Thanks for sharing your experience at The Nature Institute. I can relate to much of what you describe going back to my own studies in Goetheanism at Emerson College in the UK some years ago. Apart from the content itself, i.e nature studies, what strikes me most, both now and then, is the process towards the conscious experience of the act of knowing which you describe so well.
I have recently reflected back to my early years of graduate school when that same consciousness was sometimes present, albeit in a dim way. I particularly remember studying integrals in a maths course which at first felt as a highly abstract form of mathematics. It was only when I could begin to βimagineβ (visualize) the surfaces and volumes that the integral equations stood for that the whole subject became graspable. Otherwise, knowledge can only be, as you point out, a theorising upon the world. Having a space and community that fosters an awakened sense of cognition as for example Goetheanism is therefore a real blessing.
What stands out in your post for me is Craigβs and Henrikeβs insistence in not using the word βbecauseβ and βrefraining from explanatory languageβ. In my own studies and sharings with others in similar contexts this seems to be one fundamental threshold that is difficult to surpass for everyone, including myself. To learn to allow the appearance to speak for itself has been the greatest gift the goethean method has given me. Glad to hear it lives in others as well.
This is a great reflection on your studies, Ashton!
In one sense we could say that the "Goethean Method" consists of education. In the place of scientific experiments that test an intellectual hypothesis, the Goethean Scientist creates the conditions under which he or she can *experience* an aspect of nature that was previously hidden from him or her. In place of the scientific report, the Goethean Scientist then has the task of creating the condition under which others can come to the same experiences as he has created for himself. This, to me, is the essence of Goethean Science. Since there is more than one way to create an transmit these experiences, I sometimes like to say that there is no Goethean Method. This is why I put these words in quotes above.
You exposition is a great expression of your experiences on this path.
Bruce, I appreciate that you mention that a βmethodβ can become a hindrance, particularly in the field of Goethean science. I think we usually associate βmethodβ with one unique and particular way of achieving a result. Given that we humans are individuals with different characteristics who obviously achieve the same results differently, such a method makes little sense.
Nonetheless I find it important that, in Gothean Science, we still share some boundaries in our path towards knowledge. Otherwise how would we be able to share the validity of results with each other? This becomes even more important if we want to apply goethean science in fields like biodynamics or medicine.
In the Goethean βmethodβ, science and art, objectivity and subjectivity, need to be balanced in a way that there is room for both our individual perspectives and our collective understandings. If we βcommunallyβ travel that path we may arrive at another kind of shared knowledge that has gone beyond the ordinary objectivity of sense-based thinking.
I find it important to stress this if Goethean science, at all, will become usable in the world as a knowledge that informs us both ethically and technologically.
Thanks for sharing your experience at The Nature Institute. I can relate to much of what you describe going back to my own studies in Goetheanism at Emerson College in the UK some years ago. Apart from the content itself, i.e nature studies, what strikes me most, both now and then, is the process towards the conscious experience of the act of knowing which you describe so well.
I have recently reflected back to my early years of graduate school when that same consciousness was sometimes present, albeit in a dim way. I particularly remember studying integrals in a maths course which at first felt as a highly abstract form of mathematics. It was only when I could begin to βimagineβ (visualize) the surfaces and volumes that the integral equations stood for that the whole subject became graspable. Otherwise, knowledge can only be, as you point out, a theorising upon the world. Having a space and community that fosters an awakened sense of cognition as for example Goetheanism is therefore a real blessing.
What stands out in your post for me is Craigβs and Henrikeβs insistence in not using the word βbecauseβ and βrefraining from explanatory languageβ. In my own studies and sharings with others in similar contexts this seems to be one fundamental threshold that is difficult to surpass for everyone, including myself. To learn to allow the appearance to speak for itself has been the greatest gift the goethean method has given me. Glad to hear it lives in others as well.
This is a great reflection on your studies, Ashton!
In one sense we could say that the "Goethean Method" consists of education. In the place of scientific experiments that test an intellectual hypothesis, the Goethean Scientist creates the conditions under which he or she can *experience* an aspect of nature that was previously hidden from him or her. In place of the scientific report, the Goethean Scientist then has the task of creating the condition under which others can come to the same experiences as he has created for himself. This, to me, is the essence of Goethean Science. Since there is more than one way to create an transmit these experiences, I sometimes like to say that there is no Goethean Method. This is why I put these words in quotes above.
You exposition is a great expression of your experiences on this path.
Bruce, I appreciate that you mention that a βmethodβ can become a hindrance, particularly in the field of Goethean science. I think we usually associate βmethodβ with one unique and particular way of achieving a result. Given that we humans are individuals with different characteristics who obviously achieve the same results differently, such a method makes little sense.
Nonetheless I find it important that, in Gothean Science, we still share some boundaries in our path towards knowledge. Otherwise how would we be able to share the validity of results with each other? This becomes even more important if we want to apply goethean science in fields like biodynamics or medicine.
In the Goethean βmethodβ, science and art, objectivity and subjectivity, need to be balanced in a way that there is room for both our individual perspectives and our collective understandings. If we βcommunallyβ travel that path we may arrive at another kind of shared knowledge that has gone beyond the ordinary objectivity of sense-based thinking.
I find it important to stress this if Goethean science, at all, will become usable in the world as a knowledge that informs us both ethically and technologically.
Amen, AlexandreβI agree. The method is partially determined by our constitution as human beings and by the phenomenal world itself.