This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
1212 Responseshttp://www.steinerstorehouse.com/blog/links/links-anthroposophy-and-science/Links%3A+Anthroposophy+and+Science2009-01-29+00%3A54%3A24admin to “Links: Anthroposophy and Science”
I am somewhat involved in Steiner's work now and had read Aurobindo some years ago. UC Institute of Consciousness Studies states it's mission as "understanding the nature and potentials of consciousness". My impression is that Steiner, although spiritually (and hence consciousness) based, has oriented his writing more materially, using as you say the science of consciousness, to explain consciousness's lower levels, and then to eventually transcend these. My memory of Aurobiono is that he advocated direct ascention to higher levels. I do not personally remember much science in his writings. I am not sure where you are going with this, but I dd meet a Waldorf school principal at the 2008 AAMTA meeting in Charleston, who was extremely involved with Aurobindo before turning to Steiner. A book with chapters authored by several different writers could be one way to start making this more mainstream. We really do not know how many are ready in 2010 to listen though. I would be willing to try writing one if you organized it. There is an Aurobindo Ashram in Crestone, CO where Philip Incao lives. He is deeply involved in Steiner and might be willing to write a chapter also.
Is there anybody interested in how Steiner's view on science dovetails with that of Sri Aurobindo? I think that both have much to contribute to the science of consciousness studies, particularly along the lines of the work being done at the Institute for Consciousness Studies at UC Santa Barbara (directed by B. Alan Wallace). I'm working on some ideas on how to bring these various views together and present them in a way that more mainstream scientists might understand. I'd also recommend Irreducible Mind, Edited by Edward Kelly, as another clue on how to bring all these together. Please write if you're interested – donsalmon7@gmail.com. Thanks.
I am somewhat involved in Steiner's work now and had read Aurobindo some years ago. UC Institute of Consciousness Studies states it's mission as "understanding the nature and potentials of consciousness". My impression is that Steiner, although spiritually (and hence consciousness) based, has oriented his writing more materially, using as you say the science of consciousness, to explain consciousness's lower levels, and then to eventually transcend these. My memory of Aurobiono is that he advocated direct ascention to higher levels. I do not personally remember much science in his writings. I am not sure where you are going with this, but I dd meet a Waldorf school principal at the 2008 AAMTA meeting in Charleston, who was extremely involved with Aurobindo before turning to Steiner. A book with chapters authored by several different writers could be one way to start making this more mainstream. We really do not know how many are ready in 2010 to listen though. I would be willing to try writing one if you organized it. There is an Aurobindo Ashram in Crestone, CO where Philip Incao lives. He is deeply involved in Steiner and might be willing to write a chapter also.
Is there anybody interested in how Steiner's view on science dovetails with that of Sri Aurobindo? I think that both have much to contribute to the science of consciousness studies, particularly along the lines of the work being done at the Institute for Consciousness Studies at UC Santa Barbara (directed by B. Alan Wallace). I'm working on some ideas on how to bring these various views together and present them in a way that more mainstream scientists might understand. I'd also recommend Irreducible Mind, Edited by Edward Kelly, as another clue on how to bring all these together. Please write if you're interested – donsalmon7@gmail.com. Thanks.