OK, it looks like the conversational impulse is probably the most problematic area in conversation theory. It is not altogether clear how to describe it, or that describing it is even possible in general terms. I am taking a stab at it here. By my reckoning, the conversational impulse should have the following form:

(1) For the sake of my ontological (spiritual) striving, let me reproduce what Sally just said to the best of my ability, according to my sympathy or antipathy with it and my best understanding of what Sally must intend by it, and see if everyone else, including Sally, will accept what I offer.

I believe (1) is the basic impulse at work in Goethean conversation. It has the following features:

(i) It is a moral impulse, a direct expression of a good will on behalf of everyone present;

(ii) It is an artistic impulse, a direct expression of an intention to express oneself feelingly and to submit oneself and one's expression to the aesthetic judgment of others;

(iii) It is an impulse of thinking because it attempts to assess what is currently being said in terms of its truth value, and to register one's own perception of what is true in what is being said.

I believe a maxim like (1), if exercised well, transports the speaker and his (her) listeners into the sense-free domain. I believe this is the form of freedom in Goethean conversation.

Why would anyone want to participate in a moment in Goethean conversation in any other way?

Global warming is for anthroposophists probably the most acutely felt and poignant problem facing humanity. Anthroposophists probably feel this problem is something they should be able to play a role in ameliorating, given the privileged cosmic science to which they have access, but are at a loss how to do so. I do not see any discussion of global warming on this website.

We have recently opened up the proposition that human games in general and Goethean conversation in particular probably exploit energy fields and physical resonances, and that these resonances are instrumental in binding social groups together. Call this:

(H1) Hypothesis on ontogenetic fields.

(H1) is famously proposed by the physiologist Rupert Sheldrake, whose work over the past 25 years has begun to collect a convincing body of evidence in its favor.

It seems reasonable to suppose that if (H1) is correct, there may be a way for human societies to begin to influence planetary climate patterns psychically. If an ideal pattern of weather could be described, and if a mechanism to cause this weather could be developed, I think people in general would want to do so.

Let's begin to think about how anthroposophists can contribute to solving the problem of global warming, and to stabilize a pattern of change that looks rather terrible if allowed to continue on its current trajectory.

Tim,

I want to respond to your two very sensible posts on Contracts, Groups and Individuals and Behavoir Management here, in this Journal on Conversational Ontology. People haven't been able to make much of this notion so far, and I think it is relevant to the position you take and the questions you ask in these posts.

I am saying we can imagine a group that works so much better than the world of individualists that no one will prefer that latter world. People will prefer to participate in the new contractual world, and not in the old one. They will find themselves living for the world that comes into being when they engage with Goethean conversation in the right way. As a consequence, as a sort of by-product, the properties of the old world will start to change.

You say you don't believe you will ever locate such a group, but that you are open to finding out more about what it might be. That's all I can ask of anyone. I thank you for saying so.

Then you ask, "How is behavior to be managed under the new social contract?" I think that's the right question to ask.

Basically, the scenario depends on individuals understanding it from the inside out. It needs to take root in the will and imagination of each individual as connected to their fundamental spiritual impulse. That's the only way such behavior can be managed. It can only be managed by the sensibility and intelligence of each individual separate from the sensibility and intelligence of all others. In that way, the New Social Contract is based entirely on individualism.

But the form of the New Social Contract is universalism. It's a form that requires the individual to universalize his (her) behavior and to universalize his (her) judgments. So even though the scenario is based on individual will and imagination, it becomes simultaneously based on a Group Imagination and what Rousseau called a General Will. That is the basis for the Domain of Ends, and the discarnate World of Spirits that humanity will grow into.

Today, we see the General Will being expressed on occasion among certain spiritual groups working with something called Collective Intelligence. These demonstrations of the General Will depend on individuals understanding the Conversational Impulse, and the ontological structure and preparedness of that impulse.

Hi Carl,

Thank you, from my reading of the above there are some sentences that resonate with my own experience.

Now I have to say that my ability to digest passages with a number of long and unfamiliar words is limited so you will have to bear with me while I try and tease out what you mean by a number of words in the contexts you use them, one in particular.  This is necessary for me since you have brought this thread under the banner of another discussion that I haven't really followed thus far.

You say:

the impulse to speak in Goethean conversation is an ontological impulse.  It springs from a need to satisfy one's sense of reality. It is a social gesture by which one attempts to contact the reality of existence.

I found the following definitions of ontological, which is not a word I use often though I do find it in books sometimes.

1. Of or relating to ontology.
2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.
3. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.

I found a definition of the meaning of ontology as "The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being".

Your starting point seems to be academic philosophy which would include the study of ontology I guess and the key developments in ontology in the history of philosophy. 

I am a rank amateur in philosophy but recall from reading Plato that he is very strong on the distinction between being (which he identifies with the spiritual, the world of the ideas, the world outside the cave where the people are chained up in the allegory Socrates relates in the Republic) and becoming which he sees as inferior or part of the phenomenal world.

Boy you do make people work hard don't you :-)

So I have come this far along a path which I hope is the one you intended.  Now my slant on "ontological impulse" is that you mean an impulse to realise or connect with true being or reality in this sense.  So in more Steinerish anthroposophical terminology something like a spiritual impulse maybe?

Then you connect this with Sheldrake's idea of ontogenetic fields (a bit of free association at work here I think, however I have no objection to that).  I have a copy of Sheldrake's New Science of Life but I must confess I haven't read it closely yet.  However in one sense the ideas seem obvious to me and bear some relation to such things as the anthroposophical concept of etheric life forces.

I also recall he and others have referred to studies which allegedly show that meditation groups operating in certain areas have been correlated with a reduction in crime rates in those areas, again that kind of connection seems to underly your train of thought as you connect it with the idea of a group of people practicing Goethean conversation influencing the global climate in a similar way.

It appears to me that while on the surface your thinking is quite formed, logical and axiomatic, you are actually indulging a free-ranging association behind the scenes in how you move from one formed sentence or axiom to the next.  And it is really hard for people to follow you very far without teasing out the whole thing sometimes I think!

So I think you are also freely associating with ideas like synchronicity which others have referred to recently on this site.  That is, meaningful coincidences and ones often involving the realm of thought in some way.  For example, Newton and Leibniz independently inventing calculus at about the same time, many other examples could be advanced.

Now (at least as I conceive it :-) I've sussed you out and seen through your logician's disguise, let me close with an imagination, a waking alchemical dream, a fancy, call it what you will.  I am wondering if it is at all in line with the spirit of what you are trying to achieve and express through your work.

A group of people are sitting together studying a lecture by Steiner and a warmth has been generated as all seem to be in agreement at the end - everyone has contributed something to the discussion, everything that was said was heard and valued and there is a general mood of satisfaction and even awe that something more than the sum of the individual opinions and thoughts has now become apparent to everyone.

Suddenly there is a hush... everyone is looking at each other and wondering if the others saw it... an angelic figure hovering over the group holding a golden tablet.  On the tablet are inscribed the true names of each of the participants in glowing, multi-coloured letters.  The figure makes a gesture of benediction and fades away.

I have been considering the possiblities of what constitutes a social contract.

A student led me to the following article - it is rather long so please be patient. George Kunz considers what makes therapy therapeutic and reaches the conclusion that the relationship between client and counsellor has a religious quality.

http://www.meaning.ca/archives/archive/art_what-makes-therapy-theraputic_G_Kunz.htm

Does this form of agreement have any significance for what you are proposing, Carl?