I don't get the sense that Unger in any way means by "spirit" and "nothingness/groundlessness," e.g., in the same sense that Steiner or other spiritually oriented philosophers mean it, or that he draws any of his philosophy from spiritual sources. He has been involved in politics for 50 years, not meaning to downgrade that, since he seems to be doing it from a good place, but just to say that he is very out there in the world, and this book specifically seems to be another expression of his sincere efforts to bring the world forward.
Furthermore, his philosophy is clearly materialistic. It is said that he "takes on the Newtonian idea of the independent observer standing outside of time and space, addresses the skepticism of David Hume, rejects the position of Kant, and attacks speculations about parallel universes of contemporary cosmology." From what I've read, he seems to be offering a post-Richard Dawkins style religion, something that Dan Dennett would have agreed with. Yes, one could paraphrase what he's saying as, "One should live to the utmost in the moment but in the context of history," but Unger would not mean that the way Buddha or even Whitehead would mean it.
What I'm trying to say is that to me at least it sounds dissonant and jarring to place a spiritual teaching next to a material philosophical one for comparison unless you're implying that he picked up on Steiner's ideas in ways unbeknownst to him or is himself a closeted anthroposophist, or is simply expressing a materialist's view that just happens to be, again, unbeknownst to him, a practical application of some of Steiner's ideas.
I am only beginning to understand Unger’s theology so I could be off target here. I certainly don’t mean to imply he is knowingly or unknowingly offering an anthroposophical perspective. I found his descriptions appropriate for our consciousness soul moment and felt there was a possible bridge to be built from where he leaves off to where Steiner invites us to continue deepening.
Great connections, Matt. My sense is that Steiner's approach can help resolve Unger's recognition of the "disparity between the weightiness of spiritual commitment and the inadequacy of the grounds for making it.” Doing so would also illuminate Unger's ideas in a new light, particularly his notions of sharing "in the attributes of the divine"—becoming "bigger, more alive, more equal, connecting with one another in love": participated experience.
Thanks, Michael. I had only read his book on Time with Smolin, and had heard some of his lectures in years past. This book really caught my attention and feels very resonant, especially within an anthroposophical context.
MAtthew, this is excellent, thank you for taking time to align Unger and Steiner. I'm fascinated with the analysis of where we are and ways forward. I'm also fascinated with the year 1500AD. It comes up over and over again. One interesting reference from Edward Edinger below:
"About 1500 A.D. the God-image (archetype) fell out of heaven into the human psyche. In other words: it was withdrawn from metaphysical projection and became available for direct conscious experience".
I feel this lines up with what you have written about also.
To bring in a touch of process-relational thought, I feel that the greatest blindness created by the modern paradigm is the blindness to growth through levels of complexity. Mechanistic growth is perceived linearly, like a car accomplishing a journey. However, our organic experience of growth is fractal. To build on what you have written about freedom as expressed by Steiner and Unger, I see that we are continuously growing through levels of freedom and restraint - one stimulating the other.
For example, a newborn child absolutely must have the experience of being held and swaddled. And after a few months they will squirm out of this embrace to experience new levels of experience. The child returns to and releases the comfort of being held as needed, and continuously adapts this need into greater levels of complexity. As an adult, we create a home and family patterns based on these early experiences of being held - or lack thereof, in cases of adversity and trauma. As well, our expression in and relationship to society grows out of that newborn squirming, to the daring foley of teens, to our work in the world.
Modern industrialized education entrains the mind and spirit to linear, binary perception, flattening our experience of the novelty of growth and becoming, and belittling our need for relation. Hence, I am a proponent of an Imaginal Education that cultivates participatory learning, supporting emergent experiences of growth. Unfortunately, I have found that Waldorf pedagogy in practice has been overly adapted to the modern audience, losing much of Steiner’s original intent. Waldorf teachers could greatly benefit from your practice of bringing Steiner “into conversation” with other great thinkers, thereby loosening the unconscious bias that has developed in the field. While the teachers are trained in the concept of recognizing the inner soul of the child and nourishing this through learning experiences, in practice (at least in the US schools I have researched), they are still delivering preconceived concepts with predetermined outcomes - taking us back to the concept of linear growth and the flattening of experience.
It seems that only the brave and somewhat reckless educator will attempt open-ended learning in the modern environment. To serve as a facilitator to the growth that unfolds through experiential learning doesn’t exactly fit into a report card or degree - therefore is rejected by most institutions. From my experience, it requires a high level of negative capability to be an artisan of education. Not just recognizing the inner soul of the student - we must be able to perceive potential growth and be open to a great variety of outcomes and expressions. This is not the same as “child-led learning” which has become a narcissistic back-swing from the oppressions of common core standards.
To “kindle within it a living imaginative thinking that inspires transformative action”, we need to facilitate participatory learning with the guiding compass of levels of complexity, as Whitehead expressed it. We do this by recognizing the student as a co-creator of their learning experience, supporting and even demanding that they consciously participate in that essential cycle of freedom and restraint (at an age appropriate level). The students learn to voice their needs for support while recognizing their opportunities for growth. When the teacher and learning materials clearly articulate aims rather than pass/fail restraints, students take on surprisingly complex challenges, and often bizarre detours, with astonishing outcomes. Participatory learning develops a perception of becoming, applied both to our inner reality and the world around us. (Interestingly, this concept of complexity is also very prominent in Doaism. Yet another reason why Whitehead is so popular in Asia.) In practice, recognizing the awesome complexity of the natural world allows us to shed away the blindness superimposed by the modern paradigm, awakening the true participatory power of the imagination.
Hi Matt,
I don't get the sense that Unger in any way means by "spirit" and "nothingness/groundlessness," e.g., in the same sense that Steiner or other spiritually oriented philosophers mean it, or that he draws any of his philosophy from spiritual sources. He has been involved in politics for 50 years, not meaning to downgrade that, since he seems to be doing it from a good place, but just to say that he is very out there in the world, and this book specifically seems to be another expression of his sincere efforts to bring the world forward.
Furthermore, his philosophy is clearly materialistic. It is said that he "takes on the Newtonian idea of the independent observer standing outside of time and space, addresses the skepticism of David Hume, rejects the position of Kant, and attacks speculations about parallel universes of contemporary cosmology." From what I've read, he seems to be offering a post-Richard Dawkins style religion, something that Dan Dennett would have agreed with. Yes, one could paraphrase what he's saying as, "One should live to the utmost in the moment but in the context of history," but Unger would not mean that the way Buddha or even Whitehead would mean it.
What I'm trying to say is that to me at least it sounds dissonant and jarring to place a spiritual teaching next to a material philosophical one for comparison unless you're implying that he picked up on Steiner's ideas in ways unbeknownst to him or is himself a closeted anthroposophist, or is simply expressing a materialist's view that just happens to be, again, unbeknownst to him, a practical application of some of Steiner's ideas.
I am only beginning to understand Unger’s theology so I could be off target here. I certainly don’t mean to imply he is knowingly or unknowingly offering an anthroposophical perspective. I found his descriptions appropriate for our consciousness soul moment and felt there was a possible bridge to be built from where he leaves off to where Steiner invites us to continue deepening.
Great connections, Matt. My sense is that Steiner's approach can help resolve Unger's recognition of the "disparity between the weightiness of spiritual commitment and the inadequacy of the grounds for making it.” Doing so would also illuminate Unger's ideas in a new light, particularly his notions of sharing "in the attributes of the divine"—becoming "bigger, more alive, more equal, connecting with one another in love": participated experience.
Thanks, Michael. I had only read his book on Time with Smolin, and had heard some of his lectures in years past. This book really caught my attention and feels very resonant, especially within an anthroposophical context.
MAtthew, this is excellent, thank you for taking time to align Unger and Steiner. I'm fascinated with the analysis of where we are and ways forward. I'm also fascinated with the year 1500AD. It comes up over and over again. One interesting reference from Edward Edinger below:
"About 1500 A.D. the God-image (archetype) fell out of heaven into the human psyche. In other words: it was withdrawn from metaphysical projection and became available for direct conscious experience".
I feel this lines up with what you have written about also.
Have read a bit of Unger in the past but this book was new to me. Really enjoyed this article!
To bring in a touch of process-relational thought, I feel that the greatest blindness created by the modern paradigm is the blindness to growth through levels of complexity. Mechanistic growth is perceived linearly, like a car accomplishing a journey. However, our organic experience of growth is fractal. To build on what you have written about freedom as expressed by Steiner and Unger, I see that we are continuously growing through levels of freedom and restraint - one stimulating the other.
For example, a newborn child absolutely must have the experience of being held and swaddled. And after a few months they will squirm out of this embrace to experience new levels of experience. The child returns to and releases the comfort of being held as needed, and continuously adapts this need into greater levels of complexity. As an adult, we create a home and family patterns based on these early experiences of being held - or lack thereof, in cases of adversity and trauma. As well, our expression in and relationship to society grows out of that newborn squirming, to the daring foley of teens, to our work in the world.
Modern industrialized education entrains the mind and spirit to linear, binary perception, flattening our experience of the novelty of growth and becoming, and belittling our need for relation. Hence, I am a proponent of an Imaginal Education that cultivates participatory learning, supporting emergent experiences of growth. Unfortunately, I have found that Waldorf pedagogy in practice has been overly adapted to the modern audience, losing much of Steiner’s original intent. Waldorf teachers could greatly benefit from your practice of bringing Steiner “into conversation” with other great thinkers, thereby loosening the unconscious bias that has developed in the field. While the teachers are trained in the concept of recognizing the inner soul of the child and nourishing this through learning experiences, in practice (at least in the US schools I have researched), they are still delivering preconceived concepts with predetermined outcomes - taking us back to the concept of linear growth and the flattening of experience.
It seems that only the brave and somewhat reckless educator will attempt open-ended learning in the modern environment. To serve as a facilitator to the growth that unfolds through experiential learning doesn’t exactly fit into a report card or degree - therefore is rejected by most institutions. From my experience, it requires a high level of negative capability to be an artisan of education. Not just recognizing the inner soul of the student - we must be able to perceive potential growth and be open to a great variety of outcomes and expressions. This is not the same as “child-led learning” which has become a narcissistic back-swing from the oppressions of common core standards.
To “kindle within it a living imaginative thinking that inspires transformative action”, we need to facilitate participatory learning with the guiding compass of levels of complexity, as Whitehead expressed it. We do this by recognizing the student as a co-creator of their learning experience, supporting and even demanding that they consciously participate in that essential cycle of freedom and restraint (at an age appropriate level). The students learn to voice their needs for support while recognizing their opportunities for growth. When the teacher and learning materials clearly articulate aims rather than pass/fail restraints, students take on surprisingly complex challenges, and often bizarre detours, with astonishing outcomes. Participatory learning develops a perception of becoming, applied both to our inner reality and the world around us. (Interestingly, this concept of complexity is also very prominent in Doaism. Yet another reason why Whitehead is so popular in Asia.) In practice, recognizing the awesome complexity of the natural world allows us to shed away the blindness superimposed by the modern paradigm, awakening the true participatory power of the imagination.