Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
1. Summary of Exponents of World Views
Most of these identifications are tentative based on previous discussions and/or
my own feelings and thoughts. The table also shows a summary of Steiner’s
indications for particular personalities (Human and Cosmic Thought, Lectures 3
and 4).
Of course, there are many more possibilities – for example, Rationalism with
Mysticism as the World Outlook Mood, Idealism with Empiricism as the Mood
and so on. And as Steiner points out in HAC Lecture 3, many or even most
people’s world views are actually influenced by a combination of world views and
world outlook moods.
World View
Materialism
Mathematism
Rationalism
World Outlook Mood
Name
Transcendentalism
Empiricism
Albert Einstein
B. F. Skinner
Harry Harlow
Idealism
Mysticism
Nietzsche
Logicism
Voluntarism
Mysticism
Meister
Eckhardt
Hegel
Viktor Frankl
C. G. Jung
Logicism
Voluntarism
Fichte
Schopenhauer
Pneumatism
Spiritism
Monadism
Voluntarism
Dynamism
Voluntarism
Robert
Hamerling
Nietzsche
Psychism
Realism
Phenomenalism
Sensationalism
Notes
Contemporary
Expressions of
Various World
Views
Nietsche’s First
Phase (HAC
Lecture 4)
HAC Lecture 3
HAC Lecture 3
Contemporary
Expressions of
Various World
Views
HAC Lecture 3
HAC Lecture 3
HAC Lecture 3
Nietzsche’s
Second Phase
(HAC Lecture 4)
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
Journal Entry for “Contemporary Expressions of World Views”
Can we find examples of well-known contemporary thinkers, scientists,
philosophers etc. who embody particular world views in their thinking? What are
the merits and limitations inherent in their world views? As a starter - B.F.
Skinner (behaviourism), Richard Dawkins (genetic determinism), Paul Davies
(maybe realism or a multiplicity of viewpoints or..?), Carl Jung (Psychism), Albert
Einstein (physical determinism) and so on...
Below is part of a post I made on Lori Perry's journal which got me started on this
line of thinking:
The American behaviourist and scientist B. F. Skinner was one who I believe had
the courage to strive to live and work fully out of a determinist viewpoint. For a
sympathetic summary of his life and work see for example
http://nh.essortment.com/bfskinner_rgjj.htm.
In a psychology lecture I once had to view a video of Skinner speaking on the
theory of behaviourism. While I was not at that stage in a mood sympathetic to
his world view, what struck me was how apparent it was that he was working out
of an inner revelation or inspiration which lifted him out of the everyday world and
illuminated, for him, important aspects of existence.
His views were expressed, for example, in his book "Beyond Freedom and
Dignity" where he made the extreme claim that individual human freedom does
not exist, rather he asserted that all human behaviour is shaped by our
environment.
I think this world view, in its general approach to the idea of freedom if not its
detail, would be familiar to all those who have studied the Philosophy of
Freedom. Clearly it has its limitations.
While Skinner is often demonised even in his own country, and while I am often
alarmed at the tendencies inherent in his way of viewing the world (e.g. "The
Boys from Brazil"), it's important to note that Skinner's work with "operant
conditioning" opened the way to advances in how therapists work with people
with phobias, for example.
As with all of these viewpoints, the challenge is to enter them as fully as possible,
sympathise with what is justified in them and recognise their limitations.
skinner's illumination
Submitted by Jeffrey on Tue, 02/06/2007 - 9:03am.
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
I am struck by the same thing when I read much of Skinner's work, Tim. In the
past- due to how I conceptualized the nature of thought- I was not able to see the
vast difference between his illumination and theoretical formulation of it. Now I
am relieved to have found the space that lives in the gap between The
Philosophy of Freedom and any attempt to explicate it.
Skinner himself seems to have equated his guiding intuition with the concepts
that he was building to explicate it, however there are fun examples in which we
see him need to throw away parts of his theory in order to hold onto his
illumination.
The way I see it is that the "world-view" acts as a filter that comes after the
illumination. To the extent that you are identified with a world-view, you won't be
able to see how it acts upon your intuiting and, therefore, blind-spots can built up.
However, as our culture well knows, there is a great power that can come by
completely identifying with one world-view exclusively.
Skinner's intuiting was very much lost in his schemas (in fact, his schemas
contradicted his intuiting), but his schemas did- as you point out, Tim- bring
forward very useful ways to act in particular contexts.
I like your idea of looking at contemporaries and their world-views. I personally
enjoy studying how the intuiting and world-view function within each other, and I
think Skinner is a great example of how our our intuiting is always much more
intricate and percise than any of our explications of it. Eugene Gendlin has done
a wonderful job of detailing this relationship without minimizing the role that our
concepts/schemas play in "carrying forward" our intuitiong.
Jeff
Research Project
Submitted by Tom Last on Tue, 02/06/2007 - 6:06pm.
We could start a research group to find contemporary examples of each of the 12
outlooks. People who were familiar. This would contribute to the understanding of
the outlooks.
We could present their position and why that represents the outlook in a way that
would be helpful for most people.
The fundamental principles of a science of thinking dispositions was given by
Steiner in his Human and Cosmic Thought lectures and is waiting for someone to
develop it.
Jung as an Exponent of Psychism
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
Submitted by Tim Bourke on Tue, 02/06/2007 - 11:00pm.
Well I'll have a go at trying to show why I think Carl Jung could be a good
example of someone who worked primarily through a world view of Psychism.
"Anyone who understands that ideas, if they are there are all, are bound up with
some being capable of having ideas, will no longer be a mere Idealist; he will
move on to the supposition that ideas are connected with beings. He becomes a
Psychist and his world-outlook is that Psychism."
In Jung's well-known biography/autobiography "Memories, Dreams, Reflections"
he relates early on a formative experience he had as a schoolboy where he was
unable at first to complete a train of thought because he sensed thinking it
through to the end would be blasphemous and wicked... in the passage below,
he relates his inner struggles at the time:
"Sweating with fear, I sat up in bed to shake off sleep. 'Now it is coming, now it's
serious! I must think. It must be thought out beforehand. Why should I think
something I do not know? I don't want to, by God, that's sure. But who wants me
to? Who wants to force me to think something I feel and don't want to know?
Where does this terrible will come from? And why should I be the one to be
subjected to it? I was thinking praises of the Creator of this beautiful world, I was
grateful to him for this immeasurable gift, so why should I have to think
something inconceivably wicked?'"
(Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" Ch 2 - School Years)
His struggle continues in this vein until he finally resolves to his own satisfaction
why he should proceed with the thought. He takes a deep breath and follows the
thought through to its (rather comical) conclusion which involves a vision of God
defecating from on high onto a cathedral which then shatters. Nevertheless, the
experience for him is immensely significant:
"So that was it! I felt an enormous, an indescribable relief. Instead of the
expected damnation, grace had come upon me, and with it an unutterable bliss
such as I had never known. I wept for happiness and gratitude."
For Jung, thinking and inner picturing was a deeply charged and powerful soul
experience often appearing to him one way or another as a manifestation of
beings outside himself. Hence his abiding interest in dream life, his concept of
the collective unconscious as a kind of god, his concept of archetypes such as
anima and animus and so on.
While Freud could remain happy with a conception of the human being as
controlled by inner psychic forces conceived by analogy with the forces active in
purely physical phenomena, Jung could not be content with such a world view at the point when Freud and Jung parted company, as it were, Freud warned
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
Jung against the "black tide of mud of occultism" but the warning was in vain Jung's impulse was rather to investigate and understand scientifically and
philosophically such phenomena as seances, paranormal phenomena, dreams
and so on as part of the whole spectrum of human experience and life.
Jung as Psychist-Pneumatist?
Submitted by Lori Perry on Sat, 02/10/2007 - 9:15am.
Hi Tim!
What you say here about Jung reminds me that Steiner says, in chapter 14 of
POF, "And every science which deals only with abstract thoughts and generic
concepts is but a preparation for the kind of knowledge which we gain when a
human individual communicates to us his way of viewing the world, and for that
other kind of knowledge which we gain from the content of his will." I took that to
mean, that to understand a person we have to listen to what he says about
himself, and we have to look at what he does. This is exactly what you are doing
with Jung, letting him speak for himself and also letting his work speak for him.
I read something of Jung's long ago, and don't remember many details, except
that it was all about the Collective Unconscious, and there were various beings
such as the Animus, the Anima, the Self (which I seem to remember usually
appeared as a kind of composite animal) who all appear in our dreams. I haven't
been able to distinguish properly between Psychism and Pneumatism yet.
Among the archetypes Tom proposed for the two are the Psychologist, for
Psychism, and the Psychic for Pneumatism (Don't you think that's the funniest
word? It sounds like someone who specialized in blowing up bicycle tires when
they were first invented.)
It's interesting to me that Steiner talks about how one viewpoint shifts into
another:
"When someone is a Psychist, and able as a thinking person to contemplate the
world clearly, then he comes to the point of saying to himself that he must
presuppose something actively psychic in the outside world. But directly he not
only thinks, but feels sympathy for what is active and willing in man, then he says
to himself: “It is not enough that there are beings who have ideas; these beings
must also be active, they must be able also to do things.‿ But this is
inconceivable unless these beings are individual beings. That is, a person of this
type rises from accepting the ensoulment of the world to accepting the Spirit or
the Spirits of the world. He is not yet clear whether he should accept one or a
number of Spirits, but he advances from Psychism to Pneumatism to a doctrine
of the Spirit."
So it's as if one view flows into another like water in that quadrant of views. So
maybe in Psychism, we admit something like soul in the outer world, and that
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
there's some kind of soul body (these words are not precise of course) that
carries Ideas. In Pneumatism the soul body begins to differentiate into active
beings, and in Spiritism they become individuals, the Spirits of the Hierarchies.
I'm not sure what Jung's beings are like, though. Are they just configurations of
our own souls? Do they exist outside of human beings, in a world of soul or
spirit? I do know that the world is incomparably richer for his having these
visions.
Another thing is, and this is probably just silly, that somehow I've come to
associate Pneumatism with animals. So if I was doing that, I might call Jung a
Pneumatist, because of the composite-animal Self. And because he seems more
connected with the spiritual world than a regular psychologist.
Jung, Pneumatism and Mysticism
Submitted by Tim Bourke on Sat, 02/10/2007 - 1:04pm.
Hi Lori,
Firstly, yes I can picture your pneumatist: wearing a bowler hat, with a big
moustache and a plaid jacket standing by the road with his pump!
Secondly, a short response to your suggestion (long response below, feel free to
ignore) is that yes, on reflection I certainly think also that Jung wandered about in
the quadrant composed of Psychism, Pneumatism, Idealism and maybe even
Spiritism. But I think Psychism was his "home base", so to speak, for much of his
life. With a mood of Mysticism (see below, see I'm learning about the moods
now!)
Thirdly (here beginneth the lesson :-), trying to understand the difference
between a psychist and a pneumatist: having read Steiner's description again, it
seems to me that the critical differentiation between the two world views is the
question of whether the more or less independent soul entities are also able to
_act_ independently in the world or not.
Now with Jung's world view, at least as it is expressed in his scientific writings,
I've observed he is a very careful thinker (maybe too careful sometimes) but
there is an underlying mood of mysticism (I've checked HACT and this usage of
the word seems to line up with Steiner's characterisation of Mysticism as a
fundamental world outlook mood). That is, he feels a need to delve into the world
of inner experience and not subject this _too_ much to the light of clear thought,
for example. Which put him in an interesting situation as a person who adopted
theorising about the human soul as an important part of his profession!
The mysticism and the excessive carefulness of thought express themselves in
how he defines concepts such as "archetype", "unconscious" etc. For example,
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
on "archetype", while he gives an accessible working definition of what an
archetype is (examples are figures such as the good king, the hero, the fairy
queen and so on that appear in one form or another in fairy tales, dreams,
movies and so on), when it comes to the question of the "real" nature of the
archetypes he has this to say:
"It seems to me probable that the real nature of the archetype as such is not
capable of being made conscious, that it is transcendent, on which account I call
it psychoid." ("Memories, Dreams, Reflections", Glossary: "Archetype")"
Personally I don't find this part of his definition _very_ helpful at all, and it strikes
me in a similar way when he talks about the unconscious - sometimes it almost
seems he is talking about a kind of god or God but then he suddenly seems to be
talking about our lowest urges as if they were to be unequivocally identified with
this divine. Of course, in a certain sense they can be but then again as Steiner
says in PoF inability to differentiate can cause endless problems...
Again and again you will find this hesitation when he is expounding his
_scientific_ world view, teetering on the brink as it were of being able to speak of
disembodied spirits, life after death and so on but again and again returning to
the phenomena themselves rather than drawing inferences, quite rightly of
course from a certain point of view.
One wonders if Jung ever looked seriously at Anthroposophy - certainly he would
have known of it and would have found it an interesting phenomenon, however I
believe he would have expressed his views on it in his usual qualified manner,
his inclination was more to study spiritual world views scientifically (e.g. alchemy,
religion and so on) than to enter into them.
Anyway, back to pneumatism: I think that in later times Jung did start to move
towards this point of view (that there are individual soul/spirit beings acting in the
world) in his written work and more explicit world view. For example, he put
forward the idea of "synchronicity" or meaningful coincidence late in his career as
a real factor at work in the world. This concept points in the direction of such
influences as karma/destiny or even direct intervention in human life by a higher
power and so on.
And if you ever get a chance to read "Answer to Job" there you will find him even
entertaining the thought that the world process reached a stage where something
like the incarnation, death and (maybe) resurrection of a Christ figure had to take
place within the physically perceptible world, not just within the individual or
collective psyche.
Lastly, with Jung it is very important to differentiate between his personal views
and those expressed in his scientific work. If you have access to a copy of
"Memories, Dreams, Reflections" just read the (short) Chapter 10 "Visions"
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
where he relates his own near death experiences. Then read Chapter 11 "Life
After Death" where I feel that the real Jung is expressing his own views from his
life experience unconstrained by the rigours of scientific thought.
Thanks for taking the trouble to read this stuff, it is much appreciated :-)
Skinner and Harlow
Submitted by Lori Perry on Wed, 02/07/2007 - 11:26am.
Thanks, Tim, for giving us that link to a sympathetic (and mercifully brief)
summary of Skinner's life and work. I've never fully appreciated the behaviorist
viewpoint, even though I take shameless advantage of it when trying to break
myself of bad habits. Somehow I've come to associate Skinner with those
horrible experiments done on orphaned monkeys, and I probably would have
gone on doing so (quite wrongly) if it hadn't been for your bringing him up. The
article didn't mention any such research, so I decided to find out who had done
those experiments, which always leap to my mind whenever I think of
behaviorists and their theories.
The researcher who did the experiments was Harry Harlow, who turns out to be a
very interesting character in his own right. The article "Monkey Love," by Lauren
Slater in the Boston Globe of 3/21/04 goes right to the heart of the matter (Sorry,
I don't know how to put in links.) The experiments put orphaned monkeys with
wire or cloth "mothers," and the famous film clips of the sad little monkey clinging
to the apparatus really pushes a lot of people's buttons, including mine. But
according to the article, the experiments got worse: he invented something called
"the Iron Maiden," a surrogate mother that blasted the babies with icy air and
stabbed them with spikes. Later he suspended monkeys upside down for two
years in an isolation box to see what that would do. The irony of it is that he was
supposedly studying love. Of course, he had no love or compassion (at least not
for the animals, as he himself admitted) so he was studying it from the outside.
His ideas, like Skinner's, actually changed the institutional practices of infant care
for the better, according to the article. He demonstrated empirically that infants
must be touched and held. Apparently the practice in some orphanages and
hospitals at that time was to give them their bottles on a stick and leave them
alone. I'm tempted to say that materialistic science got itself into a corner this
way and had to get out of it by torturing monkeys. So this takes a little away from
the glory of the "advance," at least for science in general. For Harlow himself? I
try not to throw in occult anthroposophical concepts, but it's not hard to imagine
that someone might have decided, in the spiritual world before birth, to take on
that karma as a selfless act. Or perhaps as some long, involved resolution of a
karmic debt. In any case, the article by Slater is beautifully written and reads like
a tragedy. (A tragedy is always supposed to be a heroic figure done in by his own
pride!)
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
So I have a few questions, such as, does the end justify the means? And does
believing that it does, or doesn't, put one in a certain area of the circle of the
points of view? Is Harlow a materialist because he treated animals as though
they had no soul, or at least as if their soul (and his own!) didn't matter? Is he a
sensationalist because he tried to reduce love to a series of sense experiences
that could be replicated by machines? I've lived with these ideas for almost 2
years now and it's all still a mystery to me, especially given the idea that every
one of the 7 planetary outlooks each person possesses could conceivably be in a
different constellation, just as in regular astrology.
Harlow had a kind of freedom, which was another aspect of the freedom of
indifference, I guess. He absolutely did not care. So he was free to make a
necessary advance in science. But according to Slater, he really wasn't as free
as he thought, and his actions had an effect on his own being that he ultimately
couldn't ignore. According to Slater!
If I had to say his work arose out of one of the points of view, I'd say Materialism,
hand in hand with Sensationalism and Mathematicism (since he engineered his
own machines.)
Harry Harlow Article URL
Submitted by Tim Bourke on Wed, 02/07/2007 - 5:00pm.
Thanks for that Lori - for anyone interested the URL to the article is
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/03/21/monkey_love/
Harlow Unbound
Submitted by Tim Bourke on Wed, 02/07/2007 - 8:26pm.
Thank you Lori I can see you have summarised that very well, it is an
extraordinary life story and one I had not heard before. I can imagine a tragic
poem with a title like (slightly tongue in cheek) "Harlow Unbound" or some such.
In terms of the world views, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has trouble
understanding them. But like you I never give up trying! So here goes:
In terms of the 12 world views I think the quadrant made up of Materialism,
Mathematicism and Rationalism is a place where souls like Skinner and Harlow
can wander happily (if you know what I mean by happy in this context) from one
to the next, with even the occasional sally across the circle into the region of
Dynamism (though this is more likely perhaps for physicists, astronomers,
mathematicians and thinkers of that ilk).
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
Rationalism, don't forget, allows "reasons" other than purely mathematical
reasons to be determining factors in world evolution. For example, physical
contact, consuming milk, pleasant sensations and so on. But there is still the
tendency to want to move back towards Mathematism and measure everything (I
recall there was a character in "Little Shop of Horrors" who "just wanted to
measure the bite marks" a monster had left on its victim. Even at the risk of his
own life!)
I think human beings need freedom to wander back and forth between the world
views, try them out, have successes, make mistakes, work out their karma and
so on.
And I haven't even started thinking about the 7 world outlook moods yet, I guess
that complicates it even more but makes the whole thing even richer. More like
life itself!
cognitive mode vs. belief system
Submitted by Jeffrey on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 4:32am.
I also think what complicates it is that in HACT Steiner uses the phrase "WorldViews" in at least two different ways, and sometimes he makes this switch within
a short paragraph.
It seems to me that "world-view" can be used to describe a specific modality of
cognition: counting, imagining, sensing distinctly outwardly, sensing distinctly
inwardly, inferring based on sense-reality, inferring based on deductions, etc,.
We could refine the terms, but my point is that "world-view" can be used to say
"type of thinking" or "way of being" in the world.
I also see Steiner using "world-view" to speak of belief systems that are very
distinct and conclusive. This is very different from modalities of thinking. We can
see how they might relate; if somebody really is good at thinking numerically,
they might be inclined to form a belief system that says the universe is all
mathematical. But this is hardly a given. In fact, I believe that most of us enjoy
noticing how one spiritual path might be shaped because its founder was very
good at mathematical thinking, another takes on the shape of a rational founder
and, yet, another is patterned by a sensually cognitive founder.
So, while it is clearly important not to equate a modality of cognition with "worldview" it is equally important- but less often observed- to avoid the bias that says a
mode of thinking TENDS to lead to a world view. This is an easy mistake to make
because our mind can pick out a given context like NASA and say, "well, most
people at NASA are highly skilled at math." Yes, but go to NASA and you'll easily
be able to break the people into groups of sensualists, phenomenologists,
rationalists, idealists, etc,. And, more importantly, I don't think you are more likely
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
to find a given world-view at NASA just because it contains a cluster of a specific
thinking modality. Last night I watched one astronaut talk about his belief in "a
light of love and peace that is life", another NASA guy talked about "the
importance of understanding the importance of exploring space for the future of
democracy", and mission control guy (a math genius) who spouted his belief that
the bases of reality are primal urges.
In the following quotes from Steiner's descriptions of the world-views, I think we
can see this distinction between modality and belief system operating but not
being made explicit. I think an insidious (too dramatic)confusion results from this:
Steiner on Mathematism:
"And anyone who raises himself above this crude materialism will become a
mathematical thinker, and will recognize as valid only whatever can be treated
mathematically. From this results a conception of the universe that really admits
nothing beyond mathematical formulae. This may be called Mathematism."
The crux of the biscuit lies in Steiner's turn of phrase "and will recognize as valid
ONLY"...a highly specific mode of thinking (like mathematical thinking) is not
related to the reasons we will "recognize as valid only". In my opinion the
reasons that humans tend to need very specific beliefs about the world that are
VALID compared to very specific other views that are NOT valid are not related
the modes of cognition, but are much more related to deeper conditioning. Being
born into a community in Africa that believes our sensual encounters with the
earth are caused by a group of beings named "Plumatha" will have more to do
with what you call VALID than with your particular mode of thinking. This is overly
simplistic, but I'm leaving the point general here.
Steiner on sensationalism
"Anyone who says this—mark it well!—is not an adherent of Phenomenalism. He
peels off from the phenomena everything which he thinks comes only from the
understanding and the reason, and he allows validity only to sense-impressions,
regarding them as some kind of message from reality. This outlook may be called
Sensationalism."
Steiner says, "...and he allows validity only to..." Again, we see Steiner speaking
of belief systems that are independent of cognitive modalities. One of my clients
identifies herself as a sensationalist in that she really believes that the only thing
in the universe that is real is sensations. She is smart and knows how to make
this sort of philosophical argument and she sticks to it strongly. This is her world
view to the extent that it describes what she will grant validity to, but it tells you
nothing about her primary mode of thinking.
I have yet to see a clear definition of the term "world view" but it might not be
necessary in order to continue having interesting conversations. I would be
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the relationship (or lack thereof)
between ways of thinking and "world-views". I don't think the Catholic church is
lacking its fair share of mathematicians, and I don't think that NASA is in short
supply of people who believe in- and are preparing for- the Rapture.
Jeff
There are the 12
Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 5:58am.
There are the 12 world-outlooks and the 7 world-outlook moods. I see these as
the archetypal mode of thinking dispositions possible rooted in the spiritual
hierarchy and represented by the Zodiac.
These outlooks underlie the expression of particular views. So you could say The
Philosophy of Freedom is structured according to the world-outlook diagram in
Human and Cosmic Thought. From out of these various thinking dispositions
Steiner articulated specific views selecting certain philosophers as examples etc.
Someone else with the ability to enter these modes of thinking could write the
same book using different details. The outlooks are laws of thought that are
universal but the views could be expressed many ways. Just like a law of nature
expresses itself in many ways. But a good scientist can discover the law behind
the phenomena.
Then you can go back to Chapter 1 and ask if you are compelled by these laws
of thought or are you conscious of them, have knowledge of them, and can move
into the mode of thought needed at the time. Each outlook is the key for
unlocking a certain realm of reality, as materialism unlocks the material world and
spiritism unlocks the spiritual world.
If we are not aware of this science of thinking we may be unaware of our own
one-sidedness and feel the need to explain all of reality out of one outlook. This
is at the core of disagreements.
Thanks very much, Tom,
Submitted by Jeffrey on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 8:11am.
Thanks very much, Tom, because your description above begins to get at a few
of my questions. My understanding of what you wrote leads me to think that you
identify the "world-outlooks" as specific ways of thinking that can be applied to
ANY world-view or belief system. You say,
"From out of these various thinking dispositions Steiner articulated specific
views..."
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
I see a nice distinction here. We can see a "thinking disposition" as a specific
way of approaching a subject (any subject). So you can take mathematical
thinking into approaching the material world, idealizations or logical schemas.
This would result in different outcomes than if you took a sensualist approach
into these different domains. Neither would be more correct than the other. They
would simply bear different fruit.
If we keep "ways of thinking" distinct from "world-views" we can understand why
Steiner believed that the world needs "creative materialists" more than "dogmatic
anthroposophists". If we equate "ways of thinking" with "world-views", our
tendency would be to side with anthroposophy over materialism.
Incidently, I personally enjoy Joel's writing and Khulewind's because they always
highlight the methodology, "the way of thinking" and keep it cleanly apart from
specific views of the world. Keep it up, Joel!
Jeff
Jeffery says: My
Submitted by Tom Last on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 8:41am.
Jeffery says: My understanding of what you wrote leads me to think that you
identify the "world-outlooks" as specific ways of thinking that can be applied to
ANY world-view or belief system.
I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion.
As with most things this requires experience, the ability to recognize the outlook
that is the directing principle behind the view expressed. This is easiest to see
when listening to one of todays many scientific materialists who explain
everything within a context of the material world and its material processes. This
realm is all they accept as valid. Only evidence from the material world will
convince them of anything. This is the outlook of materialism. The views
expressed out of this outlook are directed by the outlook. It is helpful when
discussing the material world but not helpful when discussing our individual
spiritual nature. The materialists will forever be stumped over the questions of
mind and human consciousness.
Oh, I see: you use
Submitted by Jeffrey on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 1:24pm.
Oh, I see: you use "out-look" and "view" very differently. That helps. Thanks.
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
Jeff
Monism of Thinking
Submitted by Tim Bourke on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 12:13pm.
Jeff, so I understand the distinction you're making:
World View - meaning a body of beliefs which we as thinking beings can either
consider as valid or invalid (or more likely somewhere between those two
extremes).
World View - meaning a way of knowing the world, e.g. mathematically,
spiritistically, monadistically (sorry for the horrible words :-) etc.
My comment, which I hope is helpful, is that in POF Steiner helps us to
understand that "monism", i.e. the view that reality is not split into some such
duality as subject/object, inner/outer, perception/concept and so on, is valid in the
case of thinking itself.
In other words, he affirms what for me anyway is the core of the book - leading
the reader to the living experience of thinking which is prior to any division of it
into, for example what is thought and the one who thinks it.
So I'd like to suggest that in the light of this experience we need to be careful
about the application of any classification system to thinking itself. Thinking as a
unity is ultimately prior to any division of it into various possible world views,
world view moods, ways of thinking etc. But that's not to say that such a
classification is not helpful in terms of a practical understanding.
Having gotten that out of the way, my feeling is that the "world view" term as
Steiner uses it must relate more closely to a formed system of beliefs though as
you have pointed out he uses the term somewhat flexibly to also refer to ways of
thinking. I don't see this as a problem - don't forget that in POF Steiner also
mentions the importance of sometimes being willing to accept strange usages of
language in order to broaden our understanding.
Ultimately the thinker and what is thought are one, they are part of the same total
reality.
As Humpty Dumpty says in (I think) "Alice Through the Looking Glass": "When I
use a word, it means precisely what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing
less!".
Tim said: "So I'd like to
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
Submitted by Jeffrey on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 12:33pm.
Tim said:
"So I'd like to suggest that in the light of this experience we need to be careful
about the application of any classification system to thinking itself."
I like that a lot!
Jeff
Tim, I appreciate the
Submitted by Jeffrey on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 7:32pm.
Tim, I appreciate the direction you are going with the implications of monism.
Ultimately, we experience it or not. Later we try to use language to carry the
experience forward conversationally, which has its own importance.
As one of many world-views, monism fits nicely in any discussion about the
"nature of reality". And, as is fairly obvious, there are many, many, many
philosophies of monism that do not share much in common more than the name.
I believe that The Philosophy of Freedom stands apart in that Steiner is not
creating yet one more theory of monism, or even the BEST theory of monism. I
don't think PoF has to do with being a theory.
But as an experience, monism- as you suggest- is prior to everything else. Prior.
Even that word doesn't quite capture it because it implies linear time, as if
Monism happened in the past as opposed to being eternally true. Language and
Ego also make it appear as if the one Truth is something outside of "us" that we,
one by one, reach out and experience seperately. Tim, you say,
"In other words, he affirms what for me anyway is the core of the book - leading
the reader to the living experience of thinking which is prior to any division of it
into, for example what is thought and the one who thinks it.
So I'd like to suggest that in the light of this experience we need to be careful
about the application of any classification system to thinking itself. Thinking as a
unity is ultimately prior to any division of it into various possible world views,
world view moods, ways of thinking etc. But that's not to say that such a
classification is not helpful in terms of a practical understanding."
The Monism that is the Truth is not any of the monisms that are spoken. When
Steiner mentioned that even what he taught would not be true in the future, he
was pointing to the distinction between the manifest and the unmanifest. Monism
isn't going to ever be untrue in the same way that anthroposophy will be. Of
course, Steiner was hoping that enough people would get the hang of how truth
Contemporary Expressions of Various World Views - 1
changes in the manifest so that they wouldn't be clinging to old ways.
Nevertheless, the monism of The Philosophy of Freedom (the experience, not as
a state of consciousness; this gets tricky but not here) is eternal and prior to all
divisions. The monism of The Philosophy of Freedom has always been in but not
of the manifested.
The tricky thing about Monism, for me, is that we want to have it without being
eliminated as separate selves. Ego wants to develop methods of conditioning so
that it gets to experience free thinking. Undoubtedly such methods can be
cultivated and practiced and will bear fruit for Ego, thereby letting it know that it
has evolved or taken a step closer to initiation or however it stories the process.
We can do it that way to some extent, but I don't think it is what PoF is pointing
to.
I am well aware of the passages in PoF (the end of Chapter 9, for instance) in
which Steiner makes it clear that a process which involves time and personal
development is being described. It is simply important that we remember the
distinction between the separate self as posted by thinking and the union with/as
the world-all-creator as thinking. We might, temporarily, put it this way: Monism
(PoF, Freedom, Man's true nature) works ON the posited separate self and this
accounts for the apparent development and time involved (only from the point of
view of the apparent seperate self), but Monism works AS Self as World-AllCreator. Monism does not start divided, end divided or ever fall for the notion of
any inherent separation.
Reading my words, I laugh because it is clear that I struggle to let language say
my point. But I very much appreciate a context in which this sort of failure can be
witnessed and dialoged. I am writing AS my practice much more than about it.
And I am learning of the way "language will not yield" my thoughts as I know
them. In describing why he never published his later work on epistemology and
perception, Steiner said that language would not yield his thoughts. I'm very glad
he tried and failed in a manner that could be made public. And I'm grateful that
this won't be my last chance to create pointers for myself.
Jeff