Beyond Newton

A Horn Silica Rainbow.

A Different View Of What Newton Beheld.

Beyond Newton, Part 5.

The rainbow is complete to our eye, not individual rainbows
A rainbow formed in the mist of sprayed horn-silica, early this morning .

I was out again this morning at the crack of dawn. Actually, a little earlier, because Rudolf Steiner spoke of how the horn silica preparation was best sprayed when the sun is rising. Naturally in the summer, this means crawling out of bed at ungodly hours. Well that’s how it felt this morning, yesterday I all but sprang out of bed, and did so long before my alarm went off. Anyway, by the time the sun was good and bright, I had spent a full hour stirring a small pot of water. With a minuscule amount of horn-silica powder in it.

Those plants in my back garden that I wanted to stimulate the root growth were sprayed with a very fine mist of horn silica water. Yesterday, the moon stood in front of the constellation of Sagittarius, which is a warmth sign – thus good for fruit. Today the moon stands before Capricorn, an earth sign which is good for stimulting the root.

With the moon ascending in the heavens, this is also means that the influence on the plants is in an overall upward direction. The horn silica works in concert with this, and will do so according to the station of the moon. Those of you who don’t believe in astrology or homoeopathy can stop reading now. Because you haven’t done your homework.

Which is what this series of posts is all about.

In point of fact, this post was supposed to be number seven or eight in the series, but has been brought forward what with my enjoyment of the morning rainbows. They were formed in the misty droplets of horn-silica water as it caught the sunlight as it was being sprayed.

Goethe’s View Put Against Newton’s View.

Now as we know, Newton stated that the prism splits white light into what he suggested was its component parts. That is to say, colours. So my reaction to this is to ask why it was that I saw one rainbow formed out of many little prisms and not lots of little rainbows – one for each droplet of water. Now I am sure there are Newtonians out there who can happily explain this in terms of how they thought Newton dealt with the issue. They’ll happily explain about how the rays enter the eye in a way that suggests our eye is an independent instrument and not part of a living being.

A black and white card seen through a prism. Dark to light (left) is the blue spectrum; light to dark (right) is the red part of the spectrum. There is no green to be seen. Goethe’s house in Weimar.
A black and white card seen through a prism.
Dark to light (left) is the blue spectrum; light to dark (right) is the red part of the spectrum. There is no green to be seen.
Goethe’s House in Weimar.

However, I want to look at the problem from a very slightly different perspective. Goethe’s perspective. Because whilst each of those droplets does act as a prism in its own right, what we see is one rainbow.

Now I’m going to have to do some back tracking here, and that was going to have been dealt with in the now cancelled preceding posts. When Goethe looked through a prism, he didn’t see one rainbow. He saw two. What’s more, nor did he see the colour green.

In Newton’s experiments, he was able to demonstrate how he imagined – and it must be emphasized that he imagined – white light to be split into its constituent colours.

Now, what he actually saw does not contradict Goethe; however, Goethe’s thinking was far clearer than Newton’s. Goethe wasn’t listened to at the time, after all, he had been pigeonholed as a poet by that time. That is to say, split off from the body of scientists. And poets do not go around making scientific observations, do they? Well, not if you’ve already pigeonholed yourself as a scientist, and don’t like intruders, that is.

But that doesn’t stop an artist from observing the reality that surrounds them, does it? JMW Turner understood what Goethe was speaking about, and I will discuss his findings in a later post. Scientists could excuse him because he painted canvasses and didn’t stare at prisms all day in a secluded laboratory where the scientist can feel safe, if a little lonely at times.

My point in speaking about artists is twofold: firstly the better the artist, the better they know themselves; the consequence of this it the better they know their surroundings. Put the other way around, a great poet like Goethe had to have a clear understanding of the science of communication in order to communicate clearly and effectively. That he is remembered for this to this day is testament to the veracity of this argument. That clarity of thinking could as easily be applied to science, after all, nobody had proven that the human inter-maxilliary bone was peculiar to mammals(1) until Goethe proved it with his magisterial concept of metamorphosis.

In short, a man like Goethe had squared the circle of objective observation and subjective experience. Newton had not. I will be expanding on this later when I speak of his alchemical wanderings, which went to make up the bulk of his writings. Mind you, he did write these in code so that nobody could penetrate his thoughts on this – mind you, his published works are sufficient to rank him below Goethe in terms of his observational skills.

White Light Split Into Its Component Parts Through A Prism.

In the illustration we see the light ‘split’ into its component parts, as described by Goethe, not Newton. It needs to be understood that we are not dealing with Newton’s so-called splitting of white light here. Anything that divides – splits in this instance – is an expression of the intellectual mind, that is to say, one that is comfortable with what it knows and uncomfortable with everything else. I have posted about this on numerous occasions, not least the post from late 2014 about Milena who was scared of witchcraft (2).

Goethe, as already mentioned was content with this situation, and was thus prepared to deal with outside phenomena. Those of you who have read any of the biographies about Newton will know that he was a recluse – until his nervous breakdown in later mid-life. Goethe on the other hand didn’t need this wake-up call, he was the kind of person to meet challenges of

this kind by the very way he led his life. Indeed, I have a friend who wonders when he will ever have this experience, and I suggested that since he is constantly working with it, there’s every chance that he won’t actually have to go through this painful part of life. Taking a daily dose of pain can lead one to understand what it is.

Which is important in respect to what Goethe saw in his prism, for having looked through the prism in a subjective manner instead of just observing it objectively gave him the key to decoding what Newton beheld.

To cut a long story short, the two spectra that Goethe saw – the yellow and the blue, as shown in the photograph – became comingled in the prism and the result was the rainbow that we are all familiar with. The important thing to note here is that they both saw the same effect, the one, Newton, ascribed it to something he couldn’t see. But could only imagine.

Goethe ascribed it to things we can all see.

A Subjective Problem.

The problem is that if you look through the prism, nobody else can see through it at the same time. It is an individual experience, and thus in the rule-book of the modern scientist, cannot be objective.

Which is to miss the point entirely.

A black and white card seen through a prism. Dark to light (left) is the blue spectrum; light to dark (right) is the red part of the spectrum. There is no green to be seen. Goethe’s house in Weimar.
Looking through a prism is something we can only do one at a time. That does not mean what each of us sees is any different. The left is the sky lightened, the blue spectrum; the right is sunlight darkened, the red spectrum. All those viewing the sun will see the same colours, the same sun, albeit from a slightly different perspective. That makes our experience of objectivity a subjective reality.

Because if a person witnesses a sunset, the sun, given no interference effects, will take on colours that work from yellow through to orange and then red, ultimately to a deep crimson. At no point does the sun turn blue, violet or purple. Anybody who suggests that people see different colours from each other has not understood light darkened. That is to say, the sun at sunset with the ever thickening atmosphere darkening the suns rays. Even Newton could not contradict this, unless of course, he overstepped the mark and imagined something to be happening that nobody can see. Which is actually what we are looking at today.

Because Newton imagined white light to be made up of various colours. Yet how many of us can see this? How many of us can see blue in the light of the sun itself? Not one of us. Look at the sun on a bright day and it is blindingly white – but please don’t do this because the power of sunlight can easily blind you.

Even when dimmed by the atmosphere – allowing for there being no clouds or moisture in the air – the sun will only ever be shades from yellow to red.

Yet Newton claimed that all the colours are there in the sun, where all *any of us can see is brightness.

What Newton Didn’t See.

When Newton performed his experiment he made another assumption. He assumed that each person would see the same rainbow. Which is where we return to my airborne rainbow from this morning’s spraying of horn-silica.

The rainbow is complete to our eye, not individual rainbowsBecause I saw a complete rainbow, not a scattering of tiny rainbows that resulted from each prism-like drop of water. The point is that I saw a subjective rainbow: I saw the light of the sun dimmed in the same way as it is dimmed in a single prism – only I saw the process spread over a hundred thousand tiny drops. Likewise, on the other side, I saw the darkness lightened, again through the action of the light on the myriad water droplets. The final result was a complete rainbow.

Had I been standing several feet to my right or left, I would have seen the rainbow take a different shape, with a subtly different curvature to it. Same colours, same effect, same light and at the same time – yet two people would observe subtly different rainbows.

Two subjective rainbow experiences.

Just as you have individual experiences of the rainbow as you see it formed through Newton’s experiment – albeit that the differences are all but imperceptible. That doesn’t mean they’re not there, it does mean that in the instance of Newton’s experiment they are invisible to the naked eye. In that these effects were invisible meant to Newton that they could not exist.

Goethe didn’t make that error.

What Is Wrong With So-Called ‘Objective Science’?

In future posts I will be looking at the nature of ‘objective science’ from this viewpoint: because when a person cannot accept their own subjective viewpoint, they cannot be truly objective about what they see. They will be prey to the kinds of error that I have detailed above. I will also be exploring the reasons why people accept these errors as the truth – and as a consequence, can only see reality as one or other subjective experience. And for them, anything subjective is immediately suspect.

Just remember that you will never see blue in the light of the setting sun. Just as you will hurt your foot if you kick a large stone. Wash your hands and they will get wet. These are absolute truths that even you cannot wave away with an excuse like “I do not favour Goethe’s view over Newton’s”.

We all experience the truth, few of us have the courage to speak it.



(Please note that my attempt to add on-page links are removed by WordPress software in a demonstration of how user friendly WordPress is to my readers. They do this by making life a little harder because you cannot click on the number and arrive at its corresponding footnote. I will speak of this kind of anti-economic behaviour in a forthcoming post about the brain-dead intellectual and their approach to business).

(1) Goethe’s studies (notably with an elephant’s skull lent to him by Samuel Thomas von Soemmerring) led him to independently discover the human intermaxillary bone in 1784, which Broussonet (1779) and Vicq d’Azyr (1780) had (using different methods) identified several years earlier. While not the only one in his time to question the prevailing view that this bone did not exist in humans, Goethe, who believed ancient anatomists had known about this bone, was the first to prove its peculiarity to all mammals. (Wikipedia).

(2) See Milena Sees Witchcraft Everywhere.


Other Posts In This Series:

Part 1: Experiencing Time First Hand.

Part 2: All Hard Drives Look Alike.

Part 3: What Ahriman Wants. (Published privately).

Part 4: Stirring Horn Silica.

Part 5: A Horn Silica Rainbow.

Part 6: Messed Up Beans. (Published privately).

Part 7: Newton’s Rainbow.

Part 8: Untangling The Astral And The Etheric. (Published privately).

Part 9: How To Count Water.

Please note that privately published posts are available to trusted friends without cost. The content is not intended for the general public and is restricted to those who can demonstrate that they understand the nature – and implications of – Rudolf Steiner’s scientific thinking. It is not for the unready.

In certain circumstances, pdfs of these posts are available on request; you may do so by leaving a comment. This will tell me if you can grasp the nature of the post you are enquiring about. The comment itself can be left unmoderated or deleted if requested.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s