An intellectual trap
As part of the development of the I, humanity developed the faculty of thinking with the intellectual soul. The human 'I' however is threefold, and just like the intellectual soul enabled mankind to develop and 'grow out' of the experiential limitations of the sentient soul, so also the intellectual soul has its limitations. Humanity is currently in the age of developing the consciousness soul to transgress these boundaries.
This topic page covers the 'trap' of the process of thinking, with regards to the 'frontier of sensible scope' (FSS). This 'frontier of sensible scope'points to the limits of what makes sense to 'take in scope' for applying thinking, for consideration and study, as related to a certain (and our current) stage of human cognition or consciousness and related experience of reality.
It does not make sense for human thought to go on about questions that 'do not make sense'. This topic page helps to understand what makes sense and what not, and why? For example,
- thinking about how a clock worked, or reasoning in current Earth years .. about the Hyperborean epoch, or the period before Earth, Sun and Moon were split off into separate bodies, does not make sense, because 'time as we know it' only became stable after the orbits of these bodies stabilized to its current configuration.
- applying human cognition at level of consciousness CoC=4 cannot be used to understand the reality and consciousness of higher beings at say level CoC=8, let alone higher divinity and creation at even higher levels.
Nevertheless this happens: human beings can and do generate thought forms that have no connection with reality, still these are part of creations by humanity. What will become from these in future stages of evolution? Rudolf Steiner also covers this, and this topic page also aims to include this aspect.
Aspects
- Rudolf Steiner uses various examples (see below) to illustrate how the process of continuously asking the next question needs to stop somewhere and that is cannot be applied to everything (eg origin of tracks of wheels in the mud). Also, that in this kind of questioning a predicate is sought for the subject. Spiritual matters and beings at a higher Condition of Consciousness (CoC) cannot be understood at the level of cognition of current Man at CoC=4. And by extension "the highest being can be comprehended only through itself". (1912-09-19-GA139)
- Schema FMC00.660 below illustrates: Man in purple, at level 4 on the CoC-ladder, cannot expect to apply lower levels of cognition to comprehend the nature and essence of higher levels of consciousness. That is a 'trap' of the intellect and thinking process.
- metaphoric image used is that of the car axis. Imagine a car axis would be conscious and wonder about the meaning and purpose of its experiences. It might undergo speed changes in the rotation of the axis, wheels turning left and right in patterns, etc .. but would not be able to grasp the fact there is a driver of the car who is using the car (an entity a level of complexity higher than the axis) for a certain goal, and how its own perceptions and sensations relate to that of the car, or the driver.
- 'the foolish (or ungrounded) extrapolation' (see: Top five problems with current science) as an example illustrations of much thought forms generated by human beings that have no connection with reality
- From a logical point of view it is absolutely meaningless to ask the question, “What is God?” Everything can be led upward to the highest, but to the highest no predicate can be added (1912-09-19-GA139)
- see also: Notes on the study process
Inspirational quotes
1919-12-14-GA194
Things are not so simple that they can be treated thus with the ordinary intellectual tools.
from: Notes on the study process#1919-12-14-GA194
Illustrations
Schema FMC00.660: shows a high level view depicting the evolution of the Cosmic fractal, which consists of spiritual beings (including humanity) in constant evolution on a pathway of ever developing consciousness (see Twelve Conditions of Consciousness), in various grades of knowing one's self.
Three simple pictograms:
Above left: the make-up of the cosmos or creation are various classes of spiritual beings, see Overview of the spiritual hierarchies and a.o. Schema FMC00.273 and Schema FMC00.661. The infographic is inspired on Homer’s Golden Chain.
Above right: the CoC-ladder of twelve conditions of consciousness, see e.g. Schema FMC00.048.
Below: the horizontal axis depicts the dynamic of the Cosmic Fractal along Three dimensions of evolution driven by the Cosmic breath of Brahma or the three Logoi. Only the large steps of the planetary stages of evolution are shown. When considering the cosmos from our current perspective and Earth stage of evolution, we are contemplating a 'snapshot' of the whole with our contemporary waking consciousness using our intellect and the faculty of thinking. This is just a conceptual map or representation of a spiritual reality that can be experienced through initiation and higher stages of cognition, see stages of clairvoyance.
The horizontal axis of the evolutionary dynamic gives rise to different worlds of consciousness and different (bodily structural) principles, but ultimately the cosmic fractal is made up of beings. Besides providing the 'big picture', anthroposophy also zooms into Man - the human being, in this spiritual scientific framework, describing bodily principles, subsystems, functions, rhythms, and more.
Lecture coverage and references
1888 - Ahriman-in-Nietzsche
in 'Ecce Homo', in the chapter titled “Why I Am So Clever” (Warum ich so klug bin), section 2.1. This was written end 1888 before his mental collapse in January 1889, and only published posthumously in 1908.
Rudolf Steiner described that the later writings by Nietzsche with "those most brilliant chapters of modern authorship and with their often devilish content", the books 'Anti-Christ' and 'Ecce Homo' were "written by Ahriman and not by Nietzsche", stating explicitly "the Nietzsche Individuality was not in him when he wrote the Anti Christ and Ecce Homo ... Ahriman becomes a direct author here, and Ahriman is a much more brilliant writer than Nietzsche" (1924-07-20-GA240, 1924-08-08-GA237, 1924-09-15-GA346)
This book rails against metaphysical speculation that asks so-called 'bad' questions, such as those about being or absolute truth. The point made was to qualify and dismantle bad questions - ones that assume flawed premises - rather than answer them.
The original German:
„Ich habe nie über Fragen nachgedacht, die keine sind, — ich habe mich nicht verschwendet.“
is often translated as:
“I have never pondered questions that are not questions—I have not squandered my strength.”
Paraphrase by the author of this site (DL) who recalls reading this in his youth:
"I am wise because I do not waste my time with senseless questions, but only concern myself with those that matter."
Irrespective of the background origin of this quote (see above), there is great value in qualifying a question and whether it makes sense.
1910-09-02-GA123
True, the external abstract thinking of Man will hardly ever refrain from inquiring again and again after the cause of this cause, forever driving his conceptions back, forever seeking the primal cause.
But the spiritual scientist realizes through deep meditation that questionings about the beginnings of things must cease somewhere.
To continue them beyond a certain point is merely to play with thinking,
[example]
... as is shown clearly in Outline of Esoteric Science.
It is stated there that
- when wheel tracks are seen on a road it may well be asked whence they came.
- The answer will probably be that they were caused by the wheels of a carriage.
- A query as to the reason for the wheels on the carriage may produce the information that they were needed to enable it to travel along the road.
- A further inquiry as to the cause of this may bring the reply that someone wished to travel along the road.
- Ultimately we arrive at the resolve of the man which led him to travel along the road.
- Here it is advisable to stop, for further inquiries would inevitably lead to losing one's way in a maze of questions.
.
It is the same as regards great universal questions: a halt must be made somewhere,
[another illustration, this is the context of this lecture, showing with this the relation between context and interpretation of possible answers to a question]
made at what lies at the fountain of the teaching of Zarathustra; at Time, calm, onflowing Time. Then, according to Zarathustra, there proceeded from Time, Ormuzd, the principle of Light, and Ahriman, the evil principle of Darkness. The profound meaning underlying this Iranian or old Persian idea is that the wickedness in the world, all that in its physical form is described as darkness, was not originally wicked, dark and evil. In the same way the wolf was originally good, but when left to itself it degenerated so that Ahrimanic forces could be active in it. To the Iranians or Persians evil came to pass through something that at one time—a time suited to it—was good, retaining its form on into a later age with which it was out of harmony. To them, all that was black and evil arose through a form which was good in one age, continuing on into a later age, instead of adapting itself to change. Through the clashing of such forms of being with the more advanced ones of a later time, the struggle between good and evil arose. Evil is therefore not absolute evil, but misplaced good, something that was good in an earlier time. There, where earlier conditions did not as yet come into collision with later conditions, enduring Time rolled on, Time that was undifferentiated, not yet separated into individual moments.
1912-09-19-GA139
from The three Logoi#1912-09-19-GA139
Today people believe they are able to think with great subtlety. But when we see how people jumble up everything in a higgledy-piggledy way as soon as they try to explain something, then we lose all respect for the thinking of today, especially for its logical thinking.
At this point I really must engage in a short discussion that may seem abstract.
Let us suppose that we encounter an animal that has a mane and is yellow; then we call this animal a lion.
- Now we begin to ask, “What is a lion?” The answer, “A beast of prey.”
- Next we ask, “What is a beast of prey?” Answer, “A mammal.”
- We ask further, “What is a mammal?” Answer, “A living creature.”
- And so we continue describing one thing through another.
Most people believe they are being very lucid when they go on asking ever more questions in the same way as they asked about the lion, the mammal and so on.
And people often ask similar questions about spiritual matters, even about the highest spiritual things, in just the same way as they ask what a lion is, what a beast of prey is, and the rest. And at the end of lectures, when slips of paper are handed in with questions, questions such as these are asked countless numbers of times, for example,
“What is God?” “How did the world begin?” “How will the world end?”
...
People think that what is valid for everyday life must also be equally valid for the highest things. They do not take into consideration that it is just the highest things that are of such a nature that we cannot ask such questions about them.
If we proceed from one thing to another, from the lion to the beast of prey and so on, we must eventually come to something that cannot be described in this way, when there is no longer any sense in asking, what is this? For in this kind of questioning a predicate is sought for the subject. But when we reach the highest being, this being can be comprehended only through itself.
From a logical point of view it is absolutely meaningless to ask the question, “What is God?” Everything can be led upward to the highest, but to the highest no predicate can be added, for the answer would have to be: God is ..., and God would then have to be described in terms of something higher. So the question itself would involve the strangest contradiction possible.
1924-09-17-GA318
There we have found a rhythm that contains the largest time-interval possible for a human being to perceive — the Platonic cosmic year, which stretches through approximately 25.920 of our ordinary years.
There we have looked out into the distances of the cosmos. In a certain sense we have pushed our thoughts against something from which the numbers we use bounce back. We are pushing with our thoughts against a wall. Thinking can't go any further.
Clairvoyance must then come to our aid; that can go further. The whole of evolution takes place in what is encircled by those 25.920 years. And we can very well conceive of this circumference, if you will — which obviously is not a thing of space, but of space-time — we can conceive of it as a kind of cosmic uterine wall. We can think of it as that which surrounds us in farthest cosmic space.
2013 - DL
extract from essay and blogpost by the author of this site DL 'The end of sensible scope' (2013)
This essay started by taking the platonic year as a starting point to investigate the 'start of time as we know it today', conclude that the concept of time is very related to our human consciousness ànd the situation of Earth, Sun and Moon. From that, similar reflections on the relativity of relevance of concepts like not only time, but also gender, and language, to then conclude with the below.
The appendix covered the 'foolish extrapolation', on the hypothesis of extrapolation of human earthly experience in timespace
(5a) - The above implies that there is a 'frontier of sensible scope' (FSS), a greyzone borderland to our reasoning.
There are limits to what makes sense, because one cannot relate to millions of years, or to billions of kilometers: it just does not make sense. Our current type of consciousness limits what we, as subject, can make object using our mundane conscious awareness, thought and language. All rational-intellectual ponderings are actually just attempts to try and grasp the rich multidimensional complexity (whatever these words may mean) of a consciousness experience into the language of the current time and age.
This is what I call the 'frontier of sensible scope' or FSS.
(5b) - Rudolf Steiner's work (or the BoK-U in general) also has a FSS.
Let's see where he draws the line. Steiner:
- does not really extend beyond the development of the current solar system .. does not talk about where it comes from, goes to .. about the fact there are billions of stars and potentially solar systems of similar or other form, etc.
- limits to the cycle of seven planetary incarnations, but does point out there are five more .. even though it is said 'no soul with its thinking still tied to a physical body should reflect about Vulcan and its life' .. because, where is the sense?? it is so, so much beyond our current cognitive capacity of imagination
- in fact - similarly so - he does not put into context the great platonic year, even though much of his work is about in-depth coverage of the different cycles and ages
Note that some authors (such as eg Blavatsky, Bailey, ..) do discuss different cycles of platonic years, but at a certain point one may ask: where's the point, to what avail?(5c) - The reason for this is that the whole rational-intellectual knowledge framework is just a support structure for our quest for meaning and guidance - within our current state of consciousness.
The latter is valid/relevant for a certain journey, imagine it as a 'small arc' along the 'big arc of evolution' (of consciousness). Hence to go into things that are (too) far removed from this 'current (small) arc' does not make sense.
The state of consciousness corresponding to such an 'arc' gives a certain bandwidth filter, a certain 'slit' with a certain range (see above). Steiner gives examples of the limitations of the rational thinking mind versus the intuitive mind.
So back to 'support structure for our quest for meaning and guidance':
- It serves as a worldview (the basis for our operating system, the understanding of Man and cosmos), that helps us along in our current life and incarnations,
ànd - and this is key -
- any type of information or knowledge can only be of meaning if it serves a practical purpose, has an impact in our life. In other words, that it may serve by offering support and guidance .. in what we do in life .. how and by what we consciously - using our free will - choose to guide our choices and actions.
All that any framework of rational-intellectual knowledge can do for us is act as an outer support structure for our inner guiding compass or gyroscope, to connect our soul and spirit with a comprehension in which to place our life experience and give it meaning, a worldview which is a more or less good or better reflection of the true nature of the cosmos.
And the 'validity' or better 'usefulness' of a (the current rational, or any) knowledge framework is limited to a small 'arc' on the large evolutionary journey of mankind. This is not just a question of the survival of a 'text', but rather its relevance to the reality experience which is a function of the type of consciousness of any epoch and age.
Quite practically, the bottom line of what matters for us now is ..
- knowing we are not just a physical body in a physical-material universe working a huge machine-like mechanic-scientific clockwork.. but that 'matter is in consciousness' rather than 'consciousness is in matter' .. .. allows us to connect with the influences that are otherwise invisible, to align with the 'wind of the universe' that carries and guides us along our evolutionary path
- knowing that we are a spirit living a physical life .. ai understanding the concept of reincarnation and karma .. in all its dimensions .. changes our appreciation of moral ideals, ethics and virtues, and the consequences of our actions on the future of our and the world's development [editor: see Seeds for future worlds and Meaning of Free Man Creator]
This is why it matters to understand where we come from, our current place in the cosmos, and where we are going. [see: Man's most important questions]
This is why the evolution of Man and the cosmos is really the evolution of consciousness, and the importance of understanding the relationship between microcosmos (Man) and macrosmos (spiritual hierarchies, planetary and zodiacal influences).
This is why we want [need] to 'stop' the scope of what we consider for thought at a certain point. A wide angle lens for evolution, as Steiner offers, more than largely suffices as scope.
There is a danger that our intellectual curiosity carries us away - far beyond the scope of what will ever be of relevance. We see this especially in the hubris of modern scientific thinkers who are very serious to discuss God in the context of their searches in cosmology and elementary particles .. as if the concept of God was anywhere to be found or understood in the physical realm.
To conclude with an extract from a Steiner lecture:
On 1924-09-17 [editor: quote is now also added higher on this page] he formulates what I have described here as FSS as follows:
There we have found a rhythm that contains the largest time-interval possible for a human being to perceive — the Platonic cosmic year, which stretches through approximately 25.920 of our ordinary years.
There we have looked out into the distances of the cosmos. In a certain sense we have pushed our thoughts against something from which the numbers we use bounce back. We are pushing with our thoughts against a wall. Thinking can't go any further.
Clairvoyance must then come to our aid; that can go further. The whole of evolution takes place in what is encircled by those 25.920 years. And we can very well conceive of this circumference, if you will — which obviously is not a thing of space, but of space-time — we can conceive of it as a kind of cosmic uterine wall. We can think of it as that which surrounds us in farthest cosmic space.
