There were a few slides I didn't get to that I'll follow up about soon. I want to share a bit about Steiner's unfortunate misreading (in my opinion) of William James' experiential approach to philosophy. More soon...
Oct 1·edited Oct 1Liked by Matthew David Segall, Urphänomen
I very much enjoyed this lecture and wish there'd been more time. It gets me thinking that "normative experience" is not a broad enough lens to look at these phenomenon through. If broadened to include "edge cases", how much more might we learn? I'm thinking especially of trauma and dissociation since that's my experience and have first hand knowledge of how it shifts experiences of time and space...and actually I JUST wrote about that a few days ago. That quote from Steiner about "splitting" due to force of velocity really struck home. I bet there are other "edges" that could illuminate more. Thanks for this!
Thank you for your ongoing final work with him. His case is perhaps one of the most needed and enlightening aspect of the science and spiritual science. A essential introduction to process Philosophy seems to be a palpable ongoing byproduct of your ongoing offerings for which I and many others am eagerly hoping for more. Your efforts in spirituality and technology is also greatly appreciated and clearly a sign that you have grasped an essential essence of Steiners teaching amongst many . You’re illuminating of the imagination and etheric would begin an in-depth extensive affirmation of that phenomenal fact. Many thanks.
You mentioned that it wasn't clear whether Whitehead ever came across Steiner's work in any depth, if I am not mistaken. I am curious about whether Whitehead interacted with the phenomenological inquiries of his time, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, et al?
One of Whitehead's students at Harvard, Winthrop Bell, had just returned from studying in Germany with Husserl, so it seems probable that Whitehead was aware of his phenomenology (though he never cites it in his publications). I do not think Whitehead was ever aware of Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty, though they were both familiar with Whitehead (especially M-P, who studied W extensively before his late lectures on nature: https://nupress.northwestern.edu/9780810114463/nature/)
here are the extra slides I didn't get to talk about! https://open.substack.com/pub/footnotes2plato/p/rudolf-steiner-and-the-dream-of-external?r=2at642&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
There were a few slides I didn't get to that I'll follow up about soon. I want to share a bit about Steiner's unfortunate misreading (in my opinion) of William James' experiential approach to philosophy. More soon...
I very much enjoyed this lecture and wish there'd been more time. It gets me thinking that "normative experience" is not a broad enough lens to look at these phenomenon through. If broadened to include "edge cases", how much more might we learn? I'm thinking especially of trauma and dissociation since that's my experience and have first hand knowledge of how it shifts experiences of time and space...and actually I JUST wrote about that a few days ago. That quote from Steiner about "splitting" due to force of velocity really struck home. I bet there are other "edges" that could illuminate more. Thanks for this!
Thank you for your ongoing final work with him. His case is perhaps one of the most needed and enlightening aspect of the science and spiritual science. A essential introduction to process Philosophy seems to be a palpable ongoing byproduct of your ongoing offerings for which I and many others am eagerly hoping for more. Your efforts in spirituality and technology is also greatly appreciated and clearly a sign that you have grasped an essential essence of Steiners teaching amongst many . You’re illuminating of the imagination and etheric would begin an in-depth extensive affirmation of that phenomenal fact. Many thanks.
Thank you for teaching me so much.
You mentioned that it wasn't clear whether Whitehead ever came across Steiner's work in any depth, if I am not mistaken. I am curious about whether Whitehead interacted with the phenomenological inquiries of his time, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, et al?
One of Whitehead's students at Harvard, Winthrop Bell, had just returned from studying in Germany with Husserl, so it seems probable that Whitehead was aware of his phenomenology (though he never cites it in his publications). I do not think Whitehead was ever aware of Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty, though they were both familiar with Whitehead (especially M-P, who studied W extensively before his late lectures on nature: https://nupress.northwestern.edu/9780810114463/nature/)