Spent all day thinking about Whitehead. Your article is a masterpiece, which helps me to see why you waved, "Process and and Reality", at your video audience after completing OOS - 12. I found it quaint enough to be audacious, even. To find 'typos' in this nest of curiosity only drives the point forward, which is this. To find parallels between Whitehead and Goethe is a work of art, and needs the recognition. To find parallels between Whitehead and Steiner, who are two contemporary thinkers, c. 1861, is what is in the offing. Kind regards.
BTW, my SpiritLogic, fully accords to a process methodology.in accordance to Alfred North Whitehead. I just found that out today, Matt. Very important. Thanks goes to you.
Some heavy slogging for me at times, but worth reading. It may be too late for edits, but I noticed a couple typos. On page 46 of the PDF, before fn 60, I think the word "thought" should be "through." On page 49, before fn 78, "councils" should be "counsels."
I was kind of surprised in my search of the Steiner archive to find that he had nothing to say about Whitehead, or Russell. This is especially important, it seems, because Steiner went to England, after a nearly nine year absence, in 1922. In fact, he went there three times that year, c. April, August, and November. Whitehead was on the verge of a professorship at Harvard, beginning in 1923, and so I understand that, of course. Steiner never made it across the pond to America, but he gave ample warnings about it over the years.
So, the only substance I could find is this interesting introduction to Steiner's , "Case for Anthroposophy", written by Owen Barfield in 1970. You likely know of Barfield's criticism of the positivists. This is the only place I was able to find in which Whitehead and Russell are assessed in relation to Steiner.
Of course, I think that if Steiner knew about them at the time he went back to England, he would have raved about them. So, please keep peace of mind. Steiner was very much in his progressive mode in 1922, and wanting to align with the western allies again, even as Germany was still being punished. This is where his problems with his own country really began. Whitehead went to Harvard, which becomes a different story.
I know nothing about these entities other than to here discourse from you. Steiner in 1922 begins to unpack his whole baggage. Up close and personal. Remember, Barfield only heard Steiner for the first time here in England, c. 1922-1924. He would unload it on his friend, C.S. Lewis, and the Inklings were born. Thanks, Matt, for staying up with me. I never meant for you to think that R & W were a pair. I wouldn't know about that. Whitehead would go to America. Steiner would suffer further oppression. Admittedly, Steiner focused on Central European thinkers, and a few from the west, like William James, and Herbert Spencer. This is a very good argument, if it is even that. Thanks.
I am reminded of how much Steiner spoke and wrote about Oswald Spengler in 1922, which helped encourage his return to the West. I suspect that by this time, Whitehead and Russell were of small account in Steiner's rationale to go back there. He wanted to forge a future, and this had the effect of sending Whitehead to America. Sadly, Steiner never made it to America, but he did proffer warnings, and especially to the Russians about what their future had in store. By the 1980's, the power struggle would come to a head, but America was always "a house of cards".
Hi Matt,
Spent all day thinking about Whitehead. Your article is a masterpiece, which helps me to see why you waved, "Process and and Reality", at your video audience after completing OOS - 12. I found it quaint enough to be audacious, even. To find 'typos' in this nest of curiosity only drives the point forward, which is this. To find parallels between Whitehead and Goethe is a work of art, and needs the recognition. To find parallels between Whitehead and Steiner, who are two contemporary thinkers, c. 1861, is what is in the offing. Kind regards.
BTW, my SpiritLogic, fully accords to a process methodology.in accordance to Alfred North Whitehead. I just found that out today, Matt. Very important. Thanks goes to you.
Some heavy slogging for me at times, but worth reading. It may be too late for edits, but I noticed a couple typos. On page 46 of the PDF, before fn 60, I think the word "thought" should be "through." On page 49, before fn 78, "councils" should be "counsels."
Hi Matt,
I was kind of surprised in my search of the Steiner archive to find that he had nothing to say about Whitehead, or Russell. This is especially important, it seems, because Steiner went to England, after a nearly nine year absence, in 1922. In fact, he went there three times that year, c. April, August, and November. Whitehead was on the verge of a professorship at Harvard, beginning in 1923, and so I understand that, of course. Steiner never made it across the pond to America, but he gave ample warnings about it over the years.
So, the only substance I could find is this interesting introduction to Steiner's , "Case for Anthroposophy", written by Owen Barfield in 1970. You likely know of Barfield's criticism of the positivists. This is the only place I was able to find in which Whitehead and Russell are assessed in relation to Steiner.
https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA021/English/RSP1970/GA021_intro.html
Of course, I think that if Steiner knew about them at the time he went back to England, he would have raved about them. So, please keep peace of mind. Steiner was very much in his progressive mode in 1922, and wanting to align with the western allies again, even as Germany was still being punished. This is where his problems with his own country really began. Whitehead went to Harvard, which becomes a different story.
I would recommend not thinking of Russell and Whitehead as a pair. Their thought overlaps in some ways, but after 1911 their collaboration ended and their thought went in rather different directions. Even during the period of their work on Principia, their motivations and understandings of the project were unique. I unpack their differences here (with help from Barfield): https://footnotes2plato.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-iwc-paper-whiteheads-philosophy-of-organism-turning-idealism-inside-out-1.pdf
I know nothing about these entities other than to here discourse from you. Steiner in 1922 begins to unpack his whole baggage. Up close and personal. Remember, Barfield only heard Steiner for the first time here in England, c. 1922-1924. He would unload it on his friend, C.S. Lewis, and the Inklings were born. Thanks, Matt, for staying up with me. I never meant for you to think that R & W were a pair. I wouldn't know about that. Whitehead would go to America. Steiner would suffer further oppression. Admittedly, Steiner focused on Central European thinkers, and a few from the west, like William James, and Herbert Spencer. This is a very good argument, if it is even that. Thanks.
I am reminded of how much Steiner spoke and wrote about Oswald Spengler in 1922, which helped encourage his return to the West. I suspect that by this time, Whitehead and Russell were of small account in Steiner's rationale to go back there. He wanted to forge a future, and this had the effect of sending Whitehead to America. Sadly, Steiner never made it to America, but he did proffer warnings, and especially to the Russians about what their future had in store. By the 1980's, the power struggle would come to a head, but America was always "a house of cards".