The basics again 2

[Federica]

I wanted to share a essay (series) I currently reading on Substack:
https://open.substack.com/pub/arranroge ... medium=ios

It’s very interesting, because he speaks about the thinking activity that really makes up the world around us. I don’t think that he has knowledge about PoF or other writings from Steiner, but more a jungian perspective, but it’s very interesting how things overlap in the new streams of spiritual wisdom. I would find it interesting to hear some of your thoughts.

Thanks for the suggestion, Güney. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to another thread, will see. I have read the Substack. I have only a minute now, but here is my first impression: there are some great insights in there, but also a fair amount of rather sloppy thinking, in my opinion. Perhaps you could find and highlight the parts where the reasoning is incompatible with PoF. There are a few, I believe. Great idea to share examples such as this, and great exercise, anyway.

[Güney27]

I wanted to share a essay (series) I currently reading on Substack:
https://open.substack.com/pub/arranroge ... medium=ios

It’s very interesting, because he speaks about the thinking activity that really makes up the world around us. I don’t think that he has knowledge about PoF or other writings from Steiner, but more a jungian perspective, but it’s very interesting how things overlap in the new streams of spiritual wisdom. I would find it interesting to hear some of your thoughts.

Thanks for the suggestion, Güney. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to another thread, will see. I have read the Substack. I have only a minute now, but here is my first impression: there are some great insights in there, but also a fair amount of rather sloppy thinking, in my opinion. Perhaps you could find and highlight the parts where the reasoning is incompatible with PoF. There are a few, I believe. Great idea to share examples such as this, and great exercise, anyway.

Federica,

of course his thinking isn’t a hundred percent harmonic with PoF, but that isn’t necessary. He is very accurate in his account for how we gain an orientation trough our capacity of thinking. He is saying that apes had this ability too in some sense ( I don’t know for sure but I think he believes in the standard evolutionary approach), but it isn’t so important for the idea he tries to express.

If you read trough for examples Jung’s work, you would surely recognize that he states things that seem incompatible with PoF, or aren’t express as clearly, but you could still learn other important things about his study of the soul life of humans. We all noticed that there are antroposophist that idealize Steiners persona and anthroposophy, and don’t really think that there isn’t something valuable in the works of others. I noticed that tendency in myself, and i don’t think that it is a good tendency. RS work is certainly very detailed in its expression of higher order processes that shape our current expression, but there are other expressions too (maybe in less detail, or with a focus on other aspects). I thought for example that PoF and Jung hadn’t much in common, but reading more into both works, shows exactly the opposite. If the tendency mentioned about would be shaping my perspective, I would be limited and wouldn’t have come to certain insights and paths of thinking so to say. I don’t say that you are limited in your thinking, I just want to highlight certain observations I made about the topic, and to hear other perspectives.

[Güney27]

Ps
In that particular case there is the problem that the author looks at art myths and religion as tools serving an evolutionary perspective.
I think that there is truth in evolutionary psychology. I mean it in the sense that we as humans, have the same impulses as animals, working in us, and are necessarily, to survive. I don’t know very much about the narrative of Darwin’s theory, and the fossils scientists study and so on. I would be interested if someone knows more about the theory and would eludicate the thinking method, that leads to these ideas.

[AshvinP]

Ps
In that particular case there is the problem that the author looks at art myths and religion as tools serving an evolutionary perspective.
I think that there is truth in evolutionary psychology. I mean it in the sense that we as humans, have the same impulses as animals, working in us, and are necessarily, to survive. I don’t know very much about the narrative of Darwin’s theory, and the fossils scientists study and so on. I would be interested if someone knows more about the theory and would eludicate the thinking method, that leads to these ideas.

Guney,

I don't have much time to respond now, but I will point your attention to The Redemption of the Animals. I have been reading it recently and it does a great job elaborating the Darwinian evolutionary perspective, along with the latest views held by natural scientists, and comparing that to the spiritual scientific perspective.

“A large proportion of our present higher animals are nothing other than human beings who were so entangled in their passions that they became hardened and ceased to evolve further. The animals came into being as a consequence of the hardening of human passions. The feelings experienced by an individual who looks about him with real occult understanding are as follows: In the course of becoming a human being, I have passed through what I encounter today in the form of lions and snakes. I have lived in all these forms, because my own inner being has been involved with the traits that are expressed in these animal forms.” ― Rudolf Steiner (Universe, Earth, and Man, p. 94)

As human beings, what is our true relationship to the animals on earth? What is our responsibility to our fellow creatures? Douglas Sloan explores these and other questions in this important book on the human-animal connection. His explorations are based on personal experience and wide-ranging research into the work of Rudolf Steiner and others, including scientist students of the inner life of animals and committed defenders of animal wellbeing.

Rudolf Steiner describes how, from the beginning of creation, humans and animals have been united in deep kinship. A loss of the sense of this human–animal connection has resulted in an immense animal suffering the world over. Especially now, in their suffering, animals pose many pressing and perplexing questions for the modern humankind, which constitute the primary focus of this book, as well as how Rudolf Steiner presents a vision of the ultimate redemption of the animals from their suffering. What is the nature of this redemption? What is our responsibility in making it happen?

Exploring these and related questions with the help of Rudolf Steiner’s work and that of others on the issue, we begin to see the importance today of relating to animals in a completely new way―a relationship that can understand and respect the animals’ inner spiritual being, and one that requires a deep grasp of our own spiritual being in relation to theirs. Douglas Sloan helps us toward this new relationship with animals, both conceptually and through our everyday actions.

[Federica]

Federica,

of course his thinking isn’t a hundred percent harmonic with PoF, but that isn’t necessary. He is very accurate in his account for how we gain an orientation trough our capacity of thinking. He is saying that apes had this ability too in some sense ( I don’t know for sure but I think he believes in the standard evolutionary approach), but it isn’t so important for the idea he tries to express.

If you read trough for examples Jung’s work, you would surely recognize that he states things that seem incompatible with PoF, or aren’t express as clearly, but you could still learn other important things about his study of the soul life of humans. We all noticed that there are antroposophist that idealize Steiners persona and anthroposophy, and don’t really think that there isn’t something valuable in the works of others. I noticed that tendency in myself, and i don’t think that it is a good tendency. RS work is certainly very detailed in its expression of higher order processes that shape our current expression, but there are other expressions too (maybe in less detail, or with a focus on other aspects). I thought for example that PoF and Jung hadn’t much in common, but reading more into both works, shows exactly the opposite. If the tendency mentioned about would be shaping my perspective, I would be limited and wouldn’t have come to certain insights and paths of thinking so to say. I don’t say that you are limited in your thinking, I just want to highlight certain observations I made about the topic, and to hear other perspectives.

I have moved this topic since it has more to do with the basics of cognition than with Levin and the morphological spaces.

In the substack you shared, there is the great insight that we do not just perceive an external world that is out there, condensed in a certain way, and just waiting to be perceived as such. Rather, we co-create it by receiving the concepts and ideas that connect with the objects of perception. What he calls “objects” we usually call concepts and ideas. Anyway, it’s true that human evolution has led to the intellectual soul, which implies certain technological manipulation of the sensory spectrum through conceptual laboring (what he calls toolbox). In reality that didn’t unfold as described, since we didn’t evolve from animals, but I agree there is an attention to the phenomenology of cognition and a rejection of the naive approach to reality. That's good. Now, once described that evolution, the author says, speaking of "objects":

"Rather, they are psychological projections we throw onto the material world in order to manipulate it. That is because we do not perceive the material world itself, we can only use our senses—like sight and touch—to take in information and try our best to predict ‘what is there’ and how we should engage with what is there."


which is a bit worrying: does he mean there is a world-in-itself that we do not have access to? It really seems this is what he means, and we all know the fallacy contained in this dualistic perspective. It’s not a matter of idolizing Steiner - I agree with you, that would be inappropriate - it’s a matter of inquiring whether or not this author has captured aspects of the one truth, like Steiner and others did. Then things get worse with the following statement:

“So reality, as we think of it, is a landscape of projections”


As we know, reality is not a landscape of projections. Probably, this is the (little sloppy) thought of someone who, after the nice insight, has fallen back to a viewpoint from which “reality” is conceptualized on the back of the physical world. And the thought may have been: “the world looks material, but it’s actually not. We think it up, we generate it, and what we perceive is our own creation”. This is true in the sense that our perceptions arise from senses and from concepts together. But the quick conclusion that reality is that layer of “conjured up” projections is not true. He gives the example of seeing a deer in the distance, only to realize it was actually a piece of wood. He says:

"The material thing that was ‘actually there’ did not transform from a deer into a mass of wood"


But as we know, there is no material thing in itself actually there.

We could go on analyzing what he reasons out sentence by sentence. There are a few more issues down the road. Again, what’s great is the attention applied to the process of cognition. But the phenomenology is not maintained all the way through, with the necessary discipline of thought that we find in PoF, which would lead to the focus point of thinking activity. Rather, some die-hard mental habits of our times slip into the reasoning and deflate it. The fallibility of perception is true. However, the author is too quick to conclude that reality is a landscape of projections. Do you agree with that?

[Güney27]

Federica,

of course his thinking isn’t a hundred percent harmonic with PoF, but that isn’t necessary. He is very accurate in his account for how we gain an orientation trough our capacity of thinking. He is saying that apes had this ability too in some sense ( I don’t know for sure but I think he believes in the standard evolutionary approach), but it isn’t so important for the idea he tries to express.

If you read trough for examples Jung’s work, you would surely recognize that he states things that seem incompatible with PoF, or aren’t express as clearly, but you could still learn other important things about his study of the soul life of humans. We all noticed that there are antroposophist that idealize Steiners persona and anthroposophy, and don’t really think that there isn’t something valuable in the works of others. I noticed that tendency in myself, and i don’t think that it is a good tendency. RS work is certainly very detailed in its expression of higher order processes that shape our current expression, but there are other expressions too (maybe in less detail, or with a focus on other aspects). I thought for example that PoF and Jung hadn’t much in common, but reading more into both works, shows exactly the opposite. If the tendency mentioned about would be shaping my perspective, I would be limited and wouldn’t have come to certain insights and paths of thinking so to say. I don’t say that you are limited in your thinking, I just want to highlight certain observations I made about the topic, and to hear other perspectives.

I have moved this topic since it has more to do with the basics of cognition than with Levin and the morphological spaces.

In the substack you shared, there is the great insight that we do not just perceive an external world that is out there, condensed in a certain way, and just waiting to be perceived as such. Rather, we co-create it by receiving the concepts and ideas that connect with the objects of perception. What he calls “objects” we usually call concepts and ideas. Anyway, it’s true that human evolution has led to the intellectual soul, which implies certain technological manipulation of the sensory spectrum through conceptual laboring (what he calls toolbox). In reality that didn’t unfold as described, since we didn’t evolve from animals, but I agree there is an attention to the phenomenology of cognition and a rejection of the naive approach to reality. That's good. Now, once described that evolution, the author says, speaking of "objects":

"Rather, they are psychological projections we throw onto the material world in order to manipulate it. That is because we do not perceive the material world itself, we can only use our senses—like sight and touch—to take in information and try our best to predict ‘what is there’ and how we should engage with what is there."


which is a bit worrying: does he mean there is a world-in-itself that we do not have access to? It really seems this is what he means, and we all know the fallacy contained in this dualistic perspective. It’s not a matter of idolizing Steiner - I agree with you, that would be inappropriate - it’s a matter of inquiring whether or not this author has captured aspects of the one truth, like Steiner and others did. Then things get worse with the following statement:

“So reality, as we think of it, is a landscape of projections”


As we know, reality is not a landscape of projections. Probably, this is the (little sloppy) thought of someone who, after the nice insight, has fallen back to a viewpoint from which “reality” is conceptualized on the back of the physical world. And the thought may have been: “the world looks material, but it’s actually not. We think it up, we generate it, and what we perceive is our own creation”. This is true in the sense that our perceptions arise from senses and from concepts together. But the quick conclusion that reality is that layer of “conjured up” projections is not true. He gives the example of seeing a deer in the distance, only to realize it was actually a piece of wood. He says:

"The material thing that was ‘actually there’ did not transform from a deer into a mass of wood"


But as we know, there is no material thing in itself actually there.

We could go on analyzing what he reasons out sentence by sentence. There are a few more issues down the road. Again, what’s great is the attention applied to the process of cognition. But the phenomenology is not maintained all the way through, with the necessary discipline of thought that we find in PoF, which would lead to the focus point of thinking activity. Rather, some die-hard mental habits of our times slip into the reasoning and deflate it. The fallibility of perception is true. However, the author is too quick to conclude that reality is a landscape of projections. Do you agree with that?

Yes Federica I agree.
He implies that there is a real world, over which we project a landscape. But if we want to stick by the given facts, there is only a constant metamorphosing conscious state of experience, which we can (partly) guide trough our intentional activity. If we ask for example „Out of what is the world made of?“ we imply in the question asked, that there is a world independent from our experience of it, that is made of from a certain substance, and we want to find it out , trough mimicking the appearance of it.
These are assumptions that are taken for granted perhaps unconsciously. And they are not provable (how could you prove something, if it isn’t experienceable in principle). It is really great, that one have do deconstruct those assumptions, in order to do phenomenological inquiry.