The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Second Lecture

[ 1 ] Today I would like to insert, so to speak, an anecdotal aside that has to do with the threefold structure of the social organism, which I also mentioned here last time. I would like to include it as an anecdote, so to speak, as part of a deeper spiritual-scientific consideration of the matter. Of course, some of what will underpin our discussion today you will have to piece together bit by bit from the overall spiritual scientific worldview. It is not possible to provide extensive justifications in every single lecture. But what appears to us externally as the necessity of a threefold structure of the social organism—let us today, so to speak, consider it from within, from its inner side, and thereby deepen our understanding of it. It is actually not difficult for anyone who has become somewhat familiar with the ideas of spiritual science to evoke within themselves a sense of the great diversity of the three spheres of life into which, according to our intentions, the social organism is to be divided. Once one is mindful that such a threefold division is something to be taken seriously, a possible distinction between these three spheres naturally arises intuitively, allowing one to perceive each one as distinctly different from the others.

[ 2 ] These three realms—with which you are, of course, already quite familiar—are: the realm of what we call spiritual life, insofar as this spiritual life takes shape and reveals itself in what we call the physical world; that is, the entire scope of what is known as—if I may use this paradoxical term—physical spiritual life. We know, of course, what we mean by this. It includes everything related to a person’s individual abilities and talents. For us—in contrast to materialistically minded people—spiritual life is, as we shall see shortly, something far more expansive than it is for the materialistically minded person. In fact, we are compelled to conceive of spiritual life in far more material terms than materialists do, insofar as we are speaking of physical spiritual life. This has already permeated many of my lectures: that spiritual life can only be grasped if one assumes that all material life is truly and concretely permeated by the spiritual, so that for us there is no such thing as something purely material, but rather everything that reveals itself through the medium of the material is, in its inner essence—and I say this as well—spiritual. Art, science, legal concepts, and humanity’s moral impulses—all of this would, roughly speaking, constitute the scope of this spiritual life. Above all, however, the scope of this spiritual life would include everything that pertains to the cultivation of individual talents—that is, the entire system of education, instruction, and schooling.

[ 3 ] Then a clear distinction must be made between this and another kind of life that is, in a certain sense, connected to the physical spiritual life, but which is nevertheless fundamentally distinct from it. This encompasses everything that can be described as legal life, political life, or civic life. Of course, one must attune one’s powers of perception somewhat to make clear distinctions in this area, if one does not wish to fall into the error of saying to oneself: legal life is, after all, essentially what legality is. But we, who are accustomed to distinguishing precisely and clearly, will have to distinguish between the grasping of legal ideas, between—if I may put it this way—being inspired by legal ideas, and the living out of law in the external world. We will speak more precisely about all these things shortly.

[ 4 ] The third—which you will easily be able to distinguish from the other two—is economic life. Now, human beings have a completely different relationship to the three spheres of life we have just outlined. If you try to grasp what physical-spiritual life is through a purely healthy sense of feeling, you will sense — just try, for a moment, to direct the soul’s powers of perception in the direction I have just spoken of — that everything which is in any way rooted in a person’s individual endowments and abilities proceeds, so to speak, from the very innermost core of human nature and is generated from the very innermost core of human nature. If we now approach the work of perception entirely scientifically, we find that everything that finds expression in art and science, and in the impulses of education, can be experienced as a spiritual-soul element that lives within us when we devote ourselves to its activity; it lives within us in such a way that we can only experience it inwardly in the right way when we withdraw somewhat from the outer world. Certainly, we must reveal it in the outer world—which is then something different from initially experiencing it inwardly—but as human beings, we cannot conceive of or inwardly grasp what finds expression in art and science, and in the impulses of education, unless we can withdraw somewhat from life. Of course, this need not mean retreating to a hermit’s cell; one can go for a walk, for all I care, but one must withdraw somewhat, must become spiritual, must live within oneself. This is something that, for a completely naive sensibility—if it is only to be developed within the human soul—arises for physical spiritual life, and which spiritual science must express by saying: This physical spiritual life is experienced by our human soul in such a way that we live out this physical spiritual life without the body being fully engaged. Here, spiritual science—and you can deduce this from everything spiritual science has offered you so far—must take a most decisive stand against the materialistic interpretation of the human being, which is rooted in the superstition that when one develops within oneself what belongs to the physical spiritual life, this development takes place entirely and completely through the instrument of the brain, the nervous system, and so on. No, we know that is not true. We know that an independent inner life must exist within the human being if manifestations of this physical spiritual life are to come about. Something is taking place within the human being in connection with this physical spiritual life that has no parallel manifestations in the physical body; something is taking place that occurs only within the spiritual-soul being of the human being.

[ 5 ] The situation is different when we cultivate those impulses of life that we wish to place on a democratic foundation within our threefold social order, when we cultivate what, in a sense, makes all people appear equal before everyone. This can only develop if we make use of the tools of our physicality that connect one human being to another. Not inner legal ideas, but legal impulses of life; not inner moral ideas, but moral impulses of life—which are thus active between people—these develop as people approach one another, interact with one another, and exchange what they mutually experience in each other. These things develop only when people interact with one another, when people turn their physical selves toward one another, when they speak to one another, when they see one another, when they live together through empathy—in short, this can be developed only through human interaction. With regard to everything that develops on the basis of our individual abilities—that is, with regard to what, in the sense just mentioned, is independent of our physicality—we as human beings are individually shaped, each one unique, each one an individual. With the exception of the much lesser differentiation that arises from racial differences, ethnic differences, and the like—which, however, as a form of differentiation, are a trifle—if one has even the slightest sense of this, one must realize—compared to the differentiation brought about by individual talents and abilities; with the exception of these, we are equal as human beings with regard to our outward physical humanity, through which we, as human beings, face one another, and through which we develop legal and moral impulses. We are equal as human beings, here in the physical world, precisely because of the equality of our human form, simply by the fact that we all bear a human face. This—that we all bear a human face, that we encounter one another as outwardly physical human beings who, on democratic ground, develop legal and moral impulses together—this is what makes us equal on this ground. We differ from one another through our individual gifts, which, however, belong to our inner being.

[ 6 ] The third area is the economic sphere: One truly need not resort to a false asceticism, for this false asceticism is quite certainly contrary to the fundamental trend of our present age, particularly in the West—we have spoken of this often here— but one can perceive how economic life, so to speak, causes people here in the physical world to be submerged in a stream of life, in a sea of life, in which they lose themselves to a certain degree as human beings. Don’t you have the feeling, when it comes to economic life, that you are submerged in something that does not allow you to be as fully human as legal or political life does? This is even more the case with regard to the life that flows from your individual abilities—indeed, from the individual abilities of human beings in general. As I said, we feel this without falling into a false ascetic inclination; we feel that, when it comes to economic life, the fact is that by having to engage in economic activity, we cease to be fully human. By engaging in economic activity, we must pay a tribute to that which is subhuman within us.

[ 7 ] We have, so to speak, that which belongs to economic life—such as the production, circulation, and consumption of commodities—even when it rises to the level of intellectual achievements, which, however, arise with the same character as the circulation of commodities in economic life precisely because we are human beings and not angels, we know that even what constitutes intellectual production—insofar as the economic aspect comes into play—takes on the character of the economic sphere as it manifests in material goods. And the material goods necessary for the satisfaction of our physical needs, as well as intellectual services such as dental care and the like, must ultimately, through the exchange of commodities in economic life, lead to the dentist being able to physically sustain himself through economic life. In some way, economic life is always connected to physical life. But this is something that places us in a certain relationship—albeit one elevated to the human level—with the animal realm. It immerses us in that which is instinctively experienced in common with animals. Here you have, first of all, a naive but healthy sense of what distinguishes these three realms for the individual human being.

[ 8 ] Let us now delve deeper into this subject from a spiritual scientific perspective. The spiritual scientist must pay particular attention to the structure of human life over time—the development of human life, initially from birth or conception to death. Anyone who develops the ability to perceive the course of human life will be deeply impressed by how all of a person’s individual abilities are significantly foreshadowed in very early childhood. For those who have cultivated an inner eye and life experience in this regard, the perception of the unique constitution of the child’s soul is vividly present. In what develops during the first three stages of life—from the first to the seventh year, from the seventh to the fourteenth, and from the fourteenth to the twenty-first—a person’s individual abilities manifest as if arising from an inner elemental force. And it is not only what we are usually inclined to regard as a person’s individual abilities that reveals itself there; rather, it is also connected to whether we are physically strong or weak, and whether we are capable of performing more or less muscular work. This is where we must extend the spiritual into the material to a greater extent than those who think materialistically. Viewed spiritually, we see a clear connection between the structure of the muscular system and a person’s individual disposition. To those who can observe the human being, all of this is connected to the development of the human head. Even in outward forms—whether someone has strong or weak legs, or whether they can walk a long distance—those who have acquired a spiritual gaze can already see this in the head, specifically in the head. Whether a person is skilled or unskilled can be seen in their head. These so-called physical abilities of the human being, which are closely related to their aptitude for external, material, manual work, are connected to the structure of the head. Now you know what I have repeatedly told you about the structure of the head and explained from a wide variety of perspectives. I have told you: Everything that takes shape in the human head—everything that gives the human head its configuration and form—points to the prenatal period; it points to that which a person brings with them into physical life through birth from the spiritual worlds, whether from the spiritual world itself or from previous earthly incarnations. By recognizing a connection between all of a person’s individual abilities—whether spiritual or manual—and the development of the human head, one’s insight is deepened, so that everything that arises from a person’s individual abilities can be traced back to prenatal life.

[ 9 ] You see, this is what leads the spiritual scientist to such a meaningful understanding of what physical spiritual life is. Physical spiritual life exists here in the physical world because we, as human beings, bring something with us at birth. All physical spiritual life, to the extent that I have spoken to you about it today, does not arise solely from this physical world; it arises from the impulses that we bring with us through our birth from the spiritual world into physical existence. By being human beings who bring echoes of a supersensible existence into physical existence, we shape within human society here in the physical world what this physical spiritual life is. There would be no art, there would be no science—at most, an experimental description, a description of experiments—there would be no educational impulses; we could not raise children, we could not provide a school education, if we did not bring impulses from prenatal life into physical life through birth. That is one thing.

[ 10 ] Now, please take everything you find in my *Theosophy* or in *The Secret Science* that describes the supersensible world. In particular, take what is said in these books about the supersensible world—about the relationships that exist there between human souls when these souls are disembodied, when they live between death and a new birth. You know that we must speak here of entirely different soul-to-soul relationships than those we can speak of here in the physical world. You will recall how I have described what is experienced from soul to soul as fundamental tones that are present here in shadowy images. You recall the description in *Theosophy* of life in the soul world, where I had to speak of certain interactions—of soul and astral forces that do not exist in the physical world—in order to depict disembodied life in the supersensible world between death and a new birth. There, soul stands in an inner relationship to soul. There is a relationship from soul to soul that is brought about by the inner power of the soul itself. If one now fully immerses oneself in what exists as this relationship from soul to soul in the supersensible world, if one takes it in and makes a clear mental image of what exists there, then—if one compares it in the right way—one gains a remarkable insight. You know that much of what leads to knowledge of the supersensible world—or to an understanding of the connections between the supersensible and the sensible worlds—rests upon such inner efforts of the will. One is thereby directly guided toward legal, state, or political life, and indeed in such a way that there is no greater contrast to the specific nature of supersensible life than political and legal life here on the physical plane. These are the two great opposites, and one perceives these opposites when one becomes acquainted with the supersensible life in an appropriate manner. The supersensible life has nothing at all in common with what can be regulated by legal statutes or external moral impulses, for there everything is governed by inner soul impulses. Here, in physical life, the full contrast is established through the structure of political life with its fundamental character; for through birth we lose what lives in the soul as fundamental impulses that establish the relationship from soul to soul; because we lose this, we acquire the opposite here between birth and death. This opposite is embodied in the existing legal statutes; they establish what must be established—the legal relationship—because human beings have lost what, in the supersensible world, concerns the relationship from soul to soul. These are the two poles: the supersensible relationship from soul to soul—and the political relationship here on the physical plane.

[ 11 ] From one human being to another, we bring into the physical world of spiritual culture something that remains with us through birth as an echo from the supersensible world. We spread a radiance over life, as it were, by allowing what we bring into the world to shine forth as we seek to reveal it through art, science, and the education of others. This is somewhat different from legal life. We must establish this here on the physical Earth as a substitute for what we lose in the supersensible realm when we enter physical existence through birth.

[ 12 ] This also gives you an idea of what certain religious texts mean—and you know to what extent religious texts are always imbued with these or those occult truths—when they speak of the rightful “Prince of this World.” What they mean when they speak of this is: the state must under no circumstances attempt to administer that which the human being brings into the physical world through birth from the supersensible world as a reflection of it. It should confine itself to shaping the legal prince, who brings about the very opposite here in state life: the life we need because the impulses of the spiritual world were lost to us as we passed through birth. State life has the task of shaping what is necessary for human interaction in the physical world; it has no significance for the life between birth and death.

[ 13 ] Let’s look at the third aspect: economic life. Here we must address something that is particularly paradoxical: To put it bluntly, by engaging in economic life, we are, in a sense, plunging into something subhuman. But in doing so, something always casts a shadow over our soul as we immerse ourselves in the subhuman. And you can certainly sense that. Just think how much active inner effort you must exert when you devote yourself to spiritual culture, and how thoughtless some people can be in mere economic life. People often give in to their drives and instincts. Economic activity generally takes place without much immediate, inwardly active thinking. But in any case: we plunge into a subhuman realm. There, the soul holds something back inwardly. From a spiritual scientific perspective, the body is more strained when we are engaged in material activity than is commonly believed. When we speak of economic life, we must also speak of the final stage of the economic process: eating and drinking. We must be clear that there is not a complete parallel between physical and spiritual activity; that in this activity, the body predominates over the spiritual-soul aspect. But this spiritual-soul aspect then develops a strongly unconscious activity. And within this unconscious activity lies a seed. We carry this seed through the gate of death. The soul can, so to speak, rest while we engage in economic activity. But what outwardly appears to consciousness as rest develops a seed that is carried through the gate of death. And if we even develop brotherhood in economic life in a moral sense, as I am now always describing, then we carry a good seed through the gate of death—precisely through what we develop as human beings toward one another in economic life. It may seem materialistic to you when I say: It is precisely through brotherhood in economic life that a person sows in their soul the seeds for their life after death, whereas in spiritual culture they draw upon the inheritance of what they bring with them from their pre-birth life—it may seem materialistic to you, but it is true, simply true in light of spiritual scientific research. It may seem material to you when I tell you: When you immerse yourself in the animal realm, your humanity ensures that you develop the supersensible for the time after death—it is so. Human beings are threefold beings. They possess within their nature a genetic heritage from the prenatal period; they develop something that is valid only between birth and death; and here in the physical world, they develop something through which they link their future life after death to their physical life here. That which is shaped here, that which is revealed here as the radiance of life, the future of life, and the interest in life within physical spiritual culture—this is a legacy from the spiritual world that we bring with us into the physical world. By experiencing this spiritual heritage—truly experiencing it—we prove ourselves to be members of the spiritual world, bringing into the physical world a reflection of the supersensible world through which we passed before our birth and conception.

[ 14 ] Abstract science—and abstract philosophy as well—naturally always speaks in abstract terms. It argues that one must prove the eternity of substance—that is, what is present in human substance at birth, remains thereafter, and then passes away through death. Such proofs can never be achieved through mere thought. Philosophers have always sought them, but the proof has never stood up to the inner logical conscience, because that is simply not how things are. The matter of immortality is, in fact, much more spiritual. Nothing material in any sense—let alone substantial—exists in this way. What does exist is consciousness—the consciousness after death that looks back upon this world. That is what we must consider when we contemplate immortality. We must become far more immaterial than even the most abstract philosophers when we speak of these higher matters. But the fact is that what I have just characterized as a reflection of the supersensible world—which we reveal as the adornment, the radiance of life here—we must use up and reconnect here in physical life; we must link a new link in the chain of our eternal existence here, which we carry through death. If someone thinks only of what continues into this life—if he investigates this consistently—the thread must break; only when he knows that he is adding a new link in the chain that extends beyond death does he approach immortality.

[ 15 ] Thus, the human being is this threefold being. He develops within himself abilities that bring this reflection of the supersensible world into this life. He develops a life that forms a bridge between the pre-birth and post-death lives, and that unfolds in all that has its roots in the life between birth and death—which manifests externally in the legal system, the state apparatus, and so on. And by immersing himself in economic life, and by being able to instill within that economic life a moral dimension—a spirit of brotherhood—he sows the seeds for life after death. This is the threefold human being.

[ 16 ] And now imagine this threefold human being, since the fifteenth century, in a phase of development in which he must consciously develop everything that was previously instinctive. As a result, he is now faced with the necessity that his outer social life provide him with points of reference, so that he may stand within a threefold organism with his threefold humanity. It is only because we unite within ourselves three entirely different aspects of being—the pre-birth, the earthly-living, and the post-death—that we can truly stand within the social organism as threefold beings. Otherwise, as conscious human beings, we come into disharmony with the rest of the world. And we will increasingly find ourselves in this situation if we do not strive to shape the world around us as a threefold social organism.

[ 17 ] You see, you’ve really taken this to heart. I’m trying to show how research in the humanities can help us discover the threefold social organism—how it must be discovered from within human nature itself. Some people have, in fact, already arrived at the very idea of what I’ve just outlined. But I have always taken care—in public lectures and elsewhere—to ensure that, even when I provide points of reference for these ideas, they are not confused with the ideas of the late Schäffle in *The Structure of the Social Organism*, or with the amateurish speculations in Meray’s recently published book on “World Mutation,” or similar works. The spiritual scientist does not engage in such games of analogy; they are utterly fruitless. What I wish for—even when I speak of the social organism—is for people to train their thinking. The general training of thought has not yet advanced to the point where the natural sciences can grasp what I have presented in my book *On the Mysteries of the Soul* after thirty-five years of research, in which I have shown that the entire human being consists of three members: the nervous-sensory life, the rhythmic life, and the metabolic life. The nervous-sensory life can also be called the life of the head; the rhythmic life can also be called the life of breathing or the life of the blood; the metabolic life is that which structurally encompasses the rest of the organism. Just as this human organism is threefold and each of its members is centered within itself, so too must the social organism manifest itself in such a way that each of its members works for the whole precisely because it is centered within itself. Modern physiology and biology believe that the human being is a centralized being as a whole. That is not true. Even in its communication with the outside world, the human being is a threefold being: the head life is independently connected to the outside world through the sensory realm; the respiratory life is connected to the outside world through the air; and the metabolic life, in turn, relates to the outside world through independent openings. In this way, the social organism must also be threefold, with each member centered in itself. Just as the head cannot breathe but receives what is conveyed through breathing via the rhythmic system, so too should the social organism not seek to develop a legal life on its own, but rather receive the law from the state organism.

[ 18 ] But I said: One must not confuse what is being discussed here with the mere playing with analogies that occurs when one seeks all sorts of hypotheses. Spiritual science is genuine research and sets out to investigate phenomena. When you are a spiritual scientist, only other people believe that you are making things up. Before you become a true spiritual researcher, you are merely beginning to observe this spiritual world. You must first unlearn thinking; this applies to the physical world. Of course, not for your entire life, but only for spiritual research.

[ 19 ] I have told you that one generally arrives at the wrong conclusion when one tries to characterize the spiritual world using analogies from the sensory world. Recall an example. Spiritual research shows that the Earth is actually an organism; that what geologists and mineralogists find is merely a skeletal system; that the Earth is alive; that it sleeps and wakes just like a human being. But one cannot simply rely on superficial analogies. If you were to ask someone: “When does the Earth wake up, and when does it sleep?”—they would most certainly say: “It wakes up in the summer and sleeps in the winter.”—That is the opposite of what is true. The truth is that the Earth actually sleeps in the summer and is awake in the winter. Of course, one can only arrive at this conclusion by truly investigating the spiritual world. This is the puzzle that so easily leads spiritual research into error: when one carries something from the physical into the spiritual world, one usually arrives at the opposite or at half-truths. One must simply investigate each individual case.

[ 20 ] The same is true of the analogies people draw between the three members of the individual organism and the three members of the social organism. What will someone who draws these analogies say? He must say: On the outside there is a spiritual life—art, science. He will draw a parallel between this and what the human head produces—the nervous-sensory life. How could he do otherwise! Then, if he accepts what I have stated in my *Riddles of the Soul*, he will associate the metabolic life—as the most material aspect—with economic life. That is the most erroneous conclusion one could reach. And one gets nowhere if one tries to view the matter in this way. Therefore, in order to arrive at the truth, one must break the habit of playing with analogies. Those outside of spiritual science believe that one arrives at these things through a game of mental analogies. This is the most deceptive thing of all. Nothing fits when one draws a parallel between the outer, physical spiritual life and the life of the mind. Nothing fits when one equates economic life with metabolic life. As soon as one tries to get to the heart of the matter, nothing fits. If one truly investigates, one arrives at a very paradoxical result. If one compares the social organism to the human organism, one can only make sense of it by conceiving of the social organism in reverse: by comparing economic life to the human nervous-sensory life. Then, indeed, one can compare political life to the rhythmic system. But physical-spiritual life—that must be compared to metabolism, for similar laws are at work there. For what exists as the natural foundation for economic life is, for the social organism, entirely equivalent to the individual abilities that a person brings with them at birth. Just as a person in their individual life depends on their upbringing and on what they bring with them, so the economic organism depends on what nature provides through the inherent conditions of economic life. The preconditions of economic life—the soil and so on—are the same as the individual talents that a person brings with them into their individual life. How much coal and how many metals lie beneath the earth, whether the soil is fertile or barren—these are, in a sense, the talents of the social organism.

[ 21 ] And just as the human metabolic system relates to the human organism and its functions, so do the products of human intellectual life relate to the social organism. The social organism eats and drinks what we feed it in the form of art, science, technical ideas, and so on. It feeds on these things. That is its metabolism. A country with unfavorable natural conditions for its economic life is like a person who is poorly endowed. And a country to which its inhabitants contribute nothing in the way of art, science, or technical ideas is like a person who must starve because he has nothing to eat. — That is the reality; that is the truth. The social organism eats and drinks our intellectual products. And the capacities, the talents of the social organism—these are the natural conditions. Comparing the intellectual organism to the life of the head is meaningful only as long as one is engaging in a game of analogies. Only then does one arrive at the correct understanding—one that can help—when one knows that this is how things are, that the laws are as I have described them. One can know: these are the laws of human metabolism. But in doing so, one must apply the same line of reasoning that one applies to the social organism, and then the rest becomes clear. Approaching spiritual matters without such a guide is extraordinarily difficult and tedious. Because today—due to the fact that people sometimes engage in drawing analogies—there is a strong aversion to drawing parallels between the social organism and the human organism, I only touched on this briefly in my book; but I tried at least to hint at it, because for those who think about the matter clearly, it can in turn be a great help.

[ 22 ] So you can see that we, as human beings, find ourselves in a peculiar situation today. Natural science, which has made such great strides and has influenced people’s ways of thinking to such an extent that, essentially, all social thinking among people who think socially is oriented toward natural science—even if they are not aware of it—is incapable of assessing human beings correctly. For example, it asserts the utter nonsense that when you feel something, that feeling is also mediated by the nervous system. That is pure nonsense. Feeling is mediated directly by the respiratory system and the rhythmic system, just as thought is mediated by the nervous-sensory system. And the will is mediated by metabolism, not at all by the nervous system in any fundamental way. Only the thought of willing is mediated by the nervous system. The nervous system is involved only to the extent that you, as human beings, have a clear awareness of your will. The nervous system is involved because you think about your will. Because people do not know this, the terribly misleading distinction in modern physiology and anatomy—that between sensory nerves and motor nerves—has emerged. There is no more glaring inaccuracy than this distinction between sensory nerves and motor nerves in the human body. Anatomists are always at a loss when they discuss this topic, but they cannot get past it. They are terribly at a loss because, anatomically speaking, these two types of nerves are indistinguishable. This is pure speculation. And everything that follows from studies of tabes is entirely without foundation. Motor nerves do not differ from sensory nerves because motor nerves are not there to set the muscles in motion. The muscles are set in motion by metabolism. And while you perceive the external world through the so-called sensory nerves via the senses, you perceive your own movements—the muscle movements—with the other nerves. Modern physiology merely refers to them incorrectly as motor nerves.

[ 23 ] Such terrible prejudices exist in science and corrupt what finds its way into the popular consciousness, having a far more corrupting effect than is generally thought,

[ 24 ] So natural science is not yet ready to grasp this threefold human being. In natural science, one can wait to see whether theoretical views become popular a few years earlier or later. That makes no difference to people’s happiness. But the kind of thinking needed to understand this threefold human being is not yet present. Yet this same kind of thinking must be present in order to understand the social organism in its threefold nature. That is where things get serious. We are now at the point in time when this must be understood. Therefore, such a reversal of thinking, such a re-learning, is truly necessary not only for naive people, but most of all for learned people. Naive people, at least, know nothing of all that has been established in the natural sciences to unconsciously conceal the threefold nature of the human being. The learned, however, are filled to the brim with all these concepts that today lead them to declare this threefold division to be nonsense. For today’s physiologist, it is pure nonsense. If one tells him that there are no motor nerves, and explains that feelings are not transmitted through the nervous system in the same way as thoughts—but rather that only the thought of the feeling is transmitted through the nerves, that is, the awareness of it, not the feeling itself—then he will raise serious objections. The objections to these ideas are well known. People may, of course, say: “Well, look, you perceive music; you perceive it through the senses.” — No, the experience of music is much more complex. It is based on the fact that the rhythm of breathing in our brain interacts with sensory perception, and the musical-aesthetic experience arises from the interplay between the rhythm of breathing and external sensory perception. Here, too, the fundamental element lies in the rhythmic system. And what brings this fundamental element to consciousness is found in the nervous system.

[ 25 ] All of this, however, points out to you that, in many respects, we are indeed living in a transitional period today. You know, I don’t like to speak of transitional periods, because every era is, after all, a transition from the past to the future. That is true, speaking in abstract terms, and to a greater or lesser extent, any era can seem like a transitional period. But I do not wish to speak of our time as a transitional period in general, but rather of what it is in this regard. Internally, in a very significant way—with regard to important inner impulses of humanity—it is a transitional period. This also becomes strikingly apparent, in a certain sense, to people who are capable of perceiving it. People today are not very inclined to regard secondary symptoms with the necessary seriousness. I would first like to share with you a purely spiritual-scientific observation. Of course, I can no more prove this spiritual-scientific observation to you than a person who has already seen a whale can prove to you that it exists. He can only tell the story.

[ 26 ] Once one has truly developed one’s spiritual powers of perception to the point where one can establish a connection with human souls that are evolving between death and a new birth, one has some truly surprising experiences. This communication can only be established through thought; but as we think here in the physical body, there is always something in our thoughts that resonates with language. Something of language always vibrates with the thought. We always think strongly in words. I even had to experience this once when I emphatically asserted, “I am well aware that I can think without words resonating in my thoughts”—only for Hartmann to tell me, “That’s nonsense; that doesn’t exist at all. A person cannot think without thinking in words.”

[ 27 ] There are, in fact, very insightful philosophers who do not believe at all that one can think without the inner presence of words. It is possible. But in ordinary, everyday thinking, people think in words, especially when they are to develop a spiritual connection with the dead. For you know, of course, that this communication with the dead must not take the form of abstractions—that would be like thinking into thin air—but must take a concrete form. That is why I said: Specific images, visualized very concretely, reach the dead, not abstract thoughts. Precisely because this is the case, we are then also very inclined, in this mental communication with the dead, to think in language—to let the language resonate within us. There we have the peculiar experience—believe it or not, but it is indeed an experience—that, for example, the dead do not hear nouns. These are like gaps in our sentences when communicating with the dead. Adjectives are somewhat better, but still very weak. But with verbs—words of action—that’s where their understanding comes into play. You learn this only very gradually. You don’t know why some things go so poorly in this communication. You realize only little by little that in this communication, you absolutely must not use many nouns. You can translate it for yourself, so that you understand it. And you come to realize that this stems from the fact that when a person uses action words—verbs—they cannot help but be inwardly present with the words themselves. There is something personal in verbs. You experience the action along with it, whereas a noun always becomes something entirely abstract. This is probably why the phenomenon I have been describing occurs. From this, however, you can see that the linguistic element is something that connects us to the supersensible world only to a very limited extent—and that, precisely because there is an increasing tendency toward nouns in the realm of language, it can cause us to cut ourselves off from the spiritual world. And the more we think in nouns, the more we cut ourselves off from the spiritual world.

[ 28 ] I simply wanted to use this fact to suggest to you that language is of great importance—of fundamental importance—to our spiritual life. But language itself is in the midst of full development within human evolution. And what is peculiar about the development of language is that it leads human beings more and more toward abstraction, distancing them more and more from the living, inner experience of thought. You can perceive this outwardly by asking yourself: How are Western languages structured in comparison to Eastern languages? Take, for example, the language that is outwardly the most advanced on the physical plane, English: it consists almost entirely of words and has the least thought content. Take the Eastern languages: they are full of emotional and intellectual content. This is the trajectory of language from East to West. Language becomes increasingly devoid of intellectual content as it moves from East to West. This is an important distinction with regard to the social life of peoples.

[ 29 ] Now, in our time, there is a man who has developed great insight into the observation of human language. This man is so clever when it comes to observing matters related to human language—indeed, almost so clever that he is almost not clever at all. For there is a certain level of cleverness at which one begins to become a little foolish again due to excessive cleverness. It is indeed true. One can certainly have great respect for this cleverness, but one should not overestimate it in light of the corresponding truth. There is Fritz Mauthner, who has outdone Kant in his *Critique of Language*. There are extraordinarily subtle observations in that dreadful book, the *Critique of Language*, and also in the *Dictionary*—observations that are, after all, shaped by the spirit of the times. That cannot be denied at all. Mauthner has thus arrived at something quite specific that must particularly strike the humanities scholar: namely, that human inner soul activity actually proceeds in a sort of three-stage process. The first is ordinary sensory perception, as it is then organically shaped in art. Mauthner believes in this as something that is real, that is a reality. Now, when one experiences something inwardly—stimulated by sensory perception—that already leads into the supersensible, Fritz Mauthner acknowledges such inner experience. He calls it “mystical experience” or “religious experience.” Fine, but he says: When a person experiences things in this mystical way, they can only be dreaming. It is, of course, pleasant to dream, but one is removed from reality. Mauthner doubts the very possibility of approaching the reality of things, for to him the only reality is sensory perception. At most, art can come close. But as soon as one moves away from sensory perception—so far that one experiences something in a mystical-religious life—one is actually dreaming about reality; one has already left it behind. And then one can go even further, Mauthner argues. He arrives at all these convictions through his analysis of language. He analyzes and critiques language, especially in his philosophical dictionary: It is a dreadful thing to read. I have already drawn your attention on another occasion to the torment one goes through when reading one or another of these articles, which run from A to Z. One begins to read such an article: Something is said there. Then another sentence is spoken, in which what was said is slightly qualified. Then a third sentence, in which what was qualified is in turn qualified, so that it returns somewhat to the first sentence. You go round and round and round, and in the end you’re left with nothing when you finish reading the entire article. The article “Christianity” is dreadful. A dreadful torment. But there is a reason, in Mauthner’s view, for it to be this way. Mauthner knows this, and he actually condemns his reader to experience such torments. He has experienced them himself. He does not believe that a person, when seeking to know something, is capable of arriving at anything other than such going in circles. He is an absolute skeptic. Nowhere in language does he find any content other than what language itself possesses. For him, it has only a random value. And so even the inner mystical experience becomes a dream to him. If one wants to escape language—by escaping it, it becomes an inner dream.

[ 30 ] But one can go a step further: one can believe one is thinking, but one is speaking only inwardly. Whether one leans toward one language or another, the sounds of language and the words themselves are ultimately derived from external, sensory things. I have, after all, spoken to you about various scholarly views on how language originated. You know that views on language development are divided into two main categories: the Bimbam theory and the Wauwau theory. These are technical terms. Now, Mauthner maintains that everything is derived solely from external sensory perception. In reality, true thoughts do not exist for human beings. But in science, they strive for true thoughts by ascending to the third level. Yet they do not succeed in knowing anything real. In mysticism, he is still dreaming. When he elevates himself to the reality of thought—for example, to the laws of nature—then he is no longer even dreaming; he is already asleep. Therefore, for Mauthner, all science is *docta ignorantia*. These are his three stages.

[ 31 ] Well, I told you that one can have a certain respect for such an observation, because it is not even incorrect—but it is simply not incorrect for our time. It is, in fact, something toward which humanity is now tending, and which Mauthner has correctly perceived. The fact is: When people today seek mysticism, it is something entirely different from what it was for people in the past. People of the past were still inwardly connected to reality. People today cannot do that; as mystics, they truly dream. And the laws of nature that people discover today—well, one cannot quite adopt such a harsh standpoint as certain “theorists” who have also noticed this, like Mauthner, such as the French thinker Boutroux or Ernst Mach— but one must say that what we call the laws of nature today—when one examines these laws of nature for their content—are, in essence, not thoughts at all—we merely believe them to be thoughts—but merely summaries of facts. They are, in fact, mere records. Some have noticed this, for example, Mach. Mauthner has recognized this quite clearly; that is why he speaks of *docta ignorantia*, of learned ignorance, of ignorant erudition. Yes, this is indeed the case given the current state of human development. Human beings today have become very barren, both mystically and scientifically. They simply do not yet realize this clearly enough in their arrogance. But this is not a universally human trait. Mauthner and the others believe this to be the case not because they are actually thinking about human development, but because they believe that the soul has always been as it is today. Yet it is characteristic of the present age. For today’s spiritual life, only perception is clear. We slip into a state of dreaming—and even into learned ignorance—when we attempt to ascend to earlier stages. However, one must not conclude from this that human nature is such that it must either fall into mystical reverie or into learned ignorance—as do those who think like Mauthner—but rather one must conclude that we must find, through new paths, what the ancients found through old paths. That is to say, we must seek a new mysticism, not retreat into old mysticism. This new mysticism is explored in *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?*. We must ascend to a new imagination, to a new inspiration, but we must ascend along new paths. I have elaborated on this point sharply in my book *The Enigma of Man*: Because we are either dreaming mystically or even sleeping scientifically, it is necessary for us today to wake up. That is why I have described the primordial phenomenon of contemporary knowledge in this book as an “awakening.” We must replace mystical dreaming with a waking imagination, and “docta ignorantia” with inspiration, in the sense intended in the book *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?*

[ 32 ] In this regard, we are currently in a transitional phase—particularly with regard to the human soul—in which we must draw up from the deepest recesses of the human soul an active force that leads to the spiritual. Otherwise, we will not find our way through the chaos of the present age unless we cultivate the good will to develop active inner soul forces. The spiritualists do the opposite. They unconsciously sense that nothing wells up from within, so they allow spirits to be presented to them in external forms, in external sensory perception.

[ 33 ] And a tragic phenomenon is emerging in the present day. We can see today that people who until recently believed materialism could fulfill their souls are, as they grow older, led astray by materialism. This is nothing other than what a healthy soul must sense in the face of today’s biology and sociology as well: the stench of decay—a spiritual stench of decay—which can only be dispelled through inner spiritual activity. Many people today do not want this. This gives rise to the tragedy of elderly people who, however, do not wish to engage with spiritual scientific research and instead turn back to Catholicism. Catholicism then offers these passively remaining souls something they believe to be spiritual content. This is a great danger. It, in turn, points from another angle to the transition that we as humanity are undergoing in the present time. Quite secretly, the human soul is passing through an important point of development. And intrinsically linked to this passage through an important point of development is the necessity that we learn to think anew with regard to the social organism, and that we also learn to rethink many other aspects concerning the human being.

[ 34 ] Now read how the individual, as he ascends into the supersensible world, begins to divide himself into three parts. Read about it in “How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?” The intermingling of thinking, feeling, and willing—which is natural for human beings here in the sensory world (read the chapter on “The Keeper of the Threshold”)—these three aspects begin to separate as one enters this supersensible world. Humanity is undergoing this process secretly in the subconscious today. A threshold is being crossed. People are internally structured into a threefold human being in a different way than was the case in the past. Observing this passage of the human being through a certain threshold teaches us that the threefold structure of the social organism is dictated to us from the spiritual depths of existence itself. If we wish to find a reflection of ourselves in the external world in the future—one with which we are in harmony—then we must have a threefold social organism.

[ 35 ] You see, these are the kinds of hints that spiritual science offers regarding the threefold structure of the social organism. But I must emphasize once again: Once the threefold structure of the social organism has been discovered, it can be understood through common sense, just like all occult truths. To discover it, research in spiritual science is necessary. Once it is discovered, common sense will articulate the matter. This is also something we must take into account at every opportunity.

[ 36 ] Today I have tried to help you internalize what needs to be said today—in keeping with the times—about the threefold structure of the social organism. Next Sunday, we will expand on this reflection, bring it to a conclusion, and perhaps finally bring it to what it is meant to be: complete inner wholeness.