Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Sense-Organs and Aesthetic Experience
GA 170

Published in The Golden Blade, 1975. Topics include: Enlivening the Sense Processes and Ensouling the Life Processes; Aesthetic Enjoyment and Aesthetic Creativity; and Logic and the Sense for Reality.

15 August 1916, Dornach

Translator Unknown

We have been concerned with getting to know the human being as he is related to the world through the realm of his senses and the organs of his life-processes, and we have attempted to consider some of the consequences of the fact which underlies such knowledge. Above all, we have cured ourselves of the trivial attitude which is taken by many people who like to regard themselves as spiritually minded, when they think they should despise everything that is called material or sense-perceptible. For we have seen that here in the physical world man has been given in his lower organs and his lower activities a reaction of higher activities and higher connections. The sense of touch and the Life-sense, as they are now, we have had to regard as very much tied to the physical, earthly world. The same applies to the Ego-sense, the Thought-sense and the Speech-sense.

It is different with the senses which serve the bodily organism only in an internal way; the sense of Movement, the sense of Balance, the sense of Smell, the sense of Taste, to a certain extent even the sense of Sight. We have had to accustom ourselves to regard these senses as a shadowy reflection of something which becomes great and significant in the spiritual world, when we have gone through death.

We have emphasised that through the sense of Movement we move in the spiritual world among the beings of the several Hierarchies, according to the attraction or repulsion they exercise upon us, expressed in the form of the spiritual sympathies and antipathies we experience after death. The sense of Balance does not only keep us in physical balance, as it does with the physical body here, but in a moral balance towards the beings and influences found in the spiritual world. It is similar with the other senses; the senses of Taste, Smell and Sight. And just where the hidden spiritual plays into the physical world, we cannot look to the higher senses for explanations, but have to turn to those realms of the senses which are regarded as lower. At the present day it is impossible to speak about many significant things of this kind, because today prejudices are so great. Many things that are in a higher spiritual sense interesting and important have only to be said, and at once they are misunderstood and in all sorts of ways attacked. For the time being I have therefore to abstain from pointing out many interesting processes in the realms of the senses which are responsible for important facts of life.

In this respect the situation in ancient times was more favourable, though knowledge could not be disseminated as it can be today. Aristotle could speak much more freely about certain truths than is now possible, for such truths are at once taken in too personal a way and awaken personal likes and dislikes. You will find in the works of Aristotle, for example, truths which concern the human being very deeply but could not be outlined today before a considerable gathering of people. They are truths of the kind indicated recently when I said: the Greeks knew more about the connection between the soul and spirit on the one hand and the physical bodily nature on the other, without becoming materialistic. In the writings of Aristotle you can find, for example, very beautiful descriptions of the outer forms of courageous men, of cowards, of hot-tempered people, of sleepyheads. In a way that has a certain justification he describes what sort of hair, what sort of complexion, what kind of wrinkles brave or cowardly men have, what sort of bodily proportions the sleepyheads have, and so on. Even these things would cause some difficulties if they were set forth today, and other things even more. Nowadays, when human beings have become so personal and really want to let personal feelings cloud their perception of the truth, one has to speak more in generalities if one has, under some circumstances, to describe the truth.

From a certain point of view, every human quality and activity can be comprehended, if we ask the right questions about what has been recently described here. For instance, we have said: the realms of the senses, as they exist in the human being today, are in a way separate and stationary regions, as the constellations of the Zodiac are stationary regions out in cosmic space as compared with the orbiting planets, which make their journeys and alter their positions relatively quickly. In the same way, the regions of the senses have definite boundaries, while the life-processes work through the whole organism, circling through the regions of the senses and permeating them with the effects of their work.

Now we have also said that during the Old Moon period our present sense-organs were still organs of life, still worked as life-organs, and that our present life-organs were then more in the realm of the soul. Think of what has often been emphasised: that there is an atavism in human life, a kind of return to the habits and peculiarities of what was once natural; a falling back, in this case into the Old Moon period. In other words, there can be an atavistic return to the dreamlike, imaginative way of looking at things that was characteristic of Old Moon. Such an atavistic falling back into Moon-visions must today be regarded as pathological.

Please take this accurately: it is not the visions themselves which are pathological, for if this were so, and if all that man experienced during the Old Moon time, when he lived only in such visions, had to be regarded as pathological—then one would have to say that humanity was ill during the Old Moon period; that during the Old Moon period man was in fact out of his mind. That, of course, would be complete nonsense. What is pathological is not the visions themselves, but that they occur in the present earthly organisation of the human being in such a way that they cannot be endured; that they are used by this earthly organisation in a way that is inappropriate for them as Moon visions. For if someone has a Moon vision, this is suited only to lead to a feeling, an activity, a deed which would have been appropriate on the Old Moon. But if someone has a Moon vision here during the Earth period and does things as they are done with an earthly organism, that is pathological. A man acts in that way only because his earthly organism cannot cope with the vision, is in a sense impregnated by it.

Take the crudest example: someone is led to have a vision. Instead of remaining calm before it, and contemplating it inwardly, he applies it in some way to the physical world—although it should be applied only to the spiritual world—and acts accordingly with his body. He begins to act wildly, because the vision penetrates and stirs his body in a way it should not do. There you have the crudest example. The vision should remain within the region to which it naturally belongs. It does not do so if today, as an atavistic vision, it is not tolerated by the physical body. If the physical body is too weak to prevail against the vision, a state of helplessness sets in. If the physical body is strong enough to prevail, it weakens the vision. Then it no longer has the character of pretending to be the same as a thing or process in the sense-world; that is the illusion imposed by a vision on someone made ill by it. If the physical organism is so strong that it can fight the tendency of an atavistic vision to lie about itself, then the person concerned will be strong enough to relate himself to the world in the same way as during the Old Moon period, and yet to adapt this behaviour to his present organism.

What does this mean? It means that the person will to some extent inwardly alter his Zodiac, with its twelve sense-regions. He will alter it in such a way that in his Zodiac, with its twelve sense-regions, more life-processes than sense-processes will occur. Or, to put it better, the effect is to transform the sense-process in the sense-region into a life-process and so to raise it out of its present lifeless condition into life. Thus a man sees, but at the same time something is living in his seeing; he hears and at the same time something is living inwardly in his hearing; instead of living only in the stomach or on the tongue, it lives now in the eye and in the ear. The sense-processes are brought into movement. Their life is stimulated. This is quite acceptable. Then something is incorporated in these sense-organs which today is possessed only to this degree by the life-organs. The life-organs are imbued with a strong activity of sympathy and antipathy. Think how much the whole of life depends upon sympathy and antipathy! One thing is taken, another rejected. These powers of sympathy and antipathy, normally developed by the life-organs, are now poured into the sense-organs. The eye not only sees the colour red; it feels sympathy or antipathy for the colour. Permeation by life streams hack into the sense organs, so we can say that the sense-organs become in a certain way life-regions once more.

The life-processes, too, then have to be altered. They acquire more activity of soul than they normally possess for life on earth. It happens in this way: three life-processes, breathing, warming and nutrition, are brought together and imbued with heightened activity of soul. In ordinary breathing we breathe crude material air; with the ordinary development of warmth it is just warmth, and so on. Now a kind of symbiosis occurs; when these life-processes form a unity, when they are imbued with activity of soul, they form a unity. They are not separate as in the present organism, but set up a kind of association. An inward community is formed by the processes of breathing, warming and nutrition; not coarse nutrition, but a process of nutrition which takes place without it being necessary to eat, and it does not occur alone, as eating does, but in conjunction with the other processes.

Similarly, the other four life-processes are united. Secretion, sustenance, growth and reproduction are united and also form a process embracing activity of soul. Then the two parties can themselves unite: not that all the life-processes then work together, but that, having entered into separate unities of three and four processes, they work together in that form.

This leads to the emergence of soul-powers which have the character of thinking, feeling and willing; again three. But they are different; not thinking, feeling and willing as they normally are on earth, but somewhat different. They are nearer to life-processes, but not as separate as life-processes are on earth. A very intimate and delicate process occurs in a man when he is able to endure something like a thinking back into the Old Moon, not to the extent of having visions, and yet a form of comprehension arises which has a certain similarity to them. The sense-regions become life-regions; the life-processes become soul-processes. A man cannot stay always in that condition, or he would be unfitted for the earth. He is fitted for the earth through his senses and his life-organs being normally such as we have described. But in some cases a man can shape himself in this other way, and then, if his development tends more towards the will, it leads to aesthetic creativity; or, if it tends more towards comprehension, towards perception, it leads to aesthetic experience. Real aesthetic life in human beings consists in this, that the sense-organs are brought to life, and the life-processes filled with soul.

This is a very important truth about human beings, for it enables us to understand many things. The stronger life of the sense-organs and the different life of the sense-realms must be sought in art and the experience of art. And it is the same with the processes of life; they are permeated with more activity of soul in the experience of art than in ordinary life. Because these things are not considered in their reality in our materialistic time, the significance of the alteration which goes on in a human being within the realm of art cannot be properly understood. Nowadays man is regarded more or less as a definite, finished being; but within certain limits he is variable. This is shown by a capacity for change such as the one we have now considered.

What we have gone into here embraces far-reaching truths. Take one example: it is those senses best fitted for the physical plane which have to be transformed most if they are to be led back halfway to the Old Moon condition. The Ego—sense, the Thought-sense, the immediate sense of Touch, because they are directly fitted for the earthly physical world, have to be completely transformed if they are to serve the human condition which results from this going back halfway to the Old Moon period.

For example, you cannot use in art the encounters we have in life with an Ego, or with the world of thought. At the most, in some arts which are not quite arts the same relationship to the Ego and to thought can be present as in ordinary earthly life. To paint the portrait of a man as an Ego, just as he stands there in immediate reality, is not a work of art. The artist has to do something with the Ego, go through a process with it, through which he raises this Ego out of the specialisation in which it lives today, at the present stage in the development of the earth; he has to give it a wide general significance, something typical. The artist does that as a matter of course.

In the same way the artist cannot express the world of thought, as it finds expression in the ordinary earthly world, in an artistic way immediately; for he would then produce not a poem or any work of art, but something of a didactic, instructive kind, which could never really be a work of art. The alterations made by the artist in what is actually present form a way back towards that reanimation of the senses I have described.

There is something else we must consider when we contemplate this transformation of the senses. The life-processes, I said, interpenetrate. Just as the planets cover one another, and have a significance in their mutual relationships, while the constellations remain stationary, so is it with the regions of the senses if they pass over into a planetary condition in human life, becoming mobile and living; then they achieve relationships to one another. Thus artistic perception is never so confined to the realm of a particular sense as ordinary earthly perception is. Particular senses enter into relationships with one another. Let us take the example of painting.

If we start from real Spiritual Science, the following result is reached. For ordinary observation through the senses, the senses of sight, warmth, taste and smell are separate senses. In painting, a remarkable symbiosis, a remarkable association of these senses comes about, not in the external sense-organs themselves, but in what lies behind them, as I have indicated.

A painter, or someone who appreciates a painting, does not merely look at its colours, the red or blue or violet; he really tastes the colours, not of course with the physical sense-organ—then he would have to lick it with his tongue. But in everything connected with the sphere of the tongue a process goes on which has a delicate similarity to the process of tasting. If you simply look at a green parrot in the way we grasp things through the senses, it is your eyes that see the green colour. But if you appreciate a painting, a delicate imaginative process comes about in the region behind your tongue which still belongs to the sense of taste, and this accompanies the process of seeing. Not what happens upon the tongue, but what follows, more delicate physiological processes—they accompany the process of seeing, so that the painter really tastes the colour in a deeper sense in his soul. And the shades of colour are smelt by him, not with the nose, but with all that goes on deeper in the organism, more in the soul, with every activity of smelling. These conjoined sense-activities occur when the realms of the senses pass over more into processes of life.

If we read a description which is intended to inform us about the appearance of something, or what is done with something, we let our speech-sense work, the word-sense through which we learn about this or that. If we listen to a poem, and listen in the same way as to something intended to convey information, we do not understand the poem. The poem is expressed in such a way that we perceive it through the speech-sense, but with the speech-sense alone we do not understand it. We have also to direct towards the poem the ensouled sense of balance and the ensouled sense of movement; but they must be truly ensouled. Here again united activities of the sense-organs arise, and the whole realm of the senses passes over into the realm of life. All this must be accompanied by life-processes which are ensouled, transformed in such a way that they participate in the life of the soul, and are not working only as ordinary life-processes belonging to the physical world.

If the listener to a piece of music develops the fourth life-process, secretion, so far that he begins to sweat, this goes too far; it does not belong to the aesthetic realm when secretion leads to physical excretion. It should be a process in the soul, not going as far as physical excretion; but it should be the same process that underlies physical excretion. Moreover, secretion should not appear alone. All four life-processes—secretion, sustenance, growth and reproduction—should work together, but all in the realm of soul. So do the life-processes become soul-processes.

On the one hand, Spiritual Science will have to lead earth-evolution towards the spiritual world; otherwise, as we have often seen, the downfall of mankind will come about in the future. On the other hand, Spiritual Science must renew the capacity to take hold of and comprehend the physical by means of the spirit. Materialism has brought not only an inability to find the spiritual, but also an inability to understand the physical. For the spirit lives in all physical things, and if one knows nothing of the spirit, one cannot understand the physical. Think of those who know nothing of the spirit; what do they know of this, that all the realms of the senses can be transformed in such a way that they become realms of life, and that the life-processes can be transformed in such a way that they appear as processes of the soul? What do present-day physiologists know about these delicate changes in the human being? Materialism has led gradually to the abandonment of everything concrete in favour of abstractions, and gradually these abstractions are abandoned, too. At the beginning of the nineteenth century people still spoke of vital forces. Naturally, nothing can be done with such an abstraction, for one understands something only by going into concrete detail. If one grasps the seven life-processes fully, one has the reality; and this is what matters—to get hold of the reality again. The only effect of renewing such abstractions as elan vital and other frightful abstractions, which have no meaning but are only admissions of ignorance, will be to lead mankind—although the opposite may be intended—into the crudest materialism, because it will be a mystical materialism. The need for the immediate future of mankind is for real knowledge, knowledge of the facts which can be drawn only from the spiritual world. We must make a real advance in the spiritual comprehension of the world.

Once more we have to think back to the good Aristotle, who was nearer to the old vision than modern man. I will remind you of only one thing about old Aristotle, a peculiar fact. A whole library has been written about catharsis, by which he wished to describe the underlying purpose of tragedy. Aristotle says: Tragedy is a connected account of occurrences in human life by which feelings of fear and compassion are aroused; but through the arousing of these feelings, and the course they take, the soul is led to purification, to catharsis. Much has been written about this in the age of materialism, because the organ for understanding Aristotle was lacking. The phrase has been understood only by those who saw that Aristotle in his own way (not, of course, the way of a modern materialist) means by catharsis a medical or half-medical term. Because the life-processes become soul-processes, the aesthetic experience of a tragedy carries right into the bodily organism those life-processes which normally accompany fear and compassion. Through tragedy these processes are purified and at the same time ensouled. In Aristotle's definition of catharsis the entire ensouling of the life-processes is embraced. If you read more of his Poetics you will feel in it something like a breath of this deeper understanding of the aesthetic activity of man, gained not through a modern way of knowledge, but from the old traditions of the Mysteries. In reading Aristotle's Poetics one is seized by immediate life much more than one can be in reading anything by present day writers on aesthetics, who only sniff round things and encompass them with dialectics, but never reach the things themselves.

Later on a significant high-point in comprehending aesthetic activity of man was reached in Schiller's Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man (1795). It was a time given more to abstractions. Today we have to add the spiritual to a thinking that remains in the realm of idealism. But if we look at this more abstract character of the time of Goethe and Schiller, we can see that the abstractions in Schiller's Aesthetic Letters embrace something of what has been said here. With Schiller it seems that the process has been carried down more into the material, but only because this material existence requires to be penetrated more deeply by the power of the spiritual, taken hold of intensively. What does Schiller say? He says: Man as he lives here on earth has two fundamental impulses, the impulse of reason and the impulse that comes from nature. Through a natural necessity the impulse of reason works logically. One is compelled to think in a particular way; there is no freedom in thinking. What is the use of speaking of freedom where this necessity of reason prevails? One is compelled to think that three times three is not ten, but nine. Logic signifies the absolute necessity of reason. So, says Schiller, when man accepts the pure necessity of reason, he submits to spiritual compulsion.

Schiller contrasts the necessity of reason with the needs of the senses, which live in everything present in instinct, in emotion. Here, too, man is not free, but follows natural necessity. Now Schiller looks for the condition midway between rational necessity and natural necessity. This middle condition, he finds, emerges when rational necessity bows before the feelings that lead us to love or not to love something; so that we no longer follow a rigid logical necessity when we think but allow our inner impulses to work in shaping our mental images, as in aesthetic creation. And then natural necessity, on its side, is transcended. Then it is no longer the needs of the senses which bring compulsion, for they are ensouled and spiritualised. A man no longer desires simply what his body desires, for sensuous enjoyment is spiritualised. Thus rational necessity and natural necessity come nearer to one another.

You should, of course, read this in Schiller's Aesthetic Letters themselves; they are among the most important philosophical works in the evolution of the world. In Schiller's exposition there lives what we have just heard here, though with him it takes the form of metaphysical abstraction. What Schiller calls the liberation of rational necessity from its rigidity, this is what happens when the senses are reanimated, when they are led back once more to the process of life. What Schiller calls the spiritualisation of natural need—he should really have called it “ensouling”—this happens where the life-processes work like soul-processes. Life-processes become more ensouled; sense-processes become more alive. That is the real procedure, though given a more abstract conceptual form, that can be traced in Schiller's Aesthetic Letters. Only thus could he express it at that time, when there was not yet enough spiritual strength in human thoughts to reach down into that realm where spirit lives in the way known to the seer. Here spirit and matter need not be contrasted, for it can be seen how spirit penetrates all matter everywhere, so that nowhere can one come upon matter without spirit. Thinking remains mere thinking because man is not able to make his thoughts strong enough, spiritual enough, to master matter, to penetrate into matter as it really is.

Schiller was not able to recognise that life-processes can work as soul-processes. He could not go so far as to see that the activity which finds material expression in nutrition, in the development of warmth and in breathing, can live enhanced in the soul, so that it ceases to be material. The material particles vanish away under the power of the concepts with which the material processes are comprehended. Nor was Schiller able to get beyond regarding logic as simply a dialectic of ideas; he could not reach the higher stage of development, attainable through initiation, where the spiritual is experienced as a process in its own right, so that it enters as a living force into what otherwise is merely cognition. Schiller in his Aesthetic Letters could not quite trust himself to reach the concrete facts. But through them pulses an adumbration of something that can be exactly grasped if one tries to lay hold of the living through the spiritual and the material through the living.

So we see in every field how evolution as a whole is pressing on towards knowledge of the spirit. When, at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, a philosophy was developed more or less out of concepts, longings were alive in it for a greater concreteness, though this could not yet be achieved. Because the power to achieve it was inadequate, the endeavour and the longing for greater concreteness fell into the crude materialism that has continued from the middle of the nineteenth century up to the present day. But it must be realised that spiritual understanding cannot reside only in a turning towards the spiritual, but must and can overcome the material and recognise the spirit in matter. As you will see, this has further consequences. You will see that man as an aesthetic being is raised above earthly evolution into another world. And this is important. Through his aesthetic attitude of mind or aesthetic creativity a man no longer acts in a way that is entirely appropriate for the earth, but raises the sphere of his being above the sphere of the earth. In this way through our study of aesthetics we approach some deep mysteries of existence.

In saying such things, one may touch the highest truths, and yet sound as if one were crazy. But life cannot be understood if one retreats faint heartedly before the real truths. Take a work of art, the Sistine Madonna, the Venus of Milo—if it is really a work of art, it does not entirely belong to the earth. It is raised above the events of earth; that is quite obvious. What sort of power, then, lives in it—in a Sistine Madonna, in a Venus of Milo? A power, which is also in man, but which is not entirely fitted for the earth. If everything in man were fitted only for the earth, he would be unable to live on any other level of existence as well. He would never go on to the Jupiter evolution. Not everything is fitted for the earth; and for occult vision not everything in man is in accord with his condition as a being of the earth. There are hidden forces which will one day give man the impetus to develop beyond earth-existence. But art itself can be understood only if we realise that its task is to point the way beyond the purely earthly, beyond adaptation to earthly conditions, to where the reality in the Venus of Milo can be found.


We can never acquire a true comprehension of the world unless we first recognise something which there will be increasing need to recognise as we go forward to meet the future and its demands.

It is often thought today that when anyone makes a logical statement that can be logically proved, the statement must be applicable to life. Logic alone, however, is not enough. People are always pleased when they can prove something logically; and we have seen arise in our midst, as you know, all kinds of world outlooks and philosophical systems, and no-one familiar with logic will doubt they can all be logically proved. But nothing is achieved for life by these logical proofs. The point is that our thinking must be brought into line with reality, not merely with logic. What is merely logical is not valid—only what is in keeping with reality.

Let me make this clear by an example. Imagine a tree-trunk lying there before you, and you set out to describe it. You can describe it quite correctly, and you can prove, beyond a doubt, that something real is lying there because you have described it in exact accordance with external reality. But in fact you have described an untruth; what you have described has no real existence. It is a tree-trunk from which the roots have been cut away, and the boughs and branches lopped off. But it could have come into existence only along with boughs and blossoms and roots, and it is nonsense to think of the mere trunk as a reality. By itself it is no reality; it must be taken together with its forces of growth, with all the inner forces which enabled it to come into being. We need to see with certainty that the tree-trunk as it rests there is a lie; we have a reality before us only when we look at a tree. Logically it is not necessary to regard a tree-trunk as a lie, but a sense for reality demands that only the whole tree be regarded as truth. A crystal is a truth, for it can exist independently—independently in a certain sense, for of course everything is relative. A rosebud is not a truth. A crystal is; but a rosebud is a lie if regarded only as a rosebud.

A lack of this sense for reality is responsible for many phenomena in the life of today. Crystallography and, at a stretch, mineralogy are still real sciences; not so geology. What geology describes is as much an abstraction as the tree-trunk. The so-called “earth's crust” includes everything that grows up out of it, and without that it is unthinkable. We must have philosophers who allow themselves to think abstractly only in so far as they know what they are doing. To think in accordance with reality, and not merely in accordance with logic—that is what we shall have to learn to do, more and more. It will change for us the whole aspect of evolution and history. Seen from the standpoint of reality, what is the Venus of Milo, for instance, or the Sistine Madonna? From the point of view of the earth such works of art are lies; they are no reality. Take them just as they are and you will never come to the truth of them. You have to be carried away from the earth if you are to see any fine work of art in its reality. You have to stand before it with a soul attuned quite differently from your state of mind when you are concerned with earthly things. The work of art that has here no reality will then transport you into the realm where it has reality—the elemental world. We can stand before the Venus of Milo in a way that accords with reality only if we have the power to wrest ourselves free from mere sense-perception.

I have no wish to pursue teleology in a futile sense. We will therefore not speak of the purpose of Art; that would be pedantic, philistine. But what comes out of Art, how it arises in life—these are questions that can be asked and answered. There is no time today for a complete answer, only for a brief indication. It will be helpful if we consider first the opposite question: What would happen if there were no Art in the world? All the forces which flow into Art, and the enjoyment of Art, would then be diverted into living out of harmony with reality. Eliminate Art from human evolution and you would have in its place as much untruth as previously there had been Art.

It is just here, in connection with Art, that we encounter a dangerous situation which is always present at the Threshold of the spiritual world. Listen to what comes from beyond the Threshold and you will hear that everything has two sides! If a man has a sense of reality, he will come through aesthetic comprehension to a higher truth; but if he lacks this sense of reality he can be led precisely by aesthetic comprehension of the world into untruth. There is always this forking of the road, and to grasp this is very important: it applies not only to occultism but to Art. To comprehend the world in accordance with reality will be an accompaniment of the spiritual life that Spiritual Science has to bring about. Materialism has brought about the exact opposite—a thinking that is not in accord with reality.

Contradictory as this may sound, it is so only for those who judge the world according to their own picture of it, and not in accordance with reality. We are living at a stage of evolution when the faculty for grasping even ordinary facts of the physical world is steadily diminishing, and this is a direct result of materialism. In this connection some interesting experiments have been made. They proceed from materialistic thinking; but, as in many other cases, the outcome of materialistic thinking can work to the benefit of the human faculties that are needed for developing a spiritual outlook. The following is one of the many experiments that have been made.

A complete scene was thought out in advance and agreed upon. Someone was to give a lecture, and during it he was to say something that would be felt as a direct insult by a certain man in the audience. This man was to spring from his seat, and a scuffle was to ensue. During the scuffle the insulted man was to thrust his hand into his pocket and draw out a revolver—and the scene was to go on developing from there.

Picture it for yourselves—a whole prearranged programme carried out in every detail! Thirty persons were invited to be the audience. They were no ordinary people: they were law students well advanced in their studies, or lawyers who had already graduated. These thirty witnessed the whole affair and were afterwards asked to describe what had occurred. Those who were in the secret had drawn up a protocol which showed that everything had taken place exactly as planned.

The thirty were no fools, but well-educated people whose task later on would be to go out into the world and investigate how scuffles and scrimmages and many other things come about. Of the thirty, twenty-six gave a completely false account of what they had seen, and only four were even approximately correct ... only four!

For years experiments like this have been made for the purpose of demonstrating how little weight can be attached to depositions given before a court of justice. The twenty-six were all present; they could all say: “I saw it with my own eyes.” People do not in the least realise how much is required in order to set forth correctly a series of events that has taken place before their very eyes.

The art of forming a true picture of something that takes place in our presence needs to be cultivated. If there is no feeling of responsibility towards a sense-perceptible fact, the moral responsibility which is necessary for grasping spiritual facts can never be attained. In our present world, with its stamp of materialism, what feeling is there for the seriousness of the fact that among thirty descriptions by eyewitnesses of an event, twenty-six were completely false, and four only could be rated as barely correct? If you pause to consider such a thing, you will see how tremendously important for ordinary life the fruits of a spiritual outlook can become.

Perhaps you will ask: Were things different in earlier times? Yes, in those times men had not developed the kind of thinking we have today. The Greeks were not possessed of the purely abstract thinking we have, and need to have, in order that we may find our place in the world in the right way for our time. But here were are concerned not with ways of thinking, but with truth.

Aristotle tried, in his own way, to express an aesthetic understanding of life in much more concrete concepts. And in the earliest Greek times it was expressed, still more concretely, in Imaginations that came from the Mysteries. Instead of concepts, the men of those ancient times had pictures. They would say: Once upon a time lived Uranus. And in Uranus they saw all that man takes in through his head, through the forces which now work out through the senses into the external world. Uranus—all twelve senses—was wounded; drops of blood fell into Maya, into the ocean, and foam spurted up. Here we must think of the senses, when they were more living, sending down into the ocean of life something which rises up like foam from the pulsing of the blood through life-processes which have now become processes in the soul.

All this may be compared with the Greek Imagination of Aphrodite, Aphrogenea, the goddess of beauty rising from the foam that sprang from the blood-drops of the wounded Uranus. In the older form of the myth, where Aphrodite is a daughter of Uranus and the ocean, born from the foam that rises from the blood-drops of Uranus, we have an imaginative rendering of the aesthetic situation of mankind, and indeed a thought of great significance for human evolution at large.

We need to connect a further idea with this older form of the myth, where Aphrodite is the child not of Zeus and Dione, but of Uranus and the ocean. We need to add to it another Imagination which enters still more deeply into reality, reaching not merely into the elemental world but right down into physical reality. Beside the myth of Aphrodite, the myth of the origin of beauty among mankind, we must set the great truth of the entry into humanity of primal goodness, the Spirit showering down into Maya-Maria, even as the blood-drops of Uranus ran down into the ocean, which also is Maya. Then will appear in its beauty the dawn of the unending reign of the good and of knowledge of the good; the truly good, the spiritual. This is what Schiller had in mind when he wrote, referring especially to moral knowledge:

Nur durch das Morgentor des Schoenen
Dringst du in der Erkenntnis Land.*


* Only through the dawn of beauty canst thou penetrate into the land of knowledge.

You see how many tasks for Spiritual Science are mounting up. And they are not merely theoretical tasks; they are tasks of life.

Neunter Vortrag

Wir haben uns damit beschäftigt, den Menschen kennenzulernen, wie er drinnensteht in der Welt durch seine Sinnesbezirke, durch seine Lebensorgane, und wir haben versucht, einiges von den Folgen der Tatsache ins Auge zu fassen, die diesen Erkenntnissen zugrunde liegt. Wir haben uns vor allen Dingen gewissermaßen geheilt von der trivialen Auffassung, die namentlich manchen Geistig-gesinnt-sein-Wollenden eigen ist, daß alles das, was sie meinen, verachten zu sollen, mit dem Ausdruck «das Stoffliche», «das Sinnliche» belegt wird. Denn wir haben gesehen, daß dem Menschen hier in der physischen Welt gerade in seinen niederen Organen und in seinen niederen Tätigkeiten ein Abglanz gegeben ist von höheren Tätigkeiten und höheren Zusammenhängen. Den Tastsinn, den Lebenssinn, so wie sie jetzt sind, haben wir wohl ansehen müssen als sehr an die physische Erdenwelt gebunden; ebenso den Ichsinn, den Denksinn, den Sprachsinn. Aber dasjenige, was wir in der physischen Erdensphäre finden als die den leiblichen Organismus nur innerlich bedienenden Sinne: Bewegungssinn, Gleichgewichtssinn, Geruchssinn, Geschmackssinn, bis zu einem gewissen Grade auch Sehsinn — diese Sinne gerade haben wir uns bequemen müssen, als Abschattungen von etwas anzusehen, was zu Großem, Bedeutungsvollem wird in der geistigen Welt, wenn wir durch den Tod hindurchgegangen sind. Wir haben betont, daß wir durch den Bewegungssinn in der geistigen Welt uns bewegen zwischen den Wesen der verschiedenen Hierarchien, nach den Anziehungs- und Abstoßungskräften, die sie auf uns ausüben, und die sich in den geistigen Sympathien und Antipathien äußern, die dann nach dem Tode von uns erlebt werden. Der Gleichgewichtssinn erhält uns nicht nur im physischen Gleichgewicht, wie hier den physischen Leib, sondern in moralischem Gleichgewicht gegenüber den Wesen und Einwirkungen, die in der geistigen Welt sind. Und so die anderen Sinne: Geschmackssinn, Geruchssinn, Sehsinn. Und insofern gerade das verborgene Geistige hereinspielt in die physische Welt, können wir uns nicht an die höheren Sinne wenden, um Erklärungen dafür zu haben, sondern wir müssen uns an die sogenannten niederen Sinnesbezirke wenden. Allerdings ist es in der Gegenwart nicht möglich, über manche sehr bedeutsame Dinge nach dieser Richtung zu sprechen, weil ja heute die Vorurteile so groß sind, daß man gerade bedeutsame und in höherem geistigen Sinne interessante Dinge nur auszusprechen braucht, um mißverstanden und in allerlei Richtung angeschuldigt zu werden. Und so muß ich es denn auch vorläufig unterlassen, auf manche interessante Vorgänge der Sinnesgebiete mit wichtigen Tatsachen des Lebens hinzuweisen.

In dieser Beziehung waren ja in alten Zeiten günstigere Verhältnisse. Allerdings gab es auch nicht die Art der Verbreitungsmöglichkeit der Erkenntnisse wie heute. Aristoteles konnte über gewisse Wahrheiten viel unbefangener sprechen, als das heute möglich ist, wo diese Wahrheiten gleich in irgendeinem Sinne persönlich aufgefaßt werden und persönliche Sympathien oder Antipathien erwecken. Sie finden in Aristoteles®’ Werken zum Beispiel Wahrheiten, die den Menschen tief betreffen, und die man heute gar nicht gut entwickeln könnte vor einer großen Versammlung, Wahrheiten, auf die ich in den letzten Betrachtungen hindeutete, indem ich sagte: Die Griechen wußten noch mehr von dem Zusammenhange des Seelisch-Geistigen mit dem PhysischLeiblichen, ohne dadurch in Materialismus zu verfallen. In Aristoteles’ Schriften können Sie zum Beispiel sehr schöne Ausführungen finden, wie äußerlich gestaltet sind die tapferen Menschen, die feigen, die zornmütigen, die schlafsüchtigen Menschen. Da wird in einer gewissen richtigen Weise erzählt, was für Haare, was für eine Gesichtsfarbe, was für eine Art von Runzeln die Mutigen, die Feigen haben, wie die Schlafsüchtigen körperlich gestaltet sind und so weiter. Schon das darzustellen würde heute einigeSchwierigkeiten bereiten, andere Dinge noch mehr. Daher muß man heute, wo die Menschen so persönlich geworden sind und durch das Persönliche in vieler Beziehung über die Wahrheit sich direkt benebeln wollen, sich mehr in Allgemeinheiten verbreiten, wenn man unter gewissen Verhältnissen die Wahrheit darzustellen hat. |

Es ist jede menschliche Art und Betätigung von einer gewissen Richtung her zu verstehen, wenn man in der rechten Art und Weise die nötigen Fragen stellt an das, was wir in den letzten Betrachtungen vor unsere Seele hingestellt haben. Wir haben zum Beispiel gesagt: Die Sinnesbezirke, so wie sie heute im Menschen sind, sind gewissermaßen voneinander getrennte und ruhende Bezirke, wie die Tierkreisbilder draußen im Weltenraume ruhende Bezirke sind, im Gegensatz zu dem, was in den Planeten erscheint, die da kreisen, die da wandeln, die ihren Ort in verhältnismäßig rascher Weise ändern. So sind die Sinnesbezirke gewissermaßen fest abgegrenzt in ihren Regionen, während die Lebensprozesse durch den ganzen Organismus pulsen und die einzelnen Sinnesbezirke durchkreisen, das heißt durchkraften in ihrem Wirken.

Nun haben wir aber auch gesagt, daß während der alten Mondenzeit unsere heutigen Sinnesorgane noch Lebensorgane waren, daß sie noch gewirkt haben als Lebensorgane, und daß unsere heutigen Lebensorgane noch im wesentlichen mehr seelischer Art waren in der alten Mondenzeit. Nun denken Sie an das, was ja öfter betont worden ist: daß es einen Atavismus gibt im menschlichen Leben, eine Art Wiederum-Zurückkehren zu den Gewohnheiten, zu den Eigentümlichkeiten dessen, was früher einmal - in diesem Falle während der Mondenzeit — naturgemäß war; eine Art Zurückfallen. Wir wissen, daß es ein atavistisches Zurückfallen gibt in die Art der traumhaft-imaginativen Anschauungsweise der Mondenzeit. Dieses atavistische Zurückfallen in Mondenvisionen müssen wir heute als krankhaft bezeichnen.

Nun bitte, fassen Sie streng ins Auge: Nicht die Visionen als solche sind krankhaft, denn sonst wäre ja alles, was der Mensch während der Mondenzeit erlebt hat, wo er nur in solchen Visionen lebte, als krankhaft zu bezeichnen, und man wäre genötigt zu sagen, der Mensch hat während der Mondenzeit einen Krankheitsprozeß, noch dazu einen seelischen Krankheitsprozeß durchgemacht, er war verrückt während der alten Mondenzeit. Das wäre natürlich ein vollständiger Unsinn, das kann man nicht sagen. Das Krankhafte liegt nicht in den Visionen als solchen, sondern es liegt darin, daß sie in der gegenwärtigen Erdenorganisation des Menschen so vorhanden sind, daß sie nicht ertragen werden, daß sie so angewendet werden von dieser Erdenorganisation, wie es ihnen als Mondenvisionen nicht angemessen ist. Denken Sie, wenn einer eine Mondenvision hat, so ist diese ja eigentlich nur geeignet, zu einem Gefühle, zu einer Tätigkeit, zu einer Handlung zu führen, wie es dem Monde entsprechend war. Wenn er aber eine Mondenvision hier während der Erdenzeit hat und er macht solche Dinge, wie man sie nur mit einem Erdenorganismus tut, so besteht darin das Krankhafte. Und das tut er nur, weil sein Erdenorganismus die Vision nicht erträgt, wenn sich der Erdenorganismus gewissermaßen imprägniert mit der Vision.

Nehmen Sie den gröbsten Fall: Jemand wird veranlaßt, eine Vision zu haben. Statt nun mit dieser Vision ruhig zu bleiben und sie innerlich anzuschauen, wendet er sie irgendwie, während sie nur auf die geistige Welt anzuwenden ist, auf die physische Welt an und verhält sich danach mit seinem Leib. Das heißt, er fängt an zu toben, weil die Vision seinen Leib durchdringt, durchkraftet, was sie nicht sollte. Da haben Sie den gröbsten Fall. Sie sollte stehenbleiben innerhalb der Region, in der die Vision lebt, und das tut sie nicht, wenn sie heute als atavistische Vision nicht ertragen wird von dem physischen Leib. Wenn der physische Leib zu schwach ist, um aufzukommen gegen die Vision, dann tritt Kraftlosigkeit ein. Wenn der physische Leib stark genug ist, um gegen sie aufzukommen, dann schwächt er die Vision ab. Sie hat dann nicht jenen Charakter, durch den sie einem vorlügt, sie wäre etwas gleich einem Dinge oder Vorgang in der Sinneswelt; denn das lügt ja die Vision demjenigen vor, der dadurch krankhaft wird. Wenn also der physische Organismus so stark ist, daß er die Neigung der atavistischen Vision, zu lügen, bekämpft, dann wird das Folgende eintreten: dann wird der Mensch stark genug sein, sich in einer ähnlichen Weise zur Welt zu verhalten, wie während der alten Mondenzeit, und doch dieses Verhalten dem heutigen Organismus anzupassen.

Was heißt denn das? Das heißt, der Mensch wird seinen Tierkreis mit den zwölf Sinnesbezirken innerlich etwas verändern. Er wird ihn so verändern, daß in diesem Tierkreis mit seinen zwölf Sinnesbezirken mehr Lebensprozesse als Sinnesprozesse sich abspielen, oder besser gesagt, Prozesse sich abspielen, die zwar den Sinnesprozeß anschlagen, aber ihn in dem Sinnesbezirk zum Lebensprozeß umgestalten, also den Sinnesprozeß aus dem Toten, das er heute hat, herausheben und ins Lebendige umsetzen, so daß der Mensch sieht, aber in dem Sehen zugleich drinnen etwas lebt; daß er hört und zugleich in dem Hören drinnen etwas lebt, wie es sonst nur im Magen lebt oder auf der Zunge, so im Auge und so im Ohr. Die Sinnesprozesse werden eben in Bewegung gebracht. Ihr Leben wird angeregt. Das kann ruhig geschehen. Dann wird diesen Sinnesorganen einverleibt etwas von dem, was sonst nur die Lebensorgane heute in demselben Grade haben. Die Lebensorgane haben eine starke innerliche Durchkraftung mit Sympathie - und Antipathie. Denken Sie, wie das ganze Leben abhängt von Sympathie und Antipathie! Das eine wird aufgenommen, das andere abgestoßen. Das, was die Lebensorgane sonst entfalten an sympathischen und antipathischen Kräften, das wird gleichsam den Sinnesorganen wieder eingeflößt. Das Auge sieht nicht nur das Rot, sondern es empfindet Sympathie oder Antipathie mit der Farbe. Das Durchdrungensein mit Leben strömt wieder zu den Sinnesorganen zurück. So daß wir also sagen können: Die Sinnesorgane werden wiederum Lebensbezirke in einer gewissen Weise.

Die Lebensprozesse müssen dann auch verändert werden. Und das geschieht so, daß die Lebensprozesse durchseelter werden als sie für das Erdenleben sind. Es geschieht so, daß die drei Lebensprozesse — Atmung, Wärmung, Ernährung — gewissermaßen zusammengefaßt und beseelt werden, seelischer auftreten. Bei der gewöhnlichen Atmung atmet man die derbe materielle Luft, bei der gewöhnlichen Wärmung die Wärme und so weiter. Nun aber findet eine Art Symbiose statt, das heißt die Lebensprozesse bilden dann eine Einheit, wenn sie durchseelt werden. Sie sind nicht getrennt wie im jetzigen Organismus, sondern sie bilden eine Art Verbindung miteinander, Eine innige Gemeinschaft schließen Atmung, Wärmung, Ernährung im Menschen - nicht die grobe Ernährung, sondern etwas, was Ernährungsprozeß ist; der Prozeß läuft ab, aber man braucht nicht zu essen dabei, aber er läuft auch nicht allein ab wie beim Essen, sondern mit den anderen Prozessen zusammen.

Ebenso werden die vier anderen Lebensprozesse vereinigt. Absonderung, Erhaltung, Wachstum, Reproduktion werden vereinigt und bilden wiederum mehr einen beseelten Prozeß, einen Lebensprozeß, der also mehr seelisch ist. Und dann können sich die zwei Partien selber wieder vereinigen, so daß nicht etwa alle Lebensprozesse zusammenwirken, sondern so zusammenwirken, daß sie sich in drei und vier gliedern, die drei mit den vieren zusammenwirken.

AltName

Dadurch entstehen — ähnlich, aber nicht ebenso, wie es jetzt auf der Erde ist — Seelenkräfte, die den Charakter von Denken, Fühlen und Wollen haben: auch drei. Die sind nun anders; nicht Denken, Fühlen und Wollen so wie auf der Erde, sondern etwas anders. Sie sind mehr Lebensprozesse, nicht solch abgesonderte Lebensprozesse wie die der Erde sind. Der Prozeß ist ein sehr intimer, feiner, der da in dem Menschen stattfindet, wo er dieses gleichsam Zurücksinken in den Mond verträgt, wo es nicht zu Visionen kommt, und dennoch eine ähnliche Art, eine leise ähnliche Art des Auffassens stattfindet, wo die Sinnesbezirke zu Lebensbezirken werden, die Lebensprozesse zu Seelenprozessen. Auch kann der Mensch nicht immer so bleiben, denn er würde dann für die Erde unbrauchbar sein. Der Erde ist er ja angepaßt dadurch, daß seine Sinne und auch seine Lebensorgane so sind, wie wir sie beschrieben haben. Aber in gewissen Fällen kann sich der Mensch doch so gestalten, und wenn er sich so gestaltet, dann tritt bei ihm, wenn die Gestaltung sich mehr auf das Wollen legt, ästhetisches Schaffen ein, wenn sich die Gestaltung mehr auf das Auffassen verlegt, auf das Wahrnehmen, ästhetisches Genießen. Das wirkliche ästhetische Verhalten des Menschen besteht darin, daß die Sinnesorgane in einer gewissen Weise verlebendigt werden, und die Lebensprozesse durchseelt werden. Dies ist eine sehr wichtige Wahrheit über den Menschen, denn sie bringt uns vieles zum Verständnis. Jenes stärkere Leben der Sinnesorgane und andersartige Leben der Sinnesgebiete, als das im gewöhnlichen der Fall ist, müssen wir in der Kunst und im Kunstgenuß suchen. Und ebenso ist es bei den Lebensvorgängen, die im Kunstgenuß durchseelter sind als im gewöhnlichen Leben. Weil man diese Dinge nicht der Wirklichkeit gemäß betrachtet in unserer materialistischen Zeit, kann das Bedeutungsvolle der ganzen Veränderung, die mit dem Menschen vorgeht, wenn er im Künstlerischen drinnensteht, auch nicht voll erfaßt werden. Heute betrachtet man ja den Menschen doch mehr oder weniger als ein grob abgeschlossenes Wesen. Aber innerhalb gewisser Grenzen ist doch der Mensch variabel. Und das zeigt eine solche Variabilität, wie wir sie jetzt eben betrachtet haben.

Wenn Sie so etwas wie das eben Ausgeführte haben, dann liegen darinnen eingeschlossen weite, weite Wahrheiten. Um eine solche Wahrheit nur zu erwähnen: Gerade diejenigen Sinne, welche am meisten für den physischen Plan eingerichtet sind, die müssen die größte Veränderung erfahren, wenn sie so gewissermaßen halb ins Mondendasein zurückgeleitet werden. Der Ichsinn, der Denksinn, der grobe Tastsinn, sie müssen, weil sie ja in ganz robustem Sinne für die physische Welt der Erde geeignet sind, sich ganz ändern, wenn sie derjenigen Konstitution des Menschen dienen sollen, welche diesen Weg halb in die Mondenzeit zurückmacht.

So wie wir im Leben dem Ich gegenüberstehen, wie wir im Leben der Gedankenwelt gegenüberstehen, können wir es zum Beispiel in der Kunst schon nicht brauchen. Höchstens in einigen Nebenkünsten kann ein gleiches Verhältnis zum Ich und zum Denken stattfinden wie in dem gewöhnlichen physischen Erdenleben. Einen Menschen seinem Ich nach unmittelbar, wie er in der Wirklichkeit drinnensteht, schildern, porträtieren, gibt keine Kunst. Der Künstler muß mit dem Ich etwas machen, einen Prozeß machen, wodurch er dieses Ich aus der Spezialisierung heraushebt, in der es heute im Erdenprozesse lebt, er muß ihm eine allgemeinste Bedeutung verleihen, etwas Typisches geben. Das tut der Künstler ganz von selber. Ebenso kann der Künstler nicht die Gedankenwelt unmittelbar so künstlerisch zum Ausdruck bringen, wie man sie für die gewöhnliche Erdenwelt zum Ausdruck bringt; denn sonst wird er keine Dichtung oder überhaupt kein Kunstprodukt hervorbringen, sondern höchstens ein lehrhaftes Produkt, irgend etwas Didaktisches, was niemals ein Künstlerisches im wahren Sinne des Wortes sein kann. Die Veränderungen, die da der Künstler vornimmt mit dem, was da ist, die sind ein gewisses Zurückführen zur Verlebendigung der Sinne in der Richtung, wie ich das hier angeführt habe.

Aber es kommt noch etwas dazu, was wir bedenken müssen, wenn diese Veränderung der Sinne ins Auge gefaßt wird. Die Lebensprozesse greifen ineinander, sagte ich. Wie die Planeten einer den andern bedecken und in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis eine Bedeutung haben, während die Sternbilder ruhig bleiben, so werden die Sinnesbezirke, wenn sie gleichsam ins planetarische Menschenleben übergehen, beweglich, lebendig werden, sie werden zueinander Beziehungen erlangen, und daher kommt es, daß das künstlerische Wahrnehmen niemals so auf besondere Sinnesbezirke geht wie das gewöhnliche irdische Wahrnehmen. Es treten auch die einzelnen Sinne in gewisse Beziehungen zueinander. Nehmen wir irgendeinen Fall, zum Beispiel die Malerei.

Für eine von der wirklichen Geisteswissenschaft ausgehende Betrachtung stellt sich folgendes heraus: Für die gewöhnliche Sinnesbeobachtung hat man es zu tun für das Sehen und für den Wärmesinn, für den Geschmackssinn und für den Geruchssinn mit abgesonderten Sinnesbezirken. Da trennt man diese Bezirke. In der Malerei finder eine merkwürdige Symbiose, ein merkwürdiges Zusammengehen dieser Sinnesbezirke statt, nur nicht in den groben Organen, sondern in der Verbreiterung der Organe, wie ich es angedeutet habe in vorhergehenden Vorträgen.

Der Maler oder der die Malerei Genießende sieht nicht bloß den Inhalt der Farbe an, das Rot oder das Blau oder das Violett, sondern er schmeckt die Farbe in Wirklichkeit, nur nicht mit dem groben Organ, sonst müßte er mit der Zunge dran lecken; das tut er ja nicht. Aber mit alledem, was zusammenhängt mit der Sphäre der Zunge, geht etwas vor, was in feiner Weise ähnlich ist dem Geschmacksprozeß. Also wenn Sie einfach einen grünen Papagei anschauen durch den sinnlichen Auffassungsprozeß, so sehen Sie mit Ihren Augen die Grünheit der Farbe. Wenn Sie aber eine Malerei genießen, so geht ein feiner imaginativer Vorgang vor in dem, was hinter Ihrer Zunge liegt und noch zum Geschmackssinn der Zunge gehört, und nimmt teil an dem Sehprozeß. Es sind ähnlich feine Vorgänge wie sonst, wenn Sie schmekken und die Nahrungsmittel verspeisen. Nicht das, was auf der Zunge vorgeht, sondern was sich erst an die Zunge anschließt, feinere physiologische Prozesse, die gehen zugleich mit dem Sehprozeß vor sich, so daß der Maler die Farbe im tieferen seelischen Sinne wirklich schmeckt. Und die Nuancierung der Farbe, die riecht er, aber nicht mit der Nase, sondern mit dem, was bei jedem Riechen seelischer, tiefer in dem Organismus vorgeht. So finden solche Zusammenlagerungen der Sinnesbezirke statt, indem die Sinnesbezirke mehr in Lebensvorgänge, in Bezirke für Lebensvorgänge übergehen.

Wenn wir eine Beschreibung lesen, durch die wir nur unterrichtet werden sollen, wie etwas aussieht oder was mit etwas geschieht, da lassen wir unseren Sprachsinn wirken, den Wortsinn, durch dessen Vermittelung wir informiert werden über dies oder jenes. Wenn wir ein Gedicht anhören, und hören es ebenso an, wie wir etwas anhören, was uns bloß informieren soll, da verstehen wir das Gedicht nicht. Das Gedicht lebt sich zwar so aus, daß wir es durch den Sprachsinn wahrnehmen, aber wenn bloß der Sprachsinn auf das Gedicht gerichtet ist, da verstehen wir es nicht. Es muß außer dem Sprachsinn auf das Gedicht noch gerichtet sein der durchseelte Gleichgewichtssinn und der durchseelte Bewegungssinn; aber eben durchseelt. Da entstehen also wiederum Zusammenlagerungen, Zusammenwirkungen der Sinnesorgane, indem der ganze Sinnesbereich in den Lebensbereich übergeht. Und begleitet muß das alles werden von beseelten, in Seelisches verwandelten Lebensprozessen, die nur nicht so wirken wie die gewöhnlichen Lebensprozesse der physischen Welt.

Wenn einer beim Anhören eines Musikstückes den vierten Lebensprozeß so weit bringt, daß er schwitzt, so geht das zu weit; das gehört nicht mehr zum Ästhetischen, da ist die Absonderung bis zur physischen Absonderung getrieben. Aber erstens soll es nicht zur physischen Absonderung kommen, sondern der Prozeß als seelischer Prozeß verlaufen, aber genau derselbe Prozeß soll verlaufen, der der physischen Absonderung zugrunde liegt, und zweitens soll die Absonderung nicht für sich auftreten, sondern die vier zusammen - aber alle seelisch -: Absonderung, Wachstum, Erhaltung und Reproduktion. Also die Lebensprozesse werden seelischere Prozesse.

Auf der einen Seite wird die Geisteswissenschaft der Erdenentwikkelung die Hinlenkung zur geistigen Welt zu bringen haben, ohne die, wie wir aus Verschiedenem gesehen haben, die Menschheit in der Zukunft verderben wird. Aber auf der anderen Seite muß durch die Geisteswissenschaft auch wieder die Fähigkeit gebracht werden, das Physische mit dem Geistigen zu erfassen, es zu begreifen. Denn es hat ja der Materialismus nicht nur das gebracht, daß man zum Geistigen nicht recht hin kann, sondern er hat auch das gebracht, daß man das Physische nicht mehr verstehen kann. Denn in allem Physischen lebt der Geist, und wenn man vom Geist nichts weiß, kann man das Physische nicht verstehen. Denken Sie, diejenigen, die vom Geist nichts wissen, was wissen die davon, daß die ganzen Sinnesbezirke sich so verwandeln können, daß sie Lebensbezirke werden, daß die Lebensprozesse so sich verwandeln können, daß sie als seelische Prozesse auftreten? Was wissen die heutigen Physiologen von diesen feineren Vorgängen im Menschen? Der Materialismus hat allmählich dazu geführt, daß man von allem Konkreten abgekommen ist und zu Abstraktionen gekommen ist, und diese Abstraktionen, die läßt man nach und nach auch fallen. Im Anfang des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts sprach man noch von Vital- oder Lebenskraft. Natürlich kann man mit einem solchen Abstraktum nichts anfangen, denn erst dann begreift man die Sache, wenn man ins Konkrete hineingeht. Wenn man die sieben Lebensprozesse voll erfaßt, dann hat man die Wirklichkeit, und darum handelt es sich, daß man wieder das Wirkliche bekommt. Mit der Erneuerung von allerlei Abstraktionen wie «Elan vital» oder ähnlichen greulichen Abstraktionen, die nichts besagen, sondern nur Eingeständnisse des Unvermögens, zu erkennen, sind, wird man die Menschheit, trotzdem man vielleicht das Gegenteil will, nur immer mehr in den plumpesten Materialismus, weil sogar in einen mystischen Materialismus, hineinführen. Um das wirkliche Erkennen handelt es sich bei der nächsten Zukunftsentwickelung der Menschheit, um das Erkennen der Tatsachen, die sich nur aus der geistigen Welt heraus ergeben. Und vorrücken müssen wir wirklich in bezug auf die geistige Erfassung der Welt.

Da muß man zunächst auch wiederum zurückdenken an den guten Aristoteles, der der alten Anschauung noch nähergestanden hat als die heutigen Menschen. Nur an eines will ich Sie erinnern bei diesem alten Aristoteles, an eine eigentümliche Tatsache. Es ist eine ganze Bibliothek geschrieben worden über die Katharsis, durch die er darstellen wollte, was der Tragödie zugrunde liegt. Aristoteles sagt: Die Tragödie ist eine zusammenhängende Darstellung von Vorgängen des menschlichen Lebens, durch deren Verlauf die Affekte Furcht und Mitleid erregt werden; aber indem sie erregt werden, wird die Seele zu gleicher Zeit durch die Art des Ablaufes von Furcht und Mitleid zur Läuterung, zur Katharsis von diesen Affekten geführt. — Es ist viel darüber im Zeitalter des Materialismus geschrieben worden, weil man gar nicht das Organ hatte, Aristoteles zu verstehen. Erst diejenigen haben recht, die eingesehen haben, daß Aristoteles eigentlich in seiner Art — nicht im Sinne der heutigen Materialisten — einen medizinischen, halb medizinischen Ausdruck mit der Katharsis meint. Weil die Lebensprozesse seelische Prozesse werden, bedeuten für das ästhetische Empfangen der Eindrücke von der Tragödie die Vorgänge der Tragödie wirklich eine bis ins Leibliche hineingehende Erregung der Prozesse, die sonst als Lebensvorgänge Furcht und Mitleid begleiten. Und geläutert, das heißt zu gleicher Zeit durchseelt werden diese Lebensaffekte durch die Tragödie. Das ganze Seelische des Lebensprozesses liegt in dieser Definition des Aristoteles darinnen. Und wenn Sie mehr lesen in der «Poetik» des Aristoteles, dann werden Sie sehen, daß da - jetzt nicht aus unserer modernen Erkenntnisart heraus, sondern aus der alten Mysterientradition heraus — etwas wie ein Hauch von diesem tiefergehenden Verständnis des ästhetischen Menschen lebt. Beim Lesen der «Poetik» des Aristoteles wird man noch viel mehr ergriffen vom unmittelbaren Leben, als man heute ergriffen werden kann, wenn man irgendeine ästhetische Abhandlung der gewöhnlichen Asthetiker liest, die nur so an den Dingen herumschnüffeln und herumdialektisieren, aber nicht an die Dinge herankommen.

Dann ist wiederum ein bedeutender Höhepunkt in der Erfassung des ästhetischen Menschen bei Schiller in seinen «Briefen über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen». Es war damals eine mehr abstrakte Zeit. Das Geistig-Konkrete, das Spirituelle haben wir erst jetzt zu dem Idealistischen hinzuzufügen. Aber wenn wir auf dieses mehr Abstrakte der Goethe-Schiller-Zeit sehen, so sehen wir doch in den Abstraktionen, die sich in Schillers ästhetischen Briefen finden, etwas von dem, was hier gesagt worden ist, nur daß hier der Prozeß scheinbar mehr ins Materielle hinuntergetragen wird; aber nur, weil dieses Materielle noch mehr durch die Kraft des intensiv erfaßten Geistigen durchdrungen werden soll. Was sagt Schiller? Er sagt: Der Mensch, wie er hier lebt auf der Erde, hat zwei Grundtriebe, den Vernunfttrieb und den Naturtrieb. Der Vernunfttrieb wirkt durch Naturnotwendigkeit logisch. Man ist gezwungen, in einer gewissen Weise zu denken, man hat keine Freiheit zu denken; denn was hilft es einem, auf diesem Gebiete der Vernunftnotwendigkeit von Freiheit zu sprechen, wenn man doch gezwungen ist, nicht zu denken, daß drei mal drei zehn, sondern neun ist. Die Logik bedeutet eine strenge Vernunftnotwendigkeit. So daß Schiller sagt: Wenn der Mensch sich der reinen Vernunftnotwendigkeit fügt, dann steht er unter einem geistigen Zwang.

Der Vernunftnotwendigkeit stellt Schiller die sinnliche Notdurft entgegen, die in alledem, was in den Trieben, in den Emotionen ist, lebt. Da folgt der Mensch auch nicht seiner Freiheit, sondern der Naturnotwendigkeit. Nun sucht Schiller den mittleren Zustand zwischen der Vernunftnotwendigkeit und der Naturnotwendigkeit. Und diesen mittleren Zustand findet er darin, daß die Vernunftnotwendigkeit sich gewissermaßen herabneigt zu dem, was man liebt und nicht liebt, daß man nicht mehr einer starren logischen Notwendigkeit folgt, wenn man denkt, sondern dem inneren Triebe, die Vorstellungen zu fügen oder nicht zu fügen, wie es beim ästhetischen Gestalten der Fall ist. Aber dann geht auch die Naturnotwendigkeit herauf. Dann ist es nicht mehr die sinnliche Notdurft, der man wie unter einem Zwang folgt, sondern es wird die Notdurft verseeligt, vergeistigt. Der Mensch will nicht mehr bloß dasjenige, was sein Leib will,sondern es wird der sinnliche Genuß vergeistigt. Und so nähern sich Vernunftnotwendigkeit und Naturnotwendigkeit.

Sie müssen das natürlich in Schillers ästhetischen Briefen, die zu den bedeutendsten philosophischen Erzeugnissen in der Weltentwickelung gehören, selber nachlesen. In dem, was da Schiller auseinandersetzt, lebt schon das, was wir hier eben gehört haben, nur in metaphysischer Abstraktion. Was Schiller das Befreien der Vernunftnotwendigkeit von der Starrheit nennt, das lebt in dem Lebendigwerden der Sinnesbezirke, die wiederum bis zum Lebensvorgang zurückgeführt werden. Und das, was Schiller die Vergeistigung — besser sollte er sagen «Verseeligung» — der Naturnotdurft nennt, das lebt hier, indem die Lebensprozesse wie Seelenprozesse wirken. Die Lebensprozesse werden seelischer, die Sinnesprozesse werden lebendiger. Das ist der wahre Vorgang, der —- nur mehr in abstrakte Begriffe, in Begriffsgespinste gebracht - sich in Schillers ästhetischen Briefen findet, wie es eben in der damaligen Zeit noch sein mußte, wo man noch nicht spirituell stark genug war mit den Gedanken, um bis in das Gebiet hinunterzukommen, wo der Geist so lebt, wie es der Seher will: daß nicht gegenübergestellt wird Geist und Stoff, sondern erkannt wird, wie der Geist überall den Stoff durchzieht, daß man gar nirgends auf geistlose Stoffe stoßen kann. Die bloße Gedankenbetrachtung ist nur deshalb bloße Gedankenbetrachtung, weil der Mensch nicht imstande ist, seine Gedanken so stark, das heißt so dicht spirituell, so geistig zu machen, daß der Gedanke den Stoff bewältigt, also hineindringt in den wirklichen Stoff. Schiller ist noch nicht imstande, einzusehen, daß die Lebensprozesse wirklich als Seelenprozesse wirken können. Er ist noch nicht imstande, so weit zu gehen, daß er sieht, wie das, was im Materiellen als Ernährung, Wärmung, Atmung wirkt, sich gestalten, wie das seelisch sprühen und leben kann, und aufhört, das Materielle zu sein; so daß die materiellen Teilchen zerstieben unter der Macht des Begriffes, mit dem man die materiellen Prozesse erfaßt. Und ebensowenig ist Schiller schon imstande, so zum Logischen hinaufzuschauen, daß er es wirklich nicht bloß in begrifflicher Dialektik in sich wirken läßt, sondern daß er in jener Entwickelung, welche erreicht werden kann durch Initiation, das Geistige als den eigenen Prozeß erlebt, so daß es wirklich lebend hineinkommt in das, was sonst bloß Erkenntnis ist. Was in Schillers ästhetischen Briefen lebt, ist deshalb ein «Ich trau mich nicht recht heran an das Konkrete». Aber es pulsiert schon darinnen, was man genauer erfaßt, wenn man das Lebendige durch das Geistige und das Stoffliche durch das Lebendige zu erfassen versucht.

So sehen wir in allen Gebieten, wie die ganze Entwickelung hindrängt zu dem, was Geisteswissenschaft will. Als an der Wende des achtzehnten zum neunzehnten Jahrhundert eine mehr oder weniger begrifflich gestaltete Philosophie auftauchte, da lebten in dieser Philosophie die Sehnsuchten nach stärkerer Konkretheit, die aber noch nicht erreicht werden konnte. Und weil die Kraft zunächst ausging, verfiel man mit dem Streben, mit der Sehnsucht nach stärkerer Konkretheit, in den groben Materialismus in der Mitte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, in der zweiten Hälfte bis heute. Aber erfaßt werden muß dieses, daß der Spiritualismus nicht bloß darin bestehen kann, zum Geistigen hinzulenken, sondern das Stoffliche zu überwinden und den Geist im Stoffe zu erkennen. Das geschieht durch solche Erkenntnisse. Sie sehen daraus ganz andere Folgen. Sie sehen daraus, der ästhetische Mensch steht so in der Erdenentwickelung drinnen, daß er sich über diese Erdenentwickelung in einer gewissen Weise erhebt in eine andere Welt hinein. Und das ist wichtig. Der ästhetisch gesinnte oder ästhetisch handelnde Mensch tut nicht, was der Erde völlig angepaßt ist, sondern er erhebt in einer gewissen Weise seine Sphäre aus der Erdensphäre heraus. Und damit dringen wir mit dem Ästhetischen an manches tiefe Geheimnis des Daseins.

Wenn man so etwas sagt, so wird es eigentlich etwas, was auf der einen Seite an die höchsten Wahrheiten rührt, nach der anderen Seite fast blödsinnig, verrückt, verdreht klingen kann. Aber man versteht das Leben nicht, wenn man sich feige zurückzieht vor den wirklichen Wahrheiten. Nehmen Sie irgendein Kunstwerk, die Sixtinische Madonna, die Venus von Milo — wenn es wirklich ein Kunstwerk ist, ganz von der Erde ist es nicht. Es ist herausgehoben aus den Geschehnissen der Erde; das ist ja ganz selbstverständlich. Ja, was lebt denn darinnen für eine Kraft? Was lebt in einer Sixtinischen Madonna, in einer Venus von Milo? Eine Kraft, die auch im Menschen ist, die nur nicht ganz der Erde angepaßt ist. Würde im Menschen alles nur der Erde angepaßt sein, so würde er auf keinem anderen Plane auch leben können. Er würde niemals zum Jupiter hinüberkommen, wenn im Menschen alles der Erde angepaßt wäre. Es ist nicht alles der Erde angepaßt, und für den okkult Blickenden stimmt im Menschen nicht alles zu dem, was Erdenmensch ist. Das sind geheimnisvolle Kräfte, die gerade einstmals dem Menschen den Schwung hinaus aus dem Erdendasein geben werden. Aber auch die Kunst als solche kann nur verstanden werden, wenn man sie in ihrer Aufgabe, über das bloß Irdische, über die bloße Erdenanpassung hinauszuweisen, erfaßt, wo das wirklich ist, was in der Venus von Milo ist.

Man kommt einer wirklichen Weltauffassung nicht nahe, wenn man nicht etwas ins Auge faßt, was ganz notwendig ins Auge gefaßt werden muß, je mehr der Mensch der Zukunft und ihren geistigen Anforderungen entgegengeht. Heute lebt man noch vielfach unter dem Vorurteile: Wenn irgend jemand etwas sagt, was logisch ist und logisch bewiesen werden kann, dann hat es auch die notwendige Bedeutung für das Leben. Aber Logizität, Logizismus allein genügen nicht. Und weil die Menschen immer zufrieden sind, wenn sie etwas irgendwie logisch beweisen können, so behaupten sie auch alle möglichen Weltanschauungen und philosophischen Systeme, die selbstverständlich logisch zu beweisen sind; kein Mensch, der mit Logik bekannt ist, zweifelt, daß sie logisch zu beweisen sind. Aber es ist nichts getan für das Leben mit den bloßen logischen Beweisen, sondern was gedacht wird, was innerlich ersonnen wird, muß nicht nur logisch erdacht, ersonnen sein, sondern wirklichkeitsgemäß. Was bloß logisch ist, gilt nicht; das Wirklichkeitsgemäße nur gilt. Ich werde es Ihnen nur an einem Beispiele klarmachen. Nehmen Sie an, ein Baumstamm liegt hier vor Ihnen, und Sie beschreiben den Baumstamm. Sie können etwas ganz ordentlich beschreiben und Sie können Jedem beweisen, daß da ein Wirkliches liegt, weil Sie der äußeren Wirklichkeit gemäß beschrieben haben. Sie haben aber doch eigentlich nur eine Lüge beschrieben. Denn das, was Sie da beschreiben, hat kein Dasein, weil es so nicht wirklich sein kann als Baumstamm, der da liegt; sondern von dem Baumstamm hat man die Wurzeln abgeschnitten, hat man die Äste, die Zweige abgeschnitten, und das Stück, das da liegt, das tritt nur ins Dasein so, daß Äste und Blüten und Wurzeln mit ins Dasein treten, und es ist Unsinn, den Stamm als ein Wirkliches zu denken. So wie er sich zeigt, ist er kein Wirkliches. Man muß ihn mit seinen Trieben, mit dem, was er innerlich enthält, damit er entstehen kann, zusammennehmen. Man muß überzeugt sein davon, daß das, was da vor einem liegt als Stamm, eine Lüge ist, weil man nur, wenn man einen Baum ansieht, eine Wahrheit vor sich hat. Logisch ist es nicht gefordert, daß man einen Baumstamm für eine Lüge ansieht, aber wirklichkeitsgemäß ist es gefordert, daß man einen Baumstamm für eine Lüge ansieht und nur einen ganzen Baum für eine Wahrheit. Ein Kristall ist eine Wahrheit, der kann bestehen für sich in einer gewissen Beziehung, allerdings immer nur in einer gewissen Beziehung, denn relativ ist wieder das alles. Aber eine Rosenknospe ist keine Wahrheit. Ein Kristall ist eine Wahrheit; aber eine Rosenknospe ist eine Lüge, wenn man sie nur als eine Rosenknospe ansieht.

Sehen Sie, weil man diese Begriffe des Wirklichkeitsgemäßen nicht hat, entstehen allerlei solche Dinge, wie sie heute entstehen. Kristallographie, auch noch zur Not Mineralogie sind wirklichkeitsgemäße Wissenschaften; Geologie nicht mehr, denn das, was der Geologe beschreibt, ist ebenso eine Abstraktion, wie der Baumstamm eine Abstraktion ist. Wenn er auch daliegt, so ist er doch eine Abstraktion, keine Wirklichkeit. Was geologisch die Erdkruste enthält, das enthält mit dasjenige, was aus ihr herauswächst und ist ohne das nicht denkbar. Und darauf kommt es an, daß Philosophen auftreten, die sich nicht gestatten, Abstraktionen anders zu denken, als indem sie sich der abstrahierenden Kraft bewußt sind, das heißt, indem sie wissen, sie machen bloß Abstraktionen. Wirklichkeitsgemäß denken, nicht bloß logisch denken, das ist etwas, was immer mehr und mehr kommen muß. Unter diesem wirklichkeitsgemäßen Denken aber ändert sich unsere gesamte Weltentwickelung. Denn was ist denn vom Standpunkte eines wirklichkeitsgemäßen Denkens die Venus von Milo, die Sixtinische Madonna oder anderes? Vom Erdenstandpunkte aus aufgefaßt eine Lüge, keine Wahrheit. Nimmt man sie so, wie sie sind, steht man nicht in der Wahrheit. Man muß entrückt werden. Nur der betrachtet ein wirkliches Kunstwerk richtig, der aus der Erdensphäre entrückt wird, weggenommen wird, der wirklich vor der Venus von Milo so steht, daß er anders seelisch konstituiert ist, als er den irdischen Dingen gegenüber konstituiert ist; denn dadurch wird er gerade durch das, was nicht hier wirklich ist, hineingestoßen in das Gebiet, wo es wirklich ist, in das Gebiet der elementarischen Welt, wo das wirklich ist, was in der Venus von Milo ist. Gerade dadurch steht man wirklichkeitsgemäß der Venus von Milo gegenüber, daß sie die Kraft besitzt, einen herauszureißen aus dem bloßen sinnlichen Anschauen.

Ich will nicht Teleologie treiben in schlechtem Sinne, das sei weit entfernt. Daher soll auch nichts gesagt werden über den Zweck der Kunst, denn das wäre außerdem Pedanterie, Philistrosität. Nicht über den Zweck der Kunst soll gesprochen werden. Aber was aus der Kunst wird, wodurch sie dasteht im Leben, das kann man sich beantworten. Es ist heute nicht mehr Zeit, das ganz zu beantworten, ich will nur mit ein paar Worten vorläufig darauf hindeuten. Man kann manches beantworten, wenn man sich die Gegenfrage stellt: Was würde denn geschehen, wenn nun gar keine Kunst in der Welt wäre? — Da würden alle die Kräfte, die sonst in die Kunst und in den Kunstgenuß hineingehen, verwendet werden, um unwirklichkeitsgemäß zu leben. Streichen Sie die Kunst aus der Menschheitsentwickelung, so haben Sie in der Menschheitsentwickelung ebensoviel Lüge, wie sonst Kunstentwikkelung da ist! Da haben Sie schon an der Kunst jenes eigentümliche gefährliche Verhältnis, das dort liegt, wo die Schwelle zur geistigen Welt vorhanden ist. Hinüberhören, wo immer die Dinge zwei Seiten haben! Wenn einer einen wirklichkeitsgemäßen Sinn hat, dann kommt er durch das Leben in ästhetischer Auffassung zu einer höheren Wahrheit. Wenn einer nicht wirklichkeitsgemäßen Sinn hat, so kann er gerade durch die ästhetische Auffassung der Welt in die Verlogenheit kommen. Die Dinge haben immer eine Gabelung; das ist sehr wichtig, diese Gabelung ins Auge zu fassen. Denn nicht nur dem Okkultismus gegenüber ist das der Fall, sondern schon sogar der Kunst gegenüber ist das der Fall. Wirklichkeitsgemäßes Auffassen der Welt, das wird als eine Begleiterscheinung eintreten des spirituellen Lebens, das die Geisteswissenschaft bringen soll. Denn der Materialismus hat gerade das unwirklichkeitsgemäße Auffassen gebracht.

So scheinbar widersprechend das auch erscheint, widerspruchsvoll ist es bloß für diejenigen, welche die Welt nach dem beurteilen, was sie sich eben einbilden, und nicht nach dem, was wirklich ist. Wir leben wirklich in einer Entwickelung drinnen, die sich gerade durch den Materialismus von der Fähigkeit immer mehr und mehr entfernt, auch nur das zu erfassen, was eine gewöhnliche sinnliche Tatsache ist, eine Tatsache der physischen Welt. In dieser Beziehung sind sogar interessante Experimente angestellt worden, die ganz aus der materialistischen Denkweise hervorgehen. Aber so wie vieles, was aus der materialistischen Denkweise hervorgeht, zugute kommt gerade den Fähigkeiten des Menschen, die man braucht für eine spirituelle Weltanschauung, so ist es auch auf diesem Gebiete. Folgendes Experiment hat man gemacht. Man hat eine ganz bestimmte Szene verabredet: Jemand sollte einen Vortrag halten — ich wähle ein Beispiel, es sind viele solche Experimente gemacht worden -, während des Vortrags sollte er etwas sagen, was jemanden, der im Auditorium sitzt, beleidigt, verletzt. Das ist verabredet gewesen. Jedes Wort des Vortrages wurde ganz wörtlich so gehalten, wie es verabredet war. Der, gegen den die Beleidigung gerichtet war, der im Auditorium saß, mußte aufspringen, ein Gebalge mußte sich entwickeln; während dessen sollte derjenige, der aufsprang, in die Tasche greifen, einen Revolver herausziehen, und so sollte sich die Sache entwickeln; es wurden verschiedene Einzelheiten genau besprochen, wie sie ablaufen sollten. Also denken Sie sich, eine vollständig programmatische Szene sollte sich abspielen mit vielen Einzelheiten. Dabei waren dreißig Zuhörer geladen, und nicht gewöhnliche Zuhörer, sondern Studenten der Jurisprudenz älteren Semesters, und Juristen, die schon über die Studentenzeit hinaus waren. Die Balgerei hatte sich abgespielt, und es sollte nun von den Dreißigen beschrieben werden, was geschehen ist. Ein Protokoll wurde in der entsprechenden Weise aufgenommen von solchen, die eingeweiht waren in den ganzen Prozeß, das bezeugt, daß die Sache wirklich genau programmatisch sich abgespielt hat; die dreißig wurden befragt, die alle dreißig das gesehen hatten und alle dreißig keine Esel waren, sondern studierte Leute, die später ins Leben hinausgehen sollten und untersuchen sollten draußen im Leben, wie sich eben Balgereien und manches andere tatsächlich abspielen. Von den dreißig haben sechsundzwanzig sämtlich falsch das erzählt, was sie gesehen haben, und nur vier notdürftig richtig — nur vier notdürftig richtig! Seit Jahren werden solche Versuche angestellt, um zu zeigen, was Zeugenaussagen in bezug auf die Wahrheit vor Gericht für ein Gewicht haben können. Die sechsundzwanzig haben ja alle dagesessen, sie konnten alle sagen: Ich hab es mit Augen gesehen. — Man bedenkt nicht, was notwendig ist, um eine Tatsache richtig darzustellen, die sich vor den Augen abspielt!

Die Kunst muß bedacht werden, über dasjenige, was sich vor den Augen abspielt, eine richtige Ansicht zu bekommen. Denn wer die Gewissenhaftigkeit nicht hat gegenüber dem, was eine sinnliche Tatsache ist, der kann niemals zu jener verantwortungsvollen Gewissenhaftigkeit kommen, die notwendig ist, um geistige Tatsachen ins Auge zu fassen. Nun, sehen Sie sich unter dem Eindrucke des Materialismus unsere heutige Welt an, ob viel Bewußtsein, viel Empfindung vorhanden ist dafür, daß von dreißig Menschen, die mit ihren Augen die sogenannte Tatsache gesehen haben, sechsundzwanzig etwas ganz Irrtümliches aussagen können, und nur vier die Sache notdürftig richtig wiedergeben können. Wenn Sie so etwas ins Auge fassen, dann werden Sie doch fühlen, wie unendlich bedeutsam das ist, was geleistet werden muß für das gewöhnliche Leben durch eine spirituelle Weltauffassung.

Sie können nun fragen: Waren denn die Dinge früher anders? - Man hatte früher nicht die Art des Denkens, die man heute hat. Der Grieche hatte noch nicht diese abstrakte Art des Denkens, die wir heute haben und haben müssen, damit wir uns nach der heutigen Art in der Welt zurechtfinden. Aber nicht auf die Art des Denkens kommt es an, sondern auf die Wahrheit kommt es an. Aristoteles hat versucht, in seiner Art, die ästhetische Gemütsverfassung, Lebensverfassung des Menschen noch in viel konkreteren Begriffen zu denken. Aber in einer noch viel konkreteren, in imaginativ hellseherischer Art war diese Konstitution erfaßt im uralten Griechentum in denjenigen Imaginationen, die noch aus den Mysterien heraus waren, als man an Stelle des Begriffes das Bild hatte, und als man sagte: Einst lebte Uranos. In dem sah man alles dasjenige, was der Mensch aufnimmt durch sein Haupt, durch die Kräfte, die als Sinnesgebiete auch jetzt hinauswirken in die äußere Welt. Uranos — alle zwölf Sinne - wurde verletzt, und die Blutstropfen fielen in Maja, in das Meer, und der Schaum spritzte auf. Was hier die Sinne, indem sie lebendiger werden, hinuntersenden in das Meer der Lebensprozesse, und was da aufschäumt von dem, was als das Blut der Sinne hinunterpulsiert in die Lebensprozesse, welche Seelenprozesse geworden sind, das ist zu vergleichen mit dem, was die griechische Imagination aufschäumen ließ dadurch, daß die Blutstropfen des verletzten Uranos hinuntertropften in das Meer und aus dem Schaum sich bildete Aphrodite, Aphrogenea, die Schönheitsgöttin. In dem Aphrodite-Mythos älterer Art, wo Aphrodite eine Tochter des Uranos und des Meeres ist, indem sie aus dem Schaum des Meeres entsteht, der geboren wird durch die Blutstropfen des Uranos, haben Sie einen imaginativen Ausdruck für den ästhetischen Zustand des Menschen, ja sogar den bedeutsamsten imaginativen Ausdruck und einen der bedeutsamsten Gedanken der geistigen Menschheitsentwickelung überhaupt. Es mußte sich nur noch ein anderer Gedanke anschließen an den großen Gedanken von Aphrodite im älteren Mythos, wo Aphrodite nicht das Kind des Zeus und der Dione ist, sondern des Uranos, der Blutstropfen des Uranos und des Meeres — es mußte sich nur eine andere Imagination, die noch tiefer sich eingräbt in die Wirklichkeit, nicht bloß in die elementarische, sondern in die physische Wirklichkeit, eine Imagination, die zu gleicher Zeit physisch-sinnlich aufgefaßt wurde, in späteren Zeiten anschließen. Das ist: es mußte sich an die Seite stellen dem Mythos von der Aphrodite, von dem Ursprung der Schönheit in der Menschheit, die große Wahrheit über das Hereinwirken des Urguten in der Menschheit, indem der Geist herunterträufelte in Maja-Maria, so wie die Blutstropfen des Uranos herunterträufelten in das Meer, das ja auch Maja ist, wo dann zunächst im Schein, im schönen Schein geboren wird dasjenige, was die Morgenröte sein soll für die unendliche Herrschaft des Guten und für die Erkenntnis des Guten und des Gut-Wahren, des Geistigen. Dies ist eine Wahrheit, die Schiller meinte, als er die Worte hinschrieb:

Nur durch das Morgenrot des Schönen
Drangst du in der Erkenntnis Land

womit er hauptsächlich die moralische Erkenntnis meinte.

Sie sehen, wie viele Aufgaben, die nicht bloß theoretische Aufgaben sind, die Lebensaufgaben sind, der Geisteswissenschaft zuwachsen. Kein Wunder, daß die Geisteswissenschaft heute noch vielfach mißverstanden wird von denjenigen, welche die Wahrheit nicht wollen. Das muß schon als eine Begleiterscheinung hingenommen werden.

Eine eigentümliche Stellung der Wahrheit gegenüber hat sich insbesondere in unserer materialistischen Zeit vieler Menschen bemächtigt. Und wenn ich Ihnen einmal von Briefen erzählen mußte, so könnte ich die Sammlung heute schon wiederum um einiges vermehren aus jenem Bezirke heraus, wo man die Gegnerschaft gegenüber der Wahrheit entwickelt. Ich will gar nicht den großen Unsinn anführen, der mir gestern wiederum in einem Briefe geschrieben worden ist. Ja, meine lieben Freunde, das ist dasjenige, worüber wir nicht nur ein wenig nachdenken, sondern was wir nachempfinden sollen: daß es doch nicht so ganz einfach ist, daß die Notwendigkeit in unserer Zeit vorliegt, Geisteswissenschaft unter die Menschheit zu bringen so, wie es der heutigen Zeit gemäß ist, und daß man dabei immer der Gefahr ausgesetzt ist, zu einer Anzahl von Menschen - einer wahrhaftig nicht kleinen Anzahl - diejenigen Wahrheiten auszusprechen, die an das Heiligste und Höchste, aber auch das Tiefste und Seelischste und Herzlichste rühren. Man muß diese Wahrheiten aussprechen, trotzdem damit Gefahren verbunden sind. Denken Sie an vergangene Zeiten, wo in dem Auditorium nicht wenige saßen, die später völlige Feinde wurden und die Wahrheit fälschten gegenüber dem, was man sagt! Das ist immerhin etwas, was man durchempfinden sollte, wenn die Gesellschaft als solche überhaupt noch im Ernste aufgefaßt werden will: daß man genötigt ist, zu soundso vielen zu sprechen, die angeblich ebenso zuhören als Freunde, so wie Sie heute zuhören; denn manche haben in der Vergangenheit so zugehört, die später alles Wahre fälschten und sogar dasjenige benützten, was sie hier aufgenommen haben, um die Wahrheit zu verfolgen, um als Feinde dazustehen. Wenn man immer darauf rechnen muß - selbst oftmals mit offenem Auge -, daß der, der die Dinge sich anhört, in der Zukunft sich so, wie sich manche gewandt haben, wenden könnte, dann bekommt gerade das Wirken innerhalb der Geisteswissenschaft heute eben seine Färbung für die Seelenerkenntnisse.

Nehmen wir solche Dinge nicht allzu leicht. Versuchen wir ein wenig, uns zu vergegenwärtigen den Gang der Wahrheit durch die Weltenordnung, durch die Menschenentwickelung, und alles, was mit diesem Gang der Wahrheit zusammenhängt! — Ich will heute darüber nicht mehr sagen. Aber wir haben ja heute ein Gebiet berührt, das wir nur aus dem Bereich des Lebens heraus beleuchten konnten, das eng, eng sich an dasjenige anschließt, was die Erfassung der geistigen Welt unmittelbar mit dem Leben zusammenbringt. Und bei solchen Gelegenheiten müssen schon immer auch die Erlebnisse, die heute mit dem Vertreten der Wahrheit gemacht werden, berührt werden. Und ich hoffe, daß es doch noch einige gibt, die wissen, weshalb ich zuweilen Bitteres zu sagen habe über die Art, wie man sich zur Wahrheit verhält, und daß das doch nicht ganz wahr ist, wenn man mir die Schuld daran gibt. Denn obwohl es unter anderen Umständen vielleicht sogar albern genannt werden könnte: Die Unlogik, die heute — nicht im Dienste der Wahrheit, aber im Dienste der Lüge — vielfach beliebt wird, die charakterisiert sich vielleicht durch folgende Anekdote, die ich zum Schluß erzählen will:

Einstmals hatte ein Mensch einem anderen ein kleines Besitztum weggenommen, und nachdem er es weggenommen hatte, da hatte es derjenige, der es früher besessen hatte, nicht mehr in derselben Weise. Er mußte sich das, was er sich vorher erarbeitet hatte, erst wiederum neu erarbeiten. Es wurde eine Gerichtsverhandlung gehalten. Derjenige, dem die Dinge weggenommen worden waren, war da, und derjenige, der sie weggenommen hatte, war auch da. Beide hatten ihre Advokaten. Advokaten sind ja nicht dazu da, um immer die unbedingte, absolute Wahrheit zu vertreten, sondern um das zu sagen, was zugunsten desjenigen ist, den sie zu vertreten haben. Da hat denn zunächst der klägerische Advokat gesprochen, der zu vertreten hatte denjenigen, dem etwas genommen worden war. Es hat zunächst dem Gericht sogar etwas eingeleuchtet. Dann aber hat der Advokat desjenigen gesprochen, der genommen hat, und hat gesagt: Ihr habt gehört, meine Herren Richter, mein Klient hat sich dazu bekannt, das alles getan zu haben, was er getan hat. Sie haben meinen Klienten gefragt: Finden Sie sich schuldig oder nicht schuldig, genommen zu haben? Da sagte mein Klient: Genommen habe ich alles, aber schuldig fühle ich mich nicht. Und mein Klient hat vollständig recht. Das will er zugeben: Genommen hat er alles; aber schuldig braucht er sich nicht zu fühlen, schuldig können Sie ihn, meine Herren Richter, nicht finden. Denn wenn Sie eine Schuld konstatieren wollen, so müssen Sie überall zurückgehen an den Ursprung. Meine Herren Richter, bedenken Sie, dieser Mann ist zum Dieb geworden. Niemals wäre er zum Dieb geworden, wenn der Mann, dem er die Dinge weggenommen hatte, sie nicht gehabt hätte! Der Eigentümer hat sich vergangen! Denn hätte dieser Mann die Dinge nicht gehabt, niemals hätte jener zum Dieb werden können! Er ist der eigentlich Schuldige! Daß dieser sehen mußte an jenem, daß er das hat, das hat ihn zum Nehmen verführt. — Und so beredt hat der Advokat gesprochen, daß der Gerichtshof gesagt hat: Ja, bis jetzt hat man immer zwar geglaubt, daß der Dieb der Schuldige ist; aber alle haben sich geirrt, wenn man meint, daß derjenige schuldig ist, der die Dinge genommen hat, denn wenn man auf die eigentliche Ursache zurückgeht, so ist der der Schuldige, der die Dinge gehabt hat, dem sie angehörten.

Es ist dies eine ganz unsinnige Sache, die ich Ihnen erzähle, und jeder sieht es ein. Aber wenn diese Logik im Leben angewendet wird heute, wenn dasjenige, was als Geisteswissenschaft in die Welt gebracht wird, seine Wirkungen tut, und man Wirkungen tut dadurch, daß die Tatsachen entstellt werden, und man vorgibt, daß dies doch geschieht dadurch, daß man in der Geisteswissenschaft die Wahrheit sieht, da wendet man dieselbe Logik an, die derjenige anwendet, welcher sagt, derjenige ist schuldig, dem etwas genommen worden ist, denn er hat den anderen, der genommen hat, verführt. Diese Logik lebt heute, und wollen Sie bitte das Leben betrachten, dann werden Sie diese Logik finden.

Nach manchem anderen ist erst gestern mir wiederum, wie gesagt, zugeschrieben worden, was alles Geisteswissenschaft anrichtet in der Welt, anrichtet, weil der oder jener draußen lügt, weil der oder jener dies oder jenes tut. Es ist dieselbe Logik wie die, welche entwickelt wird, wenn man sagt: Nicht derjenige, der da nimmt, sondern derjenige, dem genommen wird, hat die eigentliche Schuld, denn er hat allerdings die ursprüngliche Ursache dazu geschaffen.

Ninth Lecture

We have been concerned with getting to know the human being as he stands in the world through his sensory regions, through his organs of life, and we have tried to grasp some of the consequences of the fact that underlies these insights. Above all, we have, so to speak, healed ourselves of the trivial view, which is particularly characteristic of those who want to be spiritual, that everything they think they should despise is labeled “material” or “sensual.” For we have seen that here in the physical world, precisely in their lower organs and lower activities, human beings are given a reflection of higher activities and higher connections. We have had to regard the sense of touch and the sense of life, as they are now, as being very much bound to the physical earth world; the same applies to the sense of self, the sense of thinking, and the sense of speech. But what we find in the physical sphere of the earth as senses that serve only the inner life of the physical organism: the sense of movement, the sense of balance, the sense of smell, the sense of taste, and to a certain extent also the sense of sight — these senses in particular we have had to learn to regard as shadows of something that becomes great and meaningful in the spiritual world when we have passed through death. We have emphasized that through the sense of movement in the spiritual world we move among the beings of the various hierarchies according to the forces of attraction and repulsion they exert on us, which are expressed in the spiritual sympathies and antipathies we experience after death. The sense of balance keeps us not only in physical equilibrium, as here in the physical body, but also in moral equilibrium with the beings and influences that exist in the spiritual world. And so it is with the other senses: taste, smell, sight. And insofar as the hidden spiritual realm plays into the physical world, we cannot turn to the higher senses for explanations, but must turn to the so-called lower senses. However, it is not possible at present to speak about some very significant things in this direction, because today's prejudices are so great that one need only mention things that are significant and interesting in a higher spiritual sense to be misunderstood and accused in all sorts of ways. And so I must refrain for the time being from pointing out some interesting processes in the sensory realms with important facts of life.

In this respect, conditions were more favorable in ancient times. However, there was also no means of disseminating knowledge as there is today. Aristotle was able to speak much more freely about certain truths than is possible today, where these truths are immediately taken personally in some sense and arouse personal sympathies or antipathies. In Aristotle's works, for example, you will find truths that deeply affect human beings and that today could not be developed well before a large audience, truths to which I referred in my last remarks when I said: The Greeks knew even more about the connection between the soul and spirit and the physical body without falling into materialism. In Aristotle's writings, for example, you can find very beautiful descriptions of the outward appearance of brave people, cowardly people, angry people, and sleepy people. There is a certain accuracy in the descriptions of the hair, complexion, and wrinkles of the courageous and the cowardly, and of the physical appearance of the sleepy, and so on. Just describing this would be difficult enough today, and other things even more so. Therefore, now that people have become so personal and, in many respects, want to cloud the truth through their personal views, one must resort to generalities when attempting to describe the truth under certain circumstances.

Every human nature and activity can be understood from a certain perspective if we ask the necessary questions in the right way about what we have presented to our souls in our last reflections. We have said, for example, that the sense regions, as they are in human beings today, are, in a sense, separate and resting regions, just as the signs of the zodiac are resting regions out in the world space, in contrast to what appears in the planets, which circle, move, and change their location relatively quickly. Thus, the sensory regions are, in a sense, firmly delimited in their regions, while the life processes pulsate through the entire organism and traverse the individual sensory regions, that is, they exert their influence in their activity.

Now, however, we have also said that during the ancient lunar period, our present sense organs were still life organs, that they still functioned as life organs, and that our present life organs were still essentially more of a spiritual nature in the ancient lunar period. Now think of what has often been emphasized: that there is an atavism in human life, a kind of return to the habits, to the peculiarities of what was once natural — in this case during the lunar period — a kind of falling back. We know that there is an atavistic falling back into the dreamlike, imaginative way of seeing things that was characteristic of the lunar period. Today we must regard this atavistic falling back into lunar visions as pathological.

Now please consider this carefully: The visions themselves are not pathological, because otherwise everything that human beings experienced during the lunar period, when they lived only in such visions, would have to be described as pathological, and one would be forced to say that human beings underwent a pathological process during the lunar period, and moreover a spiritual pathological process; they were insane during the ancient lunar period. That would of course be complete nonsense; one cannot say that. What is pathological is not in the visions as such, but in the fact that they are present in the present earthly organization of human beings in such a way that they cannot be endured, that they are applied by this earthly organization in a way that is not appropriate to them as lunar visions. Think about it: when someone has a lunar vision, it is actually only suitable for leading to a feeling, an activity, an action that corresponds to the moon. But if he has a moon vision here during his earthly life and does things that can only be done with an earthly organism, then that is what is pathological. And he does this only because his earthly organism cannot bear the vision when it becomes, as it were, impregnated with the vision.

Take the most extreme case: someone is caused to have a vision. Instead of remaining calm with this vision and looking at it inwardly, he somehow applies it to the physical world, even though it only applies to the spiritual world, and then behaves accordingly with his body. That is, they start to rage because the vision penetrates their body, forces its way through, which it should not do. That is the worst case. It should remain within the region where the vision lives, and it does not do that if, as an atavistic vision, it cannot be tolerated by the physical body today. If the physical body is too weak to resist the vision, then powerlessness sets in. If the physical body is strong enough to resist it, then it weakens the vision. It then no longer has the character that makes it appear to be something like a thing or a process in the sensory world; for that is what the vision deceives the person who becomes ill through it. So if the physical organism is strong enough to combat the tendency of the atavistic vision to lie, then the following will happen: the person will be strong enough to behave toward the world in a similar way as during the old lunar period, and yet adapt this behavior to the present-day organism.

What does that mean? It means that human beings will internally change their zodiac with its twelve sense regions. They will change it so that in this zodiac with its twelve sense regions, more life processes than sense processes take place, or rather, processes take place that strike the sense process but transform it into a life process in the sense region, in other words, lift the sensory process out of the dead state it is in today and transform it into something living, so that human beings see, but at the same time see something living within their seeing; that they hear, and at the same time hear something living within their hearing, as otherwise only lives in the stomach or on the tongue, so in the eye and so in the ear. The sensory processes are set in motion. Their life is stimulated. This can happen quietly. Then something of what today only the life organs have to the same degree is incorporated into these sense organs. The life organs have a strong inner force of sympathy and antipathy. Think how the whole of life depends on sympathy and antipathy! One is accepted, the other rejected. What the life organs otherwise develop in sympathetic and antipathetic forces is, as it were, instilled back into the sense organs. The eye not only sees red, but also feels sympathy or antipathy toward the color. The permeation with life flows back to the sense organs. So we can say that the sense organs become, in a certain sense, regions of life.

The life processes must then also be changed. And this happens in such a way that the life processes become more animated than they are for earthly life. This happens in such a way that the three life processes — breathing, warming, and nutrition — are, in a sense, combined and animated, appearing more soulful. In ordinary breathing, one breathes the coarse material air; in ordinary warming, one breathes warmth, and so on. Now, however, a kind of symbiosis takes place, that is, the life processes form a unity when they are animated. They are not separate as in the present organism, but form a kind of connection with each other. Breathing, warming, and nutrition form an intimate community in the human being—not coarse nutrition, but something that is a nutritional process; the process takes place, but one does not need to eat for it to happen, nor does it take place alone as in eating, but together with the other processes.

The four other life processes are also united in the same way. Secretion, maintenance, growth, and reproduction are united and in turn form a more animated process, a life process that is therefore more spiritual. And then the two parts can unite again, so that not all life processes interact, but interact in such a way that they are divided into three and four, the three interacting with the four.

AltName

This gives rise — in a similar but not identical way to how it is now on Earth — to soul forces that have the character of thinking, feeling, and willing: also three. These are now different; not thinking, feeling, and willing as on Earth, but something else. They are more life processes, not such separate life processes as those on Earth. The process that takes place in the human being is a very intimate, subtle one, where he can tolerate this sinking back into the moon, so to speak, where there are no visions, and yet a similar kind of perception takes place, a quietly similar kind, where the sensory regions become life regions, the life processes become soul processes. Nor can human beings always remain in this state, for then they would be useless to the earth. They are adapted to the earth by the fact that their senses and also their life organs are as we have described them. But in certain cases, human beings can shape themselves in this way, and when they do so, if the shaping is more directed toward the will, aesthetic creation arises; if the shaping is more directed toward perception, toward cognition, aesthetic enjoyment arises. The real aesthetic behavior of humans consists in the sense organs being enlivened in a certain way and the life processes being animated. This is a very important truth about humans, because it helps us understand many things. We must seek this stronger life of the sense organs and the different life of the sense areas, as compared to what is usually the case, in art and in the enjoyment of art. And the same is true of the life processes, which are more animated in the enjoyment of art than in ordinary life. Because these things are not viewed in accordance with reality in our materialistic age, the significance of the whole change that takes place in human beings when they are involved in art cannot be fully grasped. Today, human beings are more or less regarded as roughly defined beings. But within certain limits, human beings are variable. And this variability is evident in what we have just considered.

If you have something like what has just been described, then vast, vast truths are contained within it. To mention just one such truth: it is precisely those senses that are most attuned to the physical plane that must undergo the greatest change when they are, so to speak, half led back into a lunar existence. The sense of self, the sense of thinking, the coarse sense of touch—because they are so robustly suited to the physical world of the earth, they must change completely if they are to serve the constitution of human beings who are halfway back to the lunar period.

The way we face the ego in life, the way we face the world of thoughts in life, cannot be used in art, for example. At most, in some minor arts, the same relationship to the ego and to thinking can exist as in ordinary physical life on earth. There is no art that can depict or portray a human being directly according to his ego as he stands in reality. The artist must do something with the ego, undergo a process whereby he lifts this ego out of the specialization in which it lives today in the earthly process; he must give it a most general meaning, give it something typical. The artist does this entirely of his own accord. Similarly, the artist cannot express the world of thoughts artistically in the same way as it is expressed in the ordinary earthly world; for otherwise he will not produce any poetry or any work of art at all, but at best a didactic product, something educational, which can never be artistic in the true sense of the word. The changes that the artist makes to what is there are a kind of return to the enlivening of the senses in the direction I have indicated here.

But there is something else we must consider when we contemplate this change of the senses. The processes of life are intertwined, I said. Just as the planets cover one another and have a meaning in their mutual relationship, while the constellations remain still, so the sense regions, when they pass, as it were, into planetary human life, become mobile, alive, they acquire relationships to one another, and this is why artistic perception never goes to particular sense regions in the same way as ordinary earthly perception. The individual senses also enter into certain relationships with one another. Let us take any case, for example, painting.

From the perspective of true spiritual science, the following emerges: In ordinary sensory observation, we have to deal with separate sensory regions for sight, heat, taste, and smell. These regions are separated. In painting, a remarkable symbiosis, a remarkable merging of these sensory areas takes place, not in the gross organs, but in the expansion of the organs, as I have indicated in previous lectures.

The painter or the person enjoying painting does not merely see the content of the color, the red or the blue or the violet, but actually tastes the color, only not with the gross organ, otherwise he would have to lick it with his tongue; he does not do that. But with everything connected with the sphere of the tongue, something happens that is subtly similar to the process of tasting. So when you simply look at a green parrot through the sensory perception process, you see the greenness of the color with your eyes. But when you enjoy a painting, a subtle imaginative process takes place behind your tongue, which still belongs to the sense of taste, and participates in the process of seeing. These are subtle processes similar to those that occur when you taste and eat food. It is not what happens on the tongue, but what follows the tongue, finer physiological processes that occur simultaneously with the visual process, so that the painter actually tastes the color in a deeper spiritual sense. And he smells the nuances of color, not with his nose, but with what happens in the soul, deeper in the organism, every time he smells. In this way, such combinations of sensory areas take place, in that the sensory areas merge more into life processes, into areas for life processes.

When we read a description that is only intended to inform us about how something looks or what happens to something, we allow our sense of language to work, the meaning of words, through which we are informed about this or that. When we listen to a poem and hear it in the same way we hear something that is merely intended to inform us, we do not understand the poem. The poem lives out its life in such a way that we perceive it through the sense of language, but if only the sense of language is directed toward the poem, we do not understand it. In addition to the sense of language, the soul-filled sense of balance and the soul-filled sense of movement must also be directed toward the poem; but they must be soul-filled. This again gives rise to combinations and interactions of the sense organs, as the entire sensory realm merges into the realm of life. And all this must be accompanied by animated life processes that have been transformed into soul processes, which do not function in the same way as the ordinary life processes of the physical world.

If, while listening to a piece of music, someone brings the fourth life process to such an extent that they sweat, this goes too far; it no longer belongs to the aesthetic realm, for here separation has been carried to the point of physical separation. But first, there should be no physical separation; rather, the process should proceed as a spiritual process, but it should be exactly the same process that underlies physical separation. And second, the separation should not occur on its own, but rather the four together—but all spiritual: separation, growth, preservation, and reproduction. Thus, the life processes become more spiritual processes.

On the one hand, spiritual science will have to direct the development of the earth toward the spiritual world, without which, as we have seen from various sources, humanity will perish in the future. But on the other hand, spiritual science must also restore the ability to grasp and understand the physical with the spiritual. For materialism has not only made it impossible to reach the spiritual, it has also made it impossible to understand the physical. For the spirit lives in everything physical, and if one knows nothing about the spirit, one cannot understand the physical. Think about it: what do those who know nothing about the spirit know about the fact that all the sensory spheres can transform themselves into life spheres, that the life processes can transform themselves in such a way that they appear as soul processes? What do today's physiologists know about these finer processes in human beings? Materialism has gradually led to a departure from everything concrete and to abstractions, and these abstractions are also gradually being abandoned. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, people still spoke of vital force or life force. Of course, one cannot do anything with such an abstraction, for one can only understand something when one enters into the concrete. When one fully comprehends the seven life processes, then one has reality, and that is what it is all about, that one regains the real. With the revival of all kinds of abstractions such as “élan vital” or similar ghastly abstractions, which mean nothing but are merely admissions of an inability to understand, humanity will, despite perhaps wanting the opposite, be led ever deeper into the crudest materialism, even into a mystical materialism. The next stage in the development of humanity is real knowledge, the knowledge of facts that arise only from the spiritual world. And we really must advance in our spiritual understanding of the world.

Here we must first think back to the good Aristotle, who was closer to the ancient view than people today. I would like to remind you of just one thing about this ancient Aristotle, a peculiar fact. An entire library has been written about catharsis, through which he wanted to explain what lies at the heart of tragedy. Aristotle says: Tragedy is a coherent representation of events in human life, the course of which arouses the emotions of fear and pity; but in being aroused, the soul is at the same time led by the nature of the course of fear and pity to purification, to catharsis of these emotions. Much has been written about this in the age of materialism, because people did not have the means to understand Aristotle. Only those who have realized that Aristotle actually meant catharsis in a medical, semi-medical sense—not in the sense of today's materialists—are right. Because the processes of life become mental processes, the events of tragedy really mean, for the aesthetic reception of impressions from tragedy, an excitement of the processes that penetrates into the physical body, which otherwise accompany fear and pity as life processes. And these life emotions are purified, that is, at the same time imbued with soul, through tragedy. The whole soulfulness of the life process is contained in this definition by Aristotle. And if you read more in Aristotle's Poetics, you will see that there — not from our modern way of understanding, but from the ancient mystery tradition — something like a breath of this deeper understanding of the aesthetic human being lives on. When reading Aristotle's Poetics, one is much more moved by immediate life than one can be today when reading any aesthetic treatise by ordinary aestheticians, who merely sniff around things and dialecticize, but never get to the heart of things.

Then there is another significant high point in Schiller's understanding of the aesthetic human being in his “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man.” That was a more abstract time. It is only now that we have to add the spiritual and concrete to the idealistic. But when we look at this more abstract aspect of the Goethe-Schiller period, we see in the abstractions found in Schiller's aesthetic letters something of what has been said here, only that here the process seems to be carried down more into the material realm; but only because this material realm is to be penetrated even more by the power of the intensely grasped spiritual. What does Schiller say? He says: Man, as he lives here on earth, has two basic instincts, the instinct of reason and the instinct of nature. The rational instinct acts logically through natural necessity. One is compelled to think in a certain way; one has no freedom to think, for what good does it do to speak of freedom in this realm of rational necessity if one is compelled not to think that three times three is ten, but nine? Logic means strict rational necessity. So Schiller says: When humans submit to pure rational necessity, they are under spiritual compulsion.

Schiller contrasts rational necessity with sensual necessity, which lives in everything that is in the drives and emotions. In this, man does not follow his freedom, but natural necessity. Schiller now seeks the middle ground between rational necessity and natural necessity. And he finds this middle state in the fact that the necessity of reason bends down, as it were, to what one loves and does not love, that one no longer follows a rigid logical necessity when one thinks, but rather the inner impulse to combine or not combine ideas, as is the case in aesthetic creation. But then natural necessity also rises. Then it is no longer sensual necessity that one follows as if under compulsion, but necessity is sanctified, spiritualized. Man no longer wants merely what his body wants, but sensual enjoyment is spiritualized. And thus rational necessity and natural necessity approach each other.

You must of course read this for yourself in Schiller's aesthetic letters, which are among the most important philosophical works in the development of the world. What Schiller discusses already contains what we have just heard, only in metaphysical abstraction. What Schiller calls the liberation of rational necessity from rigidity lives in the enlivening of the sensory spheres, which in turn are traced back to the life process. And what Schiller calls the spiritualization—he would have been better off saying “ensoulment”—of natural necessity lives here in that the processes of life act like processes of the soul. The processes of life become more spiritual, the processes of the senses become more alive. This is the true process which — only expressed in abstract concepts, in conceptual webs — is found in Schiller's aesthetic letters, as it had to be at that time, when people were not yet spiritually strong enough in their thinking to descend into the realm where the spirit lives as the seer wants it to: where spirit and matter are not opposed, but it is recognized how spirit permeates matter everywhere, so that one cannot encounter spiritless matter anywhere. The mere contemplation of thoughts is only mere contemplation because humans are incapable of making their thoughts so strong, that is, so densely spiritual, so mental, that the thought can overcome matter, that is, penetrate into real matter. Schiller is not yet able to see that the processes of life can really function as processes of the soul. He is not yet able to go so far as to see how that which acts in the material world as nourishment, warmth, and respiration can take shape, how it can sparkle and live spiritually, and cease to be material, so that the material particles are scattered under the power of the concept with which one grasps the material processes. And Schiller is just as incapable of looking up to the logical in such a way that he really allows it to work within himself not merely in conceptual dialectic, but that in that development which can be achieved through initiation, he experiences the spiritual as his own process, so that it really comes alive in what is otherwise merely knowledge. What lives in Schiller's aesthetic letters is therefore a “I don't really dare to approach the concrete.” But what pulsates within it can be grasped more precisely when one tries to grasp the living through the spiritual and the material through the living.

Thus we see in all areas how the whole development is pushing toward what spiritual science wants. When, at the turn of the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, a more or less conceptually structured philosophy emerged, this philosophy was alive with a longing for greater concreteness, which, however, could not yet be achieved. And because the power initially ran out, the striving for greater concreteness led to a fall into crude materialism in the middle of the nineteenth century, in the second half until today. But it must be understood that spiritualism cannot consist merely in turning toward the spiritual, but in overcoming the material and recognizing the spirit in the material. This happens through such insights. You see completely different consequences from this. You see from this that the aesthetic person is so involved in the development of the earth that he rises above this earthly development in a certain way into another world. And that is important. The aesthetically minded or aesthetically acting person does not do what is completely adapted to the earth, but in a certain way raises his sphere out of the earthly sphere. And with this, we penetrate with the aesthetic into many deep secrets of existence.

When you say something like that, it actually becomes something that, on the one hand, touches on the highest truths, but on the other hand can sound almost nonsensical, crazy, twisted. But you don't understand life if you cowardly retreat from the real truths. Take any work of art, the Sistine Madonna, the Venus de Milo—if it is truly a work of art, it is not entirely of this earth. It is lifted out of earthly events; that is quite obvious. Yes, what kind of power lives within it? What lives in a Sistine Madonna, in a Venus de Milo? A force that is also in human beings, but which is not entirely adapted to the earth. If everything in human beings were only adapted to the earth, they would not be able to live on any other plane. They would never be able to pass over to Jupiter if everything in them were adapted to the earth. Not everything is adapted to the earth, and to the occult observer, not everything in human beings corresponds to what is earthly. These are mysterious forces that will one day give humans the impetus to leave earthly existence behind. But art as such can only be understood if one grasps its task of pointing beyond the merely earthly, beyond mere adaptation to the earth, where what is truly present in the Venus de Milo can be found.

One cannot come close to a true understanding of the world unless one grasps something that must necessarily be grasped, the more one approaches the future and its spiritual demands. Today, many people still live under the prejudice that if someone says something that is logical and can be proven logically, then it also has the necessary meaning for life. But logic and logical reasoning alone are not enough. And because people are always satisfied when they can prove something logically in some way, they also assert all kinds of worldviews and philosophical systems that can of course be proven logically; no one familiar with logic doubts that they can be proven logically. But mere logical proofs are of no use for life. What is thought, what is conceived internally, must not only be logically conceived, but must also be true to reality. What is merely logical is not valid; only what is true to reality is valid. I will clarify this with an example. Suppose there is a tree trunk lying here in front of you, and you describe the tree trunk. You can describe it very neatly and prove to everyone that there is something real there, because you have described it in accordance with external reality. But in fact you have only described a lie. For what you describe does not exist, because it cannot really be a tree trunk lying there; the roots have been cut off the tree trunk, the branches have been cut off, and the piece that is lying there only comes into existence in such a way that branches and flowers and roots come into existence with it, and it is nonsense to think of the trunk as something real. As it appears, it is not real. You have to take it together with its shoots, with what it contains internally, so that it can come into being. One must be convinced that what lies before one as a trunk is a lie, because only when one looks at a tree does one have a truth before one. Logically, it is not required that one regard a tree trunk as a lie, but in accordance with reality, it is required that one regard a tree trunk as a lie and only a whole tree as a truth. A crystal is a truth; it can exist for itself in a certain relationship, but always only in a certain relationship, because everything is relative. But a rosebud is not a truth. A crystal is a truth, but a rosebud is a lie if you see it only as a rosebud.

You see, because we do not have these concepts of reality, all kinds of things arise, such as those that arise today. Crystallography, and even mineralogy, are sciences that correspond to reality; geology no longer does, because what the geologist describes is just as much an abstraction as the tree trunk is an abstraction. Even though it lies there, it is still an abstraction, not reality. What the earth's crust contains geologically also contains what grows out of it and is inconceivable without it. And it is important that philosophers appear who do not allow themselves to think abstractions other than by being conscious of the abstracting power, that is, by knowing that they are merely making abstractions. Thinking in accordance with reality, not merely thinking logically, is something that must come more and more. But under this realistic thinking, our entire world development changes. For what is the Venus de Milo, the Sistine Madonna, or other such things from the standpoint of realistic thinking? From the earthly point of view, they are a lie, not truth. If you take them as they are, you are not standing in the truth. You have to be transported. Only those who are transported out of the earthly sphere, who are taken away, who really stand before the Venus de Milo in such a way that they are constituted differently in their soul than they are constituted in relation to earthly things, can view a real work of art correctly. for it is precisely through that which is not really here that one is thrust into the realm where it is real, into the realm of the elemental world, where what is in the Venus de Milo is real. It is precisely through this that one stands before the Venus de Milo in a realistic way, because it has the power to tear one away from mere sensory perception.

I do not wish to engage in teleology in a negative sense; that is far from my intention. Therefore, nothing should be said about the purpose of art, for that would be pedantry and philistinism. The purpose of art is not to be discussed. But what art becomes, what it stands for in life, can be answered. There is no time to answer this fully today; I will only hint at it briefly. One can answer some questions by asking the counter-question: What would happen if there were no art in the world? All the forces that otherwise go into art and the enjoyment of art would be used to live unrealistically. Remove art from human development, and you will have just as much falsehood in human development as there is art in art! There you already have that peculiar dangerous relationship with art that exists where the threshold to the spiritual world is present. Listen carefully wherever things have two sides! If someone has a realistic sense, then through living with an aesthetic perception they will arrive at a higher truth. If someone does not have a realistic sense, then it is precisely through an aesthetic perception of the world that they can fall into dishonesty. Things always have a fork in the road; it is very important to recognize this fork. For this is not only the case with occultism, but even with art. A realistic view of the world will emerge as a concomitant of the spiritual life that spiritual science is to bring about. For materialism has brought about precisely the unrealistic view.

As contradictory as this may seem, it is only contradictory for those who judge the world according to what they imagine it to be, and not according to what it really is. We are truly living in a state of development that, precisely because of materialism, is increasingly distancing us from the ability to grasp even what is an ordinary sensory fact, a fact of the physical world. In this regard, interesting experiments have even been conducted that arise entirely from the materialistic way of thinking. But just as much of what arises from materialistic thinking benefits precisely those human abilities that are needed for a spiritual worldview, so it is in this area. The following experiment was conducted. A specific scene was arranged: someone was to give a lecture—I will choose one example, as many such experiments have been conducted—and during the lecture, he was to say something that would offend or hurt someone sitting in the audience. This was agreed upon in advance. Every word of the lecture was delivered exactly as agreed. The person at whom the insult was directed, who was sitting in the auditorium, had to jump up, a brawl had to develop; during this, the person who jumped up was to reach into his pocket, pull out a revolver, and that was how the thing was to develop; various details were discussed in detail as to how they should proceed. So you can imagine, a completely programmatic scene was to take place with many details. Thirty listeners had been invited, and not ordinary listeners, but law students in their senior years and lawyers who had already graduated. The brawl had taken place, and now the thirty were to describe what had happened. A transcript was recorded in the appropriate manner by those who were familiar with the entire process, attesting that the matter had indeed unfolded exactly as planned; the thirty were questioned, all thirty of whom had seen what happened, and all thirty were not donkeys, but educated people who would later go out into the world and investigate how brawls and many other things actually happen. Of the thirty, twenty-six told a completely false account of what they had seen, and only four told a barely correct account—only four told a barely correct account! For years, such attempts have been made to show what weight witness testimony can have in court with regard to the truth. All twenty-six of them were sitting there, they could all say: I saw it with my own eyes. — People do not consider what is necessary to correctly represent a fact that takes place before their eyes!

The art of gaining a correct view of what is happening before one's eyes must be considered. For those who are not conscientious about what is a sensory fact can never attain the responsible conscientiousness that is necessary to grasp spiritual facts. Now, under the influence of materialism, look at our world today and see whether there is much awareness or feeling for the fact that out of thirty people who have seen the so-called fact with their own eyes, twenty-six can say something completely wrong and only four can describe it reasonably correctly. When you consider something like this, you will feel how infinitely important it is what must be achieved for ordinary life through a spiritual worldview.

You may now ask: Were things different in the past? In the past, people did not have the same way of thinking that we have today. The Greeks did not yet have the abstract way of thinking that we have today and must have in order to find our way in the world as it is now. But it is not the way of thinking that matters, it is the truth that matters. Aristotle tried, in his own way, to think about the aesthetic disposition, the constitution of human life, in much more concrete terms. But in an even more concrete, imaginatively clairvoyant way, this constitution was captured in ancient Greece in those imaginations that still came from the mysteries, when images were used instead of concepts, and when it was said: Once upon a time, Uranus lived. In this, one saw everything that human beings take in through their heads, through the forces that even now extend out into the outer world as the sense spheres. Uranos — all twelve senses — was wounded, and drops of blood fell into Maja, into the sea, and foam sprayed up. What the senses send down into the sea of life processes as they become more alive, and what foams up from what pulsates down into the life processes as the blood of the senses, which have become soul processes, can be compared to what the Greek imagination caused to foam up when the drops of blood from the wounded Uranus dripped down into the sea and Aphrodite, Aphrogenea, the goddess of beauty, formed from the foam. In the older myth of Aphrodite, where Aphrodite is a daughter of Uranus and the sea, arising from the sea foam born of the drops of Uranus' blood, you have an imaginative expression of the aesthetic state of human beings, indeed the most significant imaginative expression and one of the most significant thoughts of the spiritual evolution of humanity as a whole. All that was needed was for another idea to follow on from the great idea of Aphrodite in the older myth, where Aphrodite is not the child of Zeus and Dione, but of Uranus, the drops of blood of Uranus and the sea — all that was needed was another imagination that dug even deeper into reality, not just into the elemental, but into physical reality, an imagination that was at the same time physically and sensually comprehensible, had to follow in later times. That is: the great truth about the influence of the primal good in humanity, in which the spirit trickled down into Maja-Maria, just as the drops of Uranus' blood trickled down into the sea, which is also Maja, where then, initially in appearance, in beautiful appearance, that which is to be the dawn is born, had to be placed alongside the myth of Aphrodite, of the origin of beauty in humanity. just as the drops of blood from Uranus trickled down into the sea, which is also Maya, where then, at first in appearance, in beautiful appearance, is born that which is to be the dawn of the infinite reign of the good and of the knowledge of the good and the true, of the spiritual. This is a truth that Schiller meant when he wrote the words:

Only through the dawn of beauty
Did you rush into the land of knowledge

by which he mainly meant moral knowledge.

You see how many tasks, which are not merely theoretical tasks, but tasks of life, are growing for spiritual science. No wonder that spiritual science is still widely misunderstood today by those who do not want the truth. This must be accepted as a concomitant phenomenon.

A peculiar attitude toward truth has taken hold of many people, especially in our materialistic age. And if I were to tell you about the letters I have received, I could add quite a few more to my collection today from that district where opposition to the truth is developing. I do not even want to mention the great nonsense that was written to me again yesterday in a letter. Yes, my dear friends, this is something we should not only think about a little, but something we should empathize with: that it is not so simple that there is a necessity in our time to bring spiritual science to humanity in a way that is appropriate to the present age, and that in doing so one is always exposed to the danger of expressing to a number of people—a truly not insignificant number—those truths that touch upon the most sacred and highest, but also the deepest, most soulful, and most heartfelt. These truths must be spoken, even though there are dangers involved. Think of past times when there were quite a few people sitting in the auditorium who later became complete enemies and falsified the truth of what was said! This is something that should be felt deeply if society as such still wants to be taken seriously: that one is compelled to speak to so many who are supposedly listening as friends, just as you are listening today; for in the past, some have listened in this way who later falsified everything that was true and even used what they heard here to persecute the truth, to stand as enemies. If one must always reckon with the possibility—even with one's eyes wide open—that those who listen to things may in the future turn around as some have done, then it is precisely this that gives the work within spiritual science today its coloring for the knowledge of the soul.

Let us not take such things too lightly. Let us try a little to visualize the course of truth through the world order, through human evolution, and everything connected with this course of truth! — I will say no more about this today. But today we have touched upon a field that we could only illuminate from the realm of life, which is closely, closely connected with that which brings the understanding of the spiritual world directly into contact with life. And on such occasions, the experiences that are made today in defending the truth must always be touched upon. And I hope that there are still some who know why I sometimes have bitter things to say about the way people behave toward the truth, and that it is not entirely true when people blame me for it. For although under other circumstances it might even be called silly: The illogicality that is so popular today—not in the service of truth, but in the service of lies—is perhaps best characterized by the following anecdote, which I would like to tell at the end:

Once upon a time, a man took a small piece of property from another man, and after he had taken it, the man who had previously owned it no longer had it in the same way. He had to work hard to earn back what he had previously earned. A court hearing was held. The person who had been robbed was there, and the person who had robbed him was also there. Both had lawyers. Lawyers are not there to always represent the unconditional, absolute truth, but to say what is in favor of the person they represent. First, the plaintiff's lawyer spoke, representing the person who had been deprived of something. At first, the court even found this plausible. But then the lawyer for the person who had taken the item spoke and said: “You have heard, gentlemen of the court, my client has admitted to doing everything he did. You asked my client: Do you find yourself guilty or not guilty of taking the item? My client said: 'I took everything, but I do not feel guilty. And my client is absolutely right. He is willing to admit that he took everything, but he does not need to feel guilty, and you, gentlemen of the court, cannot find him guilty. For if you wish to establish guilt, you must go back to the very beginning. Gentlemen of the court, consider this: this man became a thief. He would never have become a thief if the man from whom he took the things had not had them! The owner is at fault! For if this man had not had the things, the other would never have become a thief! He is the real guilty party! The fact that he saw that the other had what he wanted led him to take it. — And the lawyer spoke so eloquently that the court said: Yes, until now it has always been believed that the thief is the guilty party; but everyone is mistaken in thinking that the one who took the things is guilty, for if one goes back to the real cause, the guilty party is the one who had the things that belonged to them.

What I am telling you is completely nonsensical, and everyone can see that. But when this logic is applied in life today, when what is brought into the world as spiritual science takes effect, and effects are produced by distorting the facts and pretending that this is happening because spiritual science sees the truth, then one applies the same logic as someone who says that the person from whom something has been taken is guilty because he seduced the other person who took it. This logic is alive today, and if you look at life, you will find this logic.

According to some others, as I said, I was again blamed yesterday for all the damage spiritual science is doing in the world because this or that person is lying out there, because this or that person is doing this or that. It is the same logic that is developed when one says: It is not the one who takes, but the one who is taken from who is actually to blame, because he has, after all, created the original cause for it.