , and off to Weimar to work in the Goethe-Schiller Institute.
                                        *****Please note that these reflections were written in 1924, which is thirty years after the first publication of POF.
                                         
                                        When I look back upon my life, the first three decades appeal to me as a chapter complete in itself. At the close of this period I removed to Weimar, to work for almost seven years at the Goethe and Schiller Institute. The time that I spent in Vienna between the first journey to Germany, which I have described, and my later settling down in the city of Goethe I look upon as the period which brought to a certain conclusion within me that toward which the mind had been striving. This conclusion found expression in the preparation for my book The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. An essential part of the general ideas in which I then expressed my views consisted in the fact that the sense-world did not pass with me as true reality. In my writings and lectures at that time I always expressed myself in such a way as to make the human mind appear as a true reality in the creation of a thought, which it does not form out of the sense world but unfolds in an activity above the region of sense perception. This sense-free thinking I conceived as that which places the soul within the spiritual being of the world. But I also emphasized strongly the fact that, while man lives within this sense-free thinking, he really finds himself consciously in the spiritual foundations of existence. All talk about limits of knowledge had for me no meaning. Knowing meant to me the rediscovery within the perceptual world of the spiritual content experienced in the soul. When anyone spoke of limits of knowledge, I saw therein the admission that he did not experience spiritually within himself the true reality, and for this reason could not rediscover this in the perceptual world.
                                        The first consideration with me in advancing my own insight was the problem of refuting the conception of the limitation of knowledge. I wished to turn away from that road to knowledge which looked toward the sense-world, and which would then break through from the sense-world into true reality. I desired to make clear that true reality is to be sought, not by such a breaking through from without, but by sinking down into the inner life of man. Whoever seeks to break through from without and then discovers that this is impossible – such a person speaks of the limitation of knowledge. But this impossibility does not consist in a limitation of man's capacity for knowledge, but in the fact that one is seeking for something of which one cannot speak in true self-comprehension. While pressing on farther into the sense-world, one is there seeking in a certain sense a continuation of the sensible behind the perceptual. It is as if one living in illusions should seek in further illusions the causes of his illusions.
                                        The sense of my conception at that time was as follows: While man is evolving from birth onward he stands consciously facing the world. He attains first to physical perception.
                                        But this is at first an outpost of knowledge. In this perception there is not at once revealed all that is in the world. The world is real, but man does not at first attain to this reality. It remains at first closed to him. While he has not yet set his own being over against the world, he fashions for himself a world-conception which is void of being. This conception of the world is really an illusion. In sense-perception man faces a world of illusion. But when from within man sense-free thought comes forth to meet the sense-perception, then illusion is permeated with reality and ceases to be illusion.
                                        Then the human spirit, living its own life within, meets the spirit of the world which is now no longer concealed from man behind the sense-world, but weaves and breathes within the sense-world.
                                        I now saw that the finding of the spirit within the sense-world is not a question of logical inferences or of projection of sense perception, but something which comes to pass when man continues his evolution from perception to the experience of sense-free thinking.
                                        What I wrote in 1888 in the second volume of my edition of Goethe's scientific writings is permeated with such views: "Whoever attributes to thinking his capacity for an awareness which goes beyond sense-perception must also attribute to thought objects which lie beyond mere sense reality. But these objects of thought are ideas. When this thinking of the idea grows strong enough, then it merges with the fundamental existence of the world; what is at work without enters into the spirit of man: he becomes one with objective reality at its highest potency. Becoming aware of the idea within reality is the true communion of man. Thinking has the same significance in relation to the idea as the eye has for light, the ear for sound. It is the organ of perception."(1)
                                        I was then less concerned to represent the world as it is when sense-free thought advances beyond the experience of oneself to a spiritual perception, than I was to show that the being of nature as revealed to sense-perception is spiritual. I wished to express the truth that nature is in reality spiritual. It was inevitable from this that my fate should bring me into conflict with the contemporary formulators of theories of cognition. These conceived, to begin with, a nature void of spirit, and therefore their task was to show how far man is justified in conceiving in his own spirit a spiritual conception of nature. I wished to oppose to this an entirely different theory of cognition. I wished to show that man in thinking does not form conceptions in regard to nature while standing outside of her, but that knowing means experiencing, so that man while knowing is actually inside the being of things. Moreover, it was my fate to knit my own views to those of Goethe. In this union there were many opportunities to show how nature is spiritual, because Goethe had striven toward a spiritual nature; but one does not in the same way have the opportunity to speak of the world of pure spirit as such since Goethe did not carry his spiritual view of nature all the way to direct perception of spirit.
                                        In a secondary degree I was then concerned to find expression for the idea of freedom. When man acts upon his instincts, impulses, passions, etc., he is not free. Then impulses of which he becomes conscious as he does of the impressions from the sense-world determine his action. But his true being is then not acting. He is then acting on a plane where his true being has not yet manifested itself. He then discloses himself as man just as little as the sense-world discloses its being to mere sense-observation. Now, the sense-world is not really an illusion, but is only made such by man. But man in his action can permit the sense-like impulses, desires, etc., really to become illusions; then he permits illusions to act upon him; it is not he himself that acts. He permits the unspiritual to act. His spiritual being acts only when he finds the impulses for action in the moral intuitions of his sense-free thought. Then he alone acts, nothing else. Then he is a free being acting from within. I desired to show that whoever rejects sense-free thought as something purely spiritual in man can never grasp the conception of freedom; but that such a conception comes about the moment one understands the reality of sense-free thinking.
                                        In this field I was at that time less intent upon representing the world of pure spirit, in which man experiences his moral intuitions, than to emphasize the spiritual character of these moral intuitions. Had I been concerned with the former should have been obliged to begin the chapter in The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity on "Moral Imagination" in the following way: "The free spirit acts upon his impulses; these are intuitions which are experienced by him apart from the existence of nature in the world of pure spirit without his being aware of this spiritual world in the ordinary state of consciousness." But it was my concern then only to describe the purely spiritual character of moral intuitions. Therefore I referred to the existence of these intuitions within the totality of the world of human ideas, and said in regard to them: "The free spirit acts upon his impulses, which are intuitions that by means of thought are selected from the totality of his world of ideas." – One who does not direct his gaze toward a world of pure spirit, and who could not, therefore, write the first statement, could also not entirely admit the second. But allusions to the first statement are to be found in plenty in my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity; for example: "The highest stage of the individual life is thinking in concepts without reference to a specific content of perception. We determine the content of a concept by means of pure intuition out of the sphere of ideas. Such a concept then shows no relation to definite perceptions." Here sense-perceptions are intended. Had I then desired to write about the spiritual world, and not merely about the spiritual character of moral intuitions, I should have been forced to refer to the contrast between sense-perceptions and spiritual perceptions. But I was concerned only to emphasize the non-sensible character of moral intuitions.
                                        My world of ideas was moving in this direction when the first chapter of my life ended with my thirtieth year, and my entrance upon the Weimar period.

                                        Notes:


                                        Cf. Einleitung zu Goethes naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften, in Kürschner's Deütsche National-Literatur, p. iv.
                                        http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA028/TSoML/GA028_c10.html
                                      • juancompostella
                                        Yes, and absolutely nothing for Tom to get upset about. I only found it opportune to bring POF up with Steiner s later remarks in his biography. He never
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Sep 7, 2012
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Yes, and absolutely nothing for Tom to get upset about. I only found it opportune to bring POF up with Steiner's later remarks in his biography. He never once demurred POF in favor of anthroposophy.

                                          I am extremely disappointed that he left here. He had it going as far as I was concerned. I am a fan of Tom Last and what he does.

                                          Juan

                                          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > ******* Thanks for posting this, Juan, it has been a long time since I read it last. Steiner states clearly here what I wrote, that "sense-free thinking" is what we use every time we draw a new concept from the ideal world by intuition. He's saying that he at first was concerned in his philosophical works with demonstrating this to be true, and limiting himself to what the experience of oneself as a spirit being is like, not going into what that self perceives outside itself in a world of spirit until later on in his life. -starman
                                          > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                                          >
                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          > From: juancompostella <juancompostella@...>
                                          > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:23:18
                                          > To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
                                          > Subject: [steiner] Re: Intuition and Reason or Rationality as 2 separate
                                          > operations
                                          >
                                          >  
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Durward Starman " <DrStarman@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > *******I think you both are right, because in one sense the spiritual world is an objective reality you discover, but in another sense you have to create it first in order to find it. At least I think that's what Tom meant. -starman
                                          >
                                          > I just have to post this chapter from Steiner's autobiography because it really says alot about what 'sense-free thinking' is.
                                          > It is chapter 10, and he has finished his first 'stage of life' (1861-1891) , and off to Weimar to work in the Goethe-Schiller Institute.
                                          > *****Please note that these reflections were written in 1924, which is thirty years after the first publication of POF.
                                          >  
                                          > When I look back upon my life, the first three decades appeal to me as a chapter complete in itself. At the close of this period I removed to Weimar, to work for almost seven years at the Goethe and Schiller Institute. The time that I spent in Vienna between the first journey to Germany, which I have described, and my later settling down in the city of Goethe I look upon as the period which brought to a certain conclusion within me that toward which the mind had been striving. This conclusion found expression in the preparation for my book The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. An essential part of the general ideas in which I then expressed my views consisted in the fact that the sense-world did not pass with me as true reality. In my writings and lectures at that time I always expressed myself in such a way as to make the human mind appear as a true reality in the creation of a thought, which it does not form out of the sense world but unfolds in an activity above the region of sense perception. This sense-free thinking I conceived as that which places the soul within the spiritual being of the world. But I also emphasized strongly the fact that, while man lives within this sense-free thinking, he really finds himself consciously in the spiritual foundations of existence. All talk about limits of knowledge had for me no meaning. Knowing meant to me the rediscovery within the perceptual world of the spiritual content experienced in the soul. When anyone spoke of limits of knowledge, I saw therein the admission that he did not experience spiritually within himself the true reality, and for this reason could not rediscover this in the perceptual world.
                                          > The first consideration with me in advancing my own insight was the problem of refuting the conception of the limitation of knowledge. I wished to turn away from that road to knowledge which looked toward the sense-world, and which would then break through from the sense-world into true reality. I desired to make clear that true reality is to be sought, not by such a breaking through from without, but by sinking down into the inner life of man. Whoever seeks to break through from without and then discovers that this is impossible – such a person speaks of the limitation of knowledge. But this impossibility does not consist in a limitation of man's capacity for knowledge, but in the fact that one is seeking for something of which one cannot speak in true self-comprehension. While pressing on farther into the sense-world, one is there seeking in a certain sense a continuation of the sensible behind the perceptual. It is as if one living in illusions should seek in further illusions the causes of his illusions.
                                          > The sense of my conception at that time was as follows: While man is evolving from birth onward he stands consciously facing the world. He attains first to physical perception.
                                          > But this is at first an outpost of knowledge. In this perception there is not at once revealed all that is in the world. The world is real, but man does not at first attain to this reality. It remains at first closed to him. While he has not yet set his own being over against the world, he fashions for himself a world-conception which is void of being. This conception of the world is really an illusion. In sense-perception man faces a world of illusion. But when from within man sense-free thought comes forth to meet the sense-perception, then illusion is permeated with reality and ceases to be illusion.
                                          > Then the human spirit, living its own life within, meets the spirit of the world which is now no longer concealed from man behind the sense-world, but weaves and breathes within the sense-world.
                                          > I now saw that the finding of the spirit within the sense-world is not a question of logical inferences or of projection of sense perception, but something which comes to pass when man continues his evolution from perception to the experience of sense-free thinking.
                                          > What I wrote in 1888 in the second volume of my edition of Goethe's scientific writings is permeated with such views: "Whoever attributes to thinking his capacity for an awareness which goes beyond sense-perception must also attribute to thought objects which lie beyond mere sense reality. But these objects of thought are ideas. When this thinking of the idea grows strong enough, then it merges with the fundamental existence of the world; what is at work without enters into the spirit of man: he becomes one with objective reality at its highest potency. Becoming aware of the idea within reality is the true communion of man. Thinking has the same significance in relation to the idea as the eye has for light, the ear for sound. It is the organ of perception."(1)
                                          > I was then less concerned to represent the world as it is when sense-free thought advances beyond the experience of oneself to a spiritual perception, than I was to show that the being of nature as revealed to sense-perception is spiritual. I wished to express the truth that nature is in reality spiritual. It was inevitable from this that my fate should bring me into conflict with the contemporary formulators of theories of cognition. These conceived, to begin with, a nature void of spirit, and therefore their task was to show how far man is justified in conceiving in his own spirit a spiritual conception of nature. I wished to oppose to this an entirely different theory of cognition. I wished to show that man in thinking does not form conceptions in regard to nature while standing outside of her, but that knowing means experiencing, so that man while knowing is actually inside the being of things. Moreover, it was my fate to knit my own views to those of Goethe. In this union there were many opportunities to show how nature is spiritual, because Goethe had striven toward a spiritual nature; but one does not in the same way have the opportunity to speak of the world of pure spirit as such since Goethe did not carry his spiritual view of nature all the way to direct perception of spirit.
                                          > In a secondary degree I was then concerned to find expression for the idea of freedom. When man acts upon his instincts, impulses, passions, etc., he is not free. Then impulses of which he becomes conscious as he does of the impressions from the sense-world determine his action. But his true being is then not acting. He is then acting on a plane where his true being has not yet manifested itself. He then discloses himself as man just as little as the sense-world discloses its being to mere sense-observation. Now, the sense-world is not really an illusion, but is only made such by man. But man in his action can permit the sense-like impulses, desires, etc., really to become illusions; then he permits illusions to act upon him; it is not he himself that acts. He permits the unspiritual to act. His spiritual being acts only when he finds the impulses for action in the moral intuitions of his sense-free thought. Then he alone acts, nothing else. Then he is a free being acting from within. I desired to show that whoever rejects sense-free thought as something purely spiritual in man can never grasp the conception of freedom; but that such a conception comes about the moment one understands the reality of sense-free thinking.
                                          > In this field I was at that time less intent upon representing the world of pure spirit, in which man experiences his moral intuitions, than to emphasize the spiritual character of these moral intuitions. Had I been concerned with the former should have been obliged to begin the chapter in The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity on "Moral Imagination" in the following way: "The free spirit acts upon his impulses; these are intuitions which are experienced by him apart from the existence of nature in the world of pure spirit without his being aware of this spiritual world in the ordinary state of consciousness." But it was my concern then only to describe the purely spiritual character of moral intuitions. Therefore I referred to the existence of these intuitions within the totality of the world of human ideas, and said in regard to them: "The free spirit acts upon his impulses, which are intuitions that by means of thought are selected from the totality of his world of ideas." – One who does not direct his gaze toward a world of pure spirit, and who could not, therefore, write the first statement, could also not entirely admit the second. But allusions to the first statement are to be found in plenty in my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity; for example: "The highest stage of the individual life is thinking in concepts without reference to a specific content of perception. We determine the content of a concept by means of pure intuition out of the sphere of ideas. Such a concept then shows no relation to definite perceptions." Here sense-perceptions are intended. Had I then desired to write about the spiritual world, and not merely about the spiritual character of moral intuitions, I should have been forced to refer to the contrast between sense-perceptions and spiritual perceptions. But I was concerned only to emphasize the non-sensible character of moral intuitions.
                                          > My world of ideas was moving in this direction when the first chapter of my life ended with my thirtieth year, and my entrance upon the Weimar period.
                                          >
                                          > Notes:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Cf. Einleitung zu Goethes naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften, in Kürschner's Deütsche National-Literatur, p. iv.
                                          > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA028/TSoML/GA028_c10.html
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.