Morning Bruce, you might want to get a drink and a cushion for this one, it's a bit of an essay I'm afraid. 
True, and when I mentioned "interesting philisophical points" that was one of the sections I was thinking of, however it doesn't answer the question.It merely explains what you mean by qualities, not how the lectures explain that Bens statement was erroneous.
You misunderstand me. You mentioned the lectures as a response to the fact that heat is a quantity that is possessed by materials and cannot have a negative value. The lectures do not in fact have anything relavent to say about this. They present steiners interpretations and theories to explain a number of heat phenomena, he uses the Goethen method of questioning to reach his conclusions, and while his methods are sound his conclusions are wrong. This is not a matter of debate.
If you have trouble understanding that let me give you a simpler example.
Aristotle developed the "cystal sphere" theory of the solar system, saying that the sun, moon and planets were fixed on transparent spheres which rotated, causing the movements of the heavens.
It was a good theory, and not only matched the observations of the time, but could be used to make moderately accurate predictions. However over time further investigation proved it to be wrong. The theory is still interesting from a philosophical/psychological point of view but it does not alter the facts. As such it would carry little weight in a discussion of astrophysics, or even particularly in astronomy
In a similar way, the explanations for the heat phenomena the lectures discuss are known, and have been known for many years. These explanations are simple enough that they are taught to all children before they leave school, hence my comments about GCSE students. It was not meant as an idle attack on the opinions presented.
Aah. Well perhaps I should point out that I am a scientist. The link is interesting, but does not wholly support the use of the words "many" or "eminent", at least not together. The most "eminent" scientist I can name who has spoken in favour of Goethe's methods is Planck and he referred to the method not the conclusions. True there are scientists who continue to work with the philosphy and some of them have produced interesting results. However I feel to imply as you do that the technique has widespread scientific acceptance is at best an error and at worst dangerously misleading.
But this is esoteric knowledge bruce. The physcial and quantum effects that lead to the phenomena are a miracle understood by relatively few people these days. Besides, as soon as you move into the "higher worlds" you deal with belief which is entirely personal matter. Any answer I give is limited by differences between what you and I refer to by the higher worlds.
However since you asked I don't believe "cold" manifests at all on higher planes. It's a function of temperature which is entirely subjective and while we might interpret our experience of this or any other plane as "cold" it doesn't give the word any independant existance.
That's nice, but I was already aware that the 18th century came well before the early 20th. As Newton has no bearing on the point I was making I'm curious as to why you mention him?
Hmmm. Again I'm sorry bruce but it really isn't. You're confusing the difference between temperature and heat. I can explain further if you want but this is hardly the time for a lesson in scientific terminology. We don't measure lack of cold any more than we measure the lack of water in a desert. We measure the amount of water present, then say that because the value is very small the area is "dry". Dryness is defined by the absence of water. Similarly the sensation "cold" is determined by how much "heat" is present. Neither "dry" or "cold" are a material or force in their own right.
Supreme coldness was a theory, and was quickly superceded by absolute coldness. (further down the page on wikipedia) There's an important difference there. Would you say there are degrees of absence? To be "Absent" is to not be in a specific place, I cannot be half here half not. How far away I am is immaterial to the point of whether I'm absent or present.
I apologise if I've overdone the scientific part there, but it's important to understand why heat is not polar for some people. When you talk about heat you are actually talking about our perceptions of heat energy. Technically this is "temperature" and not heat. To illustrate the difference, would you consider "Tall" and "Short" to be polar opposites? Most would not, saying that both are merely measures of height. Short is not an opposite of tall, merely a lack of height.
So then to say to people who have a scientific understanding of heat that cold is the opposite of heat is a bit like saying that shortness is the opposite of height. Obviously they do not accept this.
Now the idea of hot and cold as conceptual opposites in our perception of the universe, that's unlikely to find argument. Half this thread seems to ave spawned from you posts "appearing" to dispute the scientific facts instead of debating the concepts. I'm sure that was not your intention, but mixing terminology can be dangerous. I know you've said
but you have to remember that while it's fine to use any terminology you want personally, if you wish to communicate (and discuss) you ideas with others you must find common terms with which to communicate and consider what the terms you use mean to others. Taking a term which is widely accepted as meaning "A" and using it to mean "B" will only cause confusion. It's much easier to just describe what you want the term to mean.
After all this is the esoteric board. It's the subject of the discussions that's supposed to be esoteric, not the posts.
True, and when I mentioned "interesting philisophical points" that was one of the sections I was thinking of, however it doesn't answer the question.It merely explains what you mean by qualities, not how the lectures explain that Bens statement was erroneous.
You misunderstand me. You mentioned the lectures as a response to the fact that heat is a quantity that is possessed by materials and cannot have a negative value. The lectures do not in fact have anything relavent to say about this. They present steiners interpretations and theories to explain a number of heat phenomena, he uses the Goethen method of questioning to reach his conclusions, and while his methods are sound his conclusions are wrong. This is not a matter of debate.
If you have trouble understanding that let me give you a simpler example.
Aristotle developed the "cystal sphere" theory of the solar system, saying that the sun, moon and planets were fixed on transparent spheres which rotated, causing the movements of the heavens.
It was a good theory, and not only matched the observations of the time, but could be used to make moderately accurate predictions. However over time further investigation proved it to be wrong. The theory is still interesting from a philosophical/psychological point of view but it does not alter the facts. As such it would carry little weight in a discussion of astrophysics, or even particularly in astronomy
In a similar way, the explanations for the heat phenomena the lectures discuss are known, and have been known for many years. These explanations are simple enough that they are taught to all children before they leave school, hence my comments about GCSE students. It was not meant as an idle attack on the opinions presented.
Aah. Well perhaps I should point out that I am a scientist. The link is interesting, but does not wholly support the use of the words "many" or "eminent", at least not together. The most "eminent" scientist I can name who has spoken in favour of Goethe's methods is Planck and he referred to the method not the conclusions. True there are scientists who continue to work with the philosphy and some of them have produced interesting results. However I feel to imply as you do that the technique has widespread scientific acceptance is at best an error and at worst dangerously misleading.
But this is esoteric knowledge bruce.
The physcial and quantum effects that lead to the phenomena are a miracle understood by relatively few people these days. Besides, as soon as you move into the "higher worlds" you deal with belief which is entirely personal matter. Any answer I give is limited by differences between what you and I refer to by the higher worlds. However since you asked I don't believe "cold" manifests at all on higher planes. It's a function of temperature which is entirely subjective and while we might interpret our experience of this or any other plane as "cold" it doesn't give the word any independant existance.
That's nice, but I was already aware that the 18th century came well before the early 20th.
As Newton has no bearing on the point I was making I'm curious as to why you mention him?Heat is not a measurable scientific but cold is. What is measured is lack of cold. Really there is no such thing as heat, just degrees of cold- stretching forth from "absolute zero"..
Basically you're just looking from the heat angle but my cold angle is just as valid.
Again we have polar opposite views
Hmmm. Again I'm sorry bruce but it really isn't. You're confusing the difference between temperature and heat. I can explain further if you want but this is hardly the time for a lesson in scientific terminology. We don't measure lack of cold any more than we measure the lack of water in a desert. We measure the amount of water present, then say that because the value is very small the area is "dry". Dryness is defined by the absence of water. Similarly the sensation "cold" is determined by how much "heat" is present. Neither "dry" or "cold" are a material or force in their own right.
Supreme coldness was a theory, and was quickly superceded by absolute coldness. (further down the page on wikipedia) There's an important difference there. Would you say there are degrees of absence? To be "Absent" is to not be in a specific place, I cannot be half here half not. How far away I am is immaterial to the point of whether I'm absent or present.
I apologise if I've overdone the scientific part there, but it's important to understand why heat is not polar for some people. When you talk about heat you are actually talking about our perceptions of heat energy. Technically this is "temperature" and not heat. To illustrate the difference, would you consider "Tall" and "Short" to be polar opposites? Most would not, saying that both are merely measures of height. Short is not an opposite of tall, merely a lack of height.
So then to say to people who have a scientific understanding of heat that cold is the opposite of heat is a bit like saying that shortness is the opposite of height. Obviously they do not accept this.
Now the idea of hot and cold as conceptual opposites in our perception of the universe, that's unlikely to find argument. Half this thread seems to ave spawned from you posts "appearing" to dispute the scientific facts instead of debating the concepts. I'm sure that was not your intention, but mixing terminology can be dangerous. I know you've said
but you have to remember that while it's fine to use any terminology you want personally, if you wish to communicate (and discuss) you ideas with others you must find common terms with which to communicate and consider what the terms you use mean to others. Taking a term which is widely accepted as meaning "A" and using it to mean "B" will only cause confusion. It's much easier to just describe what you want the term to mean.
After all this is the esoteric board. It's the subject of the discussions that's supposed to be esoteric, not the posts.