The Rudolf Steiner Archive

13. Essays on the Relationship Between the Humanities and the Individual Disciplines III

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! It has often been emphasized—and certainly with good reason—how what is known in everyday life as the division of labor has had a detrimental impact on the recent development of humanity. And anyone who surveys social life in its modern development with an unbiased eye must certainly acknowledge the profound impact this has had on the individuality of humankind: in earlier times, the individual performed tasks to which he or she was, in a sense, also emotionally bound. One need only consider the inner satisfaction found in the old crafts, where the objects one produced were transparent in terms of their place within the broader context of the human environment. The door lock, once crafted by a artisan, could bring him joy because he could see the path it took from his hand to its intended purpose. How different things are today, when the individual, day after day, hour after hour, produces some single link in a vast whole, without being able to take any interest whatsoever in what emerges from his hand—or from the machine through his hand—because he is not directly connected to the path that the object in question takes from its maker to its final destination. This division of human labor, which, in a sense, must bind a person to something in which he can never take an interest, and which therefore must lead to an immense one-sidedness in a person’s entire life—this division of labor will, as we will see tomorrow when we study the social process, require our special attention.

[ 2 ] But, ladies and gentlemen, in more recent times there has been another division of labor. And this other division of labor—even if it is less often emphasized, and indeed, even if its advantages are sometimes praised when it is mentioned—this other division of labor fundamentally affects the individual much more deeply and, consequently, the whole of human life. And this division of labor, which is, in a certain sense, also justified—there is no doubt about that—and which, above all, was bound to arise in the course of human history, this division of labor, however, because no sufficient counterbalance has yet been set against it, is in the long run actually even more harmful to human life as a whole than the one mentioned earlier. It is the division of labor that has taken hold in the realm of cognition and in the realm of everything connected with cognition: it is the division of labor in the realm of science. Today, when one follows the standard educational path to becoming a scientist, one can become ensnared in a specialized field of science. One then adopts precisely that way of thinking and conceiving of certain things that has arisen through the division into individual scientific disciplines, subdisciplines, sub-subdisciplines, and so on. In doing so, one does not merely become one-sided outwardly; one becomes one-sided in one’s very soul. For example, one condemns oneself to adopting certain forms of ideas, to becoming accustomed to the context of such ideas, and then one says that what fits into this context can be proven with strict precision; but regarding that which arises from a different context, one says that one is not competent to judge it.

[ 3 ] But everything a person can know ultimately stems from the totality of human nature; and that which exists at the core of the human being as a deep spiritual need strives for wholeness. Essentially, when one-sidedness without a counterbalance becomes as strong as it has become over time, it ultimately amounts to a mutilation of the soul, from which human beings must suffer greatly. Such a mutilation of the soul inevitably leads to a situation where the bearers of spiritual culture can no longer communicate with one another. It leads to a situation where a bearer of spiritual culture in one specialized field lives within concepts that are absolutely inapplicable to another field—concepts that immediately appear rigid and inapplicable when he attempts to grasp anything belonging to a different field.

[ 4 ] When one considers that everything that constitutes human activity and endeavor ultimately depends on those who are trained as spiritual leaders, one must admit that, under this professional mutilation of the soul’s life—for which a counterbalance is being created today to a highly insufficient degree—these individuals become unfit to be true spiritual leaders. It is plain to see today that humanity lacks spiritual direction, that humanity lacks appropriate guidance. More than anything else, this is to blame for the catastrophic events of our time. And it is precisely out of a genuine—not superficial, but thorough—understanding of this state of affairs that what is being attempted in Dornach, where the Goetheanum, the School of Spiritual Science, is located, has emerged. On the one hand, it is intended to fully acknowledge the necessity of separating and structuring the totality of knowledge into specialized disciplines; on the other hand, however, it is intended to build the necessary bridges between these disciplines. In other words, it aims to develop well-rounded, holistic personalities out of the one-sided personalities that specialized disciplines inevitably produce. It is precisely through this that the science of the spirit seeks to fulfill one of the most important tasks of our age. This School of Spiritual Science cannot take the position that the demands of our time can be met today simply by channeling down to the broad masses of the people, through all sorts of channels, what is being accomplished at our universities in the individual specialized disciplines.

[ 5 ] Certainly, these adult education centers, public education resources, and so on stem from the very best of intentions. But can we really hope that what is being carried out in this way behind the closed doors of our educational institutions will truly bear fruit when it is carried out to the broad masses of the people—especially when one realizes how the one-sidedness of knowledge and understanding in the individual academic disciplines has contributed to our falling into these catastrophic times, which Spengler characterizes by saying that modern civilization is inevitably headed for its downfall? Can we still hope for that, when we realize how much this one-sidedness has contributed to our catastrophes? If we see this through, then we must tell ourselves: What has affected a small segment of humanity in such a way that it has led to catastrophe would surely lead to catastrophe all the more if it were carried out to the broad masses of humanity. Based on this underlying insight, those who founded the Dornach School of Spiritual Science were convinced that it is not merely necessary to popularize today’s educational system and extend it to the broad masses of humanity, but that the other process is also necessary: to introduce a new kind of knowledge precisely into our universities, so that something other than what one cannot exactly hope will prove particularly fruitful among the broad masses through its popularization might emanate from these universities.

[ 6 ] This may sound radical, but anyone who surveys the process of human development in our age will have no choice but to arrive at this conviction through faithful observation of the facts. I would like to address one specific point to show you how anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, as understood here, works everywhere toward not confining people with its concepts and ideas to any one specialized field, but rather educating them in that field in such a way that they can find their way from that field to an understanding of other branches of science. Certainly, one need not be an authority in every field—under today’s circumstances, that is simply impossible—but human coexistence is only possible if individuals interact in such a way that, drawing on the concepts gained in their respective fields, they can at least understand other fields. For mutual understanding among people is what we must absolutely strive for if we wish to make progress in the process of human development, which today exhibits so many signs of decline.

[ 7 ] When you observe any physical process—let’s say, how, under the influence of the heating of a body, that which the physicist refers to as “heat is released”—heat that was previously latent, that is, hidden within the body, so to speak—if you observe this and then consider the physicist’s conception of such a release of heat, which previously, under certain conditions, did not manifest externally but was bound internally to the body, then you will say: It would never occur to the physicist, in his field of study, when he observes heat—which was previously latent and has now become free heat—appearing in bodies under certain experimental conditions, to speak merely of a linear development and to say that the emergence of free heat is based precisely on the fact that what was previously there had developed in such a way as to contain the free heat. One gets used to not speaking here in an abstract way—merely of “development,” for example—but rather tries to gain insight into the process in a concrete manner. Much about such processes may still remain unexplained, and many things may still be invoked as hypotheses today, but—at least in the field of physics—one tries not to simply posits abstract concepts such as “development,” but rather attempts to penetrate what actually happened when free heat arises from latent heat, from bound heat.

[ 8 ] But if we now turn to another field, you will see how, I would say, the spirit of abstraction takes hold of people, because they cannot yet apply what they have developed in the physical sciences to another field—since they have not yet succeeded in bridging the gap between a discipline that has already undergone a certain degree of development and a discipline that has remained stunted precisely because of the division of labor in the realm of knowledge. What has come to pass—as individual people have become so immersed in their respective disciplines that they no longer understand one another—has taken hold of scientific inquiry itself; it has also had a one-sided effect on science itself, because the field of inorganic natural science has become so powerful.

[ 9 ] Let’s take the developing human being. We see how a person gradually develops from early childhood, year by year, until they reach adulthood. We simply view this development as a linear process. People really do speak of it as if what a person achieves in their tenth year were simply the result of a linear progression from what they were in earlier years. At a certain stage of life’s development, we see psychological qualities emerge; the person acquires, in some way, the ability to think; they acquire other qualities that, so to speak, rise from the depths of their inner being to the surface of their life. One does not observe the connection between physical and psychological phenomena as intimately as one attempts to do, for example, in the field of physics, which I have just mentioned. But it is necessary to apply the same spirit of concrete observation—which one applies, for example, in the field of physics—to a field where the phenomena are, admittedly, more complex.

[ 10 ] But if one makes an effort to delve into the complexity of phenomena, then one can carry the spirit from one realm to another. But one must then proceed by telling oneself: There are epochs in human life that, in a certain sense, come to a close and make way for new epochs through significant turning points. Two such epochs in human development—of course there are also epochs in animal development, but I am speaking now only of human development—two such epochs are, for example, the change of teeth around the age of seven and then, again, sexual maturity around the age of fourteen. The change of teeth and sexual maturity are such turning points. The point is to truly grasp, through concrete observation, what takes place up to these turning points in the development of human life.

[ 11 ] Anyone who observes this closely will see that, initially, during physical development up to the time of tooth replacement, certain processes take place that must, however, be closely related to this tooth replacement. It is not enough, after all, to simply observe the human being, so to speak, from the outside. One must be aware that what comes to a conclusion with the change of teeth—such that nothing similar takes place in the organism during the subsequent stage of life—permeates the entire organism. If one truly follows such a fact correctly in a concrete process of understanding, one will say: From birth or conception up to the change of teeth, something occurs that is connected to formative forces which then discharge themselves in what takes place during the change of teeth. And if we then consider, on the other hand, the more soul-spiritual life of the human being, we will find that something just as profound occurs in the soul-spiritual realm as there is something deeply significant in the physical realm with the change of teeth; we will find that around the same stage of life in which something comes to a conclusion in the physical realm with the change of teeth, something ascending emerges. One need only learn to observe these phenomena in the same way that one observes external physical phenomena. And when one observes them in this same spirit, one will see that what emerges in the entire configuration of the child’s soul is what enables the child to form memories and recollections in a more conscious way; one will see that the child now has the opportunity to grasp the vagueness of earlier concepts—their lack of sharp contours—in sharper contours; one will see that a powerful transformation in the entire nature of mental and soul life takes place through the formation of concepts.

[ 12 ] And anyone who now observes these things with a certain sense of being immersed in such processes will seek the connection between, on the one hand, what has taken effect physically and bodily, has then been discharged, and has found a certain conclusion, and, on the other hand, what appears as a new formation—as something that is unfolding anew—whose conditions of origin and conditions of becoming must become clear. And if one traces such concepts in reality as thoroughly and as deeply as possible, one will come to say to oneself: That which acted within the organism up to the change of teeth—that which acted organically there, that which was bound to the organism—has become free as the organism reached a certain, provisional point of conclusion with the change of teeth. It becomes free; it transforms precisely into the power of forming and shaping mental images, into the power of forming conscious memory images, whereas the earlier memory images were more unconscious. Thus one sees how something that previously acted within the body becomes free and now acts in the soul and spirit. And one gains an insight into this—if one observes it, so to speak, with the eye of the soul—into how that which now appears consciously as concept formation and as the process of memory previously acted within the organism in an organically formative way.

[ 13 ] In this way, one comes to understand the entirety of human development and organization. One moves away from merely fantasizing or speculating about the spiritual-soul aspects; one comes to grasp their connection with the physical. Then, in the scientific realm, one generally breaks the habit of speculating and forming hypotheses. One no longer asks: What can one deduce through speculation in order to grasp the spiritual-soul aspects? — but rather, one looks, for example, at the concrete development within the organism—such as the emergence of teeth, so to speak—and one must then acknowledge how that which was bound to the organism, acting hidden within it, later becomes free. One can trace this in its soul-spiritual form by observing the soul-spiritual itself as it has developed in the child; and in this way one discovers the connection between the soul-spiritual and the physical-organic by following the processes in a concrete manner. One no longer constructs an abstract psychology—as is often the case today, which has little more than mere verbal content—but rather studies concretely the relationship of one aspect to the other, and one sees how what is present at a later stage was also actually observable at an earlier stage. One arrives at a fully empirical understanding.

[ 14 ] Similarly, one can study the other turning point in life—that of sexual maturity—by observing, on the one hand, how the organic process unfolds, culminating in sexual maturity, and, on the other hand, by asking: What is developing in the soul-spiritual realm? What arises, so to speak, from the fact that the forces which, after sexual maturity, are no longer needed for the development of anything in the organic realm—because they have brought the organic development to a certain conclusion—what becomes of these forces, which, so to speak, were embedded in the organic realm up to that point? — That which is at work in the particular nature of the impulses of the will is present in a completely different way after sexual maturity than it was before. Previously, they were immersed in the organic processes in a very specific way; and then, when they are no longer immersed in the organic processes, they do not become free, but rather they connect more intimately with the organism in a certain way. Thus, precisely at this turning point in their life, human beings become more in control of their organism than they were before. The will becomes more intimately and intensely integrated into the organism than was previously the case.

[ 15 ] If one understands, then, how the spiritual-soul aspect is connected to the physical-organic aspect, one can—by employing such concepts that first become flexible in themselves and are thereby also capable of becoming ever richer inwardly, so that reality can be increasingly penetrated— one can then also study certain processes in the human organism that are nothing other than the outward manifestation of what one perceives as inner reality—for example, the process of voice change, which in males is connected with sexual maturity. A similar process occurs in females, though there it is more widely distributed throughout the entire organism. One can only arrive at a complete understanding of these processes by recognizing how, through what takes place in voice change or in other processes within the female organism, the energy of the will connects with the organism in a more inner, penetrating way. And at the same time, one comes to understand how what develops up to the time of tooth replacement finds its most intense expression in the formation of the human head—in which, after all, tooth formation takes place—while what then emerges at the time of sexual maturity affects the entire rest of the organism, with the exception of the head. All of this becomes immediately clear through contemplation. And through this, one gains an inner understanding, an inner contemplation of the human being. Such an approach, however, can in turn have an immensely enriching effect on the sciences—which, after all, lead us particularly to certain limits of knowledge that are at the same time limits, regrettable limits, of human practical reality—such an inner penetration into the human organism can have an immensely enriching effect on the sciences.

[ 16 ] Let us consider, for example, what emerges when we attempt to examine the medical sciences—as they present themselves to us today as specialized disciplines—with a view to identifying what is unsatisfactory about them. I cannot, however, go into the particularly significant details here, but I would like to point out something that is already a fundamental question. How can we actually reconcile what we today consider our natural worldview with what is called a disease process in the physical organism? Anyone who studies the disease process will have to say—and this is, of course, entirely natural—that this disease process unfolds according to the laws of nature. We therefore have, in the disease process, something that we must understand in terms of the laws of nature. On the other hand, however, we also have, in the so-called healthy human organism, something that must be understood in terms of the laws of nature; we have at least a certain current of natural lawfulness in the healthy human organism. We express what we recognize in this realm of the human organism’s natural organization through physiology. And we express what we can recognize in the disease process as a lawfulness—which must also be a natural lawfulness—through pathology. There must now be a bridge between physiology and pathology. It must be possible to gain some understanding of how one current of natural law relates to another. And a natural science—or rather, a scientific way of thinking, as we have it today—cannot lead to any understanding in this area, at least not to an understanding that is applicable in practice. That is why we see how fundamentally unsatisfactory the medical science of today stands alongside pathology. I still look back to the time when what was then called “medical nihilism” had taken hold within the Vienna School of Medical Science. Even leading figures in the field of medicine at that time were, in fact, steeped in complete skepticism regarding therapy. To a large extent, they maintained that one could only observe the processes of disease; one could speak only of a more or less rational pathology, but one could not really speak of any connection between the action of the remedy and the processes of the organism. Consequently, such physicians limited themselves to merely observing the disease process across broad categories of illnesses, taking care to note when it veered into excess in one direction or another; but, fundamentally, they did not actually believe in a rational method of cure. This was discussed quite openly in those circles.

[ 17 ] Well, today there isn’t really that much skepticism about these things anymore, but in practice, that’s basically still the case. And that is why it is so difficult for genuine medical science to gain a foothold in the face of all manner of amateurism and quackery, which are able to flourish precisely because it is so difficult in this field to foster an understanding of what true science actually is. But this is connected to our conception of the natural sciences in general. It is connected to the belief—admittedly justified, but nonetheless one-sided—that a significant portion of the great scientific discoveries of the 19th century is tied to what is known as the theory of descent. In a truly extraordinarily astute manner—a manner that led individual researchers to the most meticulous observational methods—people have sought the evolutionary sequence of organisms from the less perfect to the more perfect, and have placed human beings at the pinnacle—the entire human being, as he stands before us today in his organization. In a sense, one has regarded human organization in its entirety as a transformation of animal organization. Well, this was only possible because one succumbed to entirely false notions regarding certain internal relationships within the human organism. Of course, I can only hint at these things. They will emerge from a truly empirical morphology—a morphological examination of the organs—and from a truly comparative, genetic-morphological approach to embryology, based on the facts of embryology in connection with the facts of life. Today, everyone more or less holds the view that, for example, we have something in the brain that can be regarded as a complex development of what, in its basic structure, is present as a nervous system in the spinal cord. One sees in what is organized in the spinal cord, so to speak, the original form, and what is present in the brain is regarded as having emerged in a complex manner from this spinal cord. One cannot interpret the phenomena in this way. If one follows the facts of embryology in an unbiased manner, one will arrive at a completely different perspective. One will come to see that, while what is present in the brain does indeed trace back to a simpler organization such as that found in the spinal cord, the spinal cord—which the brain must be regarded as the further development of—must be conceived as lying more or less horizontally within the brain itself—if I may put it that way. In our present-day brain, that which emerges as a spinal cord-like foundation for our brain—extending from the forehead backward toward the back of the head—exists only as an ideal predisposition, so that one must conceive of the brain as a transformation of this structure, which today exists in the brain only as a conceptual predisposition, whereas what we have today in humans as the spinal cord must be regarded as having arisen from the same laws of formation as the human brain, but having remained at an earlier stage. If, therefore, we consider the spinal cord and the brain in connection with one another, we must say: Both are based on the same laws of formation, but the brain has been brought to a higher stage through this process. Only at a later point in phylogeny do the laws of formation take effect in the spinal cord, and it does not develop as far as the brain. Therefore, the spinal cord must be regarded as the later formation, whose initial stage lay in an earlier time in the genesis of humanity. The brain must be traced back to an even earlier time, and it must be regarded as more advanced, so that one must say: The spinal cord is, phylogenetically speaking, the later formation that has remained at an earlier stage, whereas the brain has been brought to a higher stage through this development.

[ 18 ] This is how one must conceive of many aspects of the human organism, and this is how one must, in a sense, conceive of the entire limb-organism if one wishes to unravel its morphological mysteries. One must regard the limb system as a later formation that has remained at an earlier stage, and one must place what emerges in the formation of the head at an earlier beginning and conceive of it as having reached a later stage of development. In the human head, one must, so to speak, see that which has emerged through metamorphosis, through transformation from very early ancestors; and that which is present in the human appendages—even if they are larger than the head—must be regarded as appended limbs that have been left behind at an earlier stage.

[ 19 ] When one examines human morphology in this way, the first step is to place humanity in its proper context within the animal world. Then one realizes: If one looks back through the course of time, what has become the human head structure must be regarded as the most fundamental transformation of its earlier organization. This must be traced back to earlier animal forms—I cannot go into the details now, so the whole thing will seem paradoxical—but one must view the entire human form in such a way that the rest of the body, which is attached to the head, arose under conditions that affect this overall human form quite differently than today’s environment affects the overall form of the animal. Once one understands these conditions, one will place the human form in a completely different relationship to the animal world than is the case today.

[ 20 ] Then there is a second point to consider: When one examines the human head closely—specifically the unique relationships between the soft tissues and the bony structures—and compares these, particularly in terms of their position, with the relationships between the soft tissues and the bony structures in the appendages, one begins to form ideas about the inner workings of the laws of formation within the human organism. And one comes to realize that the human head is not only in a state of ongoing development, but that it carries within itself something that should not initially be regarded as evolution, but rather as devolution—a regressive development that is sustained only by the fact that this organism of the head is connected to the rest of the human organism and is sustained by it.

[ 21 ] It is precisely in the organization of the human head that we are dealing with a continuous process of decay, which is, however, sustained by what are the head’s accessory organs. While the head is, by its very organization, structured toward decay, we are indeed dealing with a continuous process of dying within the human head. The processes that are ascending and vitalizing are one set of processes; the others are stagnant processes, spread out along the timeline, which, when compressed into a single moment, appear as the death of the entire organism. One could also say: What befalls the entire organism with death in an instant could be regarded, expressed mathematically, as an integral for which one seeks the corresponding differential. And one would then arrive at the conclusion that, in the differential series into which the integral has been expanded—distributed along the timeline—one finds what unfolds as a regressive development, a devolution within the human organism as a whole. This devolution, however, is in turn found to be the very foundation of the processes of imagination and sensation. One can therefore say: It is impossible to regard that which underlies human growth—that which underlies ascending development, namely the organizing forces—as the foundation for the spiritual-soul processes. On the contrary! Where the organism is broken down, the spiritual-soul aspect rises precisely above this breakdown, precisely above the destruction of the organic. One cannot gain insight into the connection between the physical-bodily and the spiritual-psychic in the human being unless one realizes that what is regarded as the foundation of organization must not be regarded as the foundation of the spiritual-psychic process. The physical-bodily must first break down, must make room, must give way, so that the spiritual-psychic can take hold within the human being.

[ 22 ] With these remarks, I am merely hinting at how spiritual science in fact opens up a wholly organic path that is not based on mere fantasies, but on a faithful observation of human nature—an observation that penetrates to the innermost core. It is certainly not based on arbitrary assertions or vague beliefs when the spiritual researcher says: That which is spiritual-psychic in the human being is not bound to the physical organization, but to physical disorganization—that is, to that which must give way so that the spiritual-psychic can emerge. It is therefore no wonder that one can trace the spiritual-psychic processes in the nervous organs, for to the same extent that any spiritual-psychic process occurs, it must displace the corresponding physical organization, which even manifests as physical deterioration. And one will only arrive at a true connection between the spiritual-psychic and the physical-bodily processes when one no longer seeks to view the physical-bodily processes as corresponding to the psychic processes, but rather understands them as processes of disorganization, dissolution, and excretion. If one traces these signs of physical and bodily processes of elimination, one finds the true correlate of the mental and spiritual processes; and it is precisely this that guarantees their particular distinctiveness and independence in a truly scientific manner.

[ 23 ] But if one truly understands this process from within—precisely as the process of the human being—then one will no longer have to treat physiology and pathology as separate disciplines, as is the case today —you need only pick up any standard textbook—where individual facts are simply listed one after another and recorded without being able to evaluate them in terms of their connection to the entire human organism, so that anyone guided by such a so-called science is left with nothing but isolated, juxtaposed facts. The reality is quite different. In the human organism, on the one hand, we have what are known as the building processes, and on the other hand—in the sense of the threefold structure of the human organism that I have described in earlier lectures—there is also the other aspect, which encompasses the breaking-down processes, since every building process is simultaneously permeated by the breaking-down process. Thus, in the human organism, we do not have a process that proceeds in a straight line, but rather a process that proceeds in one direction, and another process meets it head-on—an ascending process and a descending process. In so-called normal, healthy life, these two processes stand in a certain relationship to one another. If one asserts itself at the expense of the other, then we must look to this very fact as the origin of the pathological condition. And if we are able to refine the perspective I have outlined here—and it can be refined down to the smallest detail in the human organism—we will have the opportunity to gain a rational understanding of the diseased organism. Those two currents in physiology and pathology will no longer stand before us as a mystery; rather, we will know that this opposition is, in a certain sense, necessary for the human being, but that through processes—the description of which would take us too far afield here—one or the other may come to predominate. You will find this described if you delve into the literature of the spiritual sciences.

[ 24 ] I would like to show you, using a specific example, how these concepts—which I have just presented to you in a more abstract way—manifest themselves in the concrete understanding of the human organism. You can study, for example, how the epidermal cells of the human body are epithelial cells that have been transformed into sensory cells, just as the glandular cells are also transformed epithelial cells. It is precisely in this process—which, in a roundabout way, reveals the connection between sensory cells and glandular cells—that you will find confirmation of how what I mentioned yesterday regarding sensory perception of the external world and sensory perception of the human interior can be traced anatomically and physiologically through this metamorphosis of the cells themselves. And then, if you continue to follow this line of inquiry by studying the facts that are already well-established empirically today, you will find that there is a certain process at work that leads from the epithelial cells toward the sensory cells; this is one current within the organism. We can also trace this current in the opposite direction: epithelial cells — glandular cells. This gives us the opportunity, in our consideration of the human organism, to gradually ascend to the way in which the senses are formed from the organization of the head and from the organization related to it through a certain unfolding of forces, as if moving from the inside out. We have identified what can be observed in this process. However, since things in the human being are not schematically localized, we must say that they are primarily localized in the head; yet they are also present in the rest of the organism, just as certain senses are spread throughout the entire organism, while the head primarily contains the senses. Thus we can see how one aspect of human nature impels the formation of the sense organs from within; other areas are organized more in the direction in which the epithelium develops into glandular tissue. When we observe these polar opposites, we will say: Viewed from within—and one must view human nature from within, otherwise one cannot fathom it—it all rests on the fact that the flow within the organism sometimes proceeds from the inside out, and at other times, so to speak, in the opposite direction, from the outside in. Here again we have something that develops in one direction or the other within the human organism. And now, ladies and gentlemen, due to very specific conditions in areas of the human organism where processes that run from the outside to the inside are otherwise predominantly predisposed, it can happen that these areas are permeated in an incorrect manner by processes that run from the inside to the outside. As paradoxical as it sounds, one must say that in a region of the human organism which, in its normal organization, is predisposed only to develop glandular tissue, a tendency may arise that leads to the formation of a sensory organ. In a certain sense, the tendency that is otherwise justified in the human organism only where the senses develop becomes embedded in the formation of the epithelium. Of course, this can occur because, to a lesser extent, everything in the human organism is embedded in everything else; one simply has to distinguish it. What manifests itself primarily may also be a counter-process to the process of sensory organ formation. One need only consider that secretory organs assert themselves everywhere alongside the sensory organs.

[ 25 ] But what, then, are we actually dealing with here? You see, there is something here that, when spoken of today, seems downright fantastical to the highest degree, because one must resort to concepts that modern science absolutely refuses to accept—concepts that, despite being deeply rooted in reality, are entirely foreign to it. But we will not be able to penetrate what we observe in the world unless we take metamorphosis seriously in this way—even where the transformed form bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original—unless we regard, so to speak, a further-developed Goetheanism as an ideal for genuine scientific rigor. For one must say: In a certain area of the human organism, where normally only the tendency toward gland formation is supposed to be present, the tendency toward sensory formation can become embedded—toward something that will then give rise to a process of sensory formation. And here we have looked inwardly at the very disease process that can be observed in the formation of cancer, in carcinoma. I would like to cite a concrete example; I will not hesitate to mention something that is still ridiculed today.

[ 26 ] But I certainly do not want to ramble on about abstractions; rather, I want to show that there is something in spiritual science that truly penetrates what is given in the individual disciplines, albeit in a way that, compared to today’s approach, can only be understood if one is willing to proceed courageously in the pursuit of knowledge, truly willing to follow through to the very end the consequences of what is already present in empirical reality today, even in its earliest stages. I have not hesitated to present such details to you—hundreds upon hundreds of which could be presented from the field of spiritual science—so that you may see that this spiritual science does not ramble on vaguely and ramble aimlessly, but rather that it adheres to the facts, penetrates the facts everywhere, and does not speak of soul and spirit in abstract terms or bombard people with confusing theories that are, when it comes down to it, merely interpretations of traditional word meanings. Only through the spirit does one penetrate into the particular; one truly penetrates, spiritually, every particular aspect that exists in the specialized sciences.

[ 27 ] And such a pathology—which finds its opposite in the physiological process, that is, in the process of gland formation (here as a pathological process)—such a science can bridge the gap to a natural law governing physiology and pathology. These are the perspectives that the truly rigorous scientific approach of an anthroposophically oriented worldview seeks to offer regarding what is to be fully recognized in today’s individual specialized sciences in terms of conscientious observation and the external precision of methods. But if, on the one hand, one views the human being in this way—in terms of his descending and ascending processes—then, on the other hand, one will find in nature not only ascending and descending processes but also ascending and descending forms of organization. One can, for example, trace the process of plant formation. What Goethe presented in 1790 in his attempt to explain the metamorphosis of plants constitutes, after all, only the very beginnings, the basics. But if one develops this method further, one comes to understand how this plant organization is to be viewed in its subtle structures: how the process of flower formation proceeds, and what significance the polar opposition between the root—which grows downward—and the flower and fruit—which grow upward—has within the overall context of natural phenomena.

[ 28 ] One then comes, for example, to examine how a particular process—let us say, the flow of fluids in the animal organism—is related to the flow of fluids in the human organism. One comes to move from the plant to the animal organism and, in what one encounters in the animal organism, to see the corresponding processes in human nature. And then one also comes to consider such things as the contrast that exists between the process of plant formation and the process in humans. The plant builds its body on the basis of carbon. It takes in carbon and releases oxygen. Human beings undergo a similar process in their respiration in connection with blood circulation—in the entire process of blood circulation—but what happens there? There, carbon is bound to oxygen, thus producing carbon dioxide. Here we find that which consolidates in the process of plant formation—a process that, in a certain sense, takes place externally—present in its embryonic form in the human being, but which the human being has then expelled. We see a certain relationship between the external process of plant formation and that which underlies human respiration, a process that dilutes and interrupts it. And in turn, what is otherwise present in the human organism is linked to respiration, and one can then compare what, in the human organism, is associated with breakdown in these processes and what is associated with building up. Let us suppose that one finds something in the human organism that represents a disease process in a manner similar to the beginning—the malformed beginning—of a sensory formation process in cancer; then, by observing what exists in the external natural world, one can seek out the opposite process. One will be able to introduce this process into the human organism through a remedy and thereby exert a healing effect just as the supply of oxygen, if I may put it that way, has a healing effect on the carbon in the human organism. This is identical. In this way, one gains an inner insight into the connection between what is organized within the human being and external nature. One gains such insight that one can rationally identify, within what arises in the external natural world, the remedy that can serve a corresponding process in the human organism.

[ 29 ] All of this—as you will gather from the way I say it—is not based on phantasms; it is carried out as precisely as scientific work can possibly be. But we must work with concepts that are flexible enough to be applied to the various realms of reality. Our concepts must not be developed one-sidedly within certain specialized sciences and then remain confined to what is legitimately presented in those individual disciplines; our concepts must become flexible so that we can immerse ourselves in the entire vast realm of reality. Otherwise, we acquire concepts with which we believe, in a strange way, to encompass the realms of fact, but with which we actually only remain distant from those realms.

[ 30 ] We have a curious example of this right in our own time. Those familiar with such matters will know how many theories about the ether have emerged in recent times; they know how, time and again, in attempting to explain phenomena believed to arise from the interaction of ponderable matter with the ether, people have sought to characterize the ether—sometimes as rigid, sometimes as fluid—until, finally, recent experiments are said to have shown that none of these old theories of the ether lead anywhere. The simple experiment that was conducted regarding certain conditions in the propagation of light—as it was called—is said to have yielded a specific correction, a radical correction to the concept of the ether. The experiment consists of the following: If one causes a light to flash at a point A and traces this light from point A to point B, then—if point B is in motion, that is, moving forward—the light is supposed to arrive later than it would, according to calculations based on the speed of light established in physics, if point B were stationary. But what is theoretically calculated in this way does not hold true in practice. And—I’ll skip all the intermediate steps—it is in this, along with certain intermediate concepts, that the theory of relativity found its roots—this theory of relativity, which ultimately leads to the complete abolition of the ether. However, one then has to contend with strange phenomena, such as the idea that bodies can simply contract due to the motion itself, and the like. Well, you need only consult the relevant literature, and you will see just how rigid and inflexible certain concepts have become—concepts that are then applied to reality in such a way that one believes one is grasping reality, but in fact remains incredibly far removed from it.

[ 31 ] Spiritual science cannot follow such a path, which is essentially based solely on the rigidity of concepts. Spiritual science investigates the relevant phenomena—I mention this so that you can see how spiritual science can shed light on such areas—and ultimately comes to acknowledge that the concept of ether is necessary.

[ 32 ] But because it does not posit unfounded hypotheses but rather assumes realities, the ether is reflected in the phenomena that are usually derived from the ether itself. On the other hand, you know that where one speaks of the etheric realm, in the corresponding mathematical formula—where, in the case of ponderable matter, the quantity is entered with a plus sign for heat—but only for certain heat phenomena, such as radiant heat and flowing heat— and that for light phenomena, for certain phenomena that then appear as chemical processes—including in life phenomena—negative signs must be inserted for certain quantities in the corresponding mathematical formulas; these must be modified not only by inserting negative quantities but even by assuming, instead of radiation from a point, re-radiation from a periphery.

[ 33 ] In short, through the spiritual sciences, one arrives at a classification of the formulas in this exact scientific field that fully expresses what takes place between ponderable matter and the ether. One arrives at an understanding of the actual relationships between the so-called ether and ponderable matter. One comes to realize that if one simply applies the—let us say—confusing concept of mass in such a way that one says the outward effect of this mass or matter must be assigned a positive sign, then one must assign a negative sign to that which corresponds to it in the ether. What is a compressive force in one is a suction force in the other. And if one regards the ponderability of ponderable matter as a compressive force, one must represent the imponderable nature of the ether as a suction force in opposition to this compressive force. Then one can make sense of the phenomena; then there is no need to abolish the ether and assign it a value of zero, but rather, as is done in other fields, one can transition from plus to minus.

[ 34 ] I have cited this example so that you can see that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science by no means shies away from fields that are, in the strictest sense of the word, exact sciences.

[ 35 ] You can see that this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—perhaps especially in those areas that are today most plagued by confusion because people are working with flawed concepts and even arriving at seemingly epoch-making discoveries—that this spiritual science is called upon to to bring order and to restore to its natural order that which has been led away from it in thought. This will then lead tomorrow into discussions of the views on social life. It will lead to concepts and impulses that permeate social life, history, cultural history, and even linguistics—concepts that are transformed from the rigidity in which they often remain today into vitality. And this vitality of the concepts guarantees that a bridge can indeed be built—through anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—between the individual, one-sided specialized disciplines. And thus, what is to take place between anthroposophically oriented spiritual science and the specialized disciplines will have great significance for the development of humanity. It will overcome the one-sidedness of the soul, which often results in a paralysis in the development of the personality. And as spiritual science penetrates the individual specialized disciplines, we will once again be able to have individuals in our educational pathways who develop the whole, complete human being within themselves. And that is indeed necessary. It is especially necessary when those who undergo a certain educational path legitimately wish to take on leadership roles in social life. And it is the spiritual that must be the guiding force in social life. But only that which is spiritual can be the guiding force in social life; only it can truly permeate humanity with what leads to ascent rather than decline. Only what, as scientifically sound, cultivates the whole of human totality—only that can lead to such a healthy development of humanity.