The Rudolf Steiner Archive

16. Questions following a lecture by Eugen Kolisko on “Hypothesis-Free Chemistry”

Preliminary Note: Eugen Kolisko’s lecture was not transcribed. However, Kolisko later gave additional lectures on the same topic during the first university course in the fall of 1920. These were published in a revised form by him in the anthology *Aenigmatisches aus Kunst und Wissenschaft* (Enigmas from Art and Science), Stuttgart, 1922.

First question: How do the various properties—heat, light, and electricity—and the different states of matter relate to the periodic table, and how did the periodic table come about?

Second question: In alchemical literature, one finds a classification of chemical substances that indicates how the individual metals are assigned to the planets. How does this seven-part classification of the metals’ assignment to the planets relate to the one found in the periodic table?

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: Well, Dr. Kolisko has spoken very eloquently on important points regarding how we might strive to free chemistry from those habits of thought that, from the very beginning, have led chemistry to the atomistic hypothesis—or, let us say, to the structure of chemistry based on the atomistic hypothesis. With regard to the questions that have been raised, I would first like to draw attention to one thing. To me, the discovery of the periodic table does not exactly seem like something entirely new. Of course, it is not possible, in a brief discussion, to go into the great diversity that exists between our chemical interpretation of phenomena and older views on the constitution of matter. What makes the periodic table particularly interesting is the attempt—an attempt that, I believe, has been made quite often—to arrange the periodic table in such a way that one plots the first seven elements on a curve, then plots the next seven elements on a curve extending above it, and so on, so that by creating intermediate states, one obtains the correct spiral structure. We can draw this: here is lithium, for example, with sodium, so to speak, above it, and potassium would be above that. The point is that one really must associate the old caduceus with something like the idea of a universal remedy of nature: to create, in order to bring forth the facts of nature. Can we now imagine that the elements are arranged one above the other—that I have arranged them according to the periodic table—and that I then connect these elements with lines that form a spiral? Then, in a sense, the formation of each element would only be possible under certain interplay of forces that are related to a specific movement of these states.

[ 2 ] Now, in an interesting way, Crookes pointed out in a lecture at the Royal Society in Cambridge that, precisely if one wants to obtain the superimposed spiral, one would do well to imagine that a progression of the thermal state takes place in the direction of the spiral’s axis—that is, that, in a sense, the series of the next seven elements, as opposed to the series of the previous seven elements, came about in a manner similar to how a higher temperature simply relates to a lower temperature. But this is not merely a progression in extension, but in genesis. We would have something similar here in a complex natural system, just as we have it in a basic form in the simple expansion caused by temperature. And now it is, of course, extremely obvious not to imagine a spiral with a straight-line axis at all, but perhaps to imagine something with a circular axis; then we would obtain a solenoid line. But we can also conceive of these as spirals. Then we would obtain a spiral progressing in three dimensions.

[ 3 ] While Crookes initially assumes only a decrease in the thermal state as an analogue for progression along this axis, we—by expanding on Crookes’s perspective—would already obtain a progression along the axis toward light and chemical effects, which are, after all, distinct from the chemical forces acting within substances. We would thus, in a sense, find in heat, light, and chemical effects—that is, in what underlies chemical activities—entities that are not present in individual bodies, but rather exist in the inner workings of, for example, our earthly nature or elsewhere.

[ 4 ] Isn't it true that what I'm drawing here are merely spatial conceptualizations; they are not things in space, but rather the spatial images are conceptualizations of space.

[ 5 ] We would indeed be led to imagine that these successive elements—and then, as it were, their next powers and counter-powers—are connected through an interplay of heat, light, and chemical effects, so that this threefold helical structure of the elements would in fact be nothing other than a certain kind of interaction among the various etheric powers. But then we would have to assume that these etheric powers are, in fact, radically different from one another, that one cannot be transformed into the other in its true essence, but rather that they interact with one another in their own essence, giving rise to resultants, not products of transformation.

[ 6 ] This remark is intended only to answer the first question. For this question encompasses so much that it is not possible to fully address it in a short time.

[ 7 ] Now, the second question. To answer that, however, we would have to go back to principles that lie very far in the past. You see, you must realize that whatever is active in a substance today—whatever gives it form, such as potassium or sodium, for example—does not necessarily have to be formed in the universe today. It may be something that came into being at some point, perhaps exerted its influence a very long time ago, and has been preserved—so that the original forms, the original crystalline forms of our elements—whether they are distinct crystalline forms or something else—were formed from the cosmos in ancient times, let’s say during the Lunar Period, and that within these elements the tendency to preserve these forms has remained. We must therefore be clear: on the one hand, we are dealing with the present-day forms—which appear, as it were, as imprints—that were formed in a very early stage of cosmic development; on the other hand, we are dealing with the effects of what has now become of the factors surrounding the Earth. We are therefore not dealing directly with our elemental forms, so that we could speak of a cosmic effect.

[ 8 ] Somewhere around here would be the Earth, here the planets, and the planets exert an influence through their constellation. If, for the sake of argument, we have Venus, Mars, and Mercury here, the constellation of Venus, Mars, and Mercury—as they interact with the Earth through their mutual forces—will not directly produce a tetrahedral body today; rather, these three planets will have given rise to the tetrahedron during the lunar period, so to speak; and the fact that it appears today is because the lunar effect has been preserved. Whereas, when Mercury and so on act from the cosmos today, they act, so to speak, in accordance with the laws of the imponderables; they actually counteract the ponderables. The form thus already has its cosmic origin, but every form that appears on Earth is, in a sense, deformed by that which emanates today from the very same cosmic planets that formerly brought the forms into being; so that we must, for example, regard volatilization as a cosmic effect existing today, but crystallization as one in which the past re-establishes itself in opposition to the present. Here we have temporal effects that diverge.

[ 9 ] Now, of course, you shouldn’t think of what I’ve just presented—in a sense, as a simplified diagram—as if there were only a few constellations; rather, there are a great many constellations. If you picture this, you naturally get a complex system—a complex network of curves, for example—that you can imagine existing in the cosmos and on Earth.

[ 10 ] If you represent the original sites within the Earth where metallic forms are created as curves—these curves must be visualized inside the Earth, because that is where the center is; the metals do indeed rise to the surface in later epochs, but it is actually the forces within the Earth that bring about their preservation—and the forces out in the cosmos that lead to the formation of crystals—then we can also represent these forces in the surrounding environment using curves. And there, if you now picture this visually, we have a sphere and spherical shells intertwined in the most varied ways, and the resultant force that would arise from this if I were to conceive of the difference in forces between what is preserved there and what exists in the cosmos today. If I now consider the differences in forces within these two force systems, I actually arrive at what represents the present state of cosmic influence on Earth. And within this must lie everything that then manifests itself in the periodic table. The periodic table is nothing other than the interaction of a pre-Earth state with a present cosmic state surrounding the Earth. These are merely hints toward an answer, but I believe one can understand it.

Eugen Kolisko: So the metals we associate with the individual planets have nothing to do directly with the elements we find in the periodic table?

[ 11 ] Rudolf Steiner: No. Why iron is associated with Mars, silver with the Moon, and so on—these are things that cannot be understood by modern science today; it is quite impossible, because this association was arrived at in a completely different way than is often believed today, even by occultists. The older occultism, which was still based on atavistic clairvoyance, knew that our Earth itself is internally structured—though only latently so—and that within the Earth’s sphere, as remnants of the pre-Earth cosmic influence on the Earth, we must distinguish seven spheres that were not entirely regular but varied. So there are seven spheres within here; this is the inner cosmos of the Earth, the mirror image of the outer cosmos. And earthly iron is associated with this part of the Earth—the Mars part—while mercury is associated with the Earth’s Mercury sphere, and so on. So these substances of ours, as we know them today, would ultimately have to be traced back to the seven metals; they certainly would. But we must imagine that all these substances are, in essence, quite complex entities.

[ 12 ] Isn’t that right? We’re talking about the atomic weights of these elements. But these atomic weights don’t actually exist. You need to find the atomic weight of lead: 207. It’s true that the atomic weight of lead is 207, but if you look for it, you don’t actually find 207; instead, you find a number: 207 + x in an indeterminate way. What you actually find fluctuates back and forth, and the atomic weight of our elements is such that one can say: If one were to attempt to fix the state represented by the atomic weight, one would have to depict an oscillating motion here, not a point. And we should not describe the periodic table as it is, but rather as a series of tremors—internal tremors. The fact is that we cannot at all say that the atomic weight indicates that we are actually dealing with fixed elements. This notion of a rigid atom—think about what that means, what Dr. Kolisko just said: water is no longer water at a certain temperature. Today’s atomist, however, is compelled to conceive of hydrogen and oxygen—which are present in water—as remaining unchanged when the water is no longer there, if he is to correctly conceive of atoms. So one comes to regard such a property of matter as the truly decisive factor: this rigidity, which is already absent at the very moment the element comes into being. The element does not yet exist; rather, the element is something that slips right out of one’s hand the moment one tries to grasp it. For it is absurd to attempt to determine atomic weights with absolute precision. There is no such thing as an atomic weight; rather, there are average states around which the atomic weight varies, and one might say: in the average state, the atomic weight is such-and-such. There are just as few atomic weights as there is a specific size for a grain of wheat. Of course, there is an average size for a grain of wheat, but the size fluctuates back and forth. The same is true of atomic weight; it is merely an average state.

[ 13 ] These observations made today by Dr. Kolisko are extraordinarily fruitful and should be further developed, particularly for the field of chemistry. Then, however, one would see that the course of development is such that certain concepts—which are, after all, appropriate to reality—were generated within alchemical ideas, including the “mercury rod,” which was particularly emphasized there; and that then came the era of atomistic-mechanistic thinking, which has covered everything with a veil of incomprehensibility. We must once again work our way toward a perspective that is appropriate to reality. For this, however, it is necessary—and this is what I would like to add to Dr. Kolisko’s lecture, specifically in order to answer these two questions with complete precision— it is necessary—and I would like to say this to Mr. Blümel as well—that we come to focus on the intensive and learn to understand extension, the extensive, as a function of the intensive, and conversely, the intensive as a function of the extensive, so that one can truly distinguish between these two things that stand side by side. If it becomes possible to establish a functional relationship between the intensive and the extensive, it will also be possible to develop the symbolic system needed to fully understand this periodic table; otherwise, there will always remain a residue that is not understood.

[ 14 ] Please forgive me, but these matters are so vague because they cover such a broad area that one can do nothing but examine them through the lens of these concepts. Even the concepts themselves cannot be defined with such sharp clarity.