Every Quality has Opposite Poles

[JosephM]

(snip)
That's a funny thing about opposites: they tend to cancel each other out. High pressure will release into Low pressure, heat to cold etc.
snip)
Br.Bruce

Br. Bruce,

Perhaps when you get the chance you will look up the word
con·tin·u·um (1. A continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division.

It seems to me this definition may help you to understand why we do not see how high and low pressure are opposites. In my view, they are not 2 contrary or opposing forces as in opposites. The same goes for heat and cold. They are merely degrees of the same substance that are distinguishable from neighboring parts only by arbitrary division. However, if after investigation you still feel they are opposites perhaps you will enlighten us on the religious, faith or theology benefit we would receive by that understanding. I would be most interested in your point.

If not, perhaps you would be interested in how this understanding of the premise of a continuum rather than opposites relates to religious or spiritual progression.

Love and Peace,
JM

 

[Bruce Michael]

>Perhaps when you get the chance you will look up the word
>con·tin·u·um (1. A continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part >of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary >division.

Anyway Bro., we can argue about it until the cows come home.

It's not arbitrary if you can assign a specific value to it.

>It seems to me this definition may help you to understand why we do not >see how high and low pressure are opposites. In my view, they are not 2 >contrary or opposing forces as in opposites.

Since we are looking up the dictionary op·po·site
adj.

1. Placed or located directly across from something else or from each other: opposite sides of a building.
2. Facing the other way; moving or tending away from each other: opposite directions.
3. Being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things: the opposite sex; an opposite role to the lead in the play.
4.
1. Altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance: The effect of the medication was opposite to that intended.
2. Sharply contrasting; antithetical: had opposite views on the subject.
5. Botany Growing in pairs on either side of a stem: opposite leaves.


n.

1. One that is opposite or contrary to another.
2. An opponent or antagonist.
3. An antonym.


adv. In an opposite position: They sat opposite at the table.

prep.

1. Across from or facing: parked the car opposite the bank.
2. In a complementary dramatic role to: He played opposite her.


As I stated before (but some have appeared to miss) it is linear- heat and cold, light and dark, linearly speaking, are opposites. You might say that the line is a continuum, but you yourself, or a thing in question, are placed on that line.


>However, if after investigation you still feel they are opposites perhaps >you will enlighten us on the religious, faith or theology benefit we would >receive by that understanding. I would be most interested in your point.

Thank you for the opportunity.
One practical outcome is the teaching of the virtue/vice pairs.
I will expand on this in a later thread.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/virtue-vice-pairs-7211.html

Here are some further thoughts on duality and the nature of evil:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/on-the-nature-of-evil-7333.html

Shalom,
Br.Bruce

 

[JosephM]

No argument here, just a different view. Thank you for your response.

Love and Peace,
JM

 

[Impqueen]

Hi Br. Wil,

Yes there is a theosophical understanding that fear is the opposite of Love.

In my experience fear increases love, rather than cancelling it out.

it is a very useful tool for understanding.

I would agree that polarities can be a useful tool for understanding. It can be useful for a child to learn of bad behaviour versus good behaviour. That doesn't mean that as they grow up they shouldn't interrogate these definitions, shouldn't recognise exceptions to the rules and act accordingly. It's just a tool and there are times it's better to use a different tool, or just come at an issue with your bare hands.

We're all arguing from positions of belief and faith, so we could be here forever!

 

[Bruce Michael]

In my experience fear increases love, rather than cancelling it out.



I would agree that polarities can be a useful tool for understanding. It can be useful for a child to learn of bad behaviour versus good behaviour. That doesn't mean that as they grow up they shouldn't interrogate these definitions, shouldn't recognise exceptions to the rules and act accordingly. It's just a tool and there are times it's better to use a different tool, or just come at an issue with your bare hands.

We're all arguing from positions of belief and faith, so we could be here forever!

What we have are polar opposite views .

As far as morality, moral decisions and acting morally goes, well that is a whole other question.

 

[Impqueen]

What we have are polar opposite views .

Lol

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Ben,
>Actually, what Impqueen has pointed out is that heat and light are both >scientific qualities which can be measured. Cold and dark, on the other >hand, are semantic and only exist in relation to the scientific qualities of >heat and light.

I have posted links to lectures which explain why this view is erroneous.
More from Bobby Matherne

This is a bit difficult to follow, so let me jump ahead and give you the Ur-phenomenon which Goethe derived from these experiments and observations of his: "Light through dark -- yellow; dark through light -- blue." (From page 76). Again one can observe for oneself this Ur-phenomenon. Any cloudless day look up into the sky. We all know from photos of space that space is completely dark. The darkness of space is flowing through a light-filled space during the day and thus we see a blue sky. (Yes, I am aware of the abstract concepts with which physics explains the blueness of the sky.) At sunset, the sky will usually appear yellowish to deep red. What is happening at sunset? The light is flowing through air that has become dark far to the west of where we stand to observe the sun as it sets: light through dark -- yellow. There are no abstract concepts involved here that Goethe asks us to swallow whole, but a simple description of something we can each observe and verify for ourselves. Thus the blue fringes at the top of the circle in the diagram above corresponds to a place which dark (dimness) is flowing through light; the yellow fringes where light is flowing through dark (dimness).

>Good and evil on the other hand are not scientifically measurable and are >both "merely" semantic differences.
No they are more than that. Just because something is not measurable in weight or number doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't put a number on life and you cant' weigh the soul- although some have tried.

We can measure through quality alone.

Further:

Your difficulty lies in the fact that you are always hankering after a phoronomical treatment of light and color. The strange education we are made to undergo instils this mental habit. Thinking of outer Nature, people will restrict themselves to thoughts of a more or less phoronomical character. They will restrict their thoughts to what is arithmetical, spatially formal, and kinematical. Called on to try and think in terms of qualities as you are here, you may well be saying to yourselves: Here we get stuck! You must attribute it to the unnatural direction pursued by Science in modern time.

>There is always danger when we try to explain spiritual ideas using >scientific terminology. The danger is that we trivialize the spiritual and >misrepresent the scientific.

The word Scienta means knowledge- it doesn't just refer to a materialistic science. There is a Spirit Science.
We can draw our terminology from anywhere that suits- it's the concepts that are important. The Vedic teachers did a great job inventing terms and we still use them today- that is fine too.



>It's wiser to use spiritual terms to describe spiritual ideas, and leave >scientific terms for discussions of actual science.

The time has come where we have to be more scientific in our spiritual studies. We use logic, yes, but logic cannot extend past its flat plain grid. We also require imaginative cognition.

More from the Light course:

by Rudolf Steiner

But now, what is this "dark"? You must take the dark seriously, -- take it as something real. (The errors that have crept into modern Physics since about the 16th century were only able to creep in because these things were not observed spiritually at the same time. Only the semblance, as appearing to the outer senses, was taken note of; then, to explain this outer semblance, all kinds of theoretical inventions were added to it). You certainly will not deny that when you look at light the light is sometimes more and sometimes less intense. There can be stronger light and less strong. The point is now to understand: How is this light, which may be stronger or weaker related to darkness? The ordinary physicist of today thinks there is stronger light and less strong; he will admit every degree of intensity of light, but he will only admit one darkness -- darkness which is simply there when there is no light. There is, as it were, only one way of being black. Yet as untrue as it would be to say that there is only one kind of lightness, just as untrue is it to say that there is only one kind of darkness.


When a space is filled with light it is always filled with light of a certain intensity; so likewise, when a space is filled with darkness, it is filled with darkness of a certain intensity. We must proceed from the notion of a merely abstract space to the kind of space that is not abstract but is in some specific way positively filled with light or negatively filled with darkness. Thus we may be confronting a space that is filled with light and we shall call it "qualitatively positive". Or we may be confronting a space that is filled with darkness and we shall judge it "qualitatively negative" with respect to the realm of light.

How is it then with darkness? We have precisely the opposite feeling. We feel the darkness sucking at us. It sucks us out, we have to give away, -- we have to give something of ourselves to the darkness. Thus we may say: the effect of light upon us is to communicate, to give; whilst the effect of darkness is to withdraw, to suck at us and take away. So too must we distinguish between the lighter and the darker colors. The light ones have a quality of coming towards us and imparting something to us; the dark colors on the other hand have a quality of drawing on us, sucking at us, making us give of ourselves. So at long last we are led to say: Something in our outer world communicates itself to us when we are under the influence of light; something is taken from us, we are somehow sucked out, when under the influence of darkness.

More on qualities and measurement:

Many quantities measure directly perceivable qualities; examples are length, weight, volume, temperature, brightness, loudness, pitch. However, as you know, as science has progressed, the tendency has been to explain these quantities in terms of more fundamental quantities. So, matter and energy are explained in terms of elementary particles’ rest mass, charge, spin, etc., and the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). (String theory takes the reduction even deeper.) As a consequence, reality is explained in terms of quantities, which we cannot perceive, and ultimately in terms of quantities that are only very indirectly related to the qualities we do perceive. So “ultimate reality” is remote from our experience, and our everyday experience is explained as a sort of complex, inescapable illusion with little similarity to true reality. The result is that we are alienated from the natural world. Nature is seen as something abstract, mechanical, and non-living to be manipulated from afar. (It’s rather like trying to understand other people and to relate to them in terms of their neurons and physiological processes. If we were really capable to relating to people in this way, the effect would be to alienate us from them, for we would be viewing them as a kind of biochemical robot. To the extent you could view yourself this way, it would be self-alienating, for your intellectual understanding of yourself would be disconnected from your experience of yourself.)


Goethe’s approach is different, for he tries to keep the explanation at the same level as the phenomena to be described, that is, everything is in terms of qualities (which is all that we can experience). In this way, the explanations have the same reality as the phenomena, so that neither undermines the reality of the other. Nature is understood in human terms and experienced as a part of us, as we are experienced as a part of nature.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

 

[MrK]

Hello Ben,
>Actually, what Impqueen has pointed out is that heat and light are both >scientific qualities which can be measured. Cold and dark, on the other >hand, are semantic and only exist in relation to the scientific qualities of >heat and light.

I have posted links to lectures which explain why this view is erroneous.

I find this very interesting. I assume you are referring to the link you posted earlier to Steiners lectures on the thoery of heat. While you obviously believe that the opinions in the lectures are valid, the lecture does not actually answer the point made that heat is a measurable scientific quality and cold is not.

While the lecture makes some interesting philisophical points, the science is woefully out of date and many of his chains of reasoning would not stand up to interrogation by a moderately capable GCSE student. This is not the fault of Mr Steiner himself, since the lecture is 87 years old he would be limited by the scientific knowledge of the time, but I'm curious as to which parts of the lectures you think are particularly relavent to the discussion of polarity?

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hello MrK,
I had some more explanations about qualities in my last post.

>Steiners lectures on the thoery of heat. While you obviously believe that >the opinions in the lectures are valid, the lecture does not actually >answer the point made that heat is a measurable scientific quality and >cold is not.

You are talking about measure, weight and number- not quality.
This is an esoteric board- not materialistic science. What is your understanding of light and dark in the higher worlds? How does cold manifest in the etheric world?


>While the lecture makes some interesting philisophical points, the science i>s woefully out of date and many of his chains of reasoning would not >stand up to interrogation by a moderately capable GCSE student.

Not really. There are many eminent scientists who discuss and work with these ideas. Since I am not a scientist I suggest you debate these questions with the professionals.
Check out the archive for previous discussions.

>This is not the fault of Mr Steiner himself, since the lecture is 87 years o>ld he would be limited by the scientific knowledge of the time,

Newton is older.

Heat is not a measurable scientific but cold is. What is measured is lack of cold. Really there is no such thing as heat, just degrees of cold- stretching forth from "absolute zero"..

Basically you're just looking from the heat angle but my cold angle is just as valid.
Again we have polar opposite views .

We have sensations, we sense warmth and cold- everyone understands that. And these ergonomic qualities are valid for human life and our understanding of it.

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

Or maybe you could contact the other Bruce if you don't get it.

 

[bgruagach]

I'm not sure how playing semantics and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears the topic up.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[Bruce Michael]

I'm not sure how playing semantics and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears the topic up.

But maybe that's just me.

Semantics plays a role in this debate.
Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

To establish an instrument to measure a range of temperatures, in 1593 Galileo Galilei invented a rudimentary water thermometer. One of the first to discuss the possibility of an “absolute cold” on such a scale was Robert Boyle who in his 1665 New Experiments and Observations touching Cold, stated the dispute which is the primum frigidum is very well known among naturalists, some contending for the earth, others for water, others for the air, and some of the moderns for nitre, but all seeming to agree that:
“ There is some body or other that is of its own nature supremely cold and by participation of which all other bodies obtain that quality. ”
Limit to the 'degree of cold'

The question whether there is a limit to the degree of cold possible, and, if so, where the zero must be placed, was first attacked by the French physicist Guillaume Amontons in 1702, in connection with his improvements in the air thermometer.

So starting from supreme coldness, primum frigidum, at what point do we talk of heat? If there is such a thing as supreme coldness, ipso facto, there must be lesser degrees of cold.

Ultimately, at one end of the pole we have primum frigidum, at the other, the concept of absolute heat. Don't tell me absolute heat doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove yea or nay. Heat's expression is the movement of particles but I wouldn't say that that is heat.

-Br.Bruce

The notion of specifics does appear to run contrary to the notion of spiritual investigation. One may become bewildered at the possibility that the two may in fact coincide- because it is often presumed that there is little or no clarity in spiritual insight, that at best, we will be hazy or shadowy in lofty or inspired thinking. However, parent thoughts do dwell in the upper ethers, and are as clear and exact as one could ever experience.


-The Brothers, The Search for Specifics

 

[JosephM]

Bro Bruce,

Absence is the state of being away. That state is merely sematics for the absence of a quality such as heat (energy) expressed as a degree with complete absence expressed as absolute zero. your ref to Wiki Absolute zero "describes a theoretical system that neither emits nor absorbs energy". So in science temperature is a measure of energy or lack of. Perhaps I am still missing your point of this post after reading through volumes of your information and I still fail to see its personal application to the interfaith forum or its subject matter. Perhaps you could in your 'own words', in a paragraph or two tell me what you are saying. I'm trying to understand the point. It would be appreciated.

Peace and Love,
JM

 

[bgruagach]

I'm with JM -- I still fail to understand how playing semantic games and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears up whatever the point was supposed to be in this thread.

 

[Bruce Michael]

I'm with JM -- I still fail to understand how playing semantic games and blurring the lines between science and spirituality clears up whatever the point was supposed to be in this thread.

That's where we do have polar opposite views, Bro.

It didn't even occur to me that someone could think this way.

Of course, there are no lines between science and spirituality- none at all.
Truth is one. There are not two types of truth.

You could start another thread on this, but I feel there is no distinction.

It's not my job to convince you of anything- for a start, the pay's not high enough .

For the Gnostic, the seeker of knowledge, science is a tool.

I am not "playing semantic games". It is important to understand how folk use words and the concepts which attach. "Words are the means by which we misunderstand each other" and old friend of mine used to say.
[SIZE=-1]
Saying that there is no concept/quality "cold" or no "dark" is a linguistic error.[/SIZE]

Actually this discussion has enabled me to further understand the concept of qualities and their opposite poles. So thank you for that.

God Bless,
Br.Bruce

Usually when one bears down into a sequence of phases of thought, there is an amassing of congenial concepts, which by their structure, offer a pictorial representation by their overall grouping. The associations may of themselves be vague, but collectively they depict a decipherable image.
In point of fact, most people who do not work on achieving a consciousness which is awake, quite often have memory pictures and affinities before them, but rarely enter into specifics, working from antipathies and desire, without any actual thought in lively production.


-The Search for Specifics

 

[JosephM]

That's where we do have polar opposite views, Bro.

It didn't even occur to me that someone could think this way.

Then i guess you learned something today.

Of course, there are no lines between science and spirituality- none at all.
Truth is one. There are not two types of truth.

You could start another thread on this, but I feel there is no distinction.

It seemed to me that all things came from the spirit including science, not to say that science has to be true or reached truth but still there would be nothing without the spirit so I would have to say there are lines but then again you are entitled to your belief that there are none. To me the ethers have no hold on truth, just another subjective world that even I am familiar with as are you.

It's not my job to convince you of anything- for a start, the pay's not high enough .

Yes. Never hired you for that particular job. Just seeking to understand your point.

For the Gnostic, the seeker of knowledge, science is a tool.

I am not "playing semantic games". It is important to understand how folk use words and the concepts which attach. "Words are the means by which we misunderstand each other" and old friend of mine used to say.

As I said in my earlier post, I am just looking for your point of your post in your own simple words. Forget the semantics. Just what are you trying to communicate with your post.

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Saying that there is no concept/quality "cold" or no "dark" is a linguistic error.[/SIZE]

Actually this discussion has enabled me to further understand the concept of qualities and their opposite poles. So thank you for that.

God Bless,
Br.Bruce
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]No linguistic error here. To me, Cold and Dark is all about linguistics and nothing else. Ok, so what does having an understanding of the concept of "cold" or "dark' as you describe and have do for you that that our apparent mis-understanding doesn't do for us?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]I'm certainly glad somebody learned something from your thread, even if it was only you. I guess that is why this thread is esoteric or mysterious as its meaning seems to be non publicly disclosed or only understood by a particular group.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Still not looking for an argument, just trying to understand your point or purpose which I assume you must have to generate this thread. You have provided an abundance of references and content but in my personal view, no context which I can grasp. Perhaps you could as I suggested summarize in your own words if you still wish to communicate to one who may not be a part of your elite group.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Love and Peace,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]JM[/SIZE]

 

[Bruce Michael]

Peace Br.Joseph,

You ask for "personal application"- there might not be any personal application.

Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The beginning of this thread was about Kama qualities after all. Then someone argued that from an "objective" view cold and dark etc. didn't exist. So they hadn't even read my post. Kama qualities- desire, inner sensations???? -experiences such as cold and dark.

Now I do know that people -even physicists- recognise heat and cold. So you may protest, but I guess I don't really believe you live your life like that. You mean you never say "My dinner's cold" or "It's cold outside." etc.?

But really the notion of polar opposites is not so hard to understand. If you start by admitting that the sensation of warmth is the opposite of cold we might be getting somewhere. There is the Goldilock's midpoint and either side we're staring at opposite polar ends.

Do I understand the concept of Kama qualities? No. I didn't say it was easy. Do I think that esotericism is for all? No.

Esotericism however, it not about an elite, a closed circle. See my comments on the esoterism & esoterica thread.

Now getting back to my original post:

In a fixed Cosmos there would be no activity. In a non-fixed Cosmos there would be Chaos in activity. In a two-poled Cosmos there is a happy mix of reality and possibility. We have been empowered to dwell in the fixed conditions and effect constant change upon them. The latter determines the former, whilst the former follows the latter.

We have a duality in the Cosmos of Chaos and Order. Now you're not going to tell me that there is only chaos or only order are you? These are very interesting concepts to ponder and are used practically in biodynamics.

We also have polarity in our organs. The example given was the digestive tract- at one end the mouth, the other anus. In fact there is a polarity of some sort in all our organs and chakras. We can suffer from certain magnetic polarisations.

If it wasn't for magnetic polarisations you wouldn't be able to read this.

To take take it further:
Scales of weight, scales of music: All of these scales denote graduation (the Holy Grail), one built upon another.

Step by step, we move along the axis from one pole to the other. So you can imagine a staircase, or a line (an axis) in space with graduations. You are standing on the staircase at one end is say "cold", at the other is "hot". As you walk up the stairs (towards a pole) you are getting hotter. If you turn around in the opposite direction (towards a pole) and walk down you are getting colder. So it's like hiding game played by children- "you're getting hotter" or "you're getting colder".

A pole is also one of the ends of the axis of a sphere. The sphere itself is the concept, the quality. I may say more about this another time.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

 

[Impqueen]

The beginning of this thread was about Kama qualities after all. Then someone argued that from an "objective" view cold and dark etc. didn't exist. So they hadn't even read my post. Kama qualities- desire, inner sensations???? -experiences such as cold and dark.

I'm afraid then, that I misunderstood your initial post, it wasn't clear to me that 'Kama qualities' are different from normal states... clearly I should have recognised it as something I wasn't qualified to comment on as I have no idea what a Kama quality even is. Despite having read your post. You mentioned light and dark etc and so I piped up expressing my perspective on polarities. I didn't intend to derail the whole thing...

I'm wondering why I should believe anything Steiner writes anyway? You refer to it as if it were gospel truth to you. Well, just like the gospels, just because it's true to you, doesn't make it true to me.

 

[JosephM]

Peace Br.Joseph,

You ask for "personal application"- there might not be any personal application.

Thanks for your response. Then I assume you are saying you have no personal application. I accept that.

Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The beginning of this thread was about Kama qualities after all. Then someone argued that from an "objective" view cold and dark etc. didn't exist. So they hadn't even read my post. Kama qualities- desire, inner sensations???? -experiences such as cold and dark.

Actually we did not say that the words don't exist, we were only saying that they are subjective and mind created and that in that respect they exist only as subjective precepts of the mind. Nevertheless, that is not important as I am more interested your understanding and its usefulness to a personal application which you have answered above as " there might not be any personal application".

Now I do know that people -even physicists- recognise heat and cold. So you may protest, but I guess I don't really believe you live your life like that. You mean you never say "My dinner's cold" or "It's cold outside." etc.?

No, I use those words also but I realize that they are purely subjective as my idea of cold may not agree with yours. My wife is constantly complaining how hot it is in our house and sleeps with only a sheet while I am cold and require a blanket. Who is right? Is it hot or cold? I realize that they are subjective opinions and do not argue or become upset with her because I understand the nature of heat and the relativity of semantics such as the word cold. That is a personal application of my understanding.

But really the notion of polar opposites is not so hard to understand. If you start by admitting that the sensation of warmth is the opposite of cold we might be getting somewhere. There is the Goldilock's midpoint and either side we're staring at opposite polar ends.

Ok. However the word cold as I stated is so relative that agreeing the sensation of warmth is the opposite of cold says to me very little. To me, it is just a semantical word that is a point of division rather than unity.

Do I understand the concept of Kama qualities? No. I didn't say it was easy. Do I think that esotericism is for all? No.
Esotericism however, it not about an elite, a closed circle. See my comments on the esoterism & esoterica thread.

Perhaps I misunderstood the definition of esoteric as my dictionary states..
es·o·teric· adj. 1. a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.
b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.

2. a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
esoteric - confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle; "a compilation of esoteric philosophical theories"

Now getting back to my original post:

We have a duality in the Cosmos of Chaos and Order. Now you're not going to tell me that there is only chaos or only order are you? These are very interesting concepts to ponder and are used practically in biodynamics.

Unfortunately yes, I am going to tell you that Chaos only exists as a precept of mind. Chaos is a term that rests on the presumption that reality is limited to perception. In reality there is only divine order and no accidents because for that to occur it would have to happen outside the allness of creation. Everything represents the consequence of the effects of the entire universe throughout all time. This puts nothing outside the karmic harmony of the universe.

We also have polarity in our organs. The example given was the digestive tract- at one end the mouth, the other anus. In fact there is a polarity of some sort in all our organs and chakras. We can suffer from certain magnetic polarisations.

If it wasn't for magnetic polarisations you wouldn't be able to read this.

To take take it further:
Scales of weight, scales of music: All of these scales denote graduation (the Holy Grail), one built upon another.

Step by step, we move along the axis from one pole to the other. So you can imagine a staircase, or a line (an axis) in space with graduations. You are standing on the staircase at one end is say "cold", at the other is "hot". As you walk up the stairs (towards a pole) you are getting hotter. If you turn around in the opposite direction (towards a pole) and walk down you are getting colder. So it's like hiding game played by children- "you're getting hotter" or "you're getting colder".

A pole is also one of the ends of the axis of a sphere. The sphere itself is the concept, the quality. I may say more about this another time.

Blessings,
Br.Bruce

I think you have made what you are saying very clear in the above illustration. Thank you. Its simple enough to understand and I don't think you will find any disagreement. Yet, I still don't get the point of what you are trying to teach or communicate. As we move from a lesser to a greater or greater to a lesser it is saying the same thing. Why it needs to be called or understood as a 'polar opposites' is still beyond me. But thanks for your patience.

Love and Peace,
JM

 

[bgruagach]

For me, the whole thing boils down to what I commented before: polarity is just one intellectual "map" of reality, among many. And it is dangerous for us to mistake the map for the landscape itself.

Tools should help us to understand things. When they act as blinders or straitjackets then we should perhaps question whether they are helping or hindering us.

 

[Bruce Michael]

I'm afraid then, that I misunderstood your initial post, it wasn't clear to me that 'Kama qualities' are different from normal states... clearly I should have recognised it as something I wasn't qualified to comment on as I have no idea what a Kama quality even is. Despite having read your post. You mentioned light and dark etc and so I piped up expressing my perspective on polarities. I didn't intend to derail the whole thing...

I'm wondering why I should believe anything Steiner writes anyway? You refer to it as if it were gospel truth to you. Well, just like the gospels, just because it's true to you, doesn't make it true to me.

No need for apologies ImpQueen. I don't mind if readers bring forth objections- as long as they are sincere, and not actively misunderstanding.

Kama is Sanskrit for 'desire'- as in Kama Manas- Desire Mind, Kama-Rupa- Desire Body or Astral body. We pronounce Karma the same way, but some theosophists get fussy and pronounce it the correct way (something like Kerrrma).

I have my spiritual teachers, you may have your's. Personally I have never found another spiritual teacher with such width and depth as Steiner.
He is overwhelming. No other teacher has given to the world so many practical activities either.

His word is not gospel but always interesting. Nothing he said is to be taken dogmatically..

Best wishes,
Br.Bruce