Dialogue ~ 20

In my previous dialogue, I wrote, “… as humans, we have a tendency not to discern reality as consisting of paradox. For the most part it would appear that we regard reality as something that we are capable of discerning on our own terms - through consideration, analysis and supposition; just as surely as we are certain of what we know, there follows a sense of ‘what is not’.”

I would like to revisit the poem by Parmenides ‘on Nature’. The goddess in the poem relates how it is that only two ways of search can be thought of - the first that ‘it is’ (conviction) and the other that ‘it is not’. The goddess advises that the second way i.e. ‘it is not’ is wholly untrustworthy, simply because it is impossible to know what is not, for it is the same thing that can be thought of and can be. 

So, if I take an idea about reality and say to myself ‘this is true and this is not’, then I am in that moment projecting two thought streams or ideas about reality, whereas previously there had been one (and that originating idea being an imagining of reality, given as it is proceeding out of an experience of it). This portrays thought as like a blade, slicing and dicing (without any etiquette it seems) at the medium in which it believes it resides, unconsciously trying to customise reality through its imagining of it. But, is thought separate from the reality in which it resides, or is it closer to being an embryo, unconsciously experiencing itself in transition? That’s the paradox.

As to the concept of ‘nothingness’, am I to understand that this is nonsensical, given that what I am labelling as ‘nothing’ is an indication that ‘something’ is there? Is labelling ‘something’ as ‘nothing’ my brain’s habitual way of moving into a state of comfort (rather than of confusion or anxiety), as it encounters something new and doesn’t know what that something is? Can such an encounter be where my conscious self is standing on the threshold of its (sub)/unconscious self? If so, why does thought experience angst in the face of this ‘other’ than what is known (the polarity of light and dark or good and evil)?

Does thought operate as an entity in itself, much like a worker bee, projecting itself and gathering information about whatever is around it, but is unwilling or unable to transition? Clearly it is an essential aspect of consciousness but it is not what brings about coherence and inspiration.

The philosopher (and founder of anthroposophy) Rudolf Steiner, was greatly impressed by the work of the writer and statesman Johann Wolfgang Goethe. In Goethean Science, Steiner wrote, “Knowing has meaning only if we do not regard the configuration given to the senses as a finished one, if this configuration is for us a half of something that bears within itself something still higher that, however, is no longer sense-perceptible. There the human spirit steps in. It perceives that higher element. Therefore thinking must also not be regarded as bringing something to the content of reality. It is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas.”

Generally it would seem that humanity has become so accustomed to the recognition of the five senses, namely: sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch, that perhaps it doesn’t occur to include a further sense, that of thinking itself? Or is it because we don’t conclusively know where thinking originates i.e. there’s no specific apparatus that we can point to (such as eyes, nose, ears, tongue or skin) and say, ‘well, that is responsible for the process of thinking’? The orthodox view is that thinking emerges from the human brain. Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). It’s that paradox again.

Throughout his lectures, Steiner put forward the suggestion that from ancient times, the human being received images of a clairvoyant nature which condensed into the intellect, this continuing up until about the fourth century A.D; after that and particularly from the fifteenth century onwards, the human intellect became increasingly shadowlike. 

In his lecture ‘Materialism/Anthroposophy: Lecture XIV’ (Dornach, 1921), Steiner said, “… we can approach the true nature of man only if we consider the human being in connection with the whole universe … human intellect has no real existence at all; basically, it possesses only what would have to be described as a picture-like existence. When a person thinks today merely by means of his intellect, his thoughts are not rooted in reality. Human thoughts only move about in a shadowy existence and this is becoming more and more the case. This development reached an extreme in the nineteenth century and today human beings altogether lack a sense of reality. They live in a spiritual element but are materialists…”

And, “Try to realise what this shadowlike intellect actually contains. It cannot really understand the human being himself; it comprehends the minerals. That, after all, is the only thing the shadowy intellect can understand to a certain degree. Already the life of the plant remains a riddle for it; this is true even more so of the life of the animals, and its own life becomes completely obscure for it. Thus people go on evolving views of the world that, in reality, are but questions, because all they contain is unable to approach the nature of plant and animal, least of all that of the human being. Yet, this forming of pictures will increase more and more unless we make up our minds to receive what is being given us by way of new Imaginations in which the existence of the world is described. Into our shadowy intellectual concepts the living wisdom that spiritual science is able to give must be received. The shadow images of the intellect must in this way be called to life … This calling to life of the shadow images of the intellect is not only a human event, it is a cosmic event.”

The definition of ‘intellect’ according to Merriam-Webster, is: “1a: the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge. b:the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed.”

Is the human intellect comparable to a lens, such that it can be polished so that it receives clear images of reality, or can become muddied, and like a muscle which has been left to atrophy, loses its capacity to perform according to its full potential? Consider this: Jesus spoke to his disciples about how they were focusing upon the dead and had not yet found their beginning. Steiner suggested that the human intellect has become shadowlike with its preoccupation of the mineral elements (material world) and must be ‘called to life’ and into reality.

The dictionary definition of intellect given earlier is ‘the power of knowing and the capacity for knowledge’. If the lens of the intellect has become shadowlike as Steiner suggested, then another way of looking at that is of what could otherwise have become an iridescence or radiance (or diamond), gradually solidifying into a dark lump of coal! Now does that make sense with what the early alchemists were trying to convey through their esoteric teachings as to the nature of and value of the ‘philosopher’s stone’? 

A materialist might say that the physical world is all there is, ergo, that is reality and to speculate about anything else (particularly of a spiritual nature) is fanciful. Still, if the extent of what a person is at any moment capable of discerning (or perceiving) is a box, then that person might argue their case that reality is a box. Any discomfort with the unknown or inexplicable being dismissed, through pushing it into the comfort zone of ‘prove it’ - in other words, make it visible to them!

To recall what Steiner had said, “Into our shadowy intellectual concepts the living wisdom that spiritual science is able to give must be received. The shadow images of the intellect must in this way be called to life …”

What happens if I intend to allow what is real to inform me (and to clear the lens of my intellect as Steiner suggests)? Remember what Psalm 46:10 says, “Be still and know that I am God…” Perhaps humanity has become so intoxicated by the runaway nature of thought that in its insatiable quest for knowledge, it has forgotten how to enquire, which begins and ends in silence? For any staunch materialists, this doesn’t have to be an acquiescence of humanity as having a ‘higher nature’, but simply to do as Albert Einstein said of himself, “I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me.” He also said, “We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”

Opting out of the daily routine of life and going to sit in silence in a cave to wait for revelation perhaps isn’t going to ‘cut the ticket’ then! However, if your mind was of a busy and enquiring nature before doing so, then perhaps that is what is required – an inner kaleidoscopic experience of thoughts and silence; it is a dialogue after all, one that has to do with coherence.