Sense #12, Anyone?? [Part 1]

I must confess that I have been unfaithful to my Steiner98 List. However, since I was posting something to the <anthropos-science> list, you know there was no real penetration involved

(#1, they don't allow girls and, #2, they're all such tight-asses, anyway!")

So, therefore, as my President is my witness, no adultery against Steiner98 was committed. But, not to worry, I'm going to repost it below since it does involve the 12 senses of Steiner and will help in the sex-love discussion we've been having. (Part 2 will follow immediately after this post.)

(Kathy Kremer: if you still have the same boyfriend, I think you should marry him. Patience is a rare virtue, especially in men.)

Father Tom.

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:47:12 EST
Subject: a-s: Sense #12, anyone? [Part 1]

On 12/2/98 @ 5:46 AM, Charles wrote:
<<I personally have come to value the PEOPLE on this list, almost whatever they choose to discuss. Surely this is the spiritual reality as opposed to any physical or process reality embodied in a charter? This group has come together, however, ostensibly to discuss science which means that I have been able to meet with people of a like (enough) mind.>>

Dear Charles,

Thank you so much for this statement because you are really making conscious for us all the abysmal lack of development of 12th of the12 senses that Rudolf Steiner has articulated for us. And as I will argue below, the problems with the list can be traced to the fearful and scrupulous avoidance of--- even acknowledging the existence of--- this critical Sense #12.

The problem is we invariably stop dead at Sense #11 and go no further. But if you review the entire Heindel-Steiner discussion and the recurring arguments over the list charter, it is clear that the need to acknowledge and develop Sense #12 is of utmost importance for the future of any anthroposophical science endeavors. Let me explain.

I wish to focus on the 4 spiritual senses, but for the sake of review, here are all 12. (Please bear with the long preliminaries. They are necessary for what follows. You can't get to #12 unless you have some sense of senses #1 through #11.)

(1) Touch
(2) Life
(3) Movement
(4) Balance
(5) Smell
(6) Taste
(7) Sight
(8) Temperature
(9) Hearing
(10) Language
(11) Thought (Concept)
(12) Ego

Notice how the 12 senses group into 3 sections of 4 each. Each of the 3 sections represents one "fold" of the 3-fold human being, i.e. Body, Soul and Spirit.








The Body senses are all concerned with my inner being. When I TOUCH an object, I learn nothing objective at all about the object; rather I am (subjectively) reminded that I am incarnated in a physical body. The LIFE sense tells me about the well-being or bad-feeling of my organism. The sense of MOVEMENT is my perception of my own limb movement (kinesthetic sense) and with the sense of BALANCE, I orient myself in the environment.

(Note that nothing from the external world enters my inner being through these 4 Body senses. Thus they are completely subjective.)

The Soul senses are on the boundary between my inner being and the outer world. With SMELL and TASTE, substances from the external world not only impinge on my boundary, but actually enter through my nose or tongue. Similarly, SIGHT allows light to enter my inner being, and finally, the TEMPERATURE sense allows me to perceive the _flow_ of heat according to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics--- heat flowing from warmer to cooler objects.

(Thus the Soul senses are half subjective; half objective.)

But now for this post, I want to focus on the 4 spiritual senses, since they are the least subjective and therefore the most objective--- and these are the senses we should all be developing as spiritual scientists. )

HEARING is actually the lowest spiritual sense. Dr. Albert Soesman goes into detail about why in his book: _The 12 Senses_, (Hawthorn Press, no year given!!!), but suffice it to say that when I hear a sound, I penetrate more deeply into the essence of the object than when I merely see the object.

(NOTE: I make an aside here for the sake of Stephen Tonkin and others who are fixated upon the kind of so-called "scientific objectivity" that forms the foundation of Logical Positivism which is then enforced by the Doctrine of Falsifiability. Such objectivity is ultimately based upon a "social contract" or agreement among scientists. As a social agreement, it requires a religious type of faith for its reality, just as Catholics, e.g. agree upon a certain set of "objective" doctrine in Canon Law. But such scientific social consensus is therefore completely subjective in its totality and cannot be the basis for any science beyond the inorganic realm. The kind of Objectivity that RS espouses here (and notice I capitalize this word) is a true scientific Objectivity that does not require external social agreement. Hence it cannot be falsified in any way, but nevertheless it is the essence of Goethean Science.

In a future post, I will show how the Doctrine of Falsifiability actually falsifies itself when it attempts to leave its proper realm of the dead inorganic mineral kingdom and tries to encompass life, consciousness and self-consciousness.)

(NOTE TO STUART: Perhaps a 3rd list can be created which might be called: <> ?


[to be continued in Part 2, which should immediately follow this post in your mailbox.]

Tom Mellett.

Email with the word help in the
body of the message to get help with leaving, retrieving archive files etc.

Further Pontifications from Father Tom

Return to Steiner98 Home