Modern science has increased our knowledge of the external world a great deal, but even it has reached the point where it finds it impossible to exclude ourselves from the picture.
Modern natural science is the science of the quantitative, Goethean science is the science of the qualitative.
This does not mean that Goethe did not value the qualitative approach.
Here is Steiner on Goethe:
…he says: — “Even where we do not require any calculation, we should go to work in such a manner as if we had to present our accounts to the strictest geometrician. For it is the mathematical method which on account of its thoroughness and clearness reveals each and every defect in our assertions, and its proofs are really only circumstantial explanations to the effect that what is brought into connection has already been there in its simple, single parts and in its entire sequence; that it has been perceived in its entirety and established as incontestably correct under all conditions.” Goethe wishes to understand the qualitative in the forms of plants with the accuracy and clearness of mathematical thought.
E. F. Schumacher likens quantitative science to a “one-eyed, color-blind observer,” because it treats our experiences such as perceiving colour as subjective and its practicioners would like only to deal with the purely objective. But if we think about it, when we imagine a scene from say, the cambrian era, we see it as a world full of colour and sounds. In other words we see it from the perspective of a modern human and not from the colourless, silent world of objective, quantitative science.
Stephen Harrod Buhner, in “The Secret teachings of Plants,” writes:
The primary mode of cognotion that the practitioners of science have used during the past century – analytical, linear, reductionistic, determininstic, mechanical – has begun to reach the limits of its assumptions… There is, however, another mode of cognition, one our species has used as our primary mode during the majority of our time on this planet. This can be termed the holistic/intuitive/depth mode of cognition.
The difference being that in the past this type of knowledge was more instinctive and less conscious. We are now in a position to begin to aquire this holistic outlook in a fully conscious way.
Buhner quotes Masonobu Fukuoka:
In nature, a whole encloses the parts, and yet a larger whole encloses the whole enclosing the parts. By enlarging our field of view, what is thought of as a whole becomes, in fact, nothing more than one part of a larger whole. yet another whole encloses this whole in a concentric series that continues on to infinity.
He then writes:
The Subjectivity of Science Any measurement of Nature that smooths out its irregularities in order to allow measurement is not objective. It is, in fact, highly subjective. The observer, by determining the degree of measurement (or magnification) that will be used, and thus how the lines will be smoothed out, interferes with what is being measured. The observer intervenes in any resultant description of Nature by subtly altering its description, a description that depends on a preference for one level of magnification over another. It is an error that is not rectifiable – not correctable – because the error comes from the way of thinking itself. It comes from applying a linear, static mode of cognition to a nonlinear, always changing and flowing reality.
In the lecture, The Position of Anthroposophy among the Sciences Steiner says:
<blockquote>“In the moment when I learnt to know the inner meaning of what is called modern or synthetic geometry.” You see, when one passes from analytic to synthetic geometry — which enables us, not only to approach forms externally, but to grasp them in their mutual relationships — one starts from forms, not from external co-ordinates. When we work with spatial coordinates, we do not apprehend forms but only the ends of the co-ordinates; we join up these ends and obtain the curves. In analytical geometry we do not lay hold of the forms, whereas in synthetic geometry we live within them. This induces us to study the attitude of soul which, developed further, leads us to press on into the super-sensible world.</blockquote>
Analytical geometry moves away from the actual forms to coordinates and algebra goes one step further in abstraction by replacing the actual forms with symbols which can be manipulated without regard to the forms themselves.
Our modern way of thinking has encouraged us to regard the objects around us as real and the concepts we hold in our minds as representations of this reality. I see it the opposite way. The objects of sense are the representations and the concepts give us the reality.
Anthroposophic woo hugging Goethe the fox.
Thanks for your input. Any criticism of substance would be welcome.
(I’m afraid I published this before it was quite ready, But the tidying up I I still had to do was purely cosmetic. It would have made no difference to the message)
Yeah, cosmetics won’t help anthroposophic woo. Oh, Annie Besant with Steiner. Great company!
This is what has led you to call yourself a “heretical Christian,” was that how you phrased it CharlieM?
Steiner is perhaps even worse than the DI with their IDism, in trying to make a ‘science’ of non-scientific topics. It’s a mirror of scientism of things ‘spiritual’ – something must have driven him away the Catholic Church. The Nestorianism in “The Christian Community” is indeed a heresy, if that’s what you’re referring to. Steiner is just about anything but coherent theology, largely esoteric, mainly self-centered spiritual gymnastics.
Blavatsky stares at you coldly, CharlieM & you smile shyly at her ‘knowledge’, teetering on the occult. Time to embrace her, or turn away for good?
Self-label: “a heretical Christian with a leaning towards pantheism” – CharlieM
Well, a heretic technically is not a Christian. Are you aware of that?
Why not then just drop the ‘Christian’ to be accurate, if you’ve willingly embraced heresies via Steiner, Goethe, & perhaps others?
Otherwise, I’d recommend working on yourself to ditch the heresies. A healthier option. It would allow you to drop the anthroposophism woo too.
Neither Blavatsky nor Beasant had any part in Anthroposophy. Regarding the Catholic Church I’m not sure about the extent of your knowledge of Steiner’s involvement or lack of involvement with it. And the Christian Community, which I have never been involved with, was founded by Friedrich Rittelmeyer, albeit inspired by his acquaintance with Steiner. Steiner inspired many people from various walks of life in how they developed their interests. In areas such as education, agriculture, architecture, economics and other activities.
Here I am more interested in the direction science, especially the life sciences, is taking. For example how the latest findings in biology are convincing thinkers that they need to look in other directions to that which neo-Darwinism has led up ’till now.
Maybe you and walto could get together and come up with a suitable, alternative path for me to follow 🙂
I don’t agree at all with the jazz about science is thios, that, or the opther thing.
there is no such thing in the universe as science. God doesn’t do science.
All there is IS human beings using intelligence to figure out Gods already existing intelligence as far as revealed in the universe.
Its just about INTELLIGENCE. The more imtelligent people did the more science.
the less intelligent did less science.
all that remains is about conclusions that have been proven.
the scientific method was invented to make rules before conclusions were announced.
it doesn’t work. no one agrees on the method or when it has taken place.
Evolutionism was never proven but said to be. its said to be science. proof positive science methodology is a flop.
Intelligence leading to accurate conclusions is all there is in Gods universe.
CharlieM,
Should have addressed ‘neo-Darwinism’ in the OP then, instead of the holistic Steiner ‘spiritual science’ woo.
Calling it the ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ would help. The Third Way also moves past ‘Darwinism.’ But going backwards & into heresy with Steiner, Goethe isn’t helpful.
Again, if you’re going to embrace heresy, then it’s wrong to call yourself a Christian. Why not fix that?
I would say that the scientific method came about because Christians wanted to understand what they thought of as God’s creation.
Observing and thinking about stars and galaxies tells us that we live in an evolving, dynamic universe. Observing and thinking about earthly life tells us that it is dynamic and evolving. Observing and thinking about individual organisms tells us that development (which is an evolution of parts within the whole organism) is dynamic. Observing and thinking about ourselves tells us that consciousness evolves and develops. As Above, So Below.
In “A Guide for the Perplexed,” Schumacher gives a list of quotes in which we are advised to “Know Ourselves”:
Sorates in Phaedrus:
Philo Judaeus (late 1st century BC):
Plotinus (AD 205?-270):
Theologica Germanica (ca AD1350):
Paracelsus (1493?-1541):
Swami Ramdas (1886-1963):
Azid ibn Muhammad al-Nasafi (7th 8th centuries AD):
Lao-tse (c 604-531 BC): He who knows others is wise:
There is wisdom in these words. No animal can do this, but humans can.
Surely if God has given us the tools and attributes to help us to understand the universe, life and ourselves, then we should use these tools and attributes.
I wasn’t using the term to be inclusive of all modern, reductionist evoutionary theories, it was but an example. I used the term “neo-Darwinism” as an example of the quantitative, reductionist science that IMO needs to be superceded by a qualitative, holistic science, an example of which would be Goethean science. I could have used the term, ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ as the example, but it would have made no difference to the point I was making.
stephen-talbott who is a contributer to thethirdwayofevolution.com would disagree. That website gives the views of a wide variety of people ranging from those who think that neo-Darwinisn just needs to be extended somewhat, to those who think that it is leading nowhere and should be replaced.
Wrong in whose eyes? Officially I am a Christian in that I have been baptised in the Church of Scotland. My beliefs may be heretical to Orthodox Christianity, but the C of S don’t seem to mind, they embrace all sorts including sinners like myself 🙂
Christ and the consequences of His deeds cannot be monopolised by any one religion, denomination or sect. As it is written in the New Testament, He ‘died for all.’
CharlieM,
Please link to Talbott supporting Steiner &/or Goethe. Otherwise, the point stands & your distraction is noted.
Yes, there’s a variety of views at Third Way. So what?
Drop the ‘neo-Darwinism’ claim then & just speak about reductionist science. Scientific reductionism is much different than ethical reductionism, after all. Natural scientists simply must ‘reduce’ the # of variables they use in order to gain results according to basic methodological & experimental parameters.
Well, then I’d suggest you discover whether they just “may be heretical” or actually are heretical. Do you know how to find that out? If not, I suggest you do some asking to the right people.
The cult of Rudolph Steiner is not an improvement. It offers a kind of Teilhard de Chardin heresy of watered-down woo, parading as ‘Christian’, yet without devotion or fear of God. If you’ve fastened your allegiance to heresy, rather than orthodoxy, I’d suggest turning back. But you seem to actually want to embrace heterodoxy, don’t you CharlieM?
It’s not an issue of ‘monopoly’ claims. It’s rather about proper teachings & understanding the Christian religion by living it, rather than departing from it. Pray for forgiveness, willful heretic! Your ‘holistic’ woo isn’t helping either yourself or the conversation.
Yes, “died for all”. Amen. So that they would come to Him, not so that you could put Steiner & foxy Goethe in front of Jesus to speak on your behalf for self-centred woo apologetic purposes that most likely won’t trick anyone.
Here are some quotes and links:
Talbott
Talbott has written a review of the book, ‘Goethe’s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature’ (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1998) here
Here is a list of Talbotts writings. His links to Anthroposophy is obvious. Although he he may have been inspired by Anthroposophy but he has moved on from Steiner to write about his own research and discoveries. Which is a good thing IMO.
If your instincts and intuitions were accurate then we wouldn’t need the scientific method. Given the success of science over previous eras that lacked it, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I don’t want to get bogged down with definitions. I just see neo-Darwinism as an example of reductionist science,
Here is what Denis Noble had to say about it, although he says that he doesn’t always distinguish between it and ‘the modern synthesis.’
I have no problem with replacing the term ‘neo-Darwinism’ with ‘the modern synthesis’ in what I wrote originally.
Of course it’s legitimate for them to do this. But then they must realise that they are no longer looking at reality, they are looking at simplified models. Genes as sequences of nucleotides stretched linearly as depicted in diagrams are very far from the reality within the cell. But this has been so often depicted as real and it surprises me that people show surprise when it becomes obvious that things are ‘more complex than at first thought’
Why should I care whether or not others find my beliefs heretical? I know my own beliefs and I know why I think they are justified beliefs. Why should I have any creed dictated to me by others?
I actually want to embrace what I believe to be the truth. You’ve spelled his name wrong by the way.
If you want to start another thread to discuss religion, feel free.
That definition still works fine for the vast majority of biology. Contiguous pieces of DNA sequences are what have function, and can be considered as a single unit that selection is acting on. This is true for transcription factors, promoters, active RNA transcripts, and proteins. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is still very limited, and the primary unit of inheritance is still DNA sequence.
Observation and thinking, which are the tools of science, are the perfect tools to use in coming to understand the world.
But as long as the life sciences remain so heavily influenced by physics all that we are going to understand is physics as it is applied to living systems, we will not understand life for its own sake.
Observing and thinking is what philosophers did before modern science, and it got us nowhere. It wasn’t until we applied Empiricism that we started to gain real knowledge. Empiricism replaced Rationalism, and we are the better for it.
The primary unit of inheritance is the single cellular organism.
Quoting Goethe:
That’s a good point. However, alleles and genes can be modeled independently of single organisms as a part of population genetics. This is especially true for diploid organisms where genetic recombination shuffles alleles.
Steiner in Goethean Science: X: Knowing and Human Action in the Light of the Goethean Way of Thinking
Goethean science goes beyond both rationalism and empiricism. Pure empiricism can do nothing but catalogue what is experienced through perception. Pure rationalism makes hypotheses about, and simplifies causes and interralationships, and infers into nature what is not actually there.
Goethe practised rational empiricism:
Yet ‘heretical’, as you defined yourself, means “of, relating to, or characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standard.” There seems to be something involved here about wanting a ‘scientific’ solution to faith & belief that has led to your departure. Are you departing from what you believe to be untrue ‘because of science’ or is it just the Church of Scotland?
Why so defensive? To openly & willingly share a creed with others, though, is of course a different situation. That is why you coming to orthodoxy is needed, as we don’t have Vladimir exhorting us into the Dnieper nowadays as loyal subjects.
To actually be a heretic or believe in heresy & know it & embrace it; that’s what fascinates me about what you’ve said here. As if ‘heretical’ is comfortable, cool & ok as a ‘search tool’ that you are now trying out Steiner with.
Can I ask: what is ‘orthodoxy’ that you are so against it? Not just in science, of course, as you seem to want it here.
In that case, science is not pure empiricism.
Also, science is not pure-empiricism + pure-rationalism.
I haven’t really departed from anything. I have never been what you’d call an active member of the Church. I have always believed in Christ but have never found any branch of official Christianity to be consistent in their beliefs or interpretation of what it means to follow Christ..
I don’t mean to be defensive. But if, after giving it some thought, I cannot accept as true any one part of a creed or teaching then I would be a hypocrite to embrace it. If you believe in a creed then sharing it with others would be the correct thing to do.
To give one specific example I cannot accept that God retains absolute power. So I cannot with hand on my heart say I believe in an almighty God.
I hope this answers your question.
Does Feser’s Thomism count as qualitative science?
Stage 1 of Feser’s Argument from Motion
Stage 1 has 15 steps!
BTW, I picture these bloggers as much older when I listen to the podcast.
Much older.
I would say it is all to do with our views on the fundamentals. Does our knowledge of the outer world come purely from our senses or do we have built in knowledge over and above what our senses reveal to us? So do you believe that we can gain knowledge from anywhere else but through the senses?
That’s true. The scientific method would not get very far if it did not try to make connections and unify the separate sensations provided by our senses.
When we are studying inorganic nature Steiner says:
But organic nature requires a different approach:
In the organic world the creative cause is not to be found in any external influence on the evolving organisms. It is to be found in the overarching form of which the individual organism is just a single manifestation.
Goethe claimed that he could picture this form as an inner perception. This picturing is empirical in that it is a higher experience within experience. It is not something he added to the physical plant in a speculative fashion, it is something that belongs to the plant’s nature which revealed itself to him.
It depends on what you mean by “knowledge”, what you mean by “our senses” and what you mean by “built in”.
The idea that knowledge = justified true belief — that’s an absurdity.
All knowledge is built-in. That’s the nature of knowledge. But it can be built-in because we built it in ourselves. We should not take “built-in” as implying “innate”.
There’s a lot of double-speak about “our senses”. Part of the time, people write about our senses as if that term means sensory receptors, such as retinal cells. But, at other times, the write as if “our senses” means the full result of perception. There’s a failure to understand the creativity of our perceptual systems. One of the reasons that people have trouble understanding consciousness, is that they take perception for granted. So they want consciousness to be explained in terms of something in addition to perception. But perception itself is the core of consciousness.
Many folk declare themselves to be anti-Cartesian, presumably because the disagree with dualism. But they swallow whole the Cartesian view that perception is passive. And they thereby ignore the creativity of perception.
IMO Feser’s Thomism counts as metaphysical philosophy and not as qualitative science.
Goethe wanted to refrain from speculating about what was behind the natural world that he studied. He was concerned with careful observation and concentrating deeply on these observations in order to understand the essence of the beings he was studying.
Making an argument for the existence of God is a perfectly legitimate pastime, but it is not science.
Neil Rickert,
I fully agree that it is difficult to convey what we mean because of the ambiguity of language. I will reply with more substance when I find the time.
Knowledge is that which we gain through experience. Our senses are the means by which we become conscious of the world. By built in knowledge I mean a priori knowledge as in Kant.
So we agree that we do not have a priori knowledge, knowledge is gained through experience?
Our sense experience gives us an unconnected chaos which we learn to comprehend by making connections through the act of thinking. Thinking allows us to learn by experience. It is not the act of seeing a tennis player serving that tells us that on leaving her hand, the ball as she bounces it, is not going to carry on moving downwards through the ground, or when she throws it up it is not going to carry on its upward journey and disappear out of sight. It is through experience, memory and thinking that we grasp the reality of the processes involved. We make connections from the chaos received through our senses.
I agree that perceiving allows us to become conscious. But knowledge comes from forming concepts and grasping ideas. A toddler may have may have better functioning sense organs than an old man but the man will have gained much more knowledge than the toddler.
We never at any time experience pure, passive perception, it is always accompanied by our acts of feeling and/or thinking so that is another point we agree upon.
In short:
Through the act of knowing the world around us reveals itself to be much more than that which is provided through our senses. We make connections through reason. If we received reality in its totality through the senses then we would have no need to acquire knowledge. We would at once know in the perceiving.
The mistake is in thinking that we have the world of our perceptions (outer world) and our concepts and ideas are copies of this world (in our heads). In truth the ideas are that part of the world which we apprehend by inner means but this does not make them any less objective. In thinking we perceive ideas.
Sense perception gives us the particulars, inner perception gives us the general, and the combination of the two gives us reality.
Sounds like an excuse to not look further. Since you cannot follow Christ, it is others who are to blame. A living model of such ‘consistency’ in your life you surely must be CharlieM in order to to think that.
Have you been to Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch or Constantinople/Istanbul? Comfortable USAmerican & British ‘sanitised protestant Christianity’ isn’t the best role model here, imho. ‘Make us great again,’ they seem to be saying to themselves for encouragement. Other churches don’t self-estrange this way. You might consider digging deeper than that.
Yes, that’s an obvious ‘if.’ The same holds, ‘if’ you’ve accepted Steiner’s ‘spiritual science’ approach & his Nestorianism, then you are willfully embracing heresy. If so, you would be a hypocrite to call yourself a Christian, according to the teachings of the “holy catholic & apostolic church’ that you reject in your own mind & heart. Do you disagree? Sometimes personal decisions regarding important teachings can make a big difference. Do you know what ‘anathema’ means?
I’ve never met a Steiner follower who doesn’t have some highly individualised, often heretical views. They’re ‘creative’ indeed, but also usually highly imbalanced with their fetished views, some of which, admittedly, are half-right & seem to be appealing on the surface.
If your admitted “departure from accepted beliefs or standard” is blamed on others, e.g. on ‘institutional religion’ like many people nowadays do, then I suggest checking to see if yourself might be the problem, rather than blaming others or churches around you.
Omnipotence is difficult to fathom, especially by finite & limited minds as we creatures are. I hope you see how gentleness with heresy isn’t a wise strategy. Expunge it. Cleanse it. Lift it up in prayer as you fight your own demons. Get rid of it in yourself, otherwise, perhaps over many years, it will tear you apart & you are not strong enough to mend it. Good wishes, CharlieM.
That’s it for me on this thread.
I’m okay with that, provided that a priori is not taken to imply innate.
I don’t agree with that. At least as I use the terms, mathematical knowledge is a priori but still gained through experience. It is a priori, because the truth of mathematical statements does not depend on experience. But the knowledge of mathematics does still depend on experience.
It’s not just thinking. It requires organizing the world in such a way as to make sense experience less chaotic.
As you do not wish to continue with this discussion, I won’t prolong things by responding to your questions.
And good wishes to you too. No doubt we’ll bump into each other in other threads 🙂
Mathematical truths may be present without the need for us to experience them. But is our knowledge of them attained without having been experienced in some way by us? And would you say that mathematical truths are objective?
How do we organise the world without the use of thought? Is it instinctive? Can we carry out an act of will without thinking about it in some way?
CharlieM,
Thanks. After that, I think I’ll take another break from TSZ. It’s a sink on time & there really is very little inspiration to find here among skeptics, atheists & agnostics.
Qualitative ‘science’ is something I’ve done quite a bit (now moving back towards quantitative again), yet that isn’t what most people here are interested in or wish to speak about, it seems. And frankly, I don’t find that particular dichotomy very helpful in terms of science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse.
You prefer Steiner? Try Solovyev or Sorokin. At least they didn’t invite heresy upon themselves as they knew better & could find their place within the Tradition & Company, rather than intentionally pushing away from it to the margins & sometimes over them & out of the picture.
Good wishes seeking a way out of heterodoxy. The statement “I have always believed in Christ but…” isn’t encouraging as framed. Hanging on to power for yourself isn’t going to go over well for you when it’s all over, if you must answer to your Creator. Excuses about institutions aren’t going to fly very far. Individualistic faith is a licence to be happy with your own pollution. Become part of the social solution, rather than individualising the problem as if valiantly avoiding hypocrisy that you don’t seem to understand on the inside.
Agreed. And that is all that I take a priori to imply.
Our knowledge comes from using the concepts, and that is a kind of experiencing.
I see them as objective. But people disagree on the meaning of “objective”.
Our perceptual systems do pretty well, in ways that are prior to thought. Yes, we then use thought to extend beyond what perception provides.
That depends on what you mean by “act of will”.
Primitive organisms — too primitive for us to consider them capable of thought — are behaving pragmatically. We would probably not consider such behavings to be acts of will. But we also should not consider them to be purely mechanical.
I’ve had a look at Solovyev and Sorokin and I’ll look some more when I get the time.
Here’s a couple of quotes:
Pitirim A. Sorokin:
Steiner:
Possibly they are aiming for the same goal but following different paths.
I think we should each follow our own path as individuals. Good luck wherever your path leads you.
I think that these organisms are acting in conformity to a greater whole. They are equivalent to the individual cells in our bodies. These cells are full of purposeful activity because they belong to the greater whole which in our case is the individual, physical organism. The difference is that the physical bodies that these “primitive” organisms are a part of are not so condensed that we can see them as belonging to one unit as we do higher organisms such as ourselves. The organisms they belong to are much more diffuse in space.