Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[Eugene I]

'pure experience' that is in need of concepts to be grasped

The concepts to be grasped, as well as grasping any concepts, are as much "pure experience" as any non-conceptual experiences (sensation, emotions etc).

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

You took that bolded part and somehow saw it as the opposite of my point. I even think Cleric may have understood me there

I was clearly saying that Barfield's work helps explain why the ancients didn't just stand there and see the idols of the study.

Barfield showed us clearly the reason why modern consciousness believes in attaching concepts to supposedly pure percepts.

Barfield's work helps us understand what has to be assumed in order to imagine there must be a 'pure experience' that is in need of concepts to be grasped.

I don't think I misunderstand this aspect of his work at all.

And so when we come across a modern thinker who either implicitly or explicitly insists that 'we must begin by' realizing the disticntion between a purely perceptual environment that needs to thinking to 'find a point of attack' so that it can begin selecting and attaching the correct concepts to that environment, we can let Barfield stand very close to us and remind us the more subtle ways that The Idols of The Study will shape what seems like an obvious and clear starting point.

Not all modern thinkers express this kind of thinking the same way. In fact, they all will find their own unique way of expressing it and it won't be conscious. It is presupposed in the very structure of their figuration itself.

That is why it is so *obvious* to them. That is why we should have radars that go off when we read a philosopher say something like, "Everyone can see this is at once the case." or "Nobody could argue with this unless they are willfully..." Those are all indications that we may be near the Idols of The Study or some other deep unrecognized assumptions.

Steiner's comments of praise for Volket's description of so-called 'pure experience (and others whom he praised for recognizing this essential 'fact') are just one helpful way of getting to this spot.

FB, no you still are not understanding Barfield or what I commented. He is actually the one who said, "the obvious is the hardest thing of all to point out to someone who has genuinely lost sight of it." So he recognized there are very obvious things people simply ignore. In fact he talks about more in relation to perception-thought in History. Guilt and Habit. I can share the relevant excerpts later. That "obviousness" is very applicable when it comes to leaving metamorphic Thinking in the blind spot.

You are not seeing how consciousness has metamorphosed from one that finds ready-made meaning in sense perceptions (original participation) to modern consciousness which does not and therefore must Think its way back to that Divine source of meaning through ever-expanding cognition. That, in a crude nutshell, is the "attaching" process Steiner writes about. You are also taking a modern notion of mechanistic attachment and saying, because that is not really found in PoF (which is correct), the rest of his philosophy of Thinking as uniquely integrative spiritual activity is a misconception which he sort of cleared up in later edition. But that is totally wrong, and Barfield's quotes also show why he shared Steiner's philosophy of Thinking in the way we are describing it here.

[Cleric]

Blanks,

It's more than clear that every fruit of the Spirit appears in certain historical and metamorphic context. It would be foolish to believe that PoF is the final word and should become a bible set in stone till the end of time. For one, PoF speaks about many things that had to balance the widespread erroneous conceptions of the day, at the turn of the 20th century. The first chapter of PoF, for example, is of this kind, which can be only properly understood if one can feel the philosophical context of the time. In that chapter he was practically leading a dialog with various philosophers in order to outline the problems that are to be tackled in the following pages.

If PoF was completely enough, Steiner wouldn't bother to develop the science of Initiation. Yet there's also something within the essence of PoF that endures even in the higher forms of cognition. This is also the reason that, as you know, when Steiner was asked if all his work was to burn without a trace in history and only one book is allowed to survive, which one he would choose, he answered without hesitation: PoF.

It's little sad that we spend so much time and energy on this splitting of hairs. We're wasting time on discussing the various way that PoF can be misunderstood, instead of helping people to understand it. Unfortunately, I suspect that there are people in the forum who now think that it's useless to read PoF because it's 'outdated', it is incorrect, misleading, etc.

I still maintain that the essence of PoF can be grasped even from the first edition. Or even in prior works (like ToK). The simple fact is that the closer we approach to the Core of thinking, the more it becomes necessary to experience it and not only to think about that core abstractly. From this we can already see that there's simply no perfect formulation of these ideas. You can be pretty sure that even if you take on to rewrite PoF in the language that you find more precise, there still won't be a shortage of people who will misunderstand it. Why? Because what you're describing can never be put into words as simply as "I'm here, thinking and perceiving are there in front of me, it's all about finding the the most precise words". This is not how it works. The more thinking approaches itself, the more it begins to twist, chasing its own tail. It is at this point that it's crucial to understand the role of the exceptional state and the fact that all our perceptible thoughts are already in the past compared to our current thinking. Yet this can no longer be described in the comfortable way where the things pictured sit calmly before us, as if independently from our activity. In certain sense, when we speak about thinking, we speak parables, even though parables with very precise forms. We only understand the thoughts contained in PoF when we are able to produce them out of ourselves.

As far as the quotes - you're correct - I can't point at a place where he says in clear text "There's no such thing as pure perception or pure experience". But I still maintain that the careful reader who strives for the essence of the things, will not at all be tempted to imagine pure perceptions devoid of ideal element (concept, meaning). I'm sure that you won't be satisfied by the following but nevertheless:

What, then, is a perception? This question, when asked in a general way, is absurd. A perception always arises as an entirely specific one, as a definite content. This content is directly given, and is all that is in the given. One can only ask with respect to this given, what it is besides perception, i.e., what it is for thinking. Thus, the question about the “what” of a perception can only refer to the conceptual intuition that corresponds to it.

The big question here is, why does he speak of perception as 'something' if it's impossible to behold it apart from concept? Because it makes a great difference in the way we unfold our inner stance. The whole chapter (and the previous) aim to draw a distinction between what Steiner speaks of and the erroneous understanding of idealism (which is still very strong today) as if the whole world content is only a mental picture. We must speak of perceptions if we are to balance this out. The bolded part above makes it clear (even though you'll probably object that it is not clear enough) that we always experience in relation to a perception our ideal intuition of it (even if only very vaguely). Yet we're justified of speaking of perceptions because we can recognize in the very dynamics of our own thinking, that we're confronting with our intuitions (concepts) something objective - in the sense that it is not merely a subjective mental picture. There's something that resists our thinking, that our activity 'rubs against'. This is tremendously important and it fully justifies the differentiation between concepts and perceptions. One can protest against this differentiation only if all World Content is viewed as mental pictures. Then one asks "why divide what is already united?" Yes, our actual mental pictures are united but when we think about what is independent of our own activity, our thinking confronts certain resistance, just like our fingers feel resistance when we touch something in the dark. What we experience is the conceptual intuition (the bolded text) of the sense of touch but we also understand that these experiences are not simply something that we summon ourselves but result from our activity confronting something. That's why we can speak of perceptions. Not in order to postulate another subjective element independent of concepts but to point attention to the fact that our thinking (and the intuitions it experiences) takes its shape as the result of a two-way interaction - on one side it's our willing of the thinking, on the other is the perceptual resistance we confront. I agree that a whole other book can be written to make these things more clear. For example, even if we think mathematically we confront some resistance, although, I have to use terms from spiritual science, we now live through the resistance of the etheric body, and not the sense organs. It's obvious that these fine differentiations were not possible in PoF, so there's no point in objecting that it doesn't go in the full resolution of things. Whoever strives for the full resolution would simply continue further into spiritual science.

The thing is that as long as one strives to grasp the essence, all these details become comprehensible in the right way. Here's the place to say that Steiner didn't simply 'thought out' PoF by experimenting with arrangements of thoughts. Let's not forget that he already had from young age the experiences of higher cognition. In a sense, PoF proceeded as a testimony for a living spiritual experience. And that's why things are quite different in Steiner and Schop. Steiner had the spiritual experiences and his whole life was a process of development of vocabulary for these experiences and its refinement (which in itself propels spiritual vision even further). It's only natural that through the years he would find better ways to put things into words. The fact remains, though, that these higher experiences are the actual source and inspiration for everything in PoF. That's why I keep repeating that as long as one grasps the essence, one can perfectly well understand what he meant even if the wordings are considered imperfect. This is the important thing - nothing of the refinement of these wordings doesn't change the essence. This is key. And to grasp the essence we need to encompass each of these books as something whole.

Now you claim that the same can be said about Schop, although in the reverse direction. But there's difference. We lose track of the big picture only when we indulge in splitting hairs over technicalities.
Consider what is changing in Steiner's works through the years. It's the refinement of the words and expansion of spiritual perception. If we consider the deeper impulse, we see that it is completely consistent all through. It has always been to guide man to experience his rightful place within spiritual reality, as a free being. Yes, when this is not grasped, one can go into a dead end if they focus in isolation on something like "perceptions devoid of concepts". If things are grasped as a whole, the whole by itself corrects the details and one sees things in the way they were intended and not in the way they can be misunderstood.

It's not quite the same with Schop. Let's imagine that he could have lived several more decades and he could continue his own refinement. If he would pursue the cognitive element inherent in will, into the depths of the human being he would find the fully conscious spiritual world. There he would find that the Will of Nature is not at all blind but is the activity of fully conscious beings that implement certain ideas in everything they do. Now how could this potential experience of Schop be integrated with all his previous work? How would that integrate with the whole mood of pessimism, for example? His pessimism stemmed directly from the fact that the cognitive part of man was grafted on top of the blind giant. His only consolation was the beauty of the pure ideal forms. Now how could one remain a pessimist if he penetrates in a world that is weaved out of meaning through and through? How could he remain a pessimist if he glimpses at the fact that man's real life hasn't even begun? That what we experience at the moment is nothing but the labor pain of humanity's birth as a free spiritual being that is destined to weave creatively in the Cosmos? There are so many things that change! Instead of advocating ascetic distancing from the meaningless social organism, one is filled with Love and strength to participate in the development of Cosmic Man. You see, Schop would have to revisit his life long work not simply be refining the wordings. The whole philosophy of life turns upside down. He would never be able to rectify these things by patching few addendums under line in the new edition of The World as Will and Representation. Instead, he would have to write new books which would express radically different soul mood. The least of which would be that his pessimism would be transformed into full blown optimism and joy when glimpsing at the potential future in front of humanity.

In Steiner these impulses of optimism, freedom and cognitive penetration into reality were present from very young age. Thus his life progression was about the perfection of these impulses. You are right that in his next incarnation he would have things to say about PoF. But even thousands of years from now, the core of PoF will remain valid. As you know PoF is not simply a collection of philosophical musings but represents a living description of the blossoming of the consciousness soul on the soil of the intellectual soul. So in certain sense PoF is a very complicated description of an objective milestone of evolution, just as the changing of the teeth is a specific stage of human development. So in the far future, PoF will be a thing of the past but not something that will be considered incomplete and replaced by something else. It will be embedded eternally in the metamorphic process of humanity as a seed point from which the consciousness soul will blossom (or would have blossomed when seen by men of the future). I hope it's clear that when I say PoF I don't mean simply the book but the living organ within the body of Cosmic Man, of which the book is only a historical account.

[findingblanks]

"You are not seeing how consciousness has metamorphosed from one that finds ready-made meaning in sense perceptions (original participation) to modern consciousness which does not and therefore must Think its way back to that Divine source of meaning through ever-expanding cognition."

As long as you agree with Barfield as to why The Idols Of The Study came about and what is the error within them, we are just fine. I don't need you to believe I have a handle on Barfield. But you were so wrong about my take on the ancients that I just needed to know you at least see the error of treating any percept as an idol, an idol as defined by Bardiled as any representation, image or appearance not experienced as such.

[findingblanks]

"I still maintain that the essence of PoF can be grasped even from the first edition."

I love how you say that as if I haven't repeated the same thing 77 times

My first request was to show me where in PoF, without reference to the new editions, Steiner is showing straightforwardly that experience is intrinsically and always cognitive to some degree. I said it will be difficult but it isn't impossible. But this has been ignored except for point to parts of chapter one that certainly don't show that. I'll be coming back to that when I'm at a keyboard.

"I still maintain that the essence of PoF can be grasped even from the first edition."

[AshvinP]

"You are not seeing how consciousness has metamorphosed from one that finds ready-made meaning in sense perceptions (original participation) to modern consciousness which does not and therefore must Think its way back to that Divine source of meaning through ever-expanding cognition."

As long as you agree with Barfield as to why The Idols Of The Study came about and what is the error within them, we are just fine. I don't need you to believe I have a handle on Barfield. But you were so wrong about my take on the ancients that I just needed to know you at least see the error of treating any percept as an idol, an idol as defined by Bardiled as any representation, image or appearance not experienced as such.

Of course I agree with him, but his position is the opposite of the position you have taken here and the one you are trying to use him as support for. In fact, the biggest idol of the study in the modern age, for Barfield, was naive materialism and naive philosophy of Will. One takes percept of physical objects to be thing in itself and the other takes inner percept of willing activity to be thing in itself. And Barfield's remedy for modern idolatry, as was Steiner's, was for individual to bring forth spiritual sight from within through higher cognition and therefore perceive the realm from which these idols are brought forth. That is his "final participation".

Sometimes I think you have created a game to challenge yourself - take famous philosophers and try to convince others they argues for exact opposite position everyone thinks they held. it's a good challenge but not likely to work with people actually familiar with Steiner and Barfield.

[findingblanks]

Ashvin, so far you haven't understood what I've said about Barfield. I say we continue blaming me fully for that, because I've already agreed that I'm playing a major role in the confusion. And your utter certainly is a kind of compost that I can really get into.

Tell me this. If Steiner's reincarnation was 23 years old right now, reading PoF, respecting it in general, but disgusted by an key aspect of it.... well first

1) Can you even imagine that is possible?
2) What aspect could it be?

Thanks!

[findingblanks]

Many Anthropsophical teachers, when speaking about the concentration exercise, say that when we really grasp the essence of the pencil we are grasping what we understood as a child when we first learned what a pencil was.

This wrong in many ways. I think the core error is very related to some of what we are talking about.

Yes, an object traditionally used as a car can "really" be a pencil. But that's only the half of it.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, so far you haven't understood what I've said about Barfield. I say we continue blaming me fully for that, because I've already agreed that I'm playing a major role in the confusion. And your utter certainly is a kind of compost that I can really get into.

Tell me this. If Steiner's reincarnation was 23 years old right now, reading PoF, respecting it in general, but disgusted by an key aspect of it.... well first

1) Can you even imagine that is possible?
2) What aspect could it be?

Thanks!

I have nothing to add to your questions more helpful and insightful than what Cleric has already responded, up to and including his last lengthy comment which you basically brushed off with "you are just saying what I already said!" (more on that in next comment). I will, however, provide the Barfield quotation from History, Guilt, and Habit that I was thinking of before, which should reveal to you that I understand exactly what you are saying about Barfield. And, while reading it, and coming to the bolded statements, I will ask you to ask yourself what those bolded statements imply for this topic of philosophy of Will vs. philosophy of Thinking (regardless of Schopenhauer and Steiner). I am happy to clarify what I mean if it is not evident to you. I hope you will take me up on that so we can move in the direction of the living essences of these philosophical positions.

Interesting attempts have been made to arrive at the relation between thinking and perceiving by imagining them actually divided from each other. You may remember Williams James's supposition of a confrontation between, on the one hand, the environment... and, on the other, a man who possessed all the organs of perception, but who had never done any thinking. He demonstrated that such a man would perceive nothing, or nothing but what James called "a blooming buzzing confusion". Well, he was only expressing in his own blunt way the conclusion which always is arrived at by all who make the same attempt, whether philosophers, psychologists, neurologists, or physicists. Unfortunately it is also a conclusion which is commonly forgotten by those same [people] almost as soon it has been arrived at; or certainly as soon as they turn their minds to other matters - such as history or evolution - but which I personally decline to forget. I mean the conclusion, the irrefragable consensus, that what we perceive is structurally inseparable from what we think.
...
The distinction between [perceiving and thinking] is... rather easy to lose sight of, once we begin to reflect or philosophize, for this reason: that the single experience we call "consciousness" - our inwardness at any given moment - is not composed either of perceiving alone or of thinking alone, but of an immemorial and inextricable combination of the two. Indeed it is better to call it an interpenetration rather than a combination. We soon learn, once we begin to reflect, that what we have been accustomed to refer to in everyday speech as "perceiving" - as for instance when we speak of perceiving a chair... or for that matter a neuron or chromosome - is in fact perception heavily laced with thinking, with habitual thought, with mental habit.

If we go ahead and study the relation between the two - thinking and perceiving - in terms of real interpenetration, what sort of results do we get? We shall find in the first place, I think, that it is not a fixed relation but a variable one; variable in terms of the predominance of the one ingredient over the other. The example of this that comes most readily to hand is the difference poetry and prose... we can hardly fail to observe that in general in the language of poetry the perceptual element is proportionally higher than in prose; while in prose the intellectual element predominates over the perceptual...

If we continue the survey, we shall find... the like variable predominance, when we compare language as a whole in its earlier stages with language in its later stages; or the earlier state of any one language with its later stages. In the earlier stage the perceptual element is relatively greater; in the later stages the intellectual element. That is not so much in the use that is made of the words as it is in the meanings of the words themselves. Thus, in our historical survey of consciousness, we find ourselves looking backward down a perspective which reveals more and more of perception and less and less of thought. And if, along this path, we allow our fancy to approach the kind of consciousness that would be all perception and no thought, what do we come to?

― Owen Barfield, History, Guilt and Habit (1979)

[AshvinP]

"I still maintain that the essence of PoF can be grasped even from the first edition."

I love how you say that as if I haven't repeated the same thing 77 times

My first request was to show me where in PoF, without reference to the new editions, Steiner is showing straightforwardly that experience is intrinsically and always cognitive to some degree. I said it will be difficult but it isn't impossible. But this has been ignored except for point to parts of chapter one that certainly don't show that. I'll be coming back to that when I'm at a keyboard.

"I still maintain that the essence of PoF can be grasped even from the first edition."

Let's again take stock of what happened here, as memory seems to be very selective and in short supply these days. Schopenhauer vs. Steiner - philosophy of Will vs. philosophy of Thinking - which is more accurate? Round One... Ding Ding!

FB: Objection! This is false dichotomy, because both Schopenhauer and Steiner say there is cognitive element in every experience. Willing and Thinking practically advance the same purpose in our experience.

Me: OK, this is interesting argument and (to myself) - maybe it will open doors into the living essence of what these philosophers were discussing/debating - so let's argue it.

[what I thought may happen clearly did not happen]

Cleric: Let's remember we are not talking about frozen personalities in history but the living essence of the positions they held and what it means for us today.

FB: OK, but they didn't hold the positions you think they held, and I will illustrate this to you by way of asking simple questions of PoF and letting you realize for yourself where your understanding of Steiner has gone wrong.

Me (eventually): Fine, let's forget Schopenhauer. Strike him out and substitute philosophy of Will as held by anyone, like BK in the answer I transcribed in Q&A session. If we must also forget Steiner, then that's also fine and substitute the philosophy of Thinking we are claiming he advanced.

[no takers]

FB (after some time): Here you go, I found another quotation from Steiner that should help you see why you don't understand his position.

Me (stupidly): OK let's debate that.

[repeat of same stuff that happened the first time, this time with Barfield thrown in the mix]

Cleric: "It's little sad that we spend so much time and energy on this splitting of hairs. We're wasting time on discussing the various way that PoF can be misunderstood, instead of helping people to understand it...

The thing is that as long as one strives to grasp the essence, all these details become comprehensible in the right way."

So here we are. 21st century idealism still has clear preference for Kant and Schopenhauer (or substitute whoever else endorses philosophy of Will, like, dare I say, BK). That philosophy clearly is opposed to philosophy of Thinking Steiner and Barfield advanced (or substitute our interpretation of Steiner instead of him). The offer is still on the table - does anyone want to see what can be gained from pursuing the living essence of these philosophies as they have unfolded in the last few hundred years?