Dear Friends,

    It is my view, and I believe Steiner's as well, that one could practice introspection in a fully scientific way.  This must mean, at least, that each individual can discover the same universal elements in their soul life.

  I emphasize the term "universal", because experience has taught me that much of what we encounter through introspection is personal and individual, and needs to be distinguished from the universal.  PoF then gives us langauge pointing to this universal structure, such as: percept, concept, mental picture, moral imagination, moral intuition and so forth.

    If this is the case then, it seems to me that our language in these posts, to the extent that we wish to practice a "science" of introspection, must tend toward the same or similar language conventions, and become thereby a common language just as any other scientific discipline creates a common language.  When, therefore, we diverge into other areas in such a way as to leave behind the necessary common scientific language of introspection, we have drifted away from the universal practices of PoF, and into our individual interpretations and interests.

    We find, for example, in much of Carl's work, a strong impulse to divergence, away from the language conventions of PoF and into Carl's "theory" of conversation.  We also have posts on all kinds of other matters, which while relevant in their immediate sense of being something meaningful to the person writing the comment or journal post, also in effect is a divergence.  I place myself in this category as well. 

    Let us call the divergence into individual interests: "sharing", but not consider it "scientific" in the sense of PoF.  This sharing is something like writing a letter, in a peer reviewed biology journal, about last summer's vacation with the kids.  This is interesting as we get to know each other, but not on point with regard to the "science" of introspection.

    What I would like to suggest, on the thread that may result from this journal entry, that we start to compile a list of terms that we believe are appropriate to a scientific inquiry into our inner life rooted in the practice of introspection.  Also, that we do this carefully, and that we try to express (not define) what the term means to our experience (not our theory of introspection, but what happesn when we actually practice introspection).

    Having proposed this, I also consider it a mutual work, not something someone can produce on their own and to which "authority" we should expect others to conform, but rather a careful and systematic examination of the universals of our soul life that seeks to find and use similar language conventions.  We could also do this Chapter by Chapter, rather than leap ahead, keeping ourselves to basics - creating building block concepts out of experience.

    So in Chapter One: Conscious Human Action, I find the following terms toward which I can also admit to having a relevant experience when I look within: want, desire,  motive, mental picture, thinking.  The rest of the discussion in this Chapter seems to consist of "thoughts" and chains of reason about these universal elements of our inner life, but cannot properly be called something "observed" to be there.  Since my rereading of this Chapter was a bit quick and superficial, I may have missed a few other "facts" of experience as regards our inwardness, and I look forward to what others may want to add.

    Want and desire, however, may be the same thing at first glance, but I think we can distinguish them by recognizing that both "want" and "desire" can mean the same thing in the sense of being outside my conscious will (thus the title to the Chapter: Conscious Human Action), but also these terms can mean something actually willed by choice.  So, if we "want" a "science" of introspection, we might need to make a distinction between a natural urge or hunger that is a want, and something willed as a conscious want. 

    I hope to find some company for this journey.

warm regards,

joel