Title: Goethean science
mensagitat - September 18, 2008 04:11 AM (GMT)
Goethe stated: "One should not see anything further behind the phenomena: they themselves are the theory." Thus to Goethe, there was no separation between the form of a theory and the content of that theory. As Steiner puts it:
"the [organic] type does not determine the content in a merely formal way as does the [inorganic] law… The task which is required of our mind is to participate productively in creating the content while dealing with the formal. A mode of thinking in which the form and content appear in direct connection has always been called intuitive."
I almost understand the above. Humanity goes well beyond mere structure of form. I would like to be capable of going further with 'the direct connection between form and content' but all I get is a seemingly branching off topic of wanting to go on about Loki, who in Nordic Esotericism represented that part of the human known as manas.
Do we know the content of a form? In my mind I suppose I would think of a name to say, and reason for whatever content might exist within it and give it reflection.
mensagitat - September 27, 2008 03:53 AM (GMT)
The above is a small part of an article I have not even made a halfway distance in progress. The link to it is in another thread started by Nick concerning Anthroposophy and Theosophy. I guess I will insert it here when I get around to it.
I think that when inorganic science is mentioned, and form is linked to it, with the implication that this relies on proof, that these are your sciences, like physics, biology, chemistry, etc., exception might be quantum physics and I might even suggest that the latter may somehow be described as a medium between the in-organic and organic science. This last being content. Content being spirit, soul, mind.
As I've previously mentioned, I haven't come near to completely reading the article, and as the title suggests, I suppose its heading toward the introduction of chaos theory and possibly even closing along those lines. Backing up and going over the statement that intuition is form and content being utilized in direct connection, what does that mean? Spirit and soul, mind and body? Spirit/soul and mind/body?
The word 'type' is injected into the article. I think, to use toward describing content. Also mentions content as being the theory itself. So I might go so far as to say even in the venue of a Cosmic Pralaya, if we are ONE yet possess individuality, then we will still, even then maintain some modicum of mystery one to another. So Harvey and his windmills and Nick piloting a plane while carrying on marriage counseling will even then remain mysteries to me. :o :( :)
Nick the Pilot - September 27, 2008 04:13 AM (GMT)
"...and Nick piloting a plane while carrying on marriage [counseling]...."
--> Why, just today, I was pondering the differences between (1) being childishly needy, (2) aggressively needy, (3) the need to be domineering, and the horrible consequences these things have on spouses. I was doing this while I was up at 8,000 feet, coming in over the mountains just to the east of San Diego, California (and trying to not take out the group of antennas on one particular mountain that supplies all the TV broadcasting to the area -- I got a little too close). Perhaps the altitude inspires me...?
mensagitat - September 27, 2008 05:07 AM (GMT)
I have compassion for all the needy people upon the Earth..
The only way to understand a thing is to become it. I can imagine the only thing you are in need of is a more discrete distance above mountaintop mounted antennae. Have you ever faced whatever neediness you may possess? Or are you being taught how to heal it by books and teachers? I wonder if neediness is a euphemism for desire. I stay away from husbands and wives disputes. They scare me a lot. Even Solomon's parents engaged in words that hurt. Sometimes I think their conflicts are a necessary part of the relationship. Or a cherished part. Does a marriage counselor act as a referee until they learn how to stop short of going too far?
I conceive it to be extremely selfish to focus my consciousness on whatever effect another person might have caused within me.
pedro - September 27, 2008 02:53 PM (GMT)
Goethe stated the possibility of a self imaginary world. Also helped to demonstrate that anyone cannot give up on continuity by so stepping into duality. Anyone would be stepping on continuity, stretching its flexibility. It is not difficult to imagine that you can always insert another frame inbetween two other frames and it is not difficult to clearly see why it is possible.
So what would continuity be other than truth, health, love, home?
I focuse on learning to be silently aware when i am posed knowledge.That same silence acts through me as knowledge, even if it does so silently.
Practicing some releasing from habits i realised knowledge might overwhelm and accepted eyesight and simplicity as some terresterial house, a place of rest to feel causy at home. Humanity's home is worldwide and this home has grown a very sofisticated one, demanding us to live sofistication in a simple way.
At home there is a feeling of care and continuity among all beings.
If judging i try to be serious enough as to clearly see i am judging, so i can see what is the judging about. I also try to be serious about continuity and the way i react to experiencing continuity and relation.
I practice silence as a way to allow unity through. Habits, body, mind, feeding, sleeping, relatives, friends, city, world, humanity. How can we help us allowing this energy through without the need for violence?
Since anything that happens upstairs does happens downstairs, it is easy to understand that if there would not be stress throughout the planes of realm, the mind would be quiet. I know that one by one we all can assure a comforting relating continuity with the heart chakra center: there is a way back home when we walk it all together. Since we all are the same one, which is the whole all, if we are not all needy, why there is so much whole suffering?
I see the beauty of a child is that of unity: being a child is being flexibility within unity.
It seems we are being given the opportunity to choose whether to grow up a (wo)man or an adult and sometimes it sounds to me that the one who talks the most might be the latest to arrive in the present.
mensagitat - September 27, 2008 10:11 PM (GMT)
Arriving in the present seems an auspicious accomplishment considering Reality does consist of Now. Past and future are illusory. The old me did, and the new me does.
Purucker describes this Earth as a middle hell and a middle heaven. There are calamities, catatrophes of nature that cause pain, suffering and death. When combined with human greed and selfishness, and the conflict of wills subsequent to self centeredness and desires, inordinate attraction appertaining to the five senses, and nations who have made selfishness an ethical principle, and viciousness an art. Then there is the unseen taking of energies carried out by one human against another, when we each have within us an unlimited source of energy, which if we freely give to another and the other reciprocates, a magnification of this energy ensues. This could be seen as a manner of evolving a nation or perhaps even the entire global community to make this Earth appear more like a heaven.
I don't know if I would say it is a quickening which brings about an evolutionary leap for humanity, but what I described would at least raise us out of an Earth-like existence which often seems similar to living in hell. But then I've seen fundamentalists of more than one type of religion seem to want Earth to be in a condition similar to what hell must be like. I think it is a teleological thing. I don't agree with the 'end justifying the means' type of mentality. We experience, and revolvings occur, just read the Preacher's words in Ecclesiastes in refering to nothing knew under the Sun. That means many and many repetitions occur. Mixed in among these revolvings, emanations; creations; which become evolvings. So what I might find as imperfection (evil), is when only the revolvings part is done over and over by a human, or humanity. Inspirations, aspirations, and being self sustaining - which means achieving the ability to acquire and maintain the inner-states, which at the very least, contribute to others being affected by an individual in a beneficient manner - and to freely give that which you possess in endless supply, and be able to accept it when it is given in return.
I've been in hells of different intensities of suffering and torment. Varying levels of anxiety and fear, dread involving current reality and knowledge that more is to come. An individual might become adapted to this, almost considering it normal. One might even rise above it within thought, though not able to leave the venue physically. But, I do not understand why anyone would be attracted to this or find it acceptable.
The only reason the Earth currently seems more like a hell is selfisness, greed, attraction to physical things; realization that others want the same things, and the subsequent conflict of wills, aggression, fear. Yet, they all have these seemingly high minded reasons why they should be killing.
All of what I've said is not even pertinent anymore, because outbreeding the enemy as a stratagy of winning has seemingly made everything moot. Now, many people around the world see urgency as eclipsing reason and reflection. Or perhaps I too quickly jump to a pessimistic view. One could remember that out of chaos comes balance and order. Chaos, content, form?