tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44534500529675793342024-03-20T22:05:08.162+00:00Brief Outlines Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-19048017714829848782023-06-21T07:22:00.344+01:002023-06-22T12:58:51.374+01:00The Fiction of "Outer Space" <p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It is the convention of map reading to place North at the top of the page. But everyone knows that this has no bearing on anything beyond convention. For example, if we ascend in a hot air balloon and look down at the fields and roads bellow, then "up" is not where north is: "Up" means ascending higher into the sky. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Keeping this in mind, lets take a look at this photo. </span></p><p><picture class="dcr-evn1e9" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></picture><picture class="dcr-evn1e9" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></picture></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3MtW2hh_ZjfQ_2LscaZpnWSeKdjYPCxc0r0_v908UcgytSVysQ-NEXRU_NYnVXOsjolgBqOKX9Dwy6gUdiW-siFkD4UZvnWEDY-c889nbyRDGrFjmA5HPdax21hnj6zwLStvr1MvZr8Ma4nFtFlmajpwn3o9rYX_4e_G1102h8zO7437ukDp1xOhX6ana/s614/Screen%20Shot%202023-06-21%20at%2019.56.43.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="614" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3MtW2hh_ZjfQ_2LscaZpnWSeKdjYPCxc0r0_v908UcgytSVysQ-NEXRU_NYnVXOsjolgBqOKX9Dwy6gUdiW-siFkD4UZvnWEDY-c889nbyRDGrFjmA5HPdax21hnj6zwLStvr1MvZr8Ma4nFtFlmajpwn3o9rYX_4e_G1102h8zO7437ukDp1xOhX6ana/w400-h297/Screen%20Shot%202023-06-21%20at%2019.56.43.png" width="400" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span><picture class="dcr-evn1e9" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></picture><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In it we can make out the continent of Africa. We can also notice that the photo has been orientated for us with "north" at the top of the frame and south at the bottom, just like any map. Are we still aware that this is purely a convention, and that the only legitimate "up" is the same as with the hot air balloon - higher altitude? For it seems to me that we can too easily forget that we are looking <i><b>down</b></i> at the ground bellow the astronaut, and instead jump to the idea that we are looking <b><i>out </i></b>at a massive ball floating in space.</span></span></p><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">To "float" means to be hovering at a particular level or altitude. But the only altitude that has any meaning in this photo is that of the astronaut's altitude above the earth when he took the photo. How is it then that we see the earth in this photo as "floating"? It must be that we are bringing this concept of a floating sphere to the photo, and imposing it on the actual reality. </span><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder" /></span></div><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Objection: the photo shows conclusively that the earth is not flat, and that it is surrounded on all sides by space. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">No doubt. But the issue is the idea that the earth is floating, or suspended. What, apart from the earth itself, is it suspended <i><b>in</b></i> or <b><i>above</i></b>?<i> </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span><span>Our thinking - and in particular, our thinking about space, is derived from our earthly experiences, our concept of space is quite literally the fruit of the earth. It will not do to then borrow this concept and place the earth as an object within it. </span></span><span>For in truth, and everyone can confirm this for themselves, when we imagine space we always orientate this space as having an "up" and a "down". It cannot be done any other way. And when we orientate our spacial "up" against a ground that is not the earth, we are extrapolating a real and legitimate ground (the earth) and projecting it into a region of existence where there cannot be any ground; namely, "outer-space” </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">and then we commit the further error of placing the earth as an object </span><i style="font-family: arial;">within</i><span style="font-family: arial;"> this earth-derived space. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">You might say, so what? If we can navigate to the moon, then who cares what concept of space we imagine?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">That would be fine, if we were consistent. But we are not. The images taken by Apollo astronauts have had the effect of giving us what seems like a universal perspective on the reality of our world. We assume we have discovered some ultimate truth in the idea that earth is just a ball, or speck of dust floating in space. But all we have done is transposed our earthly experiences of specks of dust and floating objects and scaled these up to the size of the cosmos. We aught to remain more humble - more... how shall we say, down to earth. For a universal perspective is a contradiction in terms. Sure, from one perspective the earth is a ball, hovering in space - but I would argued that it is a particularly fantastical and misguided perspective. Contrary to this perspective is the rather convincing intuition that the earth is the actual ground of the world - on which we and all life exist. In fact, this intuition is not just one perspective among many that science has proven antiquated and naive - it is the literal truth. For the earth is literally the ground out of which humanity is born and awakens into living consciousness and with this, the ability to have perspectives in the first place. </span></p><p><br /></p></div></div>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-19813271988459153862023-05-08T21:25:00.001+01:002023-10-07T21:25:39.302+01:00Why I am a Christian<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I am not a Christian because I identify with Christ, nor because I identify with anyone else who is Christian. In fact the idea of Christianity as identity is precisely the sort of spurious muddle-headedness causing so much confusion and conflict in our culture at the moment. Identity is placed in the foreground to the expense of any sense of the hard struggle of practice. It should be obvious that I am not a man simply by virtue of my biology or what pronoun I am addressed by; I am a man for reasons that can be recognised universally by any culture that has ever existed, namely, to the extent that I can overcome childish self-interests and aim for something like maturity. In the same way, to be a Christian is not a subjective fancy to identify with someone called Jesus like one does some fashion icon - but rather to try to imagine Christ as THE central revelation concerning the ultimate structure of the world and of human existence as a whole. That is the claim of Christianity, and it is a claim that can be recognised universally as an outlandish and profound claim, regardless whether you even believe in it or not. In fact, really believing in the Christian claim doesn't just happen over-night, like changing your hair-style or gender pronoun. It takes </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">practice! </span></span></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-76705926645565953462023-04-12T21:01:00.004+01:002023-10-07T22:03:05.591+01:00Why I have reverted to using feet and inches instead of the metric system<p><span style="font-size: medium;">This might be a rather odd subject to wright about, and on first reflection, trivial. At least that is how I thought about the matter for most of my life. </span></p><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"> I have worked as a carpenter for 17 or so years, and have, like every other tradesman in the UK, used predominantly metres and millimetres for my measurements. But thanks to our tape measures still having the imperial as well as the metric on them, I was always intrigued by feet and inches, and about a year ago I decided to start using them for my measurements instead. I was surprised by what I discovered.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Once I had put in the effort of learning the fractions, I found the metric tape measure much easier on the eye - while mental calculations became far less effort compared to the metric measurements. For one thing, the numbers one is dealing with rarely go above one hundred - whereas with the metric you’re dealing in hundreds and soon thousands of millimetres before you’ve even reached the hight of the average person. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Of curse, the average person who uses metric uses centimetres, not millimetres. And here lies one of the issues with it. In the trade, it's millimetres only so as to avoid the complication around decimal points. So if someone talks in centimetres on the job site not only do they increase the scope for confusion and costly error, but they sound like a DIYer. This means that tradesmen speak a different measurement language to their clients most of the time, <i>even though we are all using metric.</i> Not so with feet and inches. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Some people assume that imperial isn’t as accurate as the metric system. But they are mistaken. The beauty of the inch is that you can be as accurate as you need to be, whereas the metric almost encourages a pedantic focus on minute measurements even when it is not necessary. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">But I don’t imagine I can win anyone over with rational arguments to which one can always make perfectly justifiable counter arguments. Both forms of measurement work at getting the job done. I’m appealing to something else besides the pure functionality - an intuition you get when you use feet and inches. It's almost as though the difference between metric and imperial is something like the difference between a technician and a craftsman. What that difference is is somewhat ineffable. No doubt the metric system makes calculations easier when engineering something like a rocket. But as a craftsman, working in peoples homes on a human scale, there is an ease in which feet and inches map onto the real world that is simply lacking with the metric measurements. I get the feeling my clients are also relieved when I talk in feet and inches rather than throwing hundreds and thousands of millimetres at them. I have found a deep respect for feet and inches, and it comes as no surprise to learn that they have arisen out of hundreds of years of practical usage - whereas the metric measurement was devised in the minds of French intellectuals who I doubt ever did much in the way of practical work themselves. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Far from being a trivial subject, I sense the metric system has aided the steady transition from craftsmanship towards a digitised automation, where the role of the human being is more and more compartmentalised, so that you have “expert technicians” over-seeing the monotonous construction of mass-produced, pre-fabricated homes and furniture, designed on CAD and cut by CNC machines that require digital inputs (fractions are not suitable for this). We lose in the process hand-made products constructed by fully embodied craftsmen with a living sense for proportion and aesthetic, where pride is taken in making objects of real beauty. It is a world dominated by technicality and automation that finds the imperial so archaic and backwards. But as a craftsman, I cannot deny the practicality and wisdom of it. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">No doubt there will be many a craftsmen who disagrees with me. Let me know in the comments! </span><div><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></div></div>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-64982676555763701772022-12-14T12:42:00.003+00:002022-12-14T12:43:18.200+00:00The Archetype of all Ideas <p><span> <span style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our capacity to think about nature objectively is at the same time natures capacity to express itself as <i>IDEA.</i> </span></span></p><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">Our capacity to then think about thinking itself is to transcend all of natures ideas and arive at the idea behind all ideas - "thinking". </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">It follows from this that thinking is essentially a free activity, unicombered by any "law" (idea) of nature. </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="caret-color: rgb(5, 5, 5); color: #050505; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">See <span style="font-family: inherit;"><a style="color: #385898; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit;" tabindex="-1"></a></span>Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom for more details. </div></div>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-34108078938078214372021-12-17T16:25:00.000+00:002021-12-17T16:25:13.135+00:00The Word is Become Flesh <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="377" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ICraHLq9_k4" width="453" youtube-src-id="ICraHLq9_k4"></iframe></div><br /><p></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-40027076074776070812021-09-16T11:48:00.001+01:002021-09-16T11:48:52.598+01:00The biggest Delusion of Modern Humanity<p> </p><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="ecm0bbzt hv4rvrfc e5nlhep0 dati1w0a" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id="jsc_c_42"><div class="j83agx80 cbu4d94t ew0dbk1b irj2b8pg"><div class="qzhwtbm6 knvmm38d"><span class="d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql lr9zc1uh a8c37x1j keod5gw0 nxhoafnm aigsh9s9 d3f4x2em fe6kdd0r mau55g9w c8b282yb iv3no6db jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v b1v8xokw oo9gr5id hzawbc8m" dir="auto"><div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">The biggest delusion of all is that sterile matter could ever have changed itself into something living through natural selection. For the definition of "sterile" is precisely that it is the antithesis to any form of life. If the universe really did begin in a blazing mass of burning hot matter, then it would make no difference what material processes have occurred since that origin, for these processes would still be sterile today regardless of how many billions of years they had had to change into different processes. A machine is dead, no matter how complex it might become and the idea that we are machines is really the idea that all life is actually not alive at all, but only seems alive. The adherent to this kind of materialism has to ultimately deny their own personal vitality - they must conclude that they themselves are... sterile.</div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-79578228358618403422021-08-05T13:06:00.044+01:002021-08-05T16:28:32.410+01:00Does our mind generate reality? <p> <span color="var(--yt-spec-text-primary)" face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_font-size); font-weight: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_font-weight); letter-spacing: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_letter-spacing); white-space: pre-wrap;">It seems obvious that thought cannot conjure up appearances out of thin air. Yet many people assume that the mind generates the appearances of the world we are conscious of. Examples of optical illusions and dreams are given to back this assumption up. I dream I am flying, but in reality, I am lying in my bed. I think I am seeing movement, but in reality it is a succession of still images rapidly flashing before my eye on the TV screen. So from such examples it is concluded that the human mind generates reality for itself without the corresponding sense inputs necessarily conveying any reality at all.</span></p><p><span color="var(--yt-spec-text-primary)" face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: small; font-weight: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_font-weight); letter-spacing: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_letter-spacing); white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p><span color="var(--yt-spec-text-primary)" face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: small; font-weight: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_font-weight); letter-spacing: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_letter-spacing); white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #030303; letter-spacing: 0.2px;">In response to such ideas about perception and the mind, one has to be very clear to avoid getting tangled in a web of abstraction. For example, whether an appearance, that is, whether a particular "percept" is the content of a dream or whether it is something revealed in waking consciousness cannot be established based only on whether it originates from sense-inputs, for these are not sufficient for producing<i> any</i> percepts (if they were there would be no hard problem of consciousness). In reality, only a thinking contemplation will reveal what a particular percept is and what its origin is. Only thinking can render the true reality of a percept. But my own act of thinking cannot generate a percept, far less can it declare that all percepts are the product of my subjective mind. Whether a percept corresponds to the objective world, or whether it is the product of mere fancy can only be established by a thoughtful contemplation of that particular percept. <br /><br />Thought is thus inescapable at all levels of reality, and it transcends the subject/object duality. It follows that thinking can no longer be imagined as just being in our own heads - for when we look at the very fabric of the world, in any field of study, there we find <i>thinking</i> too. <br /></span></span></p><p><span color="var(--yt-spec-text-primary)" face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: small; font-weight: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_font-weight); letter-spacing: var(--ytd-user-comment_-_letter-spacing); white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #030303; letter-spacing: 0.2px;"> <span style="font-size: x-small;">This is a brief outline of one of the central observations Rudolf Steiner makes on the subject of thinking in his book The Philosophy of Freedom </span></span></span></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-58747748771292410302021-05-29T13:29:00.001+01:002021-05-29T13:33:52.221+01:00Steiner Education <p> "Teachers still go on, weary and not a little disillusioned,
in some small corner of themselves cherishing a battered ideal, dreaming at times
of an experimental school where they may become artists again. And when they
can they crowd to hear of such a place, as now they crowd to Oxford to hear
what Dr Steiner thinks of spiritual values in education and social life….
Whoever heard of applicants for a teacher post being asked first of all of
their opinion of the soul? Yet this is just the question Dr Steiner seems to put
to his teachers. An uninterested visitor may well mistake details of his
meaning, and convey a wrong impression; yet even at the risk of misapprehension
or doubt, its value to education should not be passed over in silence… You may
not believe in reincarnation. You may dispute the existence of the spiritual
body, scoff at the connection between metabolism and the will, or mistake the
new art of ‘visible speech’, eurythmy, for dancing. You may, of course, deny
the immortal element in man; in that case you will care for none of these
things. But if you admit it, you must face the consequences as Dr Steiner faces
them, honestly. Call him a dreamer, occultists, clairvoyant, even crank, but do
not doubt his consistency and ability. You know how worried you have been lately
about the state of Europe. If you cannot go to Oxford or to Dornoch in
Switzerland, you might perhaps call at the Board of Education or any other
government office, and ask what provision they are making for the souls of the
people."</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An extract from an article in <i>The Nation </i>– responding to a lecture series by Rudolf Steiner given in Oxford, England 1922 <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Source material: </p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.templelodge.com/viewbook.php?isbn_in=9781912230716&fbclid=IwAR0RtTkpA7rk8wyz5THq2FpkR2RfHSLfJ0GF9qTfdUUz--MkQ6tfRZnkTpg">Sun King's Counsellor </a></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-58516395973351476772021-03-28T13:32:00.002+01:002021-03-28T18:10:53.666+01:00Ahriman's Imminent Incarnation <p><br /></p><p><span style="background-color: #fffff8; text-indent: 0.25in;">What follows is an extract from a 1919 lecture cycle titled <i>Lucifer & Ahriman</i> by Rudolf Steiner. The larger context is the approaching incarnation of Ahriman some time in our current millennium, in the West, probably America. Steiner describes how, 3 millennia BC, Lucifer incarnated in the East, probably in China. Christ of course incarnated in the person of Jesus. And now, entering the beginning of the third millennium AD Ahriman will incarnate, and the signs of his coming arrival are now fully manifest all around to see. The point is not to resist or fight Ahriman's incarnation, for it is inevitable; the point is to orientate ourselves in the right way so that the Ahrimanic currents leading to his arrival can be used for good. For this a new wisdom has to be bourn, springing from the effort and struggle of individual human beings to wake themselves from their indolence and rejection of the spiritual. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fffff8; text-indent: 0.25in;">Ahriman, though, will like nothing more than to keep us ignorant of his arrival, and....</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fffff8; text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /><span style="color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica;">"If, in the future, man were to do nothing himself towards acquiring a new wisdom, then, unconsciously to him, the whole of culture would become Ahrimanic, and it would be easy for the influences issuing from Ahriman's incarnation to permeate all civilisation on the earth. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; text-indent: 0.25in;"> What would be the result if men were to follow the strong inclination they have to-day to let things drift on as they are, without understanding and guiding into right channels those streams which lead to an Ahrimanic culture? — As soon as Ahriman incarnates at the destined time in the West, the whole of culture would be impregnated with his forces. Through certain stupendous arts (technologies) he would bring to man all the clairvoyant knowledge which until then can be acquired only by dint of intense labour and effort. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; text-indent: 0.25in;">Lovers of ease who refuse to have anything to do with spiritual science, would fall prey to his magic, for by means of these stupendous magic arts Ahriman would be able to make great numbers of human beings into seers — <i>but in such a way that the clairvoyance of each individual would be strictly differentiated.</i> <i>What one person would see, a second and a third would not see</i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (emphasis added).</span> Confusion would prevail and in spite of being made receptive to clairvoyant wisdom, men would inevitably fall into strife on account of the sheer diversity of their visions. Ultimately, however, they would all be satisfied with their own particular vision, for each of them would be able to see into the spiritual world. In this way all culture on the earth would fall prey to Ahriman. Men would succumb to Ahriman simply through not having acquired by their own efforts what Ahriman is ready and able to give them. No more evil advice could be given than to say: “Stay just as you are! Ahriman will make all of you clairvoyant if you so desire. And you</span><span style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; text-indent: 0.25in;"> </span><i style="color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; text-indent: 0.25in;">will</i><span style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; text-indent: 0.25in;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; text-indent: 0.25in;">desire it because Ahriman's power will be very great.” — But the result would be the establishment of Ahriman's kingdom on earth and the overthrow of everything achieved hitherto by human culture; all the disastrous tendencies unconsciously cherished by mankind to-day would take effect.</span></p><p align="justify" style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.25in;">Our concern is that the wisdom of the future — a clairvoyant wisdom — shall be rescued from the clutches of Ahriman. Again let it be repeated that there is only <i>one</i> book of wisdom, not two kinds of wisdom. The issue is whether this wisdom is in the hands of Ahriman or of Christ. It cannot come into the hands of Christ unless men fight for it. And they can only fight for it by telling themselves that <i>by their own efforts</i> they must assimilate the content of spiritual science before the time of Ahriman's appearance on earth.</p><p align="justify" style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.25in;">That, you see, is the cosmic task of spiritual science. It consists in preventing knowledge from becoming — or remaining — Ahrimanic. A good way of playing into Ahriman's hands is to exclude everything of the nature of knowledge from denominational religion and to insist that simple faith is enough. If a man clings to this simple faith, he condemns his soul to stagnation and then the wisdom that must be rescued from Ahriman cannot find entry. The point is not whether men do or do not simply receive the wisdom of the future but whether they work upon it; and those who do must take upon themselves the solemn duty of saving earthly culture for Christ."</p><p align="justify" style="background-color: #fffff8; color: #000033; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif, verdana, arial, tahoma, helvetica; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.25in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-align: left;">To awaken this new wisdom I personally recommend studying Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. This book not only awakens a brand new thinking in us, it also lays the methods and foundations for all his later works regarding "spiritual science". </span></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-60662650680543636372021-03-19T21:10:00.004+00:002021-03-19T21:10:55.979+00:00<p>Owen Barfield says; "We shall not be able to save souls unless we also save the appearances". </p><div><div> </div><div>The "appearances" are the objects of this earthly world, which include our own earthly selves. It is therefore not enough just to "combat" earthly concerns with spiritual concepts of other-worldliness. If our soul is to be saved, these objects must also be saved. Why? Because our bodies are currently one of those objects, and if this fact is ignored, and we assume we can be saved without our bodies also being saved, then we are merely escaping our humanity instead of seeking real redemption. </div><div><br /></div><div>Steiner stressed the need to see evil as being twofold: Lucifer and Ahriman are the two extremes on either side. To ignore the world, or replace it with "higher things" is what Steiner would call the Luciferic tendency in spirituality. An example of the Ahrimanic tendency being materialism with its concept of the human being as mere biological machine. </div><div><br /></div><div>Christ is the middle way, the balancing of the two polar extremes. He is neither the Ahrimanic materialism of the "this-worldly" nor the escapism to the "higher-worldly" of Lucifer. Hence we can see that the human ego treads between these two extremes, and in the middle is the point at which Christ touches the world. To either reduce the earth-bound ego to material processes, or to escape it completely in spiritual heights, are literally un-Christian paths. </div></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><div><br /></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user protonmail_signature_block-empty"><div><br /></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton"><br /></div></div><div><div><br /><br /></div></div>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-89394781280918179492021-03-19T21:02:00.003+00:002021-03-19T21:03:19.514+00:00<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlkkni3fQblE28ptIElb4HnuF5kqCmql8gIFwGUrsSzGGyKdvWE2-bmlBnECvoY2XBrf3WIW1ZuuNjBkeu7j-9FL2yzMLW28Un_QTCa4c6MSTLlmzQA7i1f1rILNlreVOvkR1z0GlCWF0Q/s2048/Mr+Isis.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1489" data-original-width="2048" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlkkni3fQblE28ptIElb4HnuF5kqCmql8gIFwGUrsSzGGyKdvWE2-bmlBnECvoY2XBrf3WIW1ZuuNjBkeu7j-9FL2yzMLW28Un_QTCa4c6MSTLlmzQA7i1f1rILNlreVOvkR1z0GlCWF0Q/w400-h291/Mr+Isis.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div><br /> <p></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-35373045279638600372021-02-21T21:30:00.000+00:002021-02-21T21:30:06.316+00:00The Symbolic World and the Conspiracy of Colour Theory<p>Continuing on the them of <a href="https://briefoutlines.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-magenta-scandal-continued.html">colour</a>. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="354" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uINXQ0Ncjhc" width="481" youtube-src-id="uINXQ0Ncjhc"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-39379848324392910542021-02-21T14:58:00.000+00:002021-02-21T14:58:09.621+00:00<p> Introducing Johnathan Pageau </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="329" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jti77KQKYuc" width="533" youtube-src-id="jti77KQKYuc"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-38031849324592559282021-02-21T13:18:00.000+00:002021-02-21T13:18:36.340+00:00Rudolf Steiner on Christianity, Platonism, and Goethe<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><p>So we live in abstractions, and these abstractions block us from Final Participation.<br /><br /> In this reading of Steiner's opening chapters of <b>Goethe's Worldview</b> Steiner investigates the question as to how the Idea relates to Nature independent of man's being. He shows this question to be an abstraction, an "artificial concept". He traces the development of this concept through Western thought from Plato through Christianity to modern philosophy, and designates Goethe as someone who instinctively avoided falling into this abstraction. </p><p>Owen Barfield claims that "<i>we will never save souls unless we also save the appearances</i>". I believe Steiner here provides the meat behind this statement of Barfield's</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mt4VtNXz-q0" width="419" youtube-src-id="Mt4VtNXz-q0"></iframe> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Apologies for my mispronunciation of "Zenophanes".
Also, that "impenetrable" sentence at 13 mins should read:
"Of them alone [i.e. the ideal forms], therefore, is there ACTUAL
knowledge, since only THAT can be the object of such knowledge which
always and in every respect IS, NOT THAT [i.e. the instantiations of the
forms] which is, but then again is not, depending on how one looks at
it."
(Thank you Tom Bayley for this interpretation) </span> <br /></div><br />Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-64932326604105061082021-02-17T23:41:00.132+00:002021-02-21T11:18:56.390+00:00Ubiquitus Abstractions<p>How fast can VW build a car? </p><p>VW makes 26000 new cars every day. I calculate that as 36 cars per minute, or 1.6 seconds to make a single car.</p><p>But the reality is of course not the case at all. It is impossible to make a car in 1.6 seconds. Just think of the drying time needed between coats of paint. </p><p>But 26000 cars a day is apparently a fact. </p><p>So on one level, it is true that it takes 1.6 seconds for VW to make a new car. </p><p>On the other hand, if you decided one day to visit VW to watch a car being made in 1.6 seconds, you would be confronted with nothing of the sort. In fact, if you visited a VW factory, you might be forgiven for doubting if they made anything at all. For the plant is so massive, and the division of labour and the many thousands of processes that have to all take place simultaneously so vast, that it would be physically impossible to watch a single car being made, let alone time it with a stopwatch. In any case, where would you even start the clock, at the moment the iron ore is mined from the earth? </p><p>What then is the truth of the matter? </p><p>The answer is that "VW" is an abstraction. How fast "VW" can build a car is only an interesting question so long as one remains blind to the fact that the entire premise is a fantasy. Unfortunately, public discourse is filled with such delusional questions and abstractions and governments and institutions all over the world hold themselves accountable to these abstractions as though they were reality. </p><p>The facts about the production of cars is something completely different, which anyone can immediately rocognise if they gave it a moments thought. Car manufacturing is a culminating process that draws on the lives of millions of people all over the world who are doing deeds and actions that for the most part don't resemble making a car in the slightest. The idea that all these unrelated people doing all these separate deeds is somehow "VW" is so manifestly wrong that it is interesting how such a delusion can persist. Yet persist it does, for we never stop to think out properly what we are used to ingesting as mental habit. </p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-20683831797894698902021-02-16T22:44:00.010+00:002021-02-16T22:47:04.178+00:00Intuitive Thinking vs Non-duality<p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> A viewer by the name of "Shabaduba" </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">recently posted the following question on my </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8lENENJtmo&lc=Ugzc0D0oQ8V_v3zgGS94AaABAg&feature=em-comments">video</a> about "authentic individuality". </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />He/she writes:</span><br /><br /><span style="background-color: #f9f9f9;"><span><span>"</span><span face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #030303; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Can you explain why or in what sense is Thought eternal and universal? Is not a thought or a concept limited? I have a feeling that how Steiner talks about thought or thinking, is very similiar to what Non-dual (Advaita-vedanta) teaching says about Consciousness. Non-dual perspective would say here very similiar thing to compare what you have said. That is: "Usually, "I", Awareness am aware of objects. So I am aware of things, events, perceptions, feelings, thoughts, sensations etc. But when I become aware of awareness, that means Consciousness is conscious of itself, or Awareness is being aware of itself, thats something Universal and eternal."
</span></span></span></p><p><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #030303;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">This is a stumbling block that comes up all the time on my Steiner videos. My response runs something as follows: </span></span></span></span></p><p><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #030303;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">If one declares that the concepts that thinking grasps are merely limited with no real reality to them, and that thinking itself is also limited in this way, then in this very </span></span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">assertion</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> you are </span></span></span><span style="color: #030303;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">appealing</span></span><span style="color: #030303;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> to an intuition. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #030303;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Ultimately, consciousness of consciousness is the fruit of intuitive thinking that represents this knowledge in the form of concepts. I</span></span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">f these concepts were unable to grasp the reality of consciousness, then everything we are saying about consciousness is sheer</span> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">gibberish, and there is no difference between Thought and Non-duality because to differentiate is to already employ conceptualisation, and THAT requires thinking.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f9f9f9;"><span style="color: #030303; font-family: inherit;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">To </span></span><span style="color: #030303;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">illustrate</span></span><span style="color: #030303; font-family: inherit;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> t</span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #030303; white-space: pre-wrap;">he point another way</span><span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #030303; font-family: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;"> I can respond to the question with another question:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); border: 0px; color: #030303; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">By what means do you compare a "limited concept" against "universal consciousness" if not by the grace of intuitive thinking? </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); border: 0px; color: #030303; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In essence, as soon as you recognise that it is nothing but intuitive thinking behind all instances of awareness of awareness, you are forced to re-assess the standing of thought in the grand scheme of things.</span></span></p><p><br /></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-74063329775058711922021-02-11T22:13:00.002+00:002021-02-11T22:13:59.877+00:00Here is an animated extract from a chapter in Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VwxfokgRebY" width="320" youtube-src-id="VwxfokgRebY"></iframe></div><br /><div><br /></div>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-80172096822463569252021-01-31T20:42:00.002+00:002021-01-31T20:42:25.152+00:00The Musician<p> If you imagine your life as a musical instrument, and your own spirit as the musician, you quickly see that it is up to you what sort of music you wish to play. For a good musician does not confuse himself with his instrument. He does not think to himself "my violin is out of tune, therefore I am out of tune". Similarly, he does not feel limited just because his instrument is limited. Sure, the instrument makes the tones and sounds that are characteristic of that particular instrument - a piano cannot play like a trumpet. But it would be a very deluded pianist indeed, who concluded from this fact that he himself is determined by the characteristics of his instrument. For in reality the musician can play an infinite variety of melodies, to an equally infinite level of perfection, regardless of the limitations of the instrument he happens to be playing. </p><p>In the same way, the life I am given to live does not determine the limits and destiny of my spirit. <br /></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-36420134576262066552021-01-21T18:13:00.050+00:002021-01-21T21:24:38.618+00:00The Symetry of Colour Here is another instalment of this study in colour.
It is intended to demonstrate how additive colour mixing works on an intuitive level. It is not intended to replace the reductionistic model with yet another model, but instead to reveal the coherence and logic contained in the relationship between colours. This understanding runs contrary to the mechanistic explanation of colour, whereby the relationships between colours are assumed to be arbitrary, and any meaning we might see in them merely the result of cultural and/or biological conditioning.
<iframe class="BLOG_video_class" allowfullscreen="" youtube-src-id="wZ0eh4kmhc4" width="400" height="322" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wZ0eh4kmhc4"></iframe>
For more on this topic, please visit <a href="https://briefoutlines.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-magenta-scandal-continued.html">this post.</a> Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-73959918996160539382021-01-19T23:23:00.003+00:002021-02-21T21:27:37.791+00:00The Magenta Scandal Continued Here is a more in-depth analysis of "the Magenta Scandal" -
Colour Theory, and "the wholeness of Nature"<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="322" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gIjJ7lKDcJo" width="400" youtube-src-id="gIjJ7lKDcJo"></iframe></div>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-81813728873406619482021-01-13T21:43:00.004+00:002021-01-13T22:30:30.248+00:00<p>"Magenta does not exist"</p><p> </p><p>This statement contradicts our immediate, first-hand empirical experience. </p><p>How is it, then, that science-journalists have come to propagate such a patent lie?<br /><br />Well, the answer is; materialism.</p><p>You see, the first step you take as a materialist is to imagine a molecule, or wave, as being the only thing that really exists. You then conflate the colour with the molecule, or wave. <br /></p><p>Step two, you discover that there is no magenta when you shine a beam of light through a prism. <br /></p><p>Never mind that Goethe demonstrates that there is indeed magenta when light shines through a prism - only, you have to project a thin beam of <b><i>shadow</i></b> through it instead of a thin beam of <i><b>light </b></i>(see diagram bellow) </p><p>But you are a materialist. Only what is positively THERE can be considered real. So naturally, only the light is real, not the darkness. You then automatically conclude that magenta is a composite of blue and red wavelengths - in other words, you arrive at a lie - that magenta doesn't really exist.<br /></p><p>As a materialist, you over-look the fact that, according to your own metaphysical assumptions, ALL colour is not "really there" - but never mind that, you aren't particularly interested in thinking things through - after all, thinking "isn't really there" either.<br /></p><p> I state all this so-as to illustrate a point. If science journalists can propagate such absolute non-truths as "magenta is not a real colour" as a result of their materialistic delusions, imagine what catastrophes of misinformation they are capable of when it comes to health. </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Top diagram shows the classic prismatic colours, where a thin beam of light is shone through a prism.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Below show's Goethe's inversion of the above; where a thin beam of shadow is "shone" through the prism. Here the prismatic colours are inverted, with magenta in the middle. </span><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk4uQLlumo-JoPvHTLxduoDHyJVPZZjcZZgadMmogk6wYkeCDQxJ6Uz_tuuCXLSElJTOWtO3VwoNQFCYZQ6bwKPCmg5DTa9Da3VDLWmFuS6ZVH5tHQDW_VkTt2DDvtrK_7lntu2prGvHt3/s1024/Goethe3-801x1024.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="801" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk4uQLlumo-JoPvHTLxduoDHyJVPZZjcZZgadMmogk6wYkeCDQxJ6Uz_tuuCXLSElJTOWtO3VwoNQFCYZQ6bwKPCmg5DTa9Da3VDLWmFuS6ZVH5tHQDW_VkTt2DDvtrK_7lntu2prGvHt3/w500-h640/Goethe3-801x1024.png" width="500" /></a></div><br />Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-12853363594143017672020-12-11T21:11:00.002+00:002021-01-19T18:54:08.960+00:00Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom<p> Revised from a post of November 2019</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">What follows is a look at Rudolf
Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom in the context of Goethe’s understanding of the
polarity in nature between <i>particular</i> and <i>universal</i>, ie, between
phenomenon and Architype. <br />
<br />
For example, Goethe looks at a particular phenomenon in nature, such as a particular
plant, and he seeks to understand what universal<i> </i>principal is expressing
itself in that plant formation.<br />
<br />
For Goethe, the particular plant is an expression of that universal plant - or
archetypal plant.<br />
<br />
Thus the natural world is, for Goethe, a multitude of particular phenomena,
each of which is a manifestation of its own universal law, or architype.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><br />
Rudolf Steiner continues his own study in this relationship between universal architypes and particular phenomena. But whereas
Goethe never turns his attention onto Human consciousness itself, Steiner does.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">
Steiner’s use of Goethe’s method for understanding human consciousness forms
the basis of his own epistemology. Steiner formulates this epistemology in
terms of the relationship between the percept and the concept.<br />
<br />
The percept is the particular pole, for it is always a very specific instance
of experience – whereas the concept corresponds to the universal pole. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">One of the first observations
Steiner makes with regards to the relationship between concept and percept is
that, whereas percepts arise without any effort on our part, concepts always rely
on our own thinking activity in order for them to become realised in
consciousness. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">The focus of Steiner’s entire
thesis then becomes <i>thinking, </i>and in so doing he reveals
something profound; if we take the first axiom to be true, that all manifest
reality consists of two polarities, the particular object and its corresponding
universal architype, then it follows that thought itself is something quite
unique. For it is thought that connects all universals with their particulars,
all phenomena with their architypes. Without thought, we would never arrive at
the concept of a plant at all, we would be left only with each particular plant
before us, and we would lose it again as soon as we moved our gaze to something else.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">It is thanks to thought that we
can recognise the continuity between one (particular) instance of experience and any another.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">But this means we have to
reformulate our original axiom; we no longer just have a duality between
particular and universal, we now have a triad – with thinking being that
principal that combines the duality into a higher unity. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">From the perspective of this
third unity, (thinking) it is possible to see that, although percept and
concept appear at first to be two different things, they are in fact only
separate for human consciousness. In reality they are one. <i>Knowledge</i> is
the process by which this temporary separation is overcome; in <i>thought</i>,
concept and percept are <i>reunited</i>. In this lived moment of reunification,
<i>we are living in reality</i></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">1</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">In this way, Steiner demonstrates
that the apparent duality between particular and universal/ percept and concept
– is resolved in thought. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">So much for epistemology and
metaphysics, now let’s turn to freedom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">Among the multitude of real
things in the world there is the (particular) phenomenon of <i>my own self</i>.
As a thing in existence, I too am a percept. And just as for Goethe, the particular
plant is the expression of a universal plant (Architype), so too there must be
a corresponding universal concept that is expressing itself <i>in me</i> –
there must be an architype for the human being itself.<br />
<br />
What is this architype? What is the human being's <i>own concept</i></span><i><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">2</span></i><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">?<br />
<br />
We are all conditioned, to varying degrees, by cultural and social customs, and
so the universal corresponding concept that expresses itself in my particular
individuality (the percept of myself) is to begin with a concept appropriate to
my ethnicity and culture.<br />
<br />
I have a body too, and so biological concepts also determine and express
themselves in this percept of myself. This fact has led many modern people to
conclude that human individuals are basically just biology. They imagine that
the concepts discovered by “biology” are sufficient in explaining all aspects
of individual expression. In other words, they assume that an individual is governed by the same laws (concepts) as all other life forms.
They are not wrong, they just miss out all the other universal concepts that
also express themselves in the individual, such as the aforementioned
cultural ones, to name the most obvious.<br />
<br />
Yet both the concept of biology and the concept of culture miss out something of our human nature that is of most importance; the fact that I, as a particular phenomenon, <i>can
think</i>.<br />
<br />
Why is this so special?<br />
<br />
Because, as we have seen, thinking is that thing which connects all universals
with their particulars, <i>it transcends the dichotomy between particular and
universal. </i>Sure,<i> </i>Thinking appears in me as my own <i>particular</i> activity,
but in its essence, thinking leads out beyond my particularity and points to the
source of all existence - that higher unity. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><br />
This has significance for my own life. For in reality, I am not only concerned
with knowledge. I am also a "doer". By acting out something, I can
bring to <i>particular</i> expression a motive that has, as its
source, a universal concept that I have grasped by my own intuition. In doing
so I bring into particular form something real where otherwise no particular -
ie, perceptual – expression would have existed before. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">As a knower I am confronted with
a percept and curiosity compels me to discover the concept that explains that
percept. But in an act of will the situation is reversed; I start with a
concept and then find a way to bring that concept into perceptual existence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">This means two things. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">1 – in an act of will the concept (universal)
<i>relies on my own individual (particular) volition</i> in order to become perceptual.
This means that the concept doesn't express itself in human beings <i>in
general</i>, it only expresses itself in those who have the intuition of that
concept and wish to act on it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">And 2 – because a particular
individual <i>can think</i> – he/she is not in bondage to the polarity between
particulars and universals. In other words, a universal concept that I
contemplate in thought does not determine me as do other cultural or biological
concepts. <i>The concept that has become conscious in my thought can only come
to expression if I myself wish to bring it to expression. </i>Without anything compelling me, only my love for the concept can be the cause of its expression. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
An over-arching universal concept (architype) of the particular human individual
must then take into account <i>individual intuition and self-determination out of love. </i><br />
<br />
This means, as Steiner points out, “that we cannot think out fully the percept of
the (particular) human being without arriving at the concept of the <i>free
spirit</i> as his/her purest expression”</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">3</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">. The concept “<i>free
spirit</i>” is the only concept that fully encompasses the full potential of
the human phenomenon. However, by definition, this concept (free spirit) only
manifests in those individuals who of <i>themselves</i> have realised their own
power of intuition - that is, who have realised, or made real, their own <i>free
spirit</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">“Man must unite his own concept
with the percept “man” by his own activity”</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">4</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">.<br />
<br />
As we have seen, for everything else in the world this is not necessary; a
plant is always an expression of its architype. It has no choice in the matter.
“The concept and the percept are indissoluble; they are separated only
for <i>our</i> perception”</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">5</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><br />
“But for the human being, it is different. The human being's own concept (the
free spirit) is <i>actually</i> separated, to be just as <i>actually</i> united
by him”</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">6</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">. "Concept and percept (architype and phenomenon) coincide only if the human being makes them coincide"</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">7</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">
In conclusion, the human being is that phenomenon, where-by it falls upon
the <i>particular </i>(the individual) to express what is its
own <i>universal</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 19.2pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">Thus I, as human individual, am
my own determinate; I am free </span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 8pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">8</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="color: #3b3838; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #3b3838; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #3b3838; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #3b3838; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #3b3838; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;">References 1 to 8 - The Philosophy of Freedom by Rudolf
Steiner <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #3b3838; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 64;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-10540081214987668782020-11-25T21:52:00.001+00:002020-11-25T21:52:45.438+00:00Please Maintain Your Social Distance <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ4Fsslv3V-zXYLgz1HY1jI1ZTcqlxYjag76KqH20FoKVZ7ffdpab0thYr5r6TE9YXT0CHRYGmObO0TuXDxxzmd2VdU_N6llF1-JLJqgg64cGPJI4DETvEeyERfKZGfav1ZfWbfvWjHp9E/s1592/2m+rule+.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1083" data-original-width="1592" height="436" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ4Fsslv3V-zXYLgz1HY1jI1ZTcqlxYjag76KqH20FoKVZ7ffdpab0thYr5r6TE9YXT0CHRYGmObO0TuXDxxzmd2VdU_N6llF1-JLJqgg64cGPJI4DETvEeyERfKZGfav1ZfWbfvWjHp9E/w640-h436/2m+rule+.jpg" width="640" /></a></div> <br /> <p></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-63496332273476554052020-11-18T20:16:00.002+00:002020-11-18T20:16:58.702+00:00Government Enforced Scientism<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9JhHBzgFL35wFlF_4nCWnyzCa2HH-W17Bt58M5-nQmlyyJHx2ZWsXvKjk578ydljyfyyQmwg1rEIartpx7j1fJg1rmLOoAxDZ3mE1mTwNf5bvhOcWyhb2gT-c_NaTaOFXYWLo9b5xFMo2/s2048/purpose+to+life+2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1882" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9JhHBzgFL35wFlF_4nCWnyzCa2HH-W17Bt58M5-nQmlyyJHx2ZWsXvKjk578ydljyfyyQmwg1rEIartpx7j1fJg1rmLOoAxDZ3mE1mTwNf5bvhOcWyhb2gT-c_NaTaOFXYWLo9b5xFMo2/w588-h640/purpose+to+life+2.jpeg" width="588" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4453450052967579334.post-84139149939398456492020-11-15T18:42:00.012+00:002020-11-15T18:47:53.527+00:00Truth & Knowledge (Rudolf Steiner and a science of Thinking) <p> Here is a short cartoon I made. I hope you enjoy :) <br /><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TG2vCLKoxh0" width="320" youtube-src-id="TG2vCLKoxh0"></iframe></div><br /><p></p>Brief Outlineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18153534581115253885noreply@blogger.com1