Does PoF make any claim whatsoever about knowing when we know the truth? My first hunch is to yell, “of course”…b

Hi Tom,

Once there was a terrible little pig named Joey. Joey was mostly mad all the time, but today he was
actually feeling rather content. Today he was his pig friend Pete. And Pete had a secret.

Regardless of your view of the content, this is a beautiful example of a human heart trying to embody- in body, soul and spirit- a very active moral intuition. 

In chapter 4 Steiner gives us his first definition of "percept". He makes it clear what he is talking about. First we read the massively important section in which he says:

One of those discs with a tack of pictures on it is spinning around fast. All I can see is a blur. And a monkey and I stare at it.

Do you remember In PoF what Steiner says  happens to our desire for knowledge once we have understood something?  I wonder how this can be so when even Big Brainers like Steiner are

Tonight my daughter and I watched the outside dance, just as we do each weekend in the summers.

Gene,

Before I began to study PoF, I held the conventional scientific epistemological view of the world. I knew there was an outside world that I had no access to except via the filters of my five senses.

Does anybody know at what time period these words would have been uttered????

Hi there. I've read everything Prokofief has written but I don't know much about him. You said:

Oh wow, If you want to read a beautiful re-rendering of PoF in the guise of a short story of fiction, check out "Sonny's Blues" by James Baldwin.

Try this out.

This will just be where I help myself imagine concretely certain aspects of questions that I haven't fully formulated.

this journal entry is going to be a work in progess that focuses on how PoF relates to the concrete act of blame.

I think it can be very instructive to let The Philosophy of Freedom talk to itself.

What if we found out today that it was too late for our precious Earth? This is something we face on the personal level all the time.

In this journal space, I am going to think out-loud about the nature of "world-views". I am extremely unclear about how this term is used in our culture in general, by Steiner and by myself. As Joel points out in "Comparative Mind, Anthroposophy and Spiritual Science" we must be careful not to assume that the "same" abstract noun is always getting at the same "Idea". If I am on a journey and I stop at various points to describe how things look from where I now stand, I must never mistake my present "view" with the WAY I got to it or with where I am headed. The "view" will be left behind and changed dramatically the moment I start walking again.

As many Anthroposophists know, Steiner pointed to a merging of the Aristitilian and Platonic impulses. There is much to think about in his indications on this matter. Let me start with a quote by Eugene Gendlin that got me thinking.