Colored shadows demo how all color has a subjective aspect. Let’s apply this to ether studies

colored-shadows4 colored-shadows3 colored-shadows2 colored-shadows1According to Goethe, all hues are colored shadows. Later, color scientists, most famously Edwin Land (founder of the Polaroid Corporation), appear to produce shadows of virtually every hue… (ref)

The above photo-demonstrations serve to bring healthy doubt into Newton’s one-sided, 100% materialistic explanations of color.

If studied, the images suggest a definite subjective element must be part of how we perceive color, how we estimate and imagine polarities where they may or may not exist, how in fact, each person may do this somewhat uniquely.

These photo-demonstrations of colored shadows are part of an old argument which may have new meaning in our post-2012 world.

You may know in the field of “free” energy, older ideas about ether are being revised and upgraded as we speak.

A main piece of the old argument between Goethe~Newton on color can be summarized freshly as:  Is color 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we view color?

This is a microcosm to the identical dilemma and conflict encountered by etheric researchers.  Those who know Goethe’s view of color can propose a useful question to etheric researchers:  Is ethericity 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we perceive and work with etheric formative forces?

If you have seen Chapter 19 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul it should be clear how one-sided scientists, paid by corporations, often prefer totally one-sided science, where human ethics, morals and choice are irrelevant.  Conversely, how Goethean, two-sided scientists-experimenters celebrate the etherical, moral and transformatinal aspects of working with ethericity.

The current generations of etheric researchers are intelligent and collaborative. See the free two-hour YouTube video of intro statements by 30 of the leaders at the 2015 gathering of researchers, approximately HERE

However current etheric researchers tend to be less interested in artistic and metaphysical Oneness than Steiner and his immediate successors on this topic in Anthroposophy, most notably, Ernst Lehrs.

Dethroning gravity as the King of the Universe

abstract-gravityWhen man in the state of world-onlooker undertook to form a dynamic picture of the nature of matter, it was inevitable of all the qualities which belong to existence, scientists were only able to imagine and perceive gravity and electricity.

In the 1700s and 1800s mankind’s consciousness was closely bound up with the force of gravity in the human body.  Because of this focus, we were unable to imagine or perceive forces connected with levity, in our body, opposite to gravity.  

Nature is built on and between polar archetypes.  This means it was inevitable the ‘gravity-run-universe’ of Newton will eventually give way to a model of the universe built on gravity and its opposite.  Which we call “levity” in Man or Matter.  

[The process of de-throning gravity as sole King of the universe has already proceeded far in the topic of the Electric Universe (, et al) even tho this mis-labels some etheric phenomena as purely electrical.]

To gravity-bound intellects of the 1700s-800s, the only possible counter-force to gravity was electricity. Here lies the origins of our faulty world model, composed of only gravity and electricity, the pro-gravity side of forces, the ‘gravity team.’

We meet the idea of Creation composed and created only by gravity and electricity in the 1900s model of the atom, composed of what?  A heavy electro-positive nucleus circled by virtually weightless electro-negative electrons.  

[Man or Matter goes on to show while gravity is indeed primary, electricity is only a secondary force, NOT the equal opposite of gravity. ]

Heavily revised from Man or Matter, Chapter XIII Radiant Matter p 282.  

Shorter, improved, updated Wikipedia page on Goethean Science

nothing, deleted


Goethean science as big tent for science and psychology

tent_bigThe idea of a “big tent” in psychology goes like this:  what theory of psychology is sufficiently broad and inclusive so it could embrace, support, shelter and nurture diverse techniques-methods under a single roof?  A “big tent” is a metaphor for a big idea, under which subordinate ideas can gather, identify common ground, find support and engage constructively.

In the 20th century, scores of competing models of the human psyche, each attempted to uncover strong therapeutic direction, what to do with this client in this circumstance.  This intention was healing, even tho many times between models, “the words got in the way.”

Academic psych texts, God bless them, often compounded this problem by comparing and contrasting psychological models.  This emphasized the individuality of each tree in psychology at the cost of a sense of direction and purpose to the whole forest.  This is why Gerald Corey’s Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, latest edition, is so well-respected.  He minimizes the conflict between facets of the field, emphasizing a synthetic and collaborative approach.

It’s September, 2014 now as I write this.  After 45 minutes of search and reading, Mr. Google has convinced me the topic of a “big tent” in psychology exists; however, the issue is no longer of much interest, addressed mostly in brief remarks to build consensus in opening talks at live, in-person, psychological conferences.

I agree, we do not want to return to the 1850s when primitive ideas about the human psyche, how humans compare to animals; and, whether humans are or are not “spiritual” resulted in knock-down, drag-out fights and heated debate.  Looking back, these seem no more productive than other unnecessary wars fought by men.

Mr. Google persuades me today the foundation on which a big tent for psychology can be erected—if possible—has nothing to do with psychology per se.  It has to do with science. 

In psychology we are, it seems, arguing with on diverse assumptions about science, physics and metaphysics–without recognizing our rhetorical ground is not level.

Mr. Google suggests where most thinkers on big tents in psychology get stuck is in defining science.  They want to define science.  They want one science, with these principles, these values and their definition.  They want a one-pointed science as their big tent in science.  Then they attempt to shoe-horn the human psyche into this mental definition of “science.” Continue reading

Review of Man or Matter (1985) the Einstein of etheric forces


Review of the 1985 edition, the preferred edition, the most clear, readable and definitive of the three editions. If you have tried the 1951 edition free online, find it inspiring yet also confusing or hard to read, try the 1985 edition.  Tho clearly edited, 1951 edition was more a “first draft” of a later, more presentable edition.  1985 is author-revised and professionally edited by two editors. 

Note ~ You are correct, “Man or Matter” makes little sense. The original title was Man AND Matter. ‘Man AND Matter’ is the relationship Lehrs builds up. The unnecessary title change and forgetting the 1951 copyright suggest a lot about amateur publishing quality circa 1950.

A Waldorf high school science teacher by profession, Lehrs works from a detailed history of science and science biography, at a high school level. He cogently, coherently and politely points out the errors, detours and dead ends exclusively materialistic science took.

Lehrs honors and values the intelligent capacities of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. Lehrs shows how awareness itself, as part of Nature, is like salt crystals dissolved into water. If over time salt content increases, eventually, salt re-crystalizes out of the water into visible, separate crystals. Lehrs likens ‘salt crystalizing out of water’ to the emergence of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. This ego is a limited self, yet a necessary self, a necessary middle position in post-modern science.

Lehrs introduces his famous metaphor of conventional-traditional scientists as one-eyed, color blind, spectator-observer, isolated, divorced and apart from Nature. This caricature is also known as “Island Man.” The self-destructive addictions of the fictional Sherlock Holmes point to the dangers of humanity divorced and separated from Nature and from healthy self-connection. in recent generations, 19th century materialistic science is now the iron bands around the chest of our expanding capacities for Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination.

Lehrs re-frames the entire history of science using Goethe’s holistic-humanistic approach. This leads readers to clearer view of Goethe’s comprehensive holistic theory and Goethe’s general holistic experimental method. These are then applied to etheric formative forces, with varying degrees of success. At its best, a way forward is laid out to re-incorporating into post-modern science, etheric formative forces neglected-dismissed-ignored by Enlightenment science.

The reader is taken on a journey similar to Lewis Carroll in Alice into Wonderland and to the protagonist in Flatland. In little steps, a wondrous unforeseen landscape is gradually uncovered in glimpses.

For Lehrs, the big picture is Nature, the external world, and all the forces within it, are created out of gravity and levity, other polarities arising out of the primary polarity of gravity~levity. In the world Lehrs describes, gravity~levity are constantly at play and in play. Their meeting is the motive energy behind heat, friction, electricity, magnetism and radiation. Emphasis on how all forces devolve from gravity~levity is absent from the first edition. It may help to keep it in mind if you attempt reading 1951.

Along these lines is the modern idea, perhaps coined after Lehrs’ death, of “strong and weak forces.” I think Lehrs might agree that on Earth, gravity is the stronger force, levity is the naturally weaker force. While Lehrs proposes gravity~levity interacting to form other forces, a 50-50 proposition, is clearly not the case.

Q: Why did science of the 1890s abandon all ether theories?

A: No way to model the phenomena of mass was found in ether models–short of including God (our “rock” our “ground”) in atomic theory. This men of the time would not do. The solar system model of the atom, proton, neutron, electron was the best Plan B model they had. For atheistic 1800s scientists, this was the best they could do. See The_Vortex_Atom_A_Victorian_Theory_of_PDF

Lehrs resonates with Goethe, advocating a return to direct, personal observation of natural phenomena, to doing the inner work of evaluation and synthesis, to the final outer work of sharing what has been learned and how the experimenter has been changed by his or her study. This amounts to something like a return to healthy, truly human values in science.

With Lehr’s science coaching, it’s possible to begin perceiving in Nature the over-arching influence of gravity and levity, dancing in countless combinations and expressions all around us.

The result? Sure enough, there is a place for etheric formative forces in post-modern science. Ether can no longer be dismissed as metaphysical abstraction and unreliable clairvoyance. Lehrs Man or Matter is not the last word on ether; it is certainly a most wonderful first word. I recommend it over Wachsmuth’s, Etheric Formative Forces, which I would read second, not first.

A second result of Lehrs gentle touch is much of what is called “physics” today is shown to be “Naïve physics”

Lehrs suggests the following are also “Naïve physics:” “The Sun makes me hot;” and, “The diameter of this small ball of copper expands when heat is applied because the atoms are agitated and moving further apart.”

Our Naive scientist (inner three year old) likes simple “logical” explanations and is satisfied by over-simplified, naive ideas. This insight explains the origin of most superstition; such as, decaying meat directly causes-births house flies.

When our Conscious Waking Self goes along with naive conclusions, accepts naive explanations as the “final word,” we end up with dogma. which can take centuries to rectify. Lehrs politely suggests how many ideas of modern science, (1850-1950) are more similar to superstition. In the light of Goethean Holistic science theory and method, many of these dissolve and are transformed.

Q: How much progress has been made replacing more naive science ideas with more clear post-modern science ideas?

A: Not much. In 2018 we remain only at Day One of re-evaluating the naive conclusions of Natural Science in this new light. For those interested, the next step is an expanded science paradigm. This is the topic of the Three Sciences we use everyday.

The later sections of Man or Matter 3rd, on esoteric planetary and Hierarchy influences will interest only those already steeped in Rudolf Steiner’s esoteric Christianity.

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online: