This concept is super evocative and fascinating: "A proposition need not be true to be important: it must be interesting. And it is precisely the imaginative power of 'false' propositions that opens the world to novelty."
Interesting connection with Sri Aurobindo's vision:
"Your life on this earth is a divine poem that you are translating into earthly language.
Sri Aurobindo"
The thing that always gets me about Steiner is his conflation of thinking and ("higher," if I may) intuition. I never found anything in his writings close to what Sri Aurobindo spoke of as Vijnana, or supra mental consciousness. This appears in "matter" as the laws of nature, in animals as instinct, in humans as various physical, vital, and mental intuitions, in the few as genius or spiritual awakening, and all points to a further unfolding.
There are some connections with Gebser, but Gebser himself attributed his vision of integral consciousness to the influence of Sri Aurobindo:
Be it noted that my concept of the formation of a new consciousness, of which I
became aware by a flash-like intuition in the winter of 1932/33, and which I
began to put forward in 1939, largely resembles the world-scheme of Sri
Aurobindo, who was then unknown to me. My own, however, differs from Sri
Aurobindo's in that it appeals to the Western world only and does not have the
profundity and the pregnant origin of his ingeniously presented conception. I see
an explanation for this phenomenon in the fact that I was in some way brought
into the extremely powerful spiritual field of force radiating through Sri
Aurobindo.
*****
For those unfamiliar with Sri Aurobindo, I always like to mischievously recommend the appendix of Wilber's book, "The Eye of Spirit."
For over 10 years, students of Sri Aurobindo's work had written to Wilber to attempt to explain to him how he was distorting and presenting confused interpretations of Sri Aurobindo's writings.
Finally, he set out to defend himself by presenting a definition of Sri Aurobindo's terminology.
he got every one of them wrong! So I tell people, "Read what Ken Wilber has to say about Sri Aurobindo, then assume the opposite, and you might start getting some sense of what Sri Aurobindo was pointing to.
By the wya, I notice that other commenters are not taking what you wrote seriously as philosophic writing. I'm not sure I would have included the weirded occult observations of Steiner in a first time introduction. And it may be at least interesting to note, it's possible that Steiner got lost in the inner worlds (Mirra Alfassa, aka the Mother, referred to him as an "asura'). It seemed that way to me when I first came across Steiner's writings in 1971. I think Barfield may be a better fit for our times and easier for people to digest.
Anyway, just a few random musings. VERY well written, by the way! One of my favorite posts of yours, at least in the last few months.
Matt, this is, to me, one of your better missives. Though the pragmatist bend at the end of your essay and its "as if" motif is a slippery slope, your willingness to engage Steiner in the dialogue is both brave and the proper context for the scope of what the Temple group is shooting for.
In reading their (Temple's) work and knowing Steiner's body of work it seems impossible or perhaps absurd, not to, at the very least, bring Steiner into the conversation. Their work is novel but without Steiner's contribution, I find it truncated rather than a metamorphic contribution to the scope of that work.
As I have mentioned to you, I respect your caution in bringing Steiner into a conversation. AND I have found in response to Temple's work that it would be irresponsible not to bring Steiner into dialogue with their wonderful effort. I know all three are aware of Steiner and that Wilber based (barely acknowledged - yet so) a large part of his worldview on Steiner's work. I know Zak has a developing knowledge of Steiner's work and Gafni has often mentioned the good Dr.
The term gibberish originates as a description of the prolific writings of Jabir ibn Hayyan, the Islamic alchemist (Latinized as Geber). Hope you don’t mind if I spin your comment into a compliment.
Bylo by dobré kdyby jste při psaní neodkládal pod klávesnicí rozum a přestal si hrát na člověka s vyšším intelektem a v okamžiku přestanete smolit žvásty.
For those who are new to Steiner and are having trouble with this admittedly abbreviated taste of his approach to the inner realities of evolution, the following note may offer some help: https://substack.com/@footnotes2plato/note/c-85891243?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2at642
This concept is super evocative and fascinating: "A proposition need not be true to be important: it must be interesting. And it is precisely the imaginative power of 'false' propositions that opens the world to novelty."
Interesting connection with Sri Aurobindo's vision:
"Your life on this earth is a divine poem that you are translating into earthly language.
Sri Aurobindo"
The thing that always gets me about Steiner is his conflation of thinking and ("higher," if I may) intuition. I never found anything in his writings close to what Sri Aurobindo spoke of as Vijnana, or supra mental consciousness. This appears in "matter" as the laws of nature, in animals as instinct, in humans as various physical, vital, and mental intuitions, in the few as genius or spiritual awakening, and all points to a further unfolding.
There are some connections with Gebser, but Gebser himself attributed his vision of integral consciousness to the influence of Sri Aurobindo:
Be it noted that my concept of the formation of a new consciousness, of which I
became aware by a flash-like intuition in the winter of 1932/33, and which I
began to put forward in 1939, largely resembles the world-scheme of Sri
Aurobindo, who was then unknown to me. My own, however, differs from Sri
Aurobindo's in that it appeals to the Western world only and does not have the
profundity and the pregnant origin of his ingeniously presented conception. I see
an explanation for this phenomenon in the fact that I was in some way brought
into the extremely powerful spiritual field of force radiating through Sri
Aurobindo.
*****
For those unfamiliar with Sri Aurobindo, I always like to mischievously recommend the appendix of Wilber's book, "The Eye of Spirit."
For over 10 years, students of Sri Aurobindo's work had written to Wilber to attempt to explain to him how he was distorting and presenting confused interpretations of Sri Aurobindo's writings.
Finally, he set out to defend himself by presenting a definition of Sri Aurobindo's terminology.
he got every one of them wrong! So I tell people, "Read what Ken Wilber has to say about Sri Aurobindo, then assume the opposite, and you might start getting some sense of what Sri Aurobindo was pointing to.
By the wya, I notice that other commenters are not taking what you wrote seriously as philosophic writing. I'm not sure I would have included the weirded occult observations of Steiner in a first time introduction. And it may be at least interesting to note, it's possible that Steiner got lost in the inner worlds (Mirra Alfassa, aka the Mother, referred to him as an "asura'). It seemed that way to me when I first came across Steiner's writings in 1971. I think Barfield may be a better fit for our times and easier for people to digest.
Anyway, just a few random musings. VERY well written, by the way! One of my favorite posts of yours, at least in the last few months.
Matt, this is, to me, one of your better missives. Though the pragmatist bend at the end of your essay and its "as if" motif is a slippery slope, your willingness to engage Steiner in the dialogue is both brave and the proper context for the scope of what the Temple group is shooting for.
In reading their (Temple's) work and knowing Steiner's body of work it seems impossible or perhaps absurd, not to, at the very least, bring Steiner into the conversation. Their work is novel but without Steiner's contribution, I find it truncated rather than a metamorphic contribution to the scope of that work.
As I have mentioned to you, I respect your caution in bringing Steiner into a conversation. AND I have found in response to Temple's work that it would be irresponsible not to bring Steiner into dialogue with their wonderful effort. I know all three are aware of Steiner and that Wilber based (barely acknowledged - yet so) a large part of his worldview on Steiner's work. I know Zak has a developing knowledge of Steiner's work and Gafni has often mentioned the good Dr.
🙏
"Matter is pregnant with yearning, laced with interiority, impulsively seeking intimacy and coherence."
You can't help yourself but lapse into poetry.
(please never stop)
This is great. Looking forward to your upcoming interview.
Matt, this is crazy! yet interesting in the sense that it might be framed as a piece of art or like sci-fi. As a serious philosophy Im not so sure.
Incredible useless gibberish
The term gibberish originates as a description of the prolific writings of Jabir ibn Hayyan, the Islamic alchemist (Latinized as Geber). Hope you don’t mind if I spin your comment into a compliment.
Perfect response!!!!
Bylo by dobré kdyby jste při psaní neodkládal pod klávesnicí rozum a přestal si hrát na člověka s vyšším intelektem a v okamžiku přestanete smolit žvásty.
"Ibi da."
Andy Kaufman.
🥳 as we say here in UK. “You ‘ave to laff”. 🤷🏼♀️
Nejenom v Anglii blbcům z levé strany Gaussovy křivky jsme tiše shovívavý pane inteligentní stupide.