I have only begun to give this work the attention it deserves, but I will read further. I just wanted to note that you are reminding me of the work of OG Rose on their masterwork Belonging Again
On Substack and you tube. Daniel Garner, who is half of the OGRose partnership, draws heavily on Philip Rieff for his concept of the background of givens, though in a recent interview with Cadell Last about the latterβs new visionary agenda for philosophy, Real Speculations, also a crucial read for us uns today, Daniel reclaims Hume here too as precursor in an interesting way. Sorry for the shorthand but just wanting to link these texts in the collective mind. I am a longtime fan of Barfield but agnostic about Steiner. Admiring, but skeptical. Too gnostic for me. Maybe you will change my mind! I will read further and report. In the meantime congratulations on this work.
Thanks so much for your kind and thoughtful words, Cleo, and for drawing these connections to other texts. Iβm flattered by your comparison of what Iβve written here with the admirable work of OG Rose. Daniel, Matt Segall, and I actually had a conversation about Barfield and related themes back in late AugustβI'll include a link below in case you're interested in listening.
As for Steiner, I also remain skepticalβand I think that's a very healthy orientation to take toward claims we canβt substantiate for ourselves. I was initially much more apprehensive about Steiner, but as I read more of Barfieldβs workβand saw his repeated insistence on the importance of anthroposophy to his own thinkingβI gradually became more receptive. As you'll see if you read my dissertation, my ultimate conclusion is that Steinerβs expansion of Goetheβs method, and his conceptual articulation of it in the dynamic metaphysic expressed in The Philosophy of Freedom, is of real value and a potential starting point for those of us interested in βresearchingβ spiritual realities for ourselves.
If the path he outlined is indeed possible, then theoretically we should be able to attain the capacity to either confirm or deny his otherworldly claims. Some aspects of his work, such as his racialist theories, we can already rejectβthanks to science (e.g., there is no physical basis for races, no way of delineating distinct racial essences in biological or physiognomic data) and critical thinking.
Anyhow, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the dissertation, and thank you again for your interest.
I'm so honored by the connection, Cleo! I had a marvelous time speaking with Ashton and Matt, and I strongly resonate with Ashton's thinking on these subjects. His work is work of importance.
I have only begun to give this work the attention it deserves, but I will read further. I just wanted to note that you are reminding me of the work of OG Rose on their masterwork Belonging Again
On Substack and you tube. Daniel Garner, who is half of the OGRose partnership, draws heavily on Philip Rieff for his concept of the background of givens, though in a recent interview with Cadell Last about the latterβs new visionary agenda for philosophy, Real Speculations, also a crucial read for us uns today, Daniel reclaims Hume here too as precursor in an interesting way. Sorry for the shorthand but just wanting to link these texts in the collective mind. I am a longtime fan of Barfield but agnostic about Steiner. Admiring, but skeptical. Too gnostic for me. Maybe you will change my mind! I will read further and report. In the meantime congratulations on this work.
Thanks so much for your kind and thoughtful words, Cleo, and for drawing these connections to other texts. Iβm flattered by your comparison of what Iβve written here with the admirable work of OG Rose. Daniel, Matt Segall, and I actually had a conversation about Barfield and related themes back in late AugustβI'll include a link below in case you're interested in listening.
As for Steiner, I also remain skepticalβand I think that's a very healthy orientation to take toward claims we canβt substantiate for ourselves. I was initially much more apprehensive about Steiner, but as I read more of Barfieldβs workβand saw his repeated insistence on the importance of anthroposophy to his own thinkingβI gradually became more receptive. As you'll see if you read my dissertation, my ultimate conclusion is that Steinerβs expansion of Goetheβs method, and his conceptual articulation of it in the dynamic metaphysic expressed in The Philosophy of Freedom, is of real value and a potential starting point for those of us interested in βresearchingβ spiritual realities for ourselves.
If the path he outlined is indeed possible, then theoretically we should be able to attain the capacity to either confirm or deny his otherworldly claims. Some aspects of his work, such as his racialist theories, we can already rejectβthanks to science (e.g., there is no physical basis for races, no way of delineating distinct racial essences in biological or physiognomic data) and critical thinking.
Anyhow, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the dissertation, and thank you again for your interest.
Here's the link to the video I referenced above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE0WZT6-fII&t=5749s
Listening to the vid now. So lovely to watch you three in perichoresis!
I'm so honored by the connection, Cleo! I had a marvelous time speaking with Ashton and Matt, and I strongly resonate with Ashton's thinking on these subjects. His work is work of importance.