Five High Readership Reviews:
1. Roger S. Jones's 
Physics as Metaphor A Mind-Expanding Exploration of the Human Side of Science
.
Paradox is always at the level of metaphor, never reality. Bobby Matherne, 1983
I had scribbled the above statement in the margins of the Preface page back in 1983 when I read this book. I had been studying metaphor
intensively and this book represented a chance for me to combine two fields of expertise, namely,
Physics and Metaphor. It's been over twenty years since I first read this book, but it is amply
annotated with my comments which will provide the nuclei for this review. As I read this passage in
the Preface by the author, I knew I had found someone whose ideas would resonate with me, both the
me of 1983 and the me of today.
[page x] Within physical and mathematical ideas, it is always the philosophical,
the aesthetics, the psychological that I savor and which excite me the most. I
believe that many scientists share and relish these tastes with me, but when they
exclude all subjective, metaphysical, and ethical matters from their work and
communications, I part company with them. I am no longer convinced that this
exclusion makes one's work more objective.
There is so much that I agree with in Jones' book that if I include a passage, you may assume
that I wholeheartedly agree with his words unless I say otherwise. Here's an example. Jones says that
we are not the cool observers of the world, but its "passionate creators" that we are all poets and
the world is our metaphor. He goes on to suggest that:
[page 5] . . . scientists (and indeed all who possess creative consciousness) conjure
like the poet and the shaman, that their theories are metaphors which ultimately
are inseparable from physical reality, and that consciousness is so integral to the
cosmos that the creative idea and the thing are one and the same.
To which I appended a large BINGO! in the margins. With the advent of quantum mechanics,
the physical theory that only dealt with "an observed world" no longer exists as a useful metaphor
because the "observer has an uncontrollable and nonremovable effect on what is observed." Reality
is what we see reflected in the pond water when we place our finger into the water we cannot
observe what is reflected without changing what is reflected.
In a brilliant metaphor, Jones says, "The child, science, has outgrown and rejected its parent,
natural philosophy, which languishes in a slow death." Undoubtedly this is because the warm and
juicy Nature portions of natural philosophy have been discarded as juvenile illusions and we are left
with the cold, dry, cardboard philosophy of abstract thoughts in its place, up until now.
Jones gives us an excellent description of what an operational definition is, actually a
prescription. An operational definition can only be defined operationally that is, by describing how
one goes about giving an operational definition. One explains what operations one must perform to
decide whether some unknown fits the operational definition. While this may seem to be a bit
abstract, it is the opposite of abstract, because the prescription of a good operational definition can
replace totally abstract definitions. Abstract definition have the wonderful quality, praised by
statesmen and divines, that one can choose to interpret them any way one wishes. One does not have
that luxury with an operational definition because anyone can perform the prescribed operations and
decide for themselves whether such-and-such fits the definition. Take freedom, for example. Have
you ever heard a good operational definition for the word "freedom"? Likely you haven't because it
is the statesmen and divines who usually claim the high ground in proffering a definition of freedom,
isn't it? And they posit only an abstract definition which fits their purposes. The advent of an operational
definition for freedom, rightly understood, would undermine all political and religious organizations
by revealing under all their golden tresses the deep, dark roots of coercion. More on that later. Back
to the book's prescription of operational definition, in other words, an operation definition of
operational definition.
[page 16] It is an amazing fact about physics that none of its concepts are ever
really defined. What we are given instead of a definition is a prescription for
measurement. To build a rocket and send it to the moon, you need only measure
space, not define it. The measurement of space is the only specification of it
needed for scientific purposes, and this is called an operational definition.
Those of you who have followed me so far may be wondering how could one offer an
operational definition of freedom. It would take someone who thought like a physicist, who had
encountered time and time what he thought was freedom only to find in its place a squishy abstract
definition used to conceal more than it revealed. I say "he" because it was one man who performed
this amazing feat, one that will change the world, even for those who never encounter his definition.
Before I reveal this man's name to you, consider for a moment all the definitions you have heard for
freedom.
Listen for a day or so to people talk and whenever they speak of freedom, consider what their
definition might be for the concept for freedom. A teenager might say, "I want to be free to drive the
family car." A union worker might say, "I want to be free to work for higher wages." A minority
might say, "I want the freedom that the majority has." And each year a new minority forms which
claims its right to a new freedom. And another minority rises which opposes that new freedom. But
what is freedom? There's freedom to do things we want to do, and there's freedom from things we
don't want to do. We are free to pay taxes, but not free from paying taxes. We are free to vote, and
also free to not vote. There are all levels and kinds of freedom: people are given freedom, people fight
for freedom, people flee to freedom, people take freedom for granted, people die for freedom. All this
and few of those doing all those things in the name of a word they lack an operational definition for.
Thank you for waiting. Here's the operation definition of freedom. I wanted this definition
so much that I paid a month's rent back in 1981 for it, and I spent 19 Monday nights in a small room
listening to a man's voice on tape tell me about freedom and explain his operational definition of the
word. The man was Dr. Andrew Joseph Galambos and the course was called Volitional Science 50T,
the T stood for Tape. The lectures were given by a local contractor on audio tape and slides. At the
end of the course, the course of my life had changed. I was now able to discern what was freedom and
what was not in the milieu of what people claimed was freedom, especially the statesmen and divines.
I was ready to begin building freedom for myself instead of fighting for freedom, claiming freedom,
and all the other things that people did who did not have this operational definition. I had a measuring
tool for freedom!
That's what an operational definition provides us, a measuring tool, for the thing described.
I could now lay anyone's concept of freedom (as betrayed by their own words) alongside my freedom
gauge and measure it. Let's see, does it measure up? If not, it's not freedom. You might wonder why
someone who was born and raised in the so-called "freest country in the world" would be so
concerned with freedom. Well, I am now able to measure this country against my freedom gauge and
see exactly those areas in which it doesn't measure up. And you would be able to do the same thing
if you had a "freedom gauge".
One way to get a freedom gauge for yourself is to find a contractor in
your area who gives V50T, though I doubt there are a lot of them around. It's hard to sell something
that everyone thinks they already know all there is know. Another way would be to read Dr. Galambos's
book, "Sic Itur Ad Astra" which is available from large on-line book sellers. Another was would be
to read my review of the book which is a verbatim translation of the same V50T course I took over
23 years ago. It is your choice which you can take in freedom and decide for yourself whether this
new definition of freedom works for you or not.
Jones proceeds to challenge the basic assumptions of modern science and he points out he
"cannot use those same assumptions to reject other belief structures." For example our relationship
to space has changed over time and maybe it's time for it to change again:
[page 60] It is the sum of all the felt organic connections between my inner and
outer worlds that I experience as space itself. Space is the synthesis of all my
feelings of relatedness, connectivity, orientation. Owen Barfield summarized it
beautifully:
The background picture then (in the Middle Ages) was of man as
a microcosm within the macrocosm. It is clear that he did not feel
himself isolated by his skin from the world outside him to quite
the same extent as we do. He was integrated or mortised into it,
each different part of him being united to a different part of it by
some invisible thread. In his relation to his environment, the man
of the Middle Ages was rather less like an island, rather more like
an embryo, than we are.
Maybe it's time for us to change from the cold, abstract isolated island of modern science back
into the living embryo of Nature once again. It may be argued that we had to become this island for
the past 600 years in order to learn fully about the physical world in which we live, but we were never
meant to continue on this course indefinitely. If we do, we risk losing our very humanity, our soul,
and our immortal spirit, and humankind will disappear when the Earth vaporizes in some distant
future. If we are not a living spirit, a microcosm in the macrocosm, this is our ultimate fate: the lifeless chill of
empty space. In freedom, you get to choose which destiny you wish for yourself. Given the two
choices everyone would choose the former. What is amazing to me is that modern scientists proudly
choose the latter. (Note: I mean modern materialistic scientists when I use the phrase modern
scientists. Clearly the author is a modern scientist, but not a materialistic one, nor am I. )
Modern scientists also proudly make derisive comments about those people who believe in
astrology. This reminds me of the words of Herbert Spencer, "There is a principle which is a bar against
all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Modern scientists seem to
revel in remaining in ignorance that they are on the slippery slope to an icy death.
The basic principle that connects humankind with the universe is the principle of 'As Above,
So Below'. This principle is not talking about a place, but the scales of space, and scales of time. If
you are interested in how this happens, you could study Rudolf Steiner's book, Cosmosophy, Volume
1, to come an understanding of how you as an individual in your time between birth and death have
the cosmos outside you and later in the time between death and a new birth have the cosmos inside
of you. You would need to study something that people in the early mediaeval period and before knew
as a fact, before we began to accept as real only those things revealed by our sensory apparatus after
the scientific revolution which began in 1453 A. D.
[page 64] For the medieval astrologer, above and below refer not to different
places but to different aspects of the same thing. There can be no above without
a below. The two are connected in fact, unified; and the many
correspondences and felt relationships between them inform the study of
astrology. Astrology is thus the explication of the connections that exist between
the stars and humans, between two apparently different realms which are
actually one.
Jones neglects to mention the planets which are also deeply connected with the human being
they have a direct relationship, one-to-one, with the various organs of the human body. It should
be obvious that simply giving a list of those relationships of planets to organs as astrology books do
provides no insight into how this comes to be. Only a study of spiritual science can provide those
insights if one works at it, they will come in time to be revealed.
[page 65] In such a realm of organic connectedness, the medieval astrologer
pondered the relationship of humans to the stars. He did not think in terms that
we might use of the influence of the planet Mercury on someone at the moment
of his birth, projected across millions of miles of empty space. Rather, he
recognized in the primal moment, when a new born child drew its first breath of
life, the stamp of a unique event impressed upon the whole cosmos and reflected
in its every rhythm and pattern.
One of the perennial celebrations in families around the world is that of a person's birthday.
Each year we are reminded of our relationship to our natal arrangement of the stars in the sky when
we celebrate the anniversary of our birth. Modern science endeavors to suck the life from the
celebration by flattening the patterns of stars into some geometrical pattern which has no conceivable
connection to our life on earth. No "conceivable" connection in their dry, intellectual way of
conceiving things. Jones fleshes out the reality that lies beyond the abstract reckonings of science:
[page 66] Meaning and wisdom are incorporated in astrological space, which is
symbolic, organic, and synchronistic, rather than empty, geometrical, and causal.
. . . A natal chart represents the organic and harmonic relations among the
various astrological elements rather than the geometrical ones. It is the organic,
reflective, symbolic relation that is primary importance, and this connection is
felt intuitively by the astrologer, as it was by ordinary people in the Middle Ages.
The medieval person felt connected to Mercury in much the same way as
you feel connected, let us say, to your liver. The geometrical location of your liver
scarcely begins to suggest its basic relationship to you. It is your liver's organic
and functional relation to you that is really important.
We have performed many amazing technological feats by modern science's application of
algebra, calculus, and geometry to space. We have applied these mathematical maps to land men on
the moon and bring them back, to created world-wide communications with global satellites, and to
many other less savory ballistic innovations. But along with these inventions, we have come to
mistake our maps of space for the territory they represent to pretend that space is nothing but an
empty void between isolated stars, planets, and comets which humans may one day navigate between.
With that we have lost our comprehension of how we live in concert with the Earth, Moon, Sun,
planets and stars between birth and death and they form our inner reality during the time between
death and a new birth.
Jones begins his last chapter with a long quote from a famous scientist made on PBS about
which he comments:
[page 208] My principal objection to the statement that opens this chapter is to
its ironic unwillingness to recognize in our present scientific world view the same
story-like quality as there is in the tales of the those who thought they lived on the
back of a turtle.
The above passage calls to mind a story about William James who was confronted by a
woman after a lecture in which he talked about the Earth's floating in space orbiting the Sun:
In a
cloying sweet voice, she said, " Prof. James, I cannot believe your story about the Earth floating in
space. Everyone knows the Earth is sitting on the back on an elephant."
James looked at her and replied, "My dear lady, in that case what is the elephant stand upon?"
"Well, everyone knows the elephant is standing on the back of a turtle."
"I suppose I must ask you then what is the turtle standing on," James said.
"Ooh, Prof. James, of course, it's turtle all the way down!" she replied triumphantly.
We are given metaphor after metaphor by modern science upon which they perch their abstract
theories and calculations. Their results are useful in manipulating the physical world, but like the
lady's theory, when we examine the basis of science's theories, we find that it is metaphor all the way
down.
2. Henry David Thoreau's Journal No. 11, July 1858 to February 1859
A look at the famous naturalist and author Walden in his native habitat, wandering around Concord, improving each day, surveying, make notes on local flora and fauna, and musing on the great verities of the world.
Excerpt from Review (with photos included):
Shortly after I began reading this journal volume in July, I decided to read Thoreau's daily
adventures in step with him, 149 years distant from him. By September 12 we were in step and stayed that
way through the winter, when by January I decided to pace my way through the rest of the journal ahead
of him, knowing that he would catch up with me in a few weeks anyway. This lock step pace allowed me
to reflect on the difference in climate from New England and my current home in New Orleans, about
2,000 miles south of Concord. I was thus pleased to read Thoreau's comments on the liberating effects of
a lake and especially a river, since New Orleans is situated with a large lake open to the sea on one side
and the broadest river in America on the other. In a walk of an hour or so, one can leave the shores of Lake Pontchartrain, walk through downtown New Orleans, and arrive at the banks of the Mississippi River. By Thoreaus measure, New Orleans has great wings on its back!
[page 4, 5] There is something in the scenery of a broad river equivalent to culture
and civilization. Its channel conducts our thoughts as well as bodies to classic and
famous ports, and allies us to all that is fair and great. I like to remember that at
the end of half a day's walk I can stand on the bank of the Merrimack. It is just
wide enough to interrupt the land and lead my eye and thoughts down its channel
to the sea. A river is superior to a lake in its liberating influence. It has motion and
indefinite length. A river touching the back of a town is like a wing, it may be
unused as yet, but ready to waft it over the world. With its rapid current it is a
slightly fluttering wing. River towns are winged towns.
In this review I expand the number of photos which I began in my reviews of two previous
Thoreau Journals, and include a photo for each plant that Thoreau describes in a quoted passage in
this review. Here is the first example from July 2, 1858. Photos of the two possible plants are shown for
comparison. Note the umbrella-shaped stems with terminating flowers which are common to both, which
is what umbelliferous refers to. With no flowers, Thoreau could not unambiguously identify the plant.
[page 5] I returned through the grass up the winding channel of our little brook to
the camp again. Along the brook, in the rank grass and weeds, grew abundantly a
slender umbelliferous plant mostly just out of bloom, one and a half to four feet
high. Either Thaspium aureum or Cryptotænia Canadensis (Sison).
While ascending Mt. Washington, Thoreau and Wentworth were invited by a miner to dine with him
and his assistant in a mountain shanty. The wind was so strong it blew fire down the stove vent and nearly
burnt the shanty down.
[page 15, 16] July 7. A merry collier and his assistant, who had been making coal
for the summit and were preparing to leave the next morning, made us welcome to
this shanty, and entertained us with their talk. We here boiled some of our beef-tongues, a very strong wind pouring in gusts down the funnel and scattering the fire
about through the cracked stove. This man, named Page, had imported goats on to
the mountain, and milked them to supply us with milk for our coffee. The road here
ran north and south to get round the ledge. The wind, blowing down the funnel, set
fire to a pile of dirty bed-quilts when I was out, and came near burning up the
building. . . . The wind blowed(2) very strong and in gusts this night, but he said it
was nothing to what it was sometimes, when the building rocked four inches.
[page 16] July 8. I noticed [this plant] this morning and the night before at and
above the limit of trees: Oxalis Acetosella, abundant and in bloom near the shanty
and further down the mountain, all over the woods . . .
Thoreau suggests that one can get lost easily without a compass on the mountaintop because a cloud can envelope it in a fog without any advance warning. Even though one can find a road if one travels in a straight line for 8 or 9 miles, the fog will not allow that without a compass. One will most likely travel in a circle without realizing it. I discovered in my studies of Rudolf Steiner's works that the etheric body moves in circles, an effect which is particularly noticeable in children. They all have a naturally strong etheric body and thus their love of any activity which involves circular motions. This tendency of our etheric body to move in circles remains in adults and that explains why people lost in the woods or in a fog tend to move in circles even though they think they are moving in straight line.
[page 23] July 8. Descending straight by compass through the cloud, toward the
head of Tuckerman's Ravine, we found it an easy descent over, for the most part,
bare rocks, not very large, with at length moist springs places, green with sedge,
etc., between little sloping shelves of green meadow, where the hellebore grew,
within half a mile of top, and the Oldenlandia cærula, or mountain fly-honeysuckle, in bloom, only two specimens; it is found in the western part of
Massachusetts.
In this next passage Thoreau speaks of the need for what we know today as rest areas for the
traveler, but he spells out a more simple requirement than parking spots, picnic tables, and sanitary
restrooms. He asks merely for places along the road where a weary traveler may stop, make a small fire,
and camp over-night during his journey without being yelled at by irate landowners.
[page 55] July 18. What barbarians we are! The convenience of the traveler is very
little consulted. He merely has the privilege of crossing somebody's farm by a
particular narrow and maybe unpleasant path. The individual retains all other
rights, as to trees and fruit, and wash of the road, etc. On the other hand, these
should belong to mankind inalienably. The road should be of ample width and
adorned with trees expressly for the use of the traveler. There should be broad
recesses in it, especially at springs and watering-places, where he can turn out and
rest, or camp if he will. I feel commonly as if I were condemned to drive through
somebody's cow-yard or huckleberry pasture by a narrow lane, and if I make a fire
by the roadside to boil my hasty pudding, the farmer comes running over to see if
I am not burning up his stuff. You are barked along through the country, from door
to door.
[page 55] July 18. Within one mile of top: Potentilla tridentata, a very little fir,
spruce, and canoe birch, one mountain-ash, Alsine Grænlandica, diapensia, . . .
In this next passage we encounter two usages which seem a bit strange to our eyes and ears today.
The spelling of the verb "stayed" and the metaphor for a lightning strike as something "falling" which brings
to mind Zeus tossing his thunderbolts to ground in the Greek myths.
[page 64] July 22. The next of the marsh hawk is empty. It has probably flown. C.
and I took refuge from a shower under our boat at Clamshell; staid an hour at
least. A thunderbolt fell close by. A mole ran under the boat. The wind canted
round as usual (is not this owing to the circular manner of storms?) More easterly,
and compelled us to turn the boat over. Left a little too soon, but enjoyed a splendid
rainbow for half an hour.
[page 69] Aug. 2. What I have called the Panicum latifolium has now its broad
leaves, striped with red, abundant under Turtle Bank, about Bath-Place.
A river plant, the bladderwort or utricularia, was apparently in full purple bloom as Thoreau landed
his boat near Fair Haven Pond.
[page 73] Aug. 5. The purple utricularia is the flower of the river to-day, apparently
in its prime. It is very abundant, far more than any other utricularia, especially
from Fair Haven Pond upward. That peculiar little bay in the pads, just below the
inlet of the river, I will call Purple Utricularia Bay, from its prevalence there.
Thoreau bemoans the value of country life, if one is no longer allowed to pick huckleberries or other
wild fruit freely. He says that it "reduces huckleberries to a level with beef-steak." Blueberries are
considered to be cultivated huckleberries and lack the ten or so hard seeds.
[page 78, 79] I suspect that the inhabitants of England and of the Continent of
Europe have thus lost their natural rights with the increase of population and of
monopolies. The wild fruits of the earth disappear before civilization, or are only
to be found in large markets. The whole country becomes, as it were, a town or
beaten common, and the fruits left are a few bips and haws.
Thoreau did not sow or till the soil, so far as I can tell, but he did harvest. He harvested what he saw
on his daily walks and in this next passage, he uses harvest as a metaphor to infuse meaning into the description of his walks.
[page 96] Aug. 12. That very handsome high-colored fine purple grass grows
particularly on dry and rather unproductive soil just above the edge of the
meadows, on the base of the hills, where the hayer does not deign to swing his
scythe. He carefully gets the meadow-hay and the richer grass that borders it, but
leaves this fine purple mist for the walker's harvest.
On the first official day of Fall, Thoreau spies some seed pods, and the next day he makes himself
a square sail which he likens to an ox pulling his boat. I daresay there are few people today who would use
that metaphor, having never experienced the actual pulling of a plow by an ox. Note how he recognizes the evil of too quick travel is that we spend less time living in the surroundings we pass along the way.
[page 116] Aug. 21. I still see the patch of epilobium on Bee Tree Hill as plainly as
ever, though only the pink seed-vessels and stems are left.
[page 116, 117] Aug. 22. P. M. I have spliced my old sail to a new one, and now
go out and try it in a sail to Baker Farm. It is a "square sail" some five feet by six.
I like it much. It pulls like an ox, and makes me think there's more wind abroad
than there is. The yard goes about with a pleasant force, almost enough, I would
fain imagine, to knock me overboard. How sturdily it pulls, shooting us along,
catching more wind than I knew to be wandering in this river valley. It suggests a
new power in the sail, like a Grecian god. I can even worship it, after a heathen
fashion. And then, how it becomes my boat and the river, a simple homely square
sail, all for use not show, so low and broad! Ajacean. The boat is like a plow drawn
by a winged bull. If I had had this a dozen years ago, my voyages would have been
performed more quickly and easily. But then probably I should have lived less in
them.
Thoreau comments on the difficulty of writing of the natural world. One must first acquire the words
to use for the things one observes. This reveals in a curious inverted way how valuable Thoreau's Journals
can be for someone who loves the out-of-doors: one can find words for things and then discover the thing
itself in the wild, growing and living. Thoreau has already done the hard work and we can enjoy the fruit of
his labor a century and a half later.
[page 137] Aug. 29. How hard one must work in order to acquire his language,
words by which to express himself! I have know a particular rush, for instance, for
at least twenty years, but have ever been prevented from describing some [of] its
peculiarities, because I did not know its name nor any one in the neighborhood
could tell me it. With the knowledge of the name comes a distincter recognition and
knowledge of the thing. That shore is now more describable, and poetic even. My
knowledge was cramped and confined before, and grew rusty because not used,
for it could not be used. My knowledge now becomes communicable and grows by
communication. I can now learn what others know about the same thing.
Aug. 30. P. M. To bayonet rush by river.
What we look for we find and in the looking for one thing we miss other things in the process. It
is as if our intentions reside in our eyes and creates a selective perceptibility.
[page 153] Sept. 9. How much more, then, it requires different intentions of the eye
and the mind to attend to different departments of knowledge! How differently the
poet and the naturalist look at objects! A man sees only what concerns him. A
botanist absorbed in the pursuit of grasses does not distinguish the grandest
pasture oaks. He as it were tramples down oaks unwittingly in his walk.
By the end of September in New England the days have gotten shorter. To a traveler who goes on
foot such as Thoreau, this has an interesting aspect, which he points out to us.
[page 188] Sept. 30. Walking early in the day and approaching the rocky shore
from the north, the shadows of the cliffs were very distinct and grateful(3) and our
spirits were buoyant. Though we walked all day, it seemed the days were not long
enough to get tired in.
While reading Thoreaus journals about these plants, I have often wondered what a fringed gentian looks like. So I took the opportunity to do a little
research and find a photo of one to go with this next passage. From the color of the flowers, one can tell where "Gentian Violet", a very purple antifungal solution once used for coating the umbilical cord stub of a newborn, came from.
[page 189] Oct. 1. The fringed gentians are now in prime. These are closed in the
afternoon, but I saw them open at 12 M. a day or two ago, and they were
exceedingly beautiful, especially when there was a single one on a stem. They who
see them closed, or in the afternoon only, do not suspect their beauty.
The levity of Thoreau in this next passage will be missed by any one who does not know what field
of study is ornithology.
[page 191] Oct. 2. The garden is alive with migrating sparrows these mornings. The
cat comes in from an early walk amid the weeds. She is full of sparrows and wants
no more breakfast this morning, unless it be a saucer of milk, the dear creature.
I saw her studying ornithology between the corn-rows.
The sugar maple trees which decorate Concord's Common so brilliantly each Fall were brought there
from the country as straight poles with the tops cut off and were joking referred to as bean-poles. These
poles are now like festival poles on which brightly colored flags are hung by Nature every autumn as a
golden harvest.
[page 218, 219] Oct. 18. All children alike can revel in this golden harvest. These
trees, throughout the street, are at least equal to an annual festival and holiday, or
a week of such, not requiring any special police to keep the peace, and poor
indeed must be that New England village's October which has not the maple in its
streets. This October festival costs no powder nor ringing of bells, but every tree
is a liberty-pole on which a thousand bright flags are run up. Hundreds of children's
eyes are steadily drinking in this color, and by these teachers even the truants are
caught and educated the moment they step abroad. It is as if some cheap and
innocent gala-day were celebrated in our town every autumn, a week or two of
such days.
Is there any greater joy than to go nutting in November? For me, the picking of pecans from the
grounds under a majestic pecan tree and eating them as I pick them is a great joy. Thoreau enjoys his daily
walks to the post office as if they were nuts he plucked to take home and enjoy in front of the fire on a
winter evening. On his solitary walks, he has always a friend nearby.
[page 274] Nov. 1. And yet there is no more tempting novelty than this new
November. No going to Europe or another world is to be named with it. Give me
the old familiar walk, post-office and all, with this ever new self, with this infinite
expectation and faith, which does not know when it is beaten. We'll go nutting once
more. We'll pluck the nut of the world, and crack it in the winter evenings.
Theatres and all other sightseeing are puppet-shows in comparison. I will take
another walk to the Cliff, another row on the river, another skate on the meadow,
be out in the first snow, and associate with the winter birds. Here I am at home. In
the bare and bleached crust of the earth I recognize my friend.
[page 312] Nov. 11. This is the month of nuts and nutty thoughts, that
November whose name sounds so bleak and cheerless. Perhaps its harvest of
thought is worth more than all the other crops of the year. Men are more serious
now.
As it gets colder, Thoreau experiences winter's approach and sees the earth breath being exhausted
from the ground.
[page 317, 318] Nov. 13. Last night was quite cold, and the ground is white with
frost. Thus gradually, but steadily, winter approaches. First there is the bleached
grass, then the frost, then snow, the fields growing more and more hoary. There is
frost not only on all the withered grass and stubble, but it is particularly thick and
white and handsome around the throat of every hole and chink in the earth's
surface, the congealed breath of the earth as it were, so that would think at first it
was the entry to some woodchuck's, or squirrel's, or mouse's, retreat. But it is the
great dormant earth gone into winter quarter's here, the earth letting off steam
after the summer's work is over.
Thoreau is not a preacher, but at times he crosses the line when some theme such as freedom of
speech inflames him, especially when he perceives that preachers of various sects do their best to squelch
any such freedom. Thoreau is no man of straw, but a man who takes such deep breaths of inspiration that he would
exhaust all the air from one of these so-called preacher's place of worship. He lambasts the church and recommends that the best preachers if they had any manhood, would best leave the church and play baseball! As for magazines, he blasts them with timidity to print a "whole sentence" anything freely spoken that might intimidate their bulk of subscribers. And to finish his attack, he takes on the meeting houses where he experienced them trembling at
the thought of what he might say to them. Is this real Christianity or the mere semblance of it? he asks.
Instead, they pick on each other's weak spots and create sores which can never heal. He gives us an example of what happens when such a meeting house has invited him to speak. The
silence is deafening when he speaks, but in that silence there is a fructification.
[page 326, 327] Nov. 16. I have been into the town, being invited to speak to the
inhabitants, not valuing, not having read even, the Assembly's Catechism, and I try
to stimulate them by reporting the best of my experience.
I see the craven priest
looking round for a hole to escape at, alarmed because it was he that invited me
thither, and an awful silence pervades the audience. They think they will never get
me there again. But the seed has not all fallen in stony and shallow ground.
In one passage we even get to experience with Thoreau the pleasure of skating on ice, in the words
of the song, "to know how it feels to have wings on your heels, and to fly down the street," only for him he
flies down a nearby frozen stream or river.
[page 381, 382] Dec. 29. I think more of skates than of the horse or locomotive as
annihilators of distance, for while I am getting along with the speed of the horse, I
have at the same time the satisfaction of the horse and his rider, and far more
adventure and variety than if I were riding. we never cease to be surprised when we
observe how swiftly the skater glides along.
Thoreau loves the forest. When he enters the forest, he has left civilization behind and is in his natural
element.He loves the wild animals like the marsh hawks, the wild fruits like the wild apple, and most of all
the wild trees and plants planted and maintained by Nature herself without interference from the bog-slogger
human beings who deign to shape Nature in their own image and produce less not more of what they began with.
It is fitting that he, of all people, would notice the origin of the word forest itself. Its etymological roots
suggest the wild nature that so attracted Thoreau and called him to spend even the most important holidays
in its company.
I noticed that this year I spent my Christmas and Thanksgiving in Thoreau's
company, with him in the wilds of Nature. For most of a year I found myself for a short
period each day, transported from sub-tropical New Orleans back to New England in the
company of a man who mostly suffered few men to accompany him on his adventures
abroad, but was somehow delighted to have me along with him as he walked through marsh,
swamp, seashore, and mountain, rowed and set sail over the Concord River, and skated
over frozen streams with wings on his heels. I returned from these excursions exhilarated and
thankful that there was a Henry David Thoreau who wrote in his Journal every day for 14
years, and a little sad that our journey together has only three more years before I close the
last page of his Journal, a better man and a happier me.
3. Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity
"The map is not the territory." That was my first introduction to the work of Count Alfred Korzybski. I heard those words in a Bandler and Grinder Seminar in 1977 and borrowed a copy of this
landmark book, his major opus, first published in 1933 from a friend. He had been directed
to it by our mutual metaphysics teacher, Alex Keller, some years earlier. I dug into the text of this 806 page
book which had 657 references and 90 pages of Preface and Introductions. Suddenly the basis for the works
of Samuel Bois, Kenneth S. Keyes, and S. I. Hayakawa began to make new sense for me all these writers
had studied under Korzybski. They were enriching his fundamental work and making it palatable to the
general public.
Korzybski's work created the field of General Semantics, which became known as a science
and was taught in colleges and universities. Somehow I had missed it, up until then. I was determined to
work my way through this book to make up for lost time and work I did: it took me an entire year of study
to get through this dense book dense in the compression of ideas in it. So dense that many days I was
only able to read three or four pages and then had to stop because my brain was so full of ideas that I had
to pause for 24 hours for them to be assimilated fully before I could proceed. And each day I applied those
ideas and processes to as many situations as came up in my life during that day. It was, rightly understood,
a year long seminar in General Semantics for me. In this review I hope to give you, my dear Readers, a taste
of that seminar so that the flavor of this important science can remain with you and bring some sanity into
the science that abounds all around and inside of you from now on.
One of the rare occasions we get to read an author talking about the book we are reading is in Prefaces to
Second and Third Editions. After reading this book, I read the precursor to it, a smaller book
he wrote in 1921 entitled, "Manhood of Humanity," in which Korzybski talked about the process of "time
binding." Time binding was to Korzybski like a single string on a guitar he used it as the basis of the
music he made in all of his works. "Science and Sanity" was a symphony he composed for his one-string
guitar. In his Preface to the Third Edition (1948), he talks about this book from the perspective of 15 years after its publication:
[page xx] The origin of this work was a new functional definition of 'man', as
formulated in 1921, based on an analysis of uniquely human potentialities; namely,
that each generation may begin where the former left off. This characteristic I called
the 'time-binding' capacity. Here the reactions of humans are not split verbally and
elementalistically into separate 'body', 'mind', 'emotions', 'intellect', 'intuitions', etc.,
but are treated from an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment (external and
internal) point of view. This parallels the Einstein-Minkowski space-time integration
in physics, and both are necessitated by the modern evolution of sciences.
His new definition of what it means to be a human being pinpointed an aspect of humanity that the
evolutionists, who were apt to call us "higher apes," had completely glossed over in their intense concern
with the bones and flesh aspect of evolution, i.e., our posture, our brain size, our skull shapes, etc. What
Korzybski stressed in his 1921 work was a process that humans had and that animals did not possess, time
binding. It is the process of time binding that allows each generation to see further because they "stand on
the shoulders" of the previous generation.
With this present book, Korzybski sought to create the foundation for a "science of man" by linking
science and sanity in a "structurally non-aristotelian methodology." To achieve that he added to the process
of time-binding, the "general consciousness of abstracting", which he calls on page xxi, "the thesis of this
book". He quotes Whitehead to support his claim of the importance of understanding the process of
abstracting:
[page xxi] 'A civilisation that cannot burst through its current abstractions is doomed
to sterility after a very limited period of progress.'
This is a remarkable statement. If one applies it to the field of art, one can see representations of art's
current abstractions embodied in the visual arts of painting and sculpture. These abstractions show
themselves in the way current paintings are made based upon the original works of Rembrandt, Picasso,
Monet, or Van Gogh. When an innovator in art comes along to create a new abstraction, such as Mondrian,
Pollock, or Warhol, a period of exciting innovation proceeds for a limited period of time. I have described
this process in the field of art in my essay, Art is the Process of Destruction, which essay would likely have
been impossible but for the year I spent working through this book which first made me aware of the
process of abstraction.
To understand the non-Aristotelian systems that Korzybski develops in this work, we first need a
priming on the Aristotelian system that pervades our current level of thinking, teaching, and abstracting.
Simply put the Aristotelian system is two-valued: either-or, yes-no, day-night, life-death, black-white, etc.
The prevalence of the two-valued system of thinking puzzled Korzybski for many years, he says, until he
"made the obvious 'discovery' that our relations to the world outside and inside our skins often happen to
be, on the gross level, two-valued." But he added something more to the Aristotelian two-valued system,
and that something more makes all the difference in the world to what it means to be a living human being:
[page xxi] In living, many issues are not so sharp, and therefore a system which posits
the general sharpness of 'either-or' , and so objectifies 'kind', is unduly limited; it must
be revised and made more flexible in terms of 'degree'. This requires a physico-mathematical 'way of thinking' which a non-aristotelian system supplies.
While Korzybski developed his work independently of semantics or semiotics, he admits that, as his
work progressed, it became obvious to him that "a theory of meaning" was impossible. As such, he thought
it necessary to explain the derivation of the name "General Semantics" for his corpus of work.
[page xxii] The original manuscript did not contain the word 'semantics' or 'semantic',
but when I had to select some terms, from a time-binding point of view and in
consideration of the efforts of others, I introduced the term 'General Semantics' for
the modus operandi of this first non-aristotelian system.
This seemed appropriate for
historical continuity. A theory of evaluation appeared to follow naturally in an
evolutionary sense from 1) 'meaning to' to 2) 'significance' to 3) evaluation. General
Semantics turned out to be an empirical natural science of non-elementalistic
evaluation, which takes into account the living individual, not divorcing him from his
reactions altogether, nor from his neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments,
but allocating him a plenum of some values, no matter what.
From this passage in his Introduction to the Second Edition (1941) one can understand the paradox
faced by an author who develops a truly unique science to communicate to the average intelligent reader,
and also to the specialists in the very fields that are impacted by the new science. The paradox is this: those specialists, who
ought to be better able to understand it, are less able to understand it than the average reader. Philosophers,
who ought to be able to understand any new field of science, are often the last ones to grasp it, so stuffed
full of their own verbalizations as to be unable to comprehend the thoughts of anyone with a truly new idea,
as Korzybski presented them with.
[page xxviii] Most 'philosophers' who reviewed this book made particularly shocking
performances. Average intelligent readers can understand this book, as they usually
have some contact with life. It is not so with those who indulge in mere verbalism.
Korzybski gives a salient example of one of those philosopher-penned reviews and shows how
error-prone it is and how it completely misses the point of his work. For those of you who are still not sure
what his point is, here is an excellent summary of it:
[page xxix] Most 'philosophers', 'logicians', and even mathematicians look at this non-aristotelians system of evaluation as some system of formal non-aristotelian 'logic',
which is not the case. They are somehow not able to take the natural science point of
view that all science, mathematics, 'logic', 'philosophy', etc., are the product of the
functioning of the human nervous system, involving some sort of internal orientations,
or evaluations, which are not necessarily formalized. The analysis of such living
reactions is the sole object of general semantics as a natural empirical science.
Not only do these philosophers miss the point entirely, but by doing so, they will continue to heap
untold damage upon future generations of our youth by teaching them about "identity" something which
Korzybski clearly demonstrates within the covers of this book is non-existent in the world, except in the
minds and processes of philosophers and mentally deranged human beings.
[page xxix] These 'philosophers', etc., seem unaware, to give a single example, that by
teaching and preaching 'identity', which is empirically non-existent in this actual
world, they are neurologically training future generations in the pathological
identifications found in the 'mentally' ill or maladjusted. As explained on page 409,
and also Chapter XXVI, whatever we may say an object 'is', it is not, because the
statement is verbal, and the facts are not.
Words are like maps. If a map is not the territory it represents, a word is not the object it represents.
Also a map cannot contain all of the territory it can only hope to represent the structure of the territory.
[page 38] Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the
territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which
accounts for its usefulness. If the map could be ideally correct, it would include, in a
reduced scale, the map of the map; the map of the map of the map; and so on,
endlessly, a fact first noticed by Royce.
What does all this mean? you ask. Is this important? The answer is yes, because the presence of
aristotelian systems has kept civilization itself at the level of a dumb animal, up until now. If you will read
the first 62 pages of this book, no doubt you will agree with this next statement, as I did:
[page 62] The present analysis shows that, under the all-pervading aristotelianism in
daily life, asymmetrical relations, and thus structure and order, have been impossible,
and so we have been linguistically prevented from supplying the potentially 'rational'
being with the means for rationality. This has resulted in a semi-human so-called
'civilization', based on our copying animals in our nervous process, which, by
necessity, involves us in arrested development or regression, and, in general,
disturbances of some sort.
Once upon a time, the geometry of Euclid was the geometry of space, the universe of Newton was
the Universe. With the advent of Lobatchevski and Einstein the geometry of Euclid proved to be only a
geometry of space and the universe of Newton proved to be a way of looking at the Universe.
[page 86] It is not difficult to see that in all these advances there is a common
characteristic, which can be put simply in that it consists in a little change from a 'the'
into an 'a'. Some people insist upon sentences in one-syllable words; here we could
indeed satisfy them! The change, no doubt, can be expressed by the exchange of one
syllable for another. But the problems, in spite of this apparent simplicity, are quite
important; and the rest of this volume will be devoted to the examination of this
change and of what it structurally involves.
For any readers who are still not clear on the distinction between Plato and Aristotle's approach to
philosophy, Korzybski gives us an excellent thumbnail. Since he claims to have created non-Aristotelian
systems, it is necessary to understand the tenets of an Aristotelian system.
[page 87] Psycho-logically, Aristotle was a typical extrovert, who projects all his
internal processes on the outside world and objectifies them: so his reaction against
Plato, the typical introvert, for whom 'reality' was all inside, was a natural and rather
an inevitable consequence. The struggle between these two giants was typical of the
two extreme tendencies which we find in practically all of us, as they represent two
most diverse, and yet fundamental psycho-logical tendencies.
In his explanation below of how these two extreme tendencies show up in our lives, Korzybski uses
several words which one must come to terms with in order to make full use of the contents of this book.
He uses them so often in the book that he adopted shorthand abbreviations for them. When these appear
in the passage below I will enclose the full word in [brackets] the first time they appear.
[page 87] In 1933 we know that either of these extremes in our make-up is undesirable
and un-sound, in science as well as in life. In science, the extreme extroverts have
introduced what might be called gross empiricism, which, as such, is a mere el
[elementalistic] fiction practically a delusion. For no 'facts' are ever free from
'doctrines': so whoever fancies he can free himself from 'doctrines', as expressed in
the structure of the language he uses ., [etc. ,] simply cherishes a delusion, usually with
strong affective components. The extreme introverts, on the other hand, originated
what might be called the 'idealistic philosophies', which in their turn become el
delusions. We should not overlook the fact that both these tendencies are el and
structurally fallacious. Belief in the separate existence of el, and, therefore, fictitious,
entities must be considered as a structurally un-sound s.r [semantic reaction] and
accounts in a large degree for many bitter fights in science and life.
The exact meaning of terms such as el, m.o, s.r require a close reading of the first chapters of the
book, but I will hazard a simple explanation of these three important and often used terms. An
elementalistic [el] term is one in which in our semantic reactions [s.r] we ignore the multiordinal [m.o]
aspects of it. This makes it possible for us to understand the triad if we can get our hands around what a
multiordinal term is. Luckily he provides a concise definition of his discovery of multiordinality in this next
passage:
[page 14] Terms like 'yes', 'no', 'true', 'false', fact', 'reality', 'cause', 'effect',
'agreement', 'disagreement', 'proposition', 'number', 'relation', 'order', 'structure',
'abstraction', 'characteristic', 'love', 'hate', 'doubt', etc., are such that if they can be
applied to a statement they can also be applied to a statement about the first statement,
and so, ultimately, to all statements, no matter what their order of abstraction is.
Terms of such a character I call multiordinal terms.
If it makes your head ache trying to keep all these terms like balls juggling in the air at the same
time, you will understand why I found it difficult to work through more than a couple of pages at a time
when I first read this book. And you may be wondering how any of this could ever be useful to the average
person who can not or will not take the immense effort it takes to understand the work of this phenomenal
thinker, and you would be right. Luckily he taught some brilliant people like Samuel Bois, S. I. Hayakawa,
and Kenneth Keyes who were able to bring his work down to a practical and easy to understand level. For
beginners I suggest Keyes's book, "How to Develop Your Thinking Ability" which is available currently
under the title, "Taming Your Mind".This book covers the important bases of "Science and Sanity" in
simple everyday words using cartoons to illustrate the main points. I utilized this book during a course
in "Effective Communication" I gave to hundreds of maintenance people at Waterford 3 Nuclear Power
Station in the 1980s.
Another essential phrase to come to terms with is semantic reaction [s.r], which refers to affective
disturbances in persons related to their failure to recognize the intention, goal, or meaning of the words they
receive from another. To Korzybski these disturbances were failures in the education system which he
systematically set about to correct.
[page 20] Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education
and ignorance must be considered in 1933 as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions.
Note his use of the time index above (See All Things Change Cartoon) by his specifying the date during which his writing applies to
the world.
Max Planck said in his autobiography, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it." [italics added] One of the reasons for this paradoxical condition
of science is that scientists are human beings and subject to semantic reactions and every new system
involves the learning of new semantic reactionswhich scientists have proven to be as slow at learning as
the average ditch-digger. Korzybski gives us a scientific way of understanding what we mean by the
expression which Planck used above, "familiar with":
[page 27] Any fundamentally new system involves new s.r; and this is the main
difficulty which besets us when we try to master a new system. We must re-educate,
or change, our older s.r. As a rule, the younger generation, which began with the new
s.r, has no such difficulties with the new systems. Just the opposite the older s.r
become as difficult or impossible to them as the new were to the older generations.
Another great discovery of Korzybski is the deleterious effects of identification. He says while
identification may be useful to babies and children, it proves harmful to adults. We can easily notice when
we are using identification because in English we will use the verb "to be" to create the identity. Some have
suggested a convention be adopted in English in which we consciously avoid using the verb "to be" for
identification, which form of English is called "english prime" or simply, e'. Try it sometime, and you may
find it a very useful process to write for a long time without using the verb "to be" for identification.
Why is this important? The good news is that it's only important if you're an adult.
[page 202] The 'is' of identity plays a great havoc with our s.r, as any 'identity' is
structurally false to fact. An infant does not know and cannot know that. In his life,
the 'is' of identity plays an important semantic role, which, if not checked intelligently,
becomes a pernicious semantic factor in his grown-up reactions, which preserve the
infantile character and with which adult adjustment and semantic health is impossible.
Perhaps the greatest discovery of all was the process of abstracting. Korzybski talked about the
world outside of us as being the "What Is Going On" or WIGO for short. That is the world before it is
experienced by anyone. To have a non-verbal representation of the process of abstraction, Korzybski
created a diagram he called the Structural Differential, of which a photograph is shown in Figure 5, page
398. It is definitely worthwhile to take some time to study
this figure and its description.
Here is my thumbnail of abstracting: the parabola extending to infinity is the WIGO, from which
a human perceives an Object, shown by the circular plate, Oh, which is connected to WIGO. The human
creates the first level of abstraction by giving the Object a label, shown by the rectangular plate L which
has some connecting wires to Oh. As higher levels of abstraction are created, new plates, L1, L2, ... Ln are
shown, with Ln finally ending up back connected to the WIGO parabola, because it is a part of the What
Is Going On.
This is not the end of understanding General Semantics, only the beginning. We have only inspected
the foundations of this mansion and a couple of its room. Only by living inside it for a few years and
learning all its hidden corners and useful appliances will you come to appreciate the structure that Alfred
O. Korzybski has built for humankind. You have had the key to this house placed in your hand; it is up to
you to open the door and begin your personal adventure into science and sanity.
---------------------------- Reference Links for Alfred Korzybski ---------------
A Reference Page of Material
written by Bobby Matherne
on Science and Sanity
and its Author, Alfred Korzybski
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/aoklinks.htm
4. Rudolf Steiner's Lucifer and Ahriman
In Christian theology the forces of Christ are set against the forces of the devil who
represents in one figure all that is evil, and one is exhorted to abjure all that is of the devil. This
might lead one to wonder, "How is the knowledge of good and evil bad? Isn't that what the devil in
the Garden of Eden wanted to share with Adam and Eve?"
Steiner divides the devil into two beings, Lucifer and Ahriman, and shows us how neither
is bad per se, each provides gifts to human beings that further our evolution, and that it is us who
must learn to balance these gifts in our individual lives. His recommendation for a solution to the
problem of the devil is to transcend the tendency towards either Luciferic frenzy or Ahrimanic
tedium by creating a spirit-filled synthesis of the two in our lives from now on.
| Luciferic Traits, Attributes |
Ahrimanic Traits, Attributes |
|
frenzy, hyperactivity |
tedium, boredom |
|
unification, generalization |
diversity, particularization |
|
one language |
many languages |
|
gnosis, speaking and thinking |
statistics, proof, literal Gospel reading |
|
qualitative |
quantitative |
|
fantasy, illusion, superstition |
concrete sensory-based, materialism |
|
spirit-permeated cosmology |
mathematical astronomy |
|
eating & drinking w/o spirituality |
un-read knowledge stored in libraries |
|
unified vision [United Nations] |
individual vision [Chauvinism] |
|
flexibility, airy |
solidification, granite-like |
|
the high flight of Icarus |
the humility of Francis Bacon |
|
pagan wisdom |
technological advances |
Steiner says that Lucifer incarnated in a human body during the third millennium before
Christ, and that Ahriman will likewise incarnate in the third millennium after Christ, the one we are
currently entering. How can we be prepared for the coming of Ahriman? We must balance both the
attributes of Ahriman and the attributes of Lucifer with Christ as our guide and companion. In
Steiner's words:
[page 18] But woe betide if this Copernicanism is not confronted by the
knowledge that the cosmos is permeated by soul and spirit. It is this knowledge
that Ahriman wants to withhold. He would like to keep people so obtuse that
they can grasp only the mathematical aspect of astronomy.
One of the wonderful aspects of Steiner is that he sees the value of both a spirit-filled
cosmology and an abstract mathematical astronomy, thus modeling for us readers how to maintain
the balance between the Luciferic and Ahrimanic tendencies in our lives. The superb congruency of
Steiner's process (what he does) and content (what he says) characterizes all great teachers. Steiner
never tells us to follow his instructions to the letter, instead he models for us the behaviors that will
bring us the desired balance in our lives if we were to exhibit those behaviors.
In light of the imminent incarnation of Ahriman, Steiner offers caveats and suggestions on
how to avoid "strengthening Ahriman's impulse."
[page 21] I shall merely put before you the deeper fact, namely that no true
understanding of Christ can be reached by the simple, easy going perusal of the
Gospels beloved by most religious denominations and sects today.
[page 22] The point to remember is, however, that the people who do most to
prepare for the incarnation of Ahriman are those who constantly preach, "All
that is required is to read the Gospels word-for-word -no more than that!"
In other words, Steiner is saying that the fundamentalists are fundamentally wrong. In their
zeal to follow Martin Luther's dictum, to read the bible, they have gone to such an extreme that they
are preparing a fertile seed bed for Ahriman, up until now.
[page 52] You see, a barrier which prevents the single Gospels from unduly
circumscribing the human mind has been erected through the fact that the event
of Golgotha is described in the Gospels from four seemingly contradictory
sides. Only a little reflection will show that this is a protection from too literal
a conception.
[page 52] In the absolute sense, nothing is good in itself, but is always good or
bad according to the use to which it is put.
And the scientists, with their penchant for studying only the external sensory world by means
of statistics and abstract principles, are also fundamentally wrong. They will never reach "the
innermost being of things" unless they change their approach and include that most delicate of
instruments, the human being, in their panoply of measuring devices.
[page 31] And so a future must come when people will be able to say, "Yes, with
my intelligence I can apprehend the external world in the way that is the ideal
of natural science. But the vista thus presented to me is wholly ahrimanic."
[page 54] For to experience a thing is a very different matter from attempting
to prove it intellectually.
[page 77] It is a scientific fallacy to trace back to mineral causes the forces
manifesting in air and water and in the mineral realm; in reality the causes are
to be found within the human beings.
The scientists assume that the geology of the earth occurs whether human beings are present
or not, but I note that Steiner says that the very opposite is true.
[page 83] The all-essential causes of what happens on the earth do not lie outside
the human being; they lie within humankind. And if earthly consciousness is to
expand to cosmic consciousness, humanity must realize that the earth not over
short but over long stretches of time is made in its own likeness, in the likeness
of humanity itself.
Can we escape Ahriman and Lucifer by avoiding both of them? You may have thought so, as I did at first, but Steiner's answer is a firm, "No!" Instead he argues for you and me to maintain a balance between the influence of Lucifer and of Ahriman.
[page 34] But the truth of the matter is that Lucifer and Ahriman must be
regarded as two scales of a balance and it is we who must hold the beam in
equipoise.
[page 34] And how can we train ourselves to do this? By permeating what takes
ahrimanic form within us with a strongly luciferic element.
We are led inexorably to the conclusion that only by experiencing our world via the external
senses of the materialistic scientist and at the same time experiencing the super-sensible aspects of
our reality as well can we become full human beings in relation to our cosmic environment.
5. Gerhard Wehr's Jung & Steiner The Birth of A New Psychology
About fifteen years before I encountered Rudolf Steiner I had been reading and studying
the works of Carl Gustav Jung. I was impressed by the scope of his research and his writings. I
took a class in painting mandalas from a Sufi named Verna who came to New Orleans. I later
gave classes teaching mandalas to college art students. My wife and I have a collection of
mandala drawings which can be painted in with colored markers. We have used these often in
weekend labs as a meditation and self-knowledge device. I read Gerhard Wehr's biography of
Jung in 1990 and many other works by and about Jung. Through my journeys into discovery of
Jung's work, I came at last to a startling conclusion, one that was completely unexpected to the
physicist me at the time: the reality of the psyche. Those five words can hardly express the
impact that discovery had on me. I trembled, I felt the shaking of the foundations of my world
view, and I held on for dear life as the skyscraper walls of my carefully constructed abstract
concepts of the world came tumbling down. Inside of me was a real, living psyche like a
living vine growing out of the dead vase which had hidden it, up until now.
I owe an enormous debt to Jung who cleared the view of my spiritual horizon and prepared me for the next great encounter in my life with Rudolf Steiner. My path to Steiner
was much more tortuous than my path to Jung, and equally fruitful. My first impression of Rudolf Steiner was a recondite author of a few obscure books on the bottom shelf of the Golden
Leaves Bookstore. The proprietor's method of stocking her bookstore was if someone ordered a
book from her, she would order an extra copy for the shelf. I bought a couple of the Steiner
books and tried to read them. Couldn't do it. What he said made no sense to me. I put the books
on my shelf and years later tried again. I managed to finish one or two and since I had by the time
begun reviewing books as I finished reading them, the reviews of those early books are available.
They are short, terse, and show little insight into Steiner's work for the very good reason that I
still didn't know what he was talking about actually. I had been reading lectures he gave to
audiences who were familiar with the foundations of his work. Me, I was wandering in a new
wilderness without a guide. When the Internet started up, I found a group of people who were
familiar with Steiner's work and they directed me to his basic works and I began to read them in
earnest and I found that what I had been searching for during all those hours I had spent in
bookstores of all kinds was what Steiner was writing about the reality of the spiritual world.
He had actually gone further than Jung and I was ready to follow along his path. My reading and
reviewing of Steiner's works are too numerous to outline here, except to point you to my books, A
Reader's Journal, Volume I and Volume II. Volume I was available for a short time in hardback
and since then both volumes have been available on-line.
With that prologue, I can explain why this book by Gerhard Wehr is such an important
book to me: he ties together the works of Carl Jung and Rudolf Steiner. This pulling together of
the two is something I had been doing in my own mind over the years as I read Steiner's works. I
could begin to discern some of the connections, but wondered if anyone would agree with me on
them. As I began to read the book, I found the confirmation I had sought, first in Robert
Sardello's Foreword, then in Hans Erhard Lauer's Lectures, and then in Gerhard Wehr's
comprehensive comparing and contrasting of Jung and Steiner works.
Wehr is amply suited to the task of tying together the work of these two men. He wrote
the definitive biography of Carl Jung and is a student of the spiritual science of Rudolf Steiner,
anthroposophy. The importance of Wehr's work is accentuated by the presence of the Foreword
by Robert Sardello who has innovated a "Spiritual Psychology" which embraces the works of
both Jung and Steiner and the three lectures by Han Erhard Lauer in which he looks at the
answers to the riddles of the soul as given by Jung and Steiner.
To the first sentence of Robert Sardello's Foreword, I can say Amen!
[page 7] Psychology is vastly misunderstood in our time.
Until I discovered, with Jung's help, the reality of the psyche, I vastly misunderstood the
field of psychology. I thought it was about understanding concepts. Too many, far too many for
the good of our society, psychologists are out in the world, working after having received degrees
with their abstract concepts intact, and one can easily discern in world events the disastrous
effects of their feeble attempts to administer to a psyche about whose reality they haven't a clue,
up until now.
[page 7] Psychology is vastly misunderstood in our time. It is regarded either
as a therapeutic endeavor or as a rather meaningless scientific discipline that
tries, mostly unsuccessfully, to model itself after the physical sciences.
A model is an abstract concept it lives solely in the mind. Like an architect's model of
a new building, it can be useful for bringing the products of the architect's mind to fruition. But it
cannot help us to experience the architect who stands before us as a human being! The difference
between the architect's model and the architect is the difference between a psychology of abstract
concepts and a psychology which acknowledges the reality of the psyche. Sardello thanks both
Jung and Steiner for their unique contributions to achieving this infusion of reality into the field
of psychology.
[page 7] Thanks to Jung, the field has been ennobled, and the word
"psychology" has been somewhat restored as the discipline of the soul. A
true discipline is far more than an academic area of interest. One takes up a
discipline, enters it--one becomes it. It then becomes a way of knowing
oneself and knowing the world.
[page 7, 8] Thanks to Steiner, the possibility exists of taking this discipline of
the soul and placing it within the context of understanding the place and
work of the human being in the whole cosmos. The kind of psychology that
could come from working through the whole of Jung and Steiner in an inner,
experiential way is a practical psychology. It is not confined to the therapy
office but is rather the work of living a conscious soul life.
If it seems to you that I devoted a lifetime of study to Jung and Steiner, you are right. And
Sardello says that they are both worth a lifetime of study.
[page 7, 8] Both Jung and Steiner have given us a cosmology within which we
can see ourselves soulfully. That is why both are worth lifetimes of study. We
should not make our task easy by considering these two individuals as only
providing systems that agree in certain ways and diverge in others. Nor
should we try to simply determine which one to follow. Both decried
followers, but hoped to see independent workers inspired by their efforts.
Carl Jung said to an associate that he could never be a "Jungian", referring to what certain
of his followers called the field they saw him creating. Jung was an iconoclast he broke traditions, broke new ground, he
led, he didn't follow, not even himself. Rudolf Steiner admonished his audiences time after time
to ascertain for themselves the truth of what he talked about. One need only look at the
various Jungian and anthroposophical societies to see the effect or lack thereof of Jung and
Steiner's admonitions.
In my blissful youth I blithely skipped over such folderol as Prefaces, Forewords,
Introductions, Appendices, and Notes. Those of you similarly blessed will save yourself about a
hundred or so pages of reading in this 336 page book. (Of course you will be similarly blessed with a shallow view of the book.) This next passage will tell you some of what you
missed by skipping Sardello's 24-page Foreword. He refers to Wehr's "synoptic" method in this
book by which he, instead of comparing and contrasting Jung and Steiner's words, he "sets the
core meaning of each beside the other." And "Out of the tension something new comes into
being."
[page 9] Jung & Steiner, for all its merits, does not push this method as far as
it could. In this introduction, I want to push it even further to begin to show
the outlines of a new psychology, a spiritual psychology that emerges from
holding the tension of the opposites of depth psychology and Anthroposophy
without seeking resolution.
Sardello tells us that the central element which can join depth psychology and
anthroposophy is "the image of the Grail" which is the core myth at the center of the two fields.
What is important is that the Grail is seen as an individual quest that one undertakes. One cannot
be a follower when one is on a Grail quest, which lead us to Sardello's admonition:
[page 10] But unless their endeavors are seen as quests, each of these two
very strong conceptions of the human future is bound to gather dogmatic
disciples.
Both Jung and Steiner wrote an autobiography, and Sardello tells us how different the two
biographies are.
[page 11, 12] Jung is characterized by an innerness without which dedication
to soul life is impossible. His whole autobiography is written as an inner
biography, an entirely new form of biography, a memoir of the soul.
Steiner's biography, on the other hand, is completely external, so objective
that it is downright dull. It belongs to the genre of esoteric spiritual
biographies where it is not uncommon for the writer to speak of his own life
in the third person. So here is one tension to hold: soul as inwardness, spirit
as being out in the world.
Sardello likens Jung and Steiner as two suns. Jung's sun is the imaginal one and Steiner's
sun allows us to "apply this imagination to the forming of the world."
[page 13, 14] In the past the experience of two suns signified extreme danger.
Like Pentheus, one might go off the deep end. The right capacities must be
formed. We cannot jump into this kind of consciousness. We need to undergo
the throes of transformation, and the way to go about radical change of
capacities is found in the written work of Jung and Steiner. Their writing is
completely unlike other writing. You can't go through it and come out the
same. However, they need to be read together or in tandem, and read with
the whole of one's being, not just through the intellect.
In other words, if you don't read with the whole of your being, you are trying to
understand the architect by examining his model with your mind. A model goes in one's mind
like water goes into a vase. The vase holds the water in it in the shape of the vase. That's the
intrinsic nature of content it takes on the shape of the container which holds it.
A follower of
Jung or Steiner is like a vase holding their works in the follower's shape. To be considered as
process, one must incorporate what is taken within and change as a result of its ingestion, as
when a dehydrated runner takes in fresh water and springs to life once more. The runner does not
hold the water as content, but rather absorbs it into her body and changes thereby. What
distinguishes the inanimate vase from the animate runner is the ability the runner has to
incorporate water into her being. Similarly the animate runner is able to incorporate "different
worlds of consciousness spirits, angels, gods" into her soul and be changed thereby.
[page 15] Soul is not a container of contents but the inherent capacity for
perceiving spiritual realities. We are soul and spiritual beings, not beings
with a soul and a spirit. . . . We are like harps, sounding when the beings of
the soul and spiritual worlds sound.
To understand the soul and spirit as process and not content means that one has no easy
way of distinguishing the two. Content we can distinguish easily we merely describe the
difference in the sensory data between the two contents. Water and alcohol might look the same
in a vase, but one will smell distinctly different. Spirit and soul are best understood as processes
for which we have no sensory data to distinguish them. Sardello explains how this makes it difficult to define soul and spirit easily:
[page 16] Everywhere I have taught for the past fifteen years, someone
inevitably asks me to define soul and spirit and tell how they differ. Such a
question goes nowhere because it shifts something known and felt to the level
of the ordinary intellect, where it cannot be answered. The question assumes
that there is some way out of the confusion other than finding deeper ways
into the question's substance.
Now we are in a position to talk about Jung and Steiner vis-à-vis "archetype" and their
different understanding of the term. Sardello tells us how by pulling the two together, he is able
to form his spiritual psychology.
[page 17] Jung seals soul off from the world and unwittingly promotes self-absorption. Taken alone, Steiner's perspective leads to a literalizing,
unimaginative, sometimes manic working to bring practical endeavors of a
spiritual nature into the world, expecting that artistic endeavors, rather than
conscious soul work, will answer the soul's needs. When we hold both the
spirit and soul perspectives together, we have spiritual psychology.
And he is able to give the best, in the sense of the most concise, way of distinguishing
soul and spirit using the process aspects of Self, soul, and spirit. In the diagram at right I have
shown how Jung's processes of Self and soul relate to Steiner's
processes of "I" and spirit.
[page 17] The Self can be imagined as soul at
the border of spirit. The "I" can be imagined
as spirit at the border of the soul.
There was one area where Jung stayed out of the realm of content
in his work, and that was in his understanding of what an
archetype was. At least he never admitted any differently in his writings. I came across a piece in
a news item somewhere a couple of years ago, perhaps after Sardello wrote the words below. It
quoted a close friend of Jung's who said that, a couple of years before his death, Jung had
admitted to him privately that "archetypes are spiritual beings" but said he had been afraid to say
so publicly. What Jung did to strengthen his claims for the archetypes was to build on the solid
scientific foundation of Kant's epistemology. That limited Jung to speaking of the phenomenal
world and blocked him from speaking about the noumenon. He was left to describe transcendent
reality with what Sardello calls, "the truth within."
[page 20] This is why Jung posited the existence of the archetypes but would
never say anything of their reality beyond what could be said
"psychologically."
On the other hand, Steiner makes it clear that he speaks of spiritual beings and that
archetypes in Jung's sense are ways of talking about a spiritual reality.
[page 20] Steiner does have a clear notion of the transcendent and goes after
it with incredible descriptive capacities along with an accuracy of
observation equal to that of any scientist.
It was exactly his ability to describe spiritual realities as a scientist that endeared Steiner to
me and kept me coming back for more and more until I began to perceive the reality that he
describes in his works. Soon the reality he described became for me a better way to understand both
the spiritual and the material worlds. Over the years I have found that what he calls "spiritual
science" meshes completely with "materialistic science" without contradicting it one whit!
And yet, without Jung's contribution, Sardello discerns that Steiner's spiritual science
turns into dogma. What is this added something that Jung's work provides?
[page 20, 21] This is where Jung comes in as absolutely necessary. He shows
how to find the way into and inhabit the interior of thing. Without Jung, I
propose, Anthroposophy becomes the dogmatic application of the ideas of a
remarkable individual without inner understanding.
Since I came to Steiner after immersing myself in Jung, I must exempt myself from an
ability to judge what might have happened had I come to Steiner first. But I tend to agree with his
proposal above. I have certainly seen ample indications that way too few anthroposophists are
able to bring the processes of Jung to an understanding of the insights of Steiner. Many views held by
anthroposophists have turned my stomach over when I heard them. It was to me as if their center
of gravity was displaced, as if one of the horses were missing from their two-horse chariot and
they were going in circles and unaware of that fact. If you try to straighten out the path of
someone going in circles, you will disturb their momentum, and they will feel their stomachs
turning over. Sardello noticed exactly such a thing happen.
[page 21] A number of years ago I spoke to a large gathering of
Anthroposophists, introducing a basic view of spiritual psychology as being
founded in Jung and Steiner. The address was met with little enthusiasm; in
fact, I could hear a number of stomachs turning over.
In this next passage Sardello ingeniously points out the process nature of soul. He calls
up the image of the vase that I used above as a container filled with water as a metaphor for a
soul filled with images. That would be focusing exclusively on the content nature of soul,
something he finds in Wehr's book. I find it amazing that Wehr allowed a critical review of
his book to appear as its Foreword. It was a courageous act of soul on Wehr's part to include
such a Foreword, indicating that he was searching for soul, using a soul process himself.
[page 21, 22] The problem of seeing soul in terms of the picture content of
myths, memories, and stories is unfortunately perpetuated somewhat by
Wehr, who often uses content-oriented language in his text. Speaking of the
soul as having contents gives the impression of some kind of container filled
with images. Yet soul, at least in part, concerns the act of picturing, not the
picture contents. Myths too are not picture contents, but worlds of
picturings; that is, if you take myths as still living. If myths are now completed
and dead, then indeed all we have left are the corpses, the picture contents.
This next subject takes me to something I call "remember the future" which you can read
about at Matherne's Rule #36: Remember the future. It hums in the present. Simply put,
something happens in the present that signals you about a future event. The most common
expression of this ubiquitous, but usually unacknowledged process, is what is known as "love at
first sight." Until I discovered "remember the future", I didn't have any way to explain the
process of love at first sight. If we are only able to remember things of the past, then love at first
sight is unexplainable except as some accident. But if "remember the future" works, then when one
meets for the first time a person who will become one's lifetime (or some significant portion
thereof) companion, then one will pick up a feeling, an attraction, a humming if you will
during that first meeting that would be otherwise unexplainable. Matherne's Rule #2: You
never know until you find out is applicable here. Think about it: only after you have lived with
the person for some time will you look back and recall that surge of feeling during your first
meeting. And only when you do look back will you call it "love at first sight." You never know
until you find out. The key is that the remember-the-future process is a feeling, not a thought. It is a process (something that happens inside of you) not a content (some thought that fills your mind). When you learn to recognize that hum that signals a long-time connection, whether it's
with a future spouse, house, automobile, or vacation site, you can begin to make decisions based
on what's best for you at some future time that you otherwise would have no information about. Most
people when this humming occurs are too busy, calculating and figuring what's best, to notice
the humming. The result is what's known in the retail business as buyer's remorse. If you're lucky
you can take your purchase back for a full refund. Try doing that with eleven years of your life
married to the wrong person, and yet know that those eleven years were a necessity for the person
you were going to become.
~^~
This is the END of the EXCERPT from the Review. The remainder can be read here:
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/jungstei.htm.
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Broccoli Soup
Cooking Instructions 
