41b. H. P. Blavatsky's, “The Key to Theosophy”: Extract from the Voice of the Silence
|
---|
* In it thy Soul will find the blossoms of life, but under every flower a serpent coiled.18 [*The Hall of Probationary Learning.] |
One of the twain must disappear; there is no place for both. Ere thy Soul's mind can understand, the bud of personality must be crushed out, the worm of sense destroyed past resurrection. Thou canst not travel on the Path before thou hast become that Path itself. |
It is an electric fiery occult or Fohatic power, the great pristine force, which underlies all organic and inorganic matter.32. This "Path" is mentioned in all the Mystic Works. |
41b. H. P. Blavatsky's, “The Key to Theosophy”: Extract from the Voice of the Silence
|
---|
These instructions are for those ignorant of the dangers of the lower IDDHI.1 He who would hear the voice of Nâda,2 "the Soundless Sound," and comprehend it, he has to learn the nature of Dhâranâ.3 Having become indifferent to objects of perception, the pupil must seek out the râja of the senses, the Thought-Producer, he who awakes illusion. The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer. For: — When he has ceased to hear the many, he may discern the ONE — the inner sound which kills the outer. Then only, not till then, shall he forsake the region of Asat, the false, to come unto the realm of Sat, the true. Before the soul can see, the Harmony within must be attained, and fleshly eyes be rendered blind to all illusion. Before the Soul can hear, the image (man) has to become as deaf to roarings as to whispers, to cries of bellowing elephants as to the silvery buzzing of the golden fire-fly. Before the soul can comprehend and may remember, she must unto the Silent Speaker be united just as the form to which the clay is modelled, is first united with the potter's mind. For then the soul will hear, and will remember. And then to the inner ear will speak — THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE And say: — If thy soul smiles while bathing in the Sunlight of thy Life; if thy soul sings within her chrysalis of flesh and matter; if thy soul weeps inside her castle of illusion; if thy soul struggles to break the silver thread that binds her to the MASTER; 4 know, O Disciple, thy Soul is of the earth. When to the World's turmoil thy budding soul 5 lends ear; when to the roaring voice of the great illusion thy Soul responds; 6 when frightened at the sight of the hot tears of pain, when deafened by the cries of distress, thy soul withdraws like the shy turtle within the carapace of SELFHOOD, learn, O Disciple, of her Silent "God," thy Soul is an unworthy shrine. When waxing stronger, thy Soul glides forth from her secure retreat: and breaking loose from the protecting shrine, extends her silver thread and rushes onward; when beholding her image on the waves of Space she whispers, "This is I," — declare, O Disciple, that thy soul is caught in the webs of delusion.7 This Earth, Disciple, is the Hall of Sorrow, wherein are set along the Path of dire probations, traps to ensnare thy EGO by the delusion called "Great Heresy".8 This earth, O ignorant Disciple, is but the dismal entrance leading to the twilight that precedes the valley of true light — that light which no wind can extinguish, that light which burns without a wick or fuel. Saith the Great Law: — "In order to become the knower of ALL SELF 9 thou hast first of self to be the knower." To reach the knowledge of that self, thou hast to give up Self to Non-Self, Being to Non-Being, and then thou canst repose between the wings of the GREAT BIRD. Aye, sweet is rest between the wings of that which is not born, nor dies, but is the AUM 10 throughout eternal ages.11 Bestride the Bird of Life, if thou would'st know.12 Give up thy life, if thou would'st live.13 Three Halls, O weary pilgrim, lead to the end of toils. Three Halls, O conqueror of Mâra, will bring thee through three states 14 into the fourth 15 and thence into the seven worlds,16 the worlds of Rest Eternal. If thou would'st learn their names, then hearken, and remember. The name of the first Hall is IGNORANCE — Avidyâ. It is the Hall in which thou saw'st the light, in which thou livest and shalt die.17 The name of Hall the second is the Hall of Learning.* In it thy Soul will find the blossoms of life, but under every flower a serpent coiled.18 [*The Hall of Probationary Learning.] The name of the third Hall is Wisdom, beyond which stretch the shoreless waters of AKSHARA, the indestructible Fount of Omniscience.19 If thou would'st cross the first Hall safely, let not thy mind mistake the fires of lust that burn therein for the Sunlight of life. If thou would'st cross the second safely, stop not the fragrance of its stupefying blossoms to inhale. If freed thou would'st be from the Karmic chains, seek not for thy Guru in those Mâyâvic regions. The WISE ONES tarry not in pleasure-grounds of senses. The WISE ONES heed not the sweet-tongued voices of illusion. Seek for him who is to give thee birth,20 in the Hall of Wisdom, the Hall which lies beyond, wherein all shadows are unknown, and where the light of truth shines with unfading glory. That which is uncreate abides in thee, Disciple, as it abides in that Hall. If thou would'st reach it and blend the two, thou must divest thyself of thy dark garments of illusion. Stifle the voice of flesh, allow no image of the senses to get between its light and thine that thus the twain may blend in one. And having learnt thine own Ajñâna,21 flee from the Hall of Learning. This Hall is dangerous in its perfidious beauty, is needed but for thy probation. Beware, Lanoo, lest dazzled by illusive radiance thy Soul should linger and be caught in its deceptive light. This light shines from the jewel of the Great Ensnarer, (Mâra).22 The senses it bewitches, blinds the mind, and leaves the unwary an abandoned wreck. The moth attracted to the dazzling flame of thy night-lamp is doomed to perish in the viscid oil. The unwary Soul that fails to grapple with the mocking demon of illusion, will return to earth the slave of Mâra. Behold the Hosts of Souls. Watch how they hover o'er the stormy sea of human life, and how exhausted, bleeding, broken-winged, they drop one after other on the swelling waves. Tossed by the fierce winds, chased by the gale, they drift into the eddies and disappear within the first great vortex. If through the Hall of Wisdom, thou would'st reach the Vale of Bliss, Disciple, close fast thy senses against the great dire heresy of separateness that weans thee from the rest. Let not thy "Heaven-born," merged in the sea of Mâyâ, break from the Universal Parent (SOUL), but let the fiery power retire into the inmost chamber, the chamber of the Heart 23 and the abode of the World's Mother.24 Then from the heart that Power shall rise into the sixth, the middle region, the place between thine eyes, when it becomes the breath of the ONE-SOUL, the voice which filleth all, thy Master's voice. 'Tis only then thou canst become a "Walker of the Sky" 25 who treads the winds above the waves, whose step touches not the waters. Before thou set'st thy foot upon the ladder's upper rung, the ladder of the mystic sounds, thou hast to hear the voice of thy inner GOD* in seven manners. [*The Higher SELF.] The first is like the nightingale's sweet voice chanting a song of parting to its mate. The second comes as the sound of a silver cymbal of the Dhyânis, awakening the twinkling stars. The next is as the plaint melodious of the ocean-sprite imprisoned in its shell. And this is followed by the chant of Vînâ.26 The fifth like sound of bamboo-flute shrills in thine ear. It changes next into a trumpet-blast. The last vibrates like the dull rumbling of a thunder-cloud. The seventh swallows all the other sounds. They die, and then are heard no more. When the six 27 are slain and at the Master's feet are laid, then is the pupil merged into the ONE, 28 becomes that ONE and lives therein. Before that path is entered, thou must destroy thy lunar body,29 cleanse thy mind-body 30 and make clean thy heart. Eternal life's pure waters, clear and crystal, with the monsoon tempest's muddy torrents cannot mingle. Heaven's dew-drop glittering in the morn's first sun-beam within the bosom of the lotus, when dropped on earth becomes a piece of clay; behold, the pearl is now a speck of mire. Strive with thy thoughts unclean before they overpower thee. Use them as they will thee, for if thou sparest them and they take root and grow, know well, these thoughts will overpower and kill thee. Beware, Disciple, suffer not, e'en though it be their shadow, to approach. For it will grow, increase in size and power, and then this thing of darkness will absorb thy being before thou hast well realized the black foul monster's presence. Before the "mystic Power" (Kundalinî, the "Serpent Power" or mystic fire.) 31 can make of thee a god, Lanoo, thou must have gained the faculty to slay thy lunar form at will. The Self of matter and the SELF of Spirit can never meet. One of the twain must disappear; there is no place for both. Ere thy Soul's mind can understand, the bud of personality must be crushed out, the worm of sense destroyed past resurrection. Thou canst not travel on the Path before thou hast become that Path itself.32 Let thy Soul lend its ear to every cry of pain like as the lotus bares its heart to drink the morning sun. Let not the fierce Sun dry one tear of pain before thyself hast wiped it from the sufferer's eye. But let each burning human tear drop on thy heart and there remain, nor ever brush it off, until the pain that caused it is removed. These tears, O thou of heart most merciful, these are the streams that irrigate the fields of charity immortal. 'Tis on such soil that grows the midnight blossom of Buddha 33 more difficult to find, more rare to view than is the flower of the Vogay tree. It is the seed of freedom from rebirth. It isolates the Arhat both from strife and lust, it leads him through the fields of Being unto the peace and bliss known only in the land of Silence and Non-Being.
|
43. Dramatizations II: The Oberuferer Christmas Plays: Oberuferer Paradise Play
|
---|
Adam says: Oh Lord, here she is standing under the tree. Lord God says: Eve, tell me! why did you do that? Eve says: Oh Lord, the snake incited me to do it, so that I was the last to eat from the forbidden tree. |
And you, Adam, in fear and need shall you gain your bread with sweat and you, Eve, with pain shall you bear children under your heart. Eve says: Oh, woe is me, poor woman, that I must build this misery! |
43. Dramatizations II: The Oberuferer Christmas Plays: Oberuferer Paradise Play
|
---|
Adam and Eve [The tree singer says:] I love my singers when they come in a friendly way, What an old friend of ours desires. The company enters singing: I want to sing from the bottom of my heart, They Leave. The Angel Gabriel Appears: I enter here in all humility, From. Company Come again: 1. How chilly the morning seems to us, Company Remain standing. God, Adam step forward. Lord God speaks: Adam, accept the living breath Adam says: Oh Lord, it is for the very best Lord God says: Adam, all the animals were right, Company Sings: 9. Adam recognizes his creator, Lord God says: I took a rib from Adam's body. Adam says: Lord, I am ready for that, Companie: 15. They were now full of glory, Devil speaks: I come into paradise Company sings: 18. She broke the apple from the branch Eva Spricht: I am your wife and you are my husband. (It) tastes like. So I should tell the truth Adam says: So I shall eat of the apple Company sings: 19. She also gave some to Adam, Devil says: I am called the devil, Adam says: Oh, how my heart has changed! God says: Adam, where are you, come here to me! Adam says: O Lord, here I am, I am ashamed before your eyes.God says: Why are you ashamed? Adam says: Because I broke your commandment. Lord God says: Do you think you will go unpunished Adam said: Oh Lord, I swear by my life, Lord God says: Where is the woman who has done this. Adam says: Oh Lord, here she is standing under the tree. Lord God says: Eve, tell me! Eve says: Oh Lord, the snake incited me to do it, Lord God says: Gabriel, where art thou? Come to me! they shall never enter it again. Company sings: 21. Then came an angel so white Angel says: I have received a command Eve says: Oh, woe is me, poor woman, Adam says: My dear wife, come here! Angel says: So go down out of the garden! Eve says: I beg my God you will not leave me. Angel says: Eve, you must not doubt! Company sings: 22. So Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise Devil says: I have deceived the two persons, The Lord says: Begone, Satan, you hellhound! Company Singing Afterwards: O holy trinity, Angel says: Dear, kind, generous lords, |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Nature of Anthroposophy
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
Those who take this sufficiently into account will find it understandable that, in particular, knowledge of man should be sought in such a way that one tries to approach his nature from different points of view. |
She examines the influence of climate, the seas, and other geographical conditions on human life. It seeks to gain an understanding of the conditions of racial development, of the life of nations, of legal conditions, the development of writing, of languages, etc. |
When the spiritual researcher communicates them after having found them, they can be understood by every person who listens to them with a healthy sense of truth and unprejudiced logic. One should not believe that only a clairvoyant consciousness can have a well-founded conviction of the facts of the spiritual world. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Nature of Anthroposophy
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
Since the earliest times, it has been felt that the study of the human being is the most worthy pursuit of human research. Anyone who allows themselves to be influenced by what has come to light over time as knowledge of the human being can easily become discouraged. A wealth of opinions presents itself as answers to the question: what is the human being, and what is his relationship to the universe? The most diverse differences between these opinions arise in contemplation. This can lead to the feeling that man is not called to such research and that he must refrain from achieving anything that can give satisfaction to the feeling mentioned. Is such a feeling justified? It could only be so if the perception of different views on a subject were a testimony to man's inability to recognize anything true about the subject. Anyone who wanted to accept such a testimony would have to believe that the whole essence of a thing should suddenly reveal itself to man, if knowledge could be spoken of at all. But it is not the case with human knowledge that the essence of things can suddenly reveal itself to it. It is rather the case with it, as with the picture that one paints, for example, of a tree from a certain side or photographs. This picture gives the appearance of the tree, from a certain point of view, in full truth. If one chooses a different point of view, the picture will be quite different. And only a series of pictures, from the most diverse points of view, can give an overall idea of the tree through their interaction. In this way, however, man can also only look at the things and entities of the world. Everything he can say about them, he must say as views that apply from different points of view. It is not only so with the sensory observation of things, it is also so in the spiritual. With regard to the latter, one should not be misled by the above comparison and imagine that the diversity of points of view has something to do with space. Each view can be a true one if it faithfully reflects what is observed. And it is only refuted when it is shown that it can legitimately be contradicted by another view given from the same point of view. A difference between one view and another given from a different point of view, on the other hand, is as a rule meaningless. Anyone who views the matter in this way is protected against the obvious objection that every opinion must appear justified when viewed in this way. Just as the image of a tree must have a very specific shape from one point of view, so must a mental view from one point of view. But it is clear that one can only prove an error in the view if one is clear about the point of view from which it is given. We should get along much better in the world of human opinions than we often do if we always kept this in mind. One would then realize how the differences of opinion in many cases arise only from the diversity of points of view. And only through different true views can one approach the essence of things. The mistakes that are made in this direction do not arise from the fact that people form different views, but rather from the fact that each person wants to see his view as the only legitimate one. An objection to all this presents itself easily. One could say that if man wants to present the truth, he should not give an opinion, but rise above possible opinions to an overall view of a corresponding thing. This demand may sound acceptable. But it is not realizable. For what a thing is must be characterized from different points of view. The chosen image of the tree being painted from different points of view seems appropriate. Anyone who wants to avoid looking at the different images in order to gain an overall picture might end up painting something very blurry and foggy; but there would be no truth in such a blurry picture. Nor can truth be gained by a knowledge that wants to encompass the object with a single glance, but only by combining the true views that are given from different points of view. This may not correspond to human impatience; but it corresponds to the facts that one learns to recognize when one develops a meaningful striving for knowledge. Few things can lead so strongly to a genuine appreciation of truth as such a striving for knowledge. And this appreciation may be called genuine because it cannot be followed by faintheartedness. It does not lead to despair in the striving for truth, because it recognizes truth as such in limitation; but it protects against the empty arrogance that, in its possession of truth, believes it can encompass the comprehensive essence of things. Those who take this sufficiently into account will find it understandable that, in particular, knowledge of man should be sought in such a way that one tries to approach his nature from different points of view. One such point of view shall be chosen for the following remarks. It shall be characterized as one that lies between two others, as it were, in the middle. And it is not to be asserted that there are not many other points of view besides the three considered here. But the three shall be chosen here as particularly characteristic. The first aspect to be considered in this regard is anthropology. This science collects everything that can be observed about humans and seeks to gain insights into their nature from the results of its observations. For example, it considers the structure of the sensory organs, the shape of the bone structure, the conditions of the nervous system, the processes of muscle movement, etc. With her methods, she penetrates into the finer structure of the organs and seeks to learn about the conditions of feeling, of imagining, etc. She also investigates the similarity of the human being to the animal and seeks to gain an idea of the relationship between humans and other living beings. She goes further and examines the living conditions of primitive peoples, who appear to be lagging behind in their development compared to civilized peoples. From what she observes in such peoples, she forms ideas about what the more developed peoples were once like, which have progressed beyond the level of education at which those remained. She studies the remains of prehistoric people in the layers of the earth and forms concepts about how cultural development has progressed. She examines the influence of climate, the seas, and other geographical conditions on human life. It seeks to gain an understanding of the conditions of racial development, of the life of nations, of legal conditions, the development of writing, of languages, etc. The name anthropology is used here for the entire physical study of man; it includes not only what is often counted in the narrower sense, but also the morphology, biology, etc. of man. At present, anthropology generally keeps within the limits that are now considered to be those of scientific methods. It has compiled an enormous amount of factual material. Despite the different types of representations in which this material is summarized, it contains something that can have the most beneficial effect on the knowledge of human nature. And this material is constantly growing. It corresponds to the views of the present time to place great hopes in what can be gained from this side in elucidating the human riddle. And it is quite natural that many consider the point of view of anthropology to be as certain as they must regard the next one to be characterized here as doubtful. This other point of view is that of theosophy. Whether this term is fortunate or unfortunate is not to be examined here. It is only a second point of view in relation to the anthropological view of man that is to be characterized. Theosophy assumes that man is above all a spiritual being. And it seeks to recognize him as such. It bears in mind that the human soul not only reflects and processes things and events perceived by the senses, but that it is capable of leading a life of its own, which receives its stimuli and content from a source that can be called spiritual. It relies on the fact that man can penetrate into a spiritual realm just as he penetrates into a sensory one. In the latter, man's knowledge expands as he focuses his senses on more and more things and processes, and forms his ideas on the basis of these. In the spiritual realm, however, knowledge advances differently. The observations are made in inner experience. A sensual object presents itself to man; a spiritual experience arises within, as if rising from the center of the human being itself. As long as a person cherishes the belief that such an ascent can only be an inner matter of the soul, so long must Theosophy be highly doubtful to him. For such a belief is not far from the other, which assumes that such experiences are only further inner workings of what has been observed by the senses. It is only possible to persist in such a belief as long as one has not yet obtained the conviction through compelling reasons that from a certain point on, the inner experiences, like the sensory facts, are determined by something that is an external world to the human personality. Once one has obtained this conviction, then one must recognize a spiritual external world just as one recognizes a physical one. And then it will be clear to everyone that man is connected with a spiritual world in relation to his spiritual nature, just as he is rooted in a physical world through his physical nature. It will then also be understood that materials for the knowledge of man can be taken from this spiritual world, just as anthropology takes materials for the physical man from physical observation. Then the possibility of research in the spiritual world will no longer be doubted. The spiritual researcher transforms his soul experience in such a way that the spiritual world enters into his soul experiences. He shapes certain soul experiences in such a way that this spiritual world reveals itself in them. (How this happens is described by the writer of this sketch in his book: “How to Know Higher Worlds?” Berlin, Philosophisch-theosophischer Verlag.) This kind of inner life can be called “clairvoyant consciousness.” But one must keep far from this concept all the nonsense that is done in the present with the word “clairvoyance”. To arrive at inner experience in such a way that these or those facts of the spiritual world reveal themselves directly to the soul requires long, arduous, and self-denying soul-searching. But it would be a fatal mistake to believe that only those who experience spiritual realities directly through such soul-searching can reap the fruits of their soul-searching. The case is quite different. When spiritual facts have been revealed through the appropriate soul-searching exercises, they are, as it were, conquered for the human soul. When the spiritual researcher communicates them after having found them, they can be understood by every person who listens to them with a healthy sense of truth and unprejudiced logic. One should not believe that only a clairvoyant consciousness can have a well-founded conviction of the facts of the spiritual world. Every soul is tuned to recognize the truth of what the spiritual researcher has found. If the spiritual researcher wants to assert something that is untrue, this will always be ascertainable through the rejection of the healthy sense of truth and unbiased logic. The direct experience of spiritual knowledge requires complicated soul paths and soul activities; possession of such knowledge is necessary for every soul that wants to have a full consciousness of its humanity. And without such consciousness, a human life is no longer possible from a certain point of existence. Even if Theosophy is able to provide knowledge that satisfies the most important needs of the human soul, and that can be recognized by the natural sense of truth and by sound logic, there will always be a certain gap between it and anthropology. It will always be possible to show the results of Theosophy regarding the spiritual essence of man and then be able to point out how anthropology confirms everything that Theosophy says. But there will be a long way from one field of knowledge to the other. But it is possible to fill the gap. In a certain respect, this is done here by sketching an anthroposophy. If anthropology can be compared to the observations of a wanderer who walks from place to place and from house to house in the plain in order to gain an idea of the nature of a region; if theosophy resembles the overview that can be gained from the summit of a hill over the the same district: then anthroposophy is to be compared with the view that one can have from the slope of the hill, where the individual is still in front of one's eyes, but the manifold is already beginning to merge into a whole. Anthroposophy will observe the human being as he presents himself to physical observation. But it will cultivate observation in such a way that the physical fact is used to seek out the reference to a spiritual background. In this way, anthroposophy can lead from anthropology to theosophy. It should be noted that only a very brief sketch of anthroposophy is intended here. A detailed presentation would require a great deal. The sketch is intended to take into account only the physical body of man, insofar as this is a revelation of the spiritual. And within these limits, anthroposophy is meant in the narrower sense. It must then be followed by a psychosophy, which considers the soul, and a pneumatosophy, which deals with the spirit. In this way, anthroposophy leads into theosophy itself. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Human Being as a Sensory Organism
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
If, as is appropriate, one speaks of meaning where knowledge comes about without the participation of understanding, memory, etc., then one must recognize other senses than those listed. If we apply this distinction, it is easy to see that in everyday life the word “sense” is often used in a non-literal way. |
To an even greater degree, the sensory character is hidden in the next sense to be characterized. When we understand a person who communicates through speech, gestures, etc., it is true that judgment, memory, etc. play a predominant role in this understanding. But here too, right self-contemplation leads us to recognize that there is a direct grasping and understanding that can precede all thinking and judging. The best way to develop a feeling for this fact is to realize how one can understand something even before one has developed the ability to judge it. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Human Being as a Sensory Organism
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
The beginning of anthroposophy is to be made with a consideration of the human senses. Through the senses, the human being enters into a relationship with an external world. When speaking of the senses, two things should be considered. First, one should disregard how the human being enters into another world, namely the spiritual world, through a different path, as described above. And then one should initially disregard whether there is anything spiritual behind what the senses observe. When speaking of the senses, one should approach the spiritual in such a way that one waits to see to what extent the hint of the spiritual arises naturally from the observation of the senses. The spiritual must not be rejected nor presupposed; its manifestation must be awaited. It is not the objects of sensory observation, but the senses themselves, as human organs, that are considered here. On the basis of what his senses convey to him, man forms ideas about an external world. This is how knowledge of this external world comes about. In relation to knowledge, one can speak of truth and error. Does error now arise in the realm of the senses, or only where judgment, memory, etc. are used to form ideas about the statements of the senses? We have a right to speak of illusions. If, through some irregularity in the ear or the eye, a sound or a light appears differently than it would with the normal formation of the organs concerned, then, for example, there is an illusion. Does this mean that Goethe was wrong when he said, “You may trust your senses implicitly; they will not let you see anything false if your intellect keeps you alert”? Goethe's statement proves to be immediately justified when we consider the following. An error that is caused by reason or memory is different from a sensory deception. The latter can be corrected by common sense. If, through an error of the eye, a tree standing before him appears to someone as a human being, he will only fall into error if he does not correct the eye defect and sees in the pretended human being an enemy against whom he defends himself. It is not so with an error of the intellect, for there it is this intellect itself that errs, and which therefore cannot at the same time correct its own mistakes. The illusions of the senses only become real errors through the mind. This distinction is not pedantry, but a necessity. Many people are accustomed to listing five types of sensory perception when speaking of sensory perception: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching (or feeling). But we cannot stop here, because there are other ways in which a person enters into a relationship with the outside world that differ from those of hearing or seeing, for example. Even anthropological science currently speaks of senses other than those included in the above list. It is not necessary here to go into the list given by anthropology. It should only be noted that here lies one of the very gratifying points where science, based on mere sensory-physical facts, is pushed by its own observations to views that partly coincide with what the spiritual researcher must establish. Such points of contact will arise more and more in the course of time; and if goodwill prevails on both sides, a time will soon come when natural science and spiritual research will be mutually accepted. In anthroposophical terms, everything that causes a person to recognize the existence of an object, being or process in such a way that it is justified to place this existence in the physical world can be called a human sense that leads man to recognize the existence of an object, being or process in such a way that he is justified in placing this existence in the physical world. Seen in this light, the most indeterminate and general sense appears to be that which can be called the sense of life. Man only really notices the existence of this sense when something is perceived through it that breaks through the order in the body. Man feels weariness and fatigue in himself. He does not hear the fatigue, the weariness; he does not smell it; but he perceives it in the same sense as he perceives a smell, a sound. This kind of perception, which relates to one's own corporeality, is ascribed to the sense of life. It is basically always present in an alert person, even if it only becomes quite noticeable when there is a disturbance. Through it, the person perceives themselves as a corporeal self filling the space. This sense is different from the one by which a person perceives a movement they have performed, for example. You move a leg, and you perceive this movement. The sense by which this happens is called the sense of self-motion. The difference between this sense and the first arises when you consider that through the sense of life you only perceive something that is present in the inner body without you doing anything about it. The sense of one's own movement perceives such things that require activity or mobility. The third sense arises when one notices how the human being is able to maintain a certain position in relation to above and below, right and left, etc. It can be called the sense of equilibrium or the sense of static. Its peculiarity arises from the fact that one must have a perception of one's position if one is to maintain oneself in it as a conscious being. If the sense of equilibrium does not function, then dizziness will overtake the person; he will fall over. An unconscious object is maintained in its position without being aware of it. Such an object cannot be affected by dizziness. When speaking of this sense, anthropology points to a small organ in the human ear. There are three semicircular canals in the so-called labyrinth of the ear. If these are injured, dizziness occurs. If you survey the peculiarities of the three senses listed, you will find that humans perceive something through each of them that relates to their own physical existence. Through the sense of life, he acquires general sensations about his corporeality; through the sense of self-movement, he perceives changes in this corporeality of his; through the sense of equilibrium, he perceives his relationship to the spatial outside world. However, he receives this perception in such a way that it reveals itself to him as a state of his own corporeality, as his own sensation of position. — Through these three senses, the human being acquires the sensation of his own corporeality as a whole, which is the basis for his self-awareness as a physical being. One can say that through the senses of life, of self-movement and of balance, the soul opens its gates to one's own corporeality and senses this as the physical external world that is closest to it. With the following senses, the human being encounters the external world that does not belong to him in this way. The first sense to be considered here is that through which man comes into closest contact with what is called matter. Only gaseous or airy bodies allow close contact with the material. And this is conveyed through the sense of smell. Without a substance being divided into the finest particles and thus spreading like air, it cannot be perceived by the sense of smell. The next stage of sensory perception is that by which not only the substance as such, but also the effects (deeds) of the substance are perceived. This happens through the sense of taste. This sense can only perceive a watery body, or one that is dissolved in the fluid of the mouth in order to be tasted. Through the sense of taste, man penetrates one degree deeper into the external materiality than through the sense of smell. With the latter, it is the substance itself that approaches the person and manifests itself in its own way; with the sense of taste, what is felt is the effect of the substance on the person. This difference can best be felt by considering how, in the sense of smell, the gaseous nature of the substance must be ready to approach the person so that he can perceive it as it is; in the sense of taste, the person, through his own liquid, dissolves the substance, thus making a change with it, in order to penetrate into those peculiarities of that substance which it does not reveal to him by itself. The sense of smell is suited to perceive the outer side of material things; the sense of taste penetrates more into the inner side of material things. And this inner aspect of material things man must first induce to reveal itself by changing the outer aspect. Man penetrates even deeper into the inner aspect of the physical external world through the next sense. It is sight. Whether man sees a body as red or blue reveals more about the inner aspect of this body than is contained in the effect conveyed by the sense of taste. It depends on the nature of a body whether it behaves towards the colorless sunlight in such a way that it appears red or blue under its influence. Color manifests itself as the surface of a body. But one can say how the body reveals itself on its surface; this is an appearance of its inner essence through the medium of light. The sense of warmth penetrates even deeper, as it were, below the surface of the bodies. If you feel a piece of ice or a warm object, you are aware that cold or warmth is something that does not just appear on the surface like color, but that permeates the body completely. You will notice how the sequence of senses characterized here is such that with each successive one, the human being delves deeper into the interior of the bodies of the external world. A further advance in this immersion is given with the sense of hearing. It leads to the interior of the bodies to a far greater degree than the sense of warmth. Sound causes the interior of the bodies to tremble. It is more than a mere image when one speaks of the soul of a body being revealed through sound. Through the warmth that a body carries within itself, one experiences something of its difference from its surroundings; through sound, the intrinsic nature, the individuality of the body emerges and communicates itself to perception. If, as is appropriate, one speaks of meaning where knowledge comes about without the participation of understanding, memory, etc., then one must recognize other senses than those listed. If we apply this distinction, it is easy to see that in everyday life the word “sense” is often used in a non-literal way. For example, when we speak of a sense of imitation, a sense of concealment, etc. In what appears as imitation, concealment, etc., the intellect and judgment are already involved. Here we are not dealing with mere sensory activity. But the situation is quite different when we perceive in language what is revealed by the sound. It is certainly self-evident that a complicated act of judgment is involved in the perception of something spoken, that comprehensive soul processes come into play that cannot be described by the word “sense”. But there is also something simple and direct in this area that represents a sensation before all judgment, just as a color or a degree of warmth is. A sound is not felt only in terms of its pitch, but something much more inward is grasped with it than the tone itself. If we say that the soul of a body lives in the tone, we may also say that in the sound this soul-life reveals itself in such a way that it is released and freed from the physical, and enters into manifestation with a certain independence. Because the sensation of sound precedes judgment, the child learns to sense the sound-meanings of words before it can use judgment. It is through speech that the child learns to judge. It is entirely justified to speak of a special sense of sound or sense of language. The reason that recognizing this sense is difficult is because the most diverse exercise of judgment usually occurs in addition to the direct sensation of what is revealed in the sound. But a careful examination of oneself shows that all hearing of what is given in sounds is based on an equally direct, judgment-free relationship to the being from which the sound emanates, as is the case when a color impression is perceived. It is easier to grasp this fact if we visualize how a sound of pain allows us to directly experience the pain of a being, without any kind of reflection or the like interfering with our perception. It is important to consider that the audible sound is not the only thing through which such inwardness is revealed to a person, as is the case with the sound of speech. Gesture, facial expression, and physiognomy ultimately lead to something simple and direct, which must be counted as much a part of the meaning of speech as the content of the audible sound. To an even greater degree, the sensory character is hidden in the next sense to be characterized. When we understand a person who communicates through speech, gestures, etc., it is true that judgment, memory, etc. play a predominant role in this understanding. But here too, right self-contemplation leads us to recognize that there is a direct grasping and understanding that can precede all thinking and judging. The best way to develop a feeling for this fact is to realize how one can understand something even before one has developed the ability to judge it. There is, in fact, a very direct perception of that which reveals itself in the concept, so that one must speak of a sense of concept. What a person can experience as a concept in his own soul, he can also receive as a revelation from another being. Through the perception of the concept, one delves even deeper into the inner being of another person than through the perception of sounds. It is not possible to delve even further into another person than to the sensation of what lives in him as a concept. The sense of concept appears as that which penetrates into the innermost being of an external being. With the concept that lives in another person, the human being perceives what lives in him or her in a soul-like way. The sensory character of what is usually called the sense of touch does not appear in the same way as with the ten senses mentioned. This sense conveys external pressure, resistance, hardness, softness. One must visualize the essence of what is meant by “pressure”. The process is by no means a simple one. In reality, we do not perceive the pressing body directly, but rather the fact that it causes us to recoil at this or that point on the skin, or that we have to make a greater or lesser effort to make an impression on the body. There is a remarkable difference between this perception and that of, for example, a degree of warmth that is revealed on a body. Even if it is absolutely true that a cold bath will appear in a different state of warmth to a person who is hot from exercise than to a person who is freezing, that is, that in the perception of warmth, the subjective state is also perceived, it remains true that essentially the nature of the external object is revealed in the warmth. This results in a direct relationship between the feeling person and the object. It is not the same as saying to oneself that one must exert oneself more or less to make an impression on a body or to overcome the resistance it offers through its hardness or softness. What one says to oneself is the reproduction of an experience that one has within oneself in the body. And even if the fact is hidden, it is still true that in such a perception the judgment plays along, as it were secretly: “I find strong resistance, therefore the body is hard.” Just as it is true that, for example, in the sense of language, perception can be a completely direct one without any judgment, it is also true that, in the sense of touch, there is always an underlying judgment, however hidden. What is directly sensed by the sense of touch can always be found within the realms of the first three senses listed here. A body that presses on me, for example, causes a shift in the position of my body, which is sensed by the sense of life, or the sense of self-movement, or the sense of balance. It is necessary to clearly define the differences between the individual sensory areas. With each sense, the relationship that a person has with an external object is different than with the other senses. Through the sense of life, the sense of self-movement, and the sense of balance, a person is immersed in his or her own physicality and perceives him or herself as a being of the external world. Through the sense of smell, the sense of taste, and the sense of sight, the physical reveals itself insofar as it manifests itself outwardly. Through the sense of warmth, it reveals inwardness, but still in an external way. With the help of the sense of hearing, the sense of speech, the sense of thought, the human being perceives an alien inwardness that is external to him. If one pays attention to these differences between the sensory areas, then one will not be tempted to speak too much in general terms about what a sense, sensory perception, etc. is. Rather, one will pay attention to the particular relationship through which the human being enters into the external world through each sense. It does not say much to characterize sensory perception, for example, as an impression that is directly caused by a stimulus of the sensory nerve in the soul. Through such definitions, it is all too easy to lose the characteristic of each individual sense in blurred generalizations. But it is important to note that the impression we experience from the warmth of a body is quite different in nature from that caused by a light impression. If we do not take this into account, we are easily led, for example, to place far too much value on judgments such as: “Man perceives the external world through the senses and forms ideas and concepts on the basis of sensory perceptions.” Here sense perception is simply set against conceptual thought. Such a judgment obscures the necessary free view of the fact that, for example, the sensation of smell is very far removed from the conceptual experience, but that the sense of hearing as a sense perception already approximates to what is present within the soul as such an experience. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Processes of Life
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
It would be easy to be tempted to completely misunderstand the nature of these inner experiences and to say that there is no essential difference between them and those that develop under the influence of sense perceptions. It must be admitted that the difference between the two types of inner experiences, for example, between the sense of life and the inner emotional experience during the breathing or warming process, is not particularly clear. |
It belongs to a sense experience that a judgment can only be attached to it through the “I”. Everything that a person accomplishes under the influence of a judgment must, if it relates to sense perceptions, be such that the judgment is made within the “I”. |
This revelation will now be called the 'etheric human body'. (The word 'etheric' should be understood to mean only what is meant here, and in no way what bears the name 'ether' in physics.) Just as the physical human body relates to the 'I-human', so the 'etheric human body' relates to the 'astral human'. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Processes of Life
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
Another aspect now becomes part of the sensory life of the human being. Here too we can distinguish a number of areas. First of all, there is the process by which the inner life of the body is sustained from the outside: breathing. In this process, the life of the body touches the outer world; it confronts the outer world, as it were, in a form in which it cannot continue to exist, in order to receive from it the strength to continue. These words express approximately what is revealed to man in the breathing process, without going into the results of sensory science. The latter belong to anthropology. But what is characterized here is experienced by man directly in life, in his desire for air, in the observation of the inhibition of life when there is a lack of air, etc. A further process in this area is that which can be described as warming. For the maintenance of bodily life, man depends on the development of a quite definite degree of warmth within his body, which does not depend on the processes that determine the warmth of his surroundings, but on those that take place within him, and which maintain the intrinsic warmth within definite limits, however the external warmth may be constituted. A third process of this kind is nutrition. Through it, the life of the body enters into a relationship with the external world in such a way that the substances consumed by it are replaced. A fourth process must be added to nutrition if it is to take place. In the mouth, the food consumed must interact with the saliva secreted by the body; similarly, such a process takes place during the further digestive process. This can be described as the fourth process in this area: secretion. Physical self-observation now shows that this process is followed by another. In the secretion that aids digestion, what is secreted is merely able to transform the food in such a way that it can be absorbed into the body. But man must also secrete that which can enter into this bodily life. He must transform the nutrients in such a way that they can serve to build up his body. This is based on a process that goes beyond what is given in the secretion just characterized. This process shall be called the process of preservation. Another process arises when we turn our attention to human growth. This goes beyond mere maintenance. In addition to the maintenance process, which would leave the body as it is at a particular point in time, there is another process that can be described as a growth process. The growth process and the maintenance process reach their conclusion when the finished body presents itself to the human being in a very specific form. This shaping of the human being from the inside out into a very specific form is called production. Reproduction then presents itself as a repetition of this production. That which belongs to one's own body is brought forth in such a way that it remains united with the human being; in reproduction, the brought forth comes out. Since here, for the time being, we are only speaking of the human being as a self-contained physical individuality, the process of reproduction is not taken into account. The processes that are referred to here as aspiration, warming, nutrition, secretion, maintenance process, growth process and production are now followed by inner experiences for humans in a similar way to how inner experiences follow the processes of sensory perception in the ego. Emotional experiences follow breathing, warming and nourishment. These experiences are less noticed in their middle states, but they immediately stand out when this state is disturbed in one direction or the other. If breathing cannot take place in the appropriate way, anxiety and the like occur. A disturbance of the warmth state manifests itself in the feeling of frost or heating. Disturbance of nutrition manifests itself in hunger and thirst. It can be said that breathing, warmth and nutrition are linked to inner experiences, which reveal themselves as a kind of well-being, comfort, etc. These experiences are always there; they underlie what manifests itself as malaise, discomfort, hunger, etc. when there is a disturbance. Real introspection now shows that such emotional experiences are also related to secretion, the process of preservation, the process of growth and the process of creation. Think of how states of fear and anxiety manifest themselves in excessive perspiration; and you will be able to admit that secretion of this kind, within certain limits, is connected with a feeling that manifests itself in a general sense of comfort, just as one can see that all secretion is accompanied by an emotional state that escapes the attention of consciousness as long as it is normal. And further, self-reflection shows that such emotional experiences are also connected with the processes of preservation, growth and production. One can feel, for example, that the feeling of strength of youth is the expression of what inner experiences follow growth. These inner emotional experiences are now something that stands in a similar way in the human being to the processes of breathing, warming, growing, etc., as the inner experiences that follow sensory perceptions stand in the “I” to the processes of these perceptions. It is therefore possible to speak of the fact that, for example, breathing is connected with an experience in the human being in a similar way to how hearing is connected with the experience that is designated as sound. The only difference is that the degree of clarity with which external sense perceptions are inwardly relived is much greater than that which is accorded to the inner experiences characterized here. Hidden beneath or within the 'ego-person' is another person who is built up out of inner experiences, just as the ego-person is built up out of the results of external sense perceptions. But this human being who lies beneath the 'I-human' is only really noticed in life when he announces himself to the 'I-human' in the disturbances of his experiences. But just as little as one may throw together the process of sensory perception with the process in the ego that is linked to it, so little may one do so, for example, in relation to the breathing process and the inner experiences (of an emotional nature) that combine with this process. It would be easy to be tempted to completely misunderstand the nature of these inner experiences and to say that there is no essential difference between them and those that develop under the influence of sense perceptions. It must be admitted that the difference between the two types of inner experiences, for example, between the sense of life and the inner emotional experience during the breathing or warming process, is not particularly clear. But it can easily be determined by more exact observation, if one bears the following in mind. It belongs to a sense experience that a judgment can only be attached to it through the “I”. Everything that a person accomplishes under the influence of a judgment must, if it relates to sense perceptions, be such that the judgment is made within the “I”. For example, one perceives a flower and passes judgment on it: this flower is beautiful. What is now evoked by the processes of breathing, warming, nourishment, etc., as inner experiences, points, without the intervention of the “I”, to something similar to judgment. In the experience of hunger there is an immediate indication of something corresponding to hunger and connected with it in the same way that, after making a judgment in response to a sense perception, the human being connects with that sense perception. Just as the activity of the 'I' connects with the sense perception when making a judgment, so with hunger something external is connected without the 'I' establishing this connection. This union may therefore be called an instinctive manifestation. And this applies to all inner experiences that are connected with breathing, nourishment and growth processes. We must therefore distinguish between the instinctive inner experiences of breathing comfort and warmth and well-being, and the corresponding perceptions of the meaning of life. The wave of instinct must, as it were, first beat against the 'I-human being' in order to reach the realm of the meaning of life. The structure of the inner experiences that take place through the processes described behind the 'I-human being' are now to be ascribed to the 'astral human being'. Again, the name 'astral human being' should initially be associated with nothing other than what is described here. Just as the “I-person” draws his experiences from the “sense world” through the sense organs, so the “astral person” draws his from the world that is given to him through the processes of breathing, growing, etc. For the time being, let this world be called the “world of life”. In order for a “life world” to exist, the organs of life must be built out of a world that lies beyond all life in a similar way to the forces for building the sense organs lying beyond the world of sense perceptions. This world reveals itself again in its effects, in the structure of the organs of life. The individual areas of the life processes: breathing, warming, nourishment, etc., can be interpreted as references to just as many areas of this world. One can now see that the areas of the life processes are less strictly separated from each other than the areas of sensory perception. The sense of taste, for example, is strictly separated from the sense of sight, whereas the areas of life processes are closer; they merge more. Breathing leads to warming, which in turn leads to nutrition. - Anthropology therefore shows essentially separate sensory organs for sensory perception; for the life processes, it shows organs that flow into one another. Thus the lungs, the most exquisite respiratory organ, are connected with the organs of blood circulation, which serve for warming; these in turn flow together with the digestive organs, which correspond to nutrition, etc. — This is an indication that the corresponding areas of the world in which their constructive forces lie also relate to each other in a different way than the forces for building the sense organs. The latter must, as it were, be more mobile in relation to one another than the organs of sense. The experiences of the sense of taste, for example, can only meet with those of the sense of hearing in the common 'I' to which they belong. The feeling of growth, on the other hand, meets with itself through that which is revealed in the breathing process. The feeling of the power of growth is revealed in the ease of breathing, in warming, etc., through increased inner life. Each feeling-like experience of this kind can coincide with another of the same kind. The areas of sensory perception could be depicted as a kind of circumference, with the individual areas resting on it while the “I” moves across them. The life processes can be depicted in a different way. They can all be imagined as being mobile and capable of moving across each other. Now, however, there are also clear relationships between the sense perceptions and the life processes. Take the breathing process and relate it to the auditory perception. In both cases, the corresponding bodily organ is directed towards the outside world. This is an indication that in the outer world that which has a relationship to both the one and the other organ reveals itself. It is only that, for instance, two things reveal themselves in the air; in relation to one, the respiratory organ is formed and places it at the service of the body; in relation to the other, the structure of the organ of hearing is related. It may be recognized that the forces that shape the organ of hearing must, so to speak, be more original than those that form the respiratory organ. For in the developed human body, everything is interdependent. A human organ of hearing can only unfold from the inside out if the respiratory system is predisposed in just the way it is. From out of the organism, the respiratory system grows towards the outer world, as does the organ of hearing. Now the respiratory organ serves only the inner life of the body; the organ of hearing, however, must be adapted to the outer world - to the realm of sound. In the outgrowth of the respiratory organ from the body, therefore, only the nature of the body itself needs to be taken into account; the organ of hearing must outgrow itself in such a way that it is appropriate for the outer world of sound. No other organ needs to lie in front of the respiratory organ; it grows in accordance with the inner formative forces. The organ of hearing, however, must grow towards an already existing structure. Its adaptation to the outer world must precede its emergence from the inner life of the body. This shows that the forces that form the organ of hearing as a sensory tool belong to a world that is the more original or higher than the other, in which lie the forces that reveal themselves as such, which form both the organ of hearing and the organ of respiration from the body. A similar thing can be shown for other sensory perceptions and life processes. One's attention is drawn to the sense of taste. The secretions can be related to it in a similar way to the respiratory process to the sense of hearing. The saliva of the mouth contains what the food dissolves and thus makes it possible to taste. A similar reflection to the one just made can show that the forces from which the secretory organs are formed are the less original ones compared to those through which the sense of taste arises. In the light of such considerations, one can therefore assume a higher supersensible entity in man, whose powers reveal themselves in the structure of the human sense organs. Likewise, there is another whose effects reveal themselves in the structure of the human organs of life. The latter world is felt by the 'astral man' as his instinctive inner experiences; the former manifests itself to the 'I-man' as a sensory reality (sensual world). However, neither the first world through the senses nor the second can come directly to manifestation in the astral man. It has been said that the supersensible world reveals itself in the “I”, as it were shrunk to a point, in its own nature; in the same sense, it can be recognized that the second of the worlds mentioned shows itself in the emotional experiences of the “astral man”, which can be described as life instincts. In these experiences something is expressed with which the other instinctive experiences of the “astral man” merge into one and are an image of a supersensible world in the sense that the “I-man” is an image of such a world. The “I-person” and the “astral person” represent two human parts that express themselves in inner processes. In order to make the “I-person” possible, the forces of a supersensible world build up the sense organs. In so far as the human body is the carrier of the sense organs, it shows itself to be built out of a supersensible world. Let us now call this carrier of the sense organs the physical human body. The 'I-human' permeates it in order to live with its help in the sense world. We must therefore see in the physical human body an entity that is built out of forces that are related in their nature to the 'I' itself. Within the sense world, the physical human body can only reveal itself in its sensory manifestation. According to its inner reality, it is a being of a supersensible nature. — In order to make the “astral human being” possible, another world, which is added to the characterized supersensible world as a “life world”, builds the organs of life. The forces of this world have proved to be akin to those of the experiences that the “astral human being” has in the instincts of life. What builds up the physical human being reveals itself in the sense world in the sense described above. The forces that build the organs of life can only reveal themselves in the physical world in the processes of life. This is because they generate the organs of life, and only through such organs can a life process manifest itself. The organs of life themselves are not organs of perception. Therefore, not only the forces that build up the organs of life remain imperceptible to the senses, but the manifestation of these forces in the human being cannot become manifest to the senses either, but can only be an intuitive, instinctive experience. This revelation will now be called the 'etheric human body'. (The word 'etheric' should be understood to mean only what is meant here, and in no way what bears the name 'ether' in physics.) Just as the physical human body relates to the 'I-human', so the 'etheric human body' relates to the 'astral human'. The physical body is, in its essence, such that it provides the I with sense experiences; the “etheric body” can only be experienced directly by the “astral human being” in terms of feeling. The relationship between the I and the physical human body is the same as that between the “astral human being” and the “etheric human body”. Thus the organs of life presuppose forces to which they adapt themselves, in that they shape sense organs, such as the organ of hearing, out of the body in the sense of experiences to which they themselves do not serve; and the sense organs in turn presuppose the organs of life in that they are maintained by their processes. Thus we can distinguish: 1. A supersensible world in which lie the forces for building up the sense organs. 2. A supersensible world in which lie the forces for building up the organs of life. The former presupposes the latter; therefore the former can be called the higher spiritual world and the latter the lower spiritual world. 3. A world in which the astral human being is related to the life processes in such a way that these reveal themselves in him as life instincts. This presupposes the life processes, and thus the second world. It may be called the astral world. 4. A world in which sense experiences reveal themselves to the human being through the sense organs. This, however, is the physical-sensual world. The physical human body is formed from the higher spiritual world, in so far as it is the carrier of the sense organs. The etheric human body is formed from the lower spiritual world, in so far as it builds up the life organs. In the astral world, the astral human being enters into a relationship with the processes of life, in so far as these reveal themselves in the life instincts. In the physical world, the human ego enters into a relationship with the sense experiences (sound, tone, warmth, light, etc.) that present themselves as the external world, insofar as these reveal themselves as the sense world. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Higher Spiritual World
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
It would be the same as in a sensory experience, but it would have an independent existence without an underlying sensory organ. The same could be said for the sense of balance and equilibrium when reversed. In the higher spiritual world, we would thus find sense experiences that are at rest in themselves and which prove to be related to those sense experiences to which the human being in the physical world is closest with his ego, the experiences of the sense of concept, sound and hearing. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Higher Spiritual World
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
If we now assume, as we have done above, that the formative forces for the organs of life and the predispositions for the sense organs lie in the lower spiritual world, then a distinction arises for the formative forces of the organs of life prevailing in this world between those that presuppose an internalized substance and those that shape their organs for the absorption of the substance from outside. It is easy to see that the latter are a prerequisite for the former. For if matter itself did not possess the potential to become internalized, it could not become active within itself. Thus, forces must prevail in matter that enable it to evoke counter-effects from what is external to it. The above description has shown that matter can produce such counter-effects in itself. The reversed senses of life, of self-movement and of equilibrium carry within them the hidden possibility of acting in such a way that, in order to produce internal formations, they are active as substance itself, without using the internal formative principles as such. They act, after all, not only within, but also outside their measure. If we now imagine these three inverted sensory activities as being so effective that they do not encounter any internally formed organ, but remain in the character of their effectiveness, then they reach a boundary where they must return into themselves. At this boundary, therefore, the material would throw itself back into itself; it would be inhibited in itself. At this boundary, what could be called materiality in materiality would be given. And this points to the possibility of how the organs that need inner substance arise out of a world in which the material-outer becomes material-inner. In this world, the first rudiments would have to lie both for those organs of the life process that are supplied by internalized substance and for those that need external substance. And the forces that bring the external substance to the interior should already have the potential for this internalization. Just as the forces in the organs of life themselves point to a world of other forces, from which the organs of life are first formed, so the internal flow of matter in the organs of life points to potentialities from an even higher world, from which they are formed. We are led to point to an outer world which, through the contrast between the sense of life, the sense of self-movement and the sense of equilibrium, can spark an inner world within itself. This world, however, can be called the “higher spiritual world”. What would be sought in it? Not forces that shape organs of life in the first place, but those that implant in their structures the potential to become organs of life. These forces, however, are to be thought of as the opposites of the sense of equilibrium, the sense of self-movement and the sense of life. If these forces are stopped before they reach the limit of their effectiveness, through inner formative processes in organs that are already being formed, then they shape the sense organs of hearing, of sound and of concept out of such organ predispositions. What happens when they reach the limit of that activity which lies in their own character? If the sense of life that is turned inwards did not encounter something in the organ of concepts that it only has to reshape, then it would obviously lead the conceptual experience back into itself. And in its reflection, it would immediately encounter itself. It would be the same as in a sensory experience, but it would have an independent existence without an underlying sensory organ. The same could be said for the sense of balance and equilibrium when reversed. In the higher spiritual world, we would thus find sense experiences that are at rest in themselves and which prove to be related to those sense experiences to which the human being in the physical world is closest with his ego, the experiences of the sense of concept, sound and hearing. But those experiences are as if there were not, as it were, a human ego standing before them and taking them in, but as if there were a being behind them that creates them in its own activity. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Shape of Man
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
The indication of how in the organ of hearing, organ of sight, etc. conversions of organ systems that are in the process of developing or an inverted sense of smell in the organ of taste, can lead to ideas that must be found again in the organ forms. The asymmetrical organs are understood if we conceive of them in such a way that their forms have been formed by the fact that the “left-right” and “right-left” forces of the astral world could be excluded. |
45. Anthroposophy, A Fragment (2024): The Shape of Man
Translated by Steiner Online Library |
---|
On the basis of the above considerations, the following can be said about the principles of education for humans: It is assumed: 1. A higher spiritual world; in this lie forces that form structures which, in independent substance, represent living sensory experiences. And imprinted in these structures are the predispositions for the organs of life. 2. A lower spiritual world; in this lie the formative powers of the organs of life. The forces active in the first world form such structures that nourish themselves from the already internalized substance. The forces of this world themselves attach to them those that first internalize external matter. This results in a difference between the organs of life in terms of how they are produced and how they are nourished. The formations formed out of the first world are transformed into sense organs that nourish themselves from internalized matter. The formative forces of this world themselves add to these sense organs those that are in an interdependent relationship with external matter. 3. The astral world; in this lie the formative forces of the sense organs. But the life organs must also be transformed out of this world in such a way that they can receive the sense organs. 4. The physical world; in this world lie the sensory experiences of the human being. It must now be recognized that these four worlds interact, that the forces of each higher world persist in the lower ones. The fact that the organs mentioned are derived from the forces of higher worlds can only mean that these organs are subject to the influences of the higher worlds, even if they occur in the lower worlds. From the physical world the forces of the higher worlds do not act on the sense organs; from the astral world the forces of the two spiritual worlds do not act on the life organs; and from the lower spiritual world the forces of the higher ones do not act on the endowments of the life organs characterized above. It follows that the forces of the higher worlds must show themselves active in a different way from the physical world than if they were to act directly from their own world. The forces of the higher spiritual world can only act as formative forces on the human being, who is endowed with sense organs, life organs and organ systems. They can determine the shape and position of the organs. Thus, the shape and position of the organs of the human body result from the activity of the higher spiritual world in the physical one. The I experiences concepts in conceptual perception; the sense of life, in its inverted form, produces the living concepts of the higher spiritual world. In the physical world, they can only function as formative forces. It is certainly clear that man owes his ability to perceive concepts to his upright form. No other creature on earth has the ability to perceive concepts, nor has any other the same upright form. (A little thought will show that in the case of animals that appear to have an upright form, this is due to something other than inner forces). In this way, one can see from bottom to top that which is connected to conceptual perception when the inverted sense of life is not involved. From this, one can conclude that there is a direction from top to bottom for the inverted sense of life. It would be even more correct to say that there is a direction almost from top to bottom. For one should see something in the direction of growth from bottom to top that is opposed to the reversed sense of touch. Insofar as the ego represents a contrast to the sense of touch, in the sense of the above explanations, one can regard the vertical direction of growth of the body upwards as an ego-bearer, like a continuous overcoming of the weight downwards, which of course represents a reversal of the sense of touch. From all this, the contrast between 'up-down' and 'down-up' in the human body can be interpreted as if a current from bottom to top takes place in such a way that the overcoming of the reversed sense of life from top to bottom is given in it. Now, the effect of the higher spiritual world on the physical human body must be seen in this reversed sense of life. Thus we can say that the human body, in so far as it is the carrier of the I, strives upwards; the physical human body, in so far as it shows in its form the effect of the higher spiritual world, from above downwards. In so far as the human being physically expresses the image of a being belonging to the higher spiritual world, one can see it as the meeting of the ego body with the physical body, arising from the interpenetration of two directions of force. In his ego experience, the human being belongs to the physical outer world, but at the same time he represents that which gives an image of the experience reflected back into itself. This is an image of what has been characterized as the self-contained sensory experiences of the higher spiritual world. In the body, insofar as it is the carrier of the ego, we can thus see an image of matter internalizing itself. Another contrast comes to light in 'backwards-forwards'; 'forwards-backwards'. The sense organs, together with the nerves belonging to them, now essentially represent organs that reveal their growth from front to back; if one imagines them, as is certainly justified, growing in such a way that their formative forces are opposed to the original direction of growth, coming from the lower spiritual world, then one may look for this latter direction in the direction from back to front. And then we shall be able to say that in the conclusion from behind in relation to the human form there is something analogous to that in the conclusion from below upwards in relation to the higher spiritual world. In the outer form, the forces of the lower spiritual world that cannot act on the human being from the physical world then worked from the front to the back on the organs of life; but from the back to the front, the forces of the lower spiritual world worked into the physical human world. They express what, in the sense of the above considerations, may be called the astral human being. Insofar as the astral human being shows itself in its bodily form, it strives from behind to the front just as the physical human body strives upwards. The third antithesis would be “right-left”; “left-right”. The symmetry of the human form in relation to this direction can be seen as an indication that the forces are balanced there. This can be seen when one observes the interaction in these directions of the human physical form, insofar as the physical organs have already been formed from the lower spiritual world, with the formative forces of the sense organs. In the left half of the body of the person facing forward, one would have to imagine the formative forces of the astral world for the sense organs, insofar as these forces no longer have a direct effect in the physical world, as from the left half of the body to the right; those forces of the astral world that have such an effect on the body that their effect is expressed in the body would then have to work to the left. Since these forces must act on organs that already come from the lower spiritual world, they will show an inward effect, as the forces of the higher and lower spiritual worlds show an outward effect in their formation. (What has been said here can be found substantiated in anthropology in the lines of the nerve tracts that cross in the organism.) This points to a permeation of the astral world with the etheric body of the human being, insofar as this is expressed in the physical form. It can be said: 1. The formation of the physical human body is conditioned by the direction from above to below from the higher spiritual world. 2. The shape of the human body, insofar as it is the carrier of the astral human being, points in the direction from back to front. 3. The shape of the human body, insofar as it is the carrier of the life processes, points both to the direction “right-left” and “left-right”. 4. The result of these formations would then be the actual physical human form. In order for this to come about, the formative forces indicated must permeate each other. Such interpenetration can only be conceived if the human being places himself in the physical world in such a way that the forces of the physical outer world in the direction of “right-left” and “left-right” are grasped by the forces of the astral world in such a way that the possibility remains open in their formation to then shape themselves further in the direction from back to front, and according to this determination, that from top to bottom remains open. For only if one imagines a direction that in principle goes from right to left and from left to right, acting on all sides, and then changes as in the direction towards the front, and is then transformed again upwards, can one imagine how the above comes about. But in order that this may result in the human form, for these forces, opposing forces must be thought of, proceeding from the physical world itself. These are then those forces which show themselves to be no longer acting from the physical world, but as forces coming from the higher worlds, as characterized above. But the latter alone may be sought in the physical human being. Man enters into relation with the others only as such a disposition. If we seek in the physical world the clue to man's relation to higher worlds, we must look not to the life processes and their connection with the organs, nor to the life of the sense organs, nor to the brain, but solely to the 'how', the form of the bodily shape and the organs. This 'how' shows that the clues to the spiritual worlds can still be perceived in the physical human being. (The difference between man and animal in relation to the higher worlds can therefore be seen from an observation of the bodily form, insofar as the animal is arranged in a different way in the spatial directions; but this different arrangement reveals that the higher worlds have a different effect on the animal and on man). The anthroposophical considerations can be made fruitful if one applies the given considerations to the details of the human body shape. It will then everywhere result in full harmony with the anthropological observations. The indication of how in the organ of hearing, organ of sight, etc. conversions of organ systems that are in the process of developing or an inverted sense of smell in the organ of taste, can lead to ideas that must be found again in the organ forms. The asymmetrical organs are understood if we conceive of them in such a way that their forms have been formed by the fact that the “left-right” and “right-left” forces of the astral world could be excluded. If one recognizes, as has been done above, a reversal of the sense organs, a turning inwards of the same, then one will also be able to admit that the transformation can also be conditioned by other principles. Take the organ of hearing. The same has been related to the sense of balance. One can imagine that the activity that manifests itself in the sense of balance, an inward-facing organ system that has not yet differentiated into the organ of hearing, diverts it from its original direction of formation. The sense of sound would then come about if another activity were directed towards the corresponding organ system. This could be related to the experiences of the sense of self-movement. This would throw light on the fact that the organ of hearing finds expression in an organ turned towards the outer material, while the organ of speech cannot be perceived externally. The experience of the sense of self-movement corresponds to the inside of the body, while the experience of the sense of balance is expressed in relation to the outer spatial directions. One could therefore also call the speech organ a hearing organ held back inside the body. For the experience of the self, which does not correspond to any sensory experience, not a special organ, but only the upward striving of other organ systems, would come into consideration. Thus, in the speech organ and the organ of concepts, we can see structures whose physical form is determined by their tendency towards the experience of self. In what the body, as the carrier of the 'I', participates in from within, we can recognize the inversion in the formative forces, and say that when the body, as the carrier of the 'I', reshapes an organ, the nature of the formations of the higher spiritual world must be recognizable in its image. One such organ is the speech organ (the larynx). If the series of organs comprising the ear, sense of sound and sense of concept can be called a progressive bodily internalization of the sense potential, then the sense of sound can be recognized as reversed in the speech organ. Here the sound does not become a sense experience that strives inward through an organ toward the I, but is a sense content that is self-contained and creative, a truly reversed sense experience. The formation of the larynx corresponds exactly to these conditions. One can then also look for an organ that corresponds to an ability in man that stands between speaking and I, as grasping stands between hearing and I. Through this, something would have to arise from within man that is not as poor in content as the I-experience and does not yet flow directly into the outer world in its revelations. This would be the organ in the human brain that corresponds to the imagination. We will gradually learn to distinguish between the organ of concept and the organ of imagination in the brain. Since the formative forces of the three higher worlds are to some extent still present in the form of the physical human body, it must also be recognized that the formative forces of the two higher spiritual worlds can act on the astral body directly from the astral world; and finally, that the life organs, as they are from the lower spiritual world, are directly influenced by the higher spiritual world. Taking into account such forces, the shape and position of the heart, the respiratory and circulatory organs, the muscular and skeletal systems, etc. can arise. In the human form within the physical world, it is revealed that its development has not merely followed an adaptation to circumstances that are alien to the inner nature of the human being, but that this form ultimately expresses in image what the character of the “I” is. The human being's developmental disposition must be conceived in such a way that, in its formation, points of contact are given to the forces of the higher worlds. In the sense-perceptible world, only the content of sensations is given for perception, and the I, when it perceives itself, confronts these as pictorial sensations. Pictorial sensation, however, belongs to the astral world. In the I's experience of itself, the pictorial sensation thus stands, as it were, free in space. It has been shown that the sense of taste can be seen as an inverted sense of smell. If we do not think that the impact of the substance in the sense of smell is what causes the sensation, but rather that the experience of smell itself, as a self-experience in the I, becomes a component of the latter, then we can see in a desire or in a movement impulse of the astral I the response of this I to something that originates from the substance and is incorporated into the I without physical mediation. Behind the experience of smell, in addition to the experience of images, are the astral counter-effects against the desires and impulses of the ego. In the case of sound, it is possible to clearly distinguish between what is detached from the external object and what is perceived about this object through senses other than hearing. And what is detached is the experience of the self by the ego. We can certainly say that when an object is heard, only the sound-producing object belongs to a world in which the ego is not present, in which it cannot identify with the sensory experience. In the sense of one's own movement, the position and change in the shape of one's own organism is perceived. In this case, it seems obvious that, in addition to the self-experience of the ego, only an astral counter-effect to a movement impulse needs to be assumed. If there are only sense experiences in the physical world, then we can only speak of sense experiences in this world. But since a physical body must have sense organs in order to have sense experiences, there is nothing in this physical world for a human being but sense experiences and the perception of the self as an astral image experience. The ego has no other possibility than to experience objects of the external world, and to find the sense experiences combined in the most diverse ways. What happens is nothing but a free-floating in space of sense experiences. But let us assume that the human form as such is not meaningless, but that it depends on the direction and position of one organ in relation to another. And if we look at the physical world from this point of view, it is essential that the organ of taste is an upturned organ of smell. For if we now think of the experience of smell, as it is, as an image-sensation, without denying the substance itself, as space-filling, the ability to present this experience as an image-sensation, just as the ego-perception is in itself a freely floating image-sensation in space , then it must be recognized that something depends on whether the surface of an object is turned towards an object in such a way that, in order to receive the image sensation emanating from it, one sensory organ or the other must be turned towards it. For the human being in the physical world, however, it will only follow that, depending on the use of the organ, it perceives smell one time and taste the next. But if not only the ego perception in the physical world comprised the ego, but this ego were essentially based on the shape of its body in such a way that it experienced all visual impressions as its own, then in this ego the visual sensation of smell would be the ego's experience of itself on the one hand, and that of taste on the other. If we were dealing not with the finished physical form, but with one in the process of formation, there would be no perception of the self; the self-experience of the self would have to be quite different. |
46. Posthumous Essays and Fragments 1879-1924: Fichte's “Theory of Science”
|
---|
But the human mind does not stop at the given; it goes further and wants to understand and grasp what is given. It strives for knowledge. So here we are dealing with two things: with a given, which is the first; but not satisfied with that, man still needs a second, knowledge. |
The Doctrine of the Person or the “I”— Our striving must first go to the understanding of the essence of this I. Man says of himself: I think, I comprehend, I look at, I feel, I will, and so forth; in all this he refers to a certain point, which he calls his “I”. |
A dogmatic procedure is that which itself makes assertions. As soon as we have understood this, scientific theory as criticism immediately appears to us as an impossibility. For in order to say how knowledge is possible, one must oneself make dogmatic assertions. |
46. Posthumous Essays and Fragments 1879-1924: Fichte's “Theory of Science”
|
---|
Translated by Steiner Online Library 1. Fichte's “Theory of Science”Introduction.I. When a person's consciousness awakens, he finds himself transported into a world whose objects are given to him through perception. How and in what way we will see in a later investigation. But the human mind does not stop at the given; it goes further and wants to understand and grasp what is given. It strives for knowledge. So here we are dealing with two things: with a given, which is the first; but not satisfied with that, man still needs a second, knowledge. This is something sought after, something striven for. But one must not think that the sought-after thing is somehow known, because otherwise one would not seek it, but it is something completely unknown, something to be acquired, which one has never possessed. This striving of the human spirit characterizes its nature. The satisfaction that man seeks depends on the attainment of this striving. Open world and cultural history at any page, and you will find this striving for a certain goal on every page. Things are perceived and one strives to unravel their nature, one strives to recognize “what holds the world together at its core”. Look at the ancient Indians. The world was given to them, but they could not stop at that; they sought for another, one that was not given to them directly, but indirectly through the given. They came up with Brahma and all that is associated with him. We see, then, that the character of the striving of the human spirit consists in going beyond the given objects and fathoming their nature. II. Now knowledge is to be true knowledge, i.e., knowledge and cognition are to bear the character of validity, or in other words: knowledge is to convince. The question now is; how can knowledge convince, how can cognitions have validity? This question is not discussed in the individual sciences, because they deal with knowledge in so far as it is knowledge of objects, without examining the foundations of knowledge itself. Since none of the individual sciences can prove the latter by their means, there must be a separate science for this, a science in which the reasons for conviction are dealt with. We can call such a doctrine the science of knowledge itself or the theory of science. The first question is whether such a science is needed. Various facts indicate that it is. For one thing, ever since man began to think, this need has been felt. The fact that this need has always existed would be enough to make clear the necessity, first, that such a need is not feigned or contrived, and then, however, also that it requires satisfaction. A second fact is that there have indeed been people who have doubted the possibility of any knowledge. Now, first of all, we have to decide whether a science of science is possible, whether the above-mentioned need can be satisfied. But this possibility is a necessary postulate of human reason. If one denies the possibility of a theory of science, one can do nothing but fully embrace the skeptical point of view indicated above. Something must be certain because something is given, and it is only a matter of identifying what is actually certain. For if we assume the opposite and say that nothing is certain, then, if the proposition is to be universally valid, it must, by its very nature, be applicable to itself, i.e., it is not certain itself. It thus cancels itself out, but only insofar as it is valid itself; it is therefore a complete contradiction and we can do nothing with it. We must therefore admit both the possibility and the necessity of a philosophy of science as a postulate of reason. This establishes the task of knowledge in general and at the same time the task of the philosophy of science. III. Knowledge has the peculiarity of first having to arise and develop. This gives rise to various difficulties, especially when we consider that the knowledge of different people at different times is different, and when we further consider that world history gives us very different views of people in different eras, who at the time of their appearance always claim to be valid. What are we to do now? Are we to regard our present views as the only correct ones and all earlier ones as errors? Or are we to despair of the validity of our views altogether? It would be impossible to accept either of these; neither can ever stand the test of reason. The latter has already been dealt with above, the former leaves the question open: yes, if all previous views were wrong, why should ours be the right ones? There seems to be no other way out than to assume that all these views are valid. But then you have admitted at the same time that everything is right, there is no error. Now, the dubious nature of this assumption is strikingly obvious. Only one hypothesis remains, which can be formulated as follows: there is something true and valid about all these views, that is, the truth is capable of modification. So far, this is only presented as a hypothesis, and nothing is inferred from it. IV. Neither the views of the individual human being nor those of entire circles stand, when they occur one after the other, out of context; they develop from one another and are conditioned by one another. This can be observed always and everywhere. The individual ways of looking at things form levels, with each following one growing out of the one before. This close relationship between ways of looking at things allows us to surmise that they may all have something in common, which is only modified over time. It could well be that the core is unchanging, but that it takes on different forms, which are determined by the narrower or broader perspective of each individual or entire peoples, so that what changes is valid for an earlier perspective, but no longer for a later one. Indeed, experience shows that our assumption is a perfectly valid one. This is one side of the relationship between the views of different times, people and entire nations. We now move on to the presentation of a second. V. A view is only valid to the extent that it applies to a person, i.e., to the extent that it is formed by that person. Person is now something very specific, which cannot be any other, and whose specificity consists precisely in the fact that it forms its views in a certain way. It cannot form them this way today, that way tomorrow, not this way with this group of perceptions and that way with that, but it must form them in a way that is peculiar to it, and in this way they take on a very specific character; they are precisely views of the person and are subject to its laws of formation. What they become through these laws, that they are as views, and they cannot be anything else. These laws of formation thus imprint the stamp on them, they first make them what they are, and in this respect they are and must also be related. They are related because they have arisen in the same way. The business of the science of science is to explore this path, on which all views have arisen and are still arising. It is therefore clear from the outset that the science of science will have to take its starting point from the person. But we want to shed light on the matter from another side in order to gain insights into the source of the science of science. VI. Experience cannot be the source. After all, experience cannot determine for us what power of persuasion it has for us. All the means that the individual sciences apply are not sufficient to explain the least thing in the theory of science. It is supposed to prove the validity of the individual sciences, and yet one must not use that which one doubts to escape doubt. The theory of knowledge must therefore have a substantially different source than all other sciences. If we want to get to the bottom of this source, we have to ask ourselves what is actually needed to arrive at a realization. This includes: 1. Apparently an object to be recognized; however, as we have already seen, we cannot start from this. 2. The act of recognition itself. But since the point is to examine what the foundations of the validity of truths are, we cannot start from the act of recognition, and so what remains is: 3. only the knower. In this, we must seek the foundations of knowledge, insofar as they are to be regarded as certain. The source of certainty and thus also of the science is the knowing person. These words characterize the point of view adopted here. We do not consider it our task to deal with positive truths in the sense in which the individual sciences do so, but to show how such truths are possible, how they can arise and what significance they have. Most philosophical systems have the fundamental flaw that they attempt to derive truths before they have even examined how truth itself arises, just as they attempt to determine what is good or beautiful before they have posed the question of how a good or a beautiful thing is. The theory of knowledge is not concerned with the “what” of knowledge; it deals only with the “how” of knowledge. All the individual sciences, except the theory of knowledge, have the peculiarity that they can only arise when the knower seemingly goes out of himself, when he seemingly disappears in the face of the objects; for the theory of knowledge, on the other hand, it is characteristic that the knower does not go out of himself. We see, then, that in the diversity of views, the own I of the cognizing personality forms a calm pole from which we must start. I. Chapter.VII. The Doctrine of the Person or the “I”— Our striving must first go to the understanding of the essence of this I. Man says of himself: I think, I comprehend, I look at, I feel, I will, and so forth; in all this he refers to a certain point, which he calls his “I”. This ego is always one and the same, no matter how often it asserts itself: I think, I act, etc. We cannot even assume that a split occurs in the ego if the ego is to remain an ego. If we assume that the I that thinks is different from the one that wills, then we have to imagine the matter as follows: Let the first I that thinks be A, its action a, the second I that wills be 2, its action b. If b is to have any meaning at all for A, then it must also be something for A , i.e., it must be included in the laws of formation of A, e.g., in the manner £; and if a is to be something for B, then it must enter into its laws of formation, for example in the manner a. We can now visualize the whole process using the following scheme. [IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW] We see that for the one ego \(A\) that is to be distinct from B, the actions of \( \)B are significant only if they become its own actions. If we call the ego that is the subject of this discussion the pure ego, we arrive at the proposition: The pure ego is a unique entity. This ego is to be distinguished from the empirical ego, which we will discuss later. What is meant here is the qualitative and numerical identity of the I with itself, apart from all temporal conditions, which of course is out of the question here. It would be a duality of the I, for example, if I were to make the history of the ancient world according to completely different laws from those of the middle and modern times. This cannot be, but everything must be related to a common point, to a unified I. In all the diversity of views, cognitions, etc., the I is that focal point which it is impossible to grasp, since it always slips backwards when we want to focus on it. VIII. The I meant here is essentially different from the empirical or psychological I. The latter already presupposes the former. The psychological ego arises from the fact that I relate all my ideas to a common center, in which they intersect. This relatedness of the ideas to a common center is the psychological ego. But relatedness is preceded by the act of relating, and cannot take place without it. This psychological ego is therefore no longer the original pure ego, but an ego that has come into being through reflection, through the activity of the pure ego. The pure ego is neither this nor that in the strictest sense of the word. Its entire tangible essence is given by its activity; we cannot know what it is, only what it does. When Fichte said that the pure essence of the ego is the positing of itself, this is a very arbitrary statement, for the ego not only posits itself, but posits also something else, as Fichte himself would have to admit. But in all cases it is always active; its whole essence consists, therefore, in its activity, which can be expressed in the proposition: The ego is active. Everything that is not active like the ego would not be an ego. That one cannot know more about the ego than this can be seen from the following. What we indicated above, we can now express clearly. If the ego wants to know, it must include an object in its activity of knowing; in the above, it is now required that it include itself as this object. In order to recognize itself, it must rise to a higher level, but in order to recognize itself, it would have to descend a level, which is obviously impossible. However, nothing is more suitable for getting to the bottom of the most important thing than the above remark. It shows with complete clarity that the self is nothing other than what it makes of itself. Since we have seen that the ego is not something that can be experienced or recognized, it can only be that which it makes of itself. Without making itself into something, the ego is nothing at all; it is as good as non-existent. It is a mistake of some philosophical systems that they have not properly clarified this essence of the ego. Rather, they have presented the ego as something other than an ego, and they further assume that the ego is something other than what it makes of itself; whatever this other may be, it is not an ego. If the ego is to be a willing one, then it must make itself a willing one, and so with all its activity. Its “what” is its own product. One could figuratively say that the ego gives itself its character. Fichte came very close to what has been said, but he thought he could and had to specify a very specific what, a specific essence of the ego, which is neither necessary nor possible. Instead, as is done here, one can completely dispense with this what, only one must state that such a what of the ego must be produced by the ego itself. To illustrate Fichte's train of thought, we can choose the following pictorial representation: Let \(A\) be the I, this is active and posits itself \( = A\), this is the What, and the action is represented by \(A = A\); the essence of \(A\) should consist precisely in the positing of \(A\). Our train of thought can be depicted as follows: The ego is represented by \(A\), it is active in the modes \(\alpha\), \(\beta\), \(\gamma\),... and thereby always takes on a very specific character \(a\), \(b\), \(c\),...; which gives the overall character A. We now assert that if \(A\) and also \(a\), \(b\), \(c\), etc. are really to have a meaning for the ego, then the ego itself must make itself into \(a\), \(b\), \(c\), etc., respectively A, without deciding what \(a\), \(b\), \(c\), etc., \(A\) is. IX. It is very easy to get confused here if one does not strictly distinguish between philosophical reflection and common reflection. The philosopher seeks only to become aware of what both he and the non-philosopher do, just as the naturalist wants to explain only what he and the non-naturalist perceive. The philosopher does not do something different from the non-philosopher, but he is only aware of what both do, while the latter is not. But there is a very important difference between the natural scientist and the philosopher. While the former can only take possession of his objects indirectly, namely, as we shall later fully realize, by incorporating them into his activity, the philosopher is in a position to assert what he himself does, and since his cognitions are nothing other than those made by the ego, that makes them and is only now becoming aware that it makes them, he can claim that what he says must be so because he is the one who makes it so, whereas the naturalist can only say that what he asserts appears to him to be so, is so included in his activity. This is why the philosopher can be critical and dogmatic at the same time. A critical procedure is that which determines how something can be recognized. A dogmatic procedure is that which itself makes assertions. As soon as we have understood this, scientific theory as criticism immediately appears to us as an impossibility. For in order to say how knowledge is possible, one must oneself make dogmatic assertions. Now, these dogmatic assertions must not precede the investigation, but the investigation is impossible without them. Just as dogmatic philosophy fails because one asserts something that one must not assert, because it is perhaps impossible to assert such things, critical philosophy fails because it must itself be dogmatic. A purely critical philosophy is therefore just as impossible as a purely dogmatic one. X. If, then, philosophy can be neither critical nor dogmatic, only one thing is left possible if one does not want to fall back into skepticism, which has already been shown above to be completely absurd: a philosophy that is critical and dogmatic at the same time, and so it with the philosophy of science; let us examine how this can be. In asserting that the self is nothing other than what it makes of itself, the philosophy of science is dogmatic, i.e., actually the self is dogmatic; in asserting that it is only that and cannot be anything other than what it makes of itself, it is critical. By seizing a principle and making it into what it can be, it is critical and dogmatic at the same time; it is the only middle way possible. True philosophy is thus the doctrine of science, i.e., critical dogmatic philosophy. II. Chapter.XI. The Doctrine of the “Not-I”. — We have seen so far that everything we want to regard as belonging to the I must be designated as its activity. But activity as such is quite empty and without content; it must first take up a certain something within itself. The pure character of the ego would be that of activity, but this only comes to light in individual activities. However, an action that does nothing would be a “pure act,” a “mere ability,” a “dead force,” an action outside of action, an inaction. This reproach by no means applies to the activity of the ego that appears in empirical activities. But as soon as the activity of the ego comes to light, an alien element, one that is completely alien and opposed to the ego, seems to enter into it. The question now is: how can such an alien element enter into the ego? This seems completely incomprehensible and quite contrary to our above discussions. For when something alien enters, the ego is no longer what it is through itself, but through something else. Let us now consider this relationship in the case of imagining in the narrower sense. Every act of imagining involves two things: a cognizing subject and an object to be cognized. The first is the active one, the second the suffering one. By the one presenting, the other is presented. That an object is presented is the business of the subject, that an object is presented is the business of the object. If I am the presenter and I present a rose, then the presentation of the rose is my product, the presentation of the rose, on the other hand, is the product of the rose. Let us choose another example. When I say, “I feel,” I am active, but I must feel something specific, I must have an object of my feeling. This object can never be given to me by the mere “I”. The question arises again and again: How can something completely alien enter into the activity of the ego. Here only the ego itself can decide how to remedy the situation, and it is immediately clear that it is impossible for an alien element to enter the ego without the ego's intervention. It must therefore enter through the ego, it must be transformed by the ego into its own essence, so that the ego can remain what it makes itself. This happens in the determining. In the act of determining, these two completely opposed elements are united. Here, a precise distinction must be made: 1. the act of determining, 2. the determining elements. There are always two determining elements: an “I” and a “not-I”. The I is always the active element. We must distinguish here, above all, between two things. This is probably best made clear by means of a diagram. Let us assume that the determining thing is the I, as the active determining thing. Let the external object be A; A is therefore a non-ego, it has come into being through determination, and through determination by the ego, in that it has come into being through the activity of the ego, and in its entirety as A, that is, it has come into being through determination by something other than the ego and apart from the ego, in that it has become A through the activity of the ego. Let us call the first kind of determination the active and the second the suffering, in order to have words for them. In fact, both kinds of determination are essentially different and must not be confused with each other. Above, we spoke of another by which the ego is to determine itself, and this still requires discussion. |
46. Posthumous Essays and Fragments 1879-1924: Schiller's Development
|
---|
This essay had already been written by Schiller a year earlier under the title “Philosophy of Physiology”, but had been unfavorably assessed by one of his superiors at the time; however, in the end the same superior had to admit that “incidentally, the fiery execution of a completely new plan gives unmistakable proofs of the author's good and striking soul powers, and his all-searching spirit promises a truly enterprising [useful] scholar after the ended youthful fermentations.” |
If he is more interested in nature, then he is a satirist, and either pathos-laden satire when he is critical, when he is serious; or, if he is cheerful, more in the realm of understanding than of will, then he is a jesting satirist. If the poet is more interested in the ideal, his poetry is elegiac. |
46. Posthumous Essays and Fragments 1879-1924: Schiller's Development
|
---|
Chapters I-VIII missing IX.This clearly shows what attracted the poet and primarily occupied him. When he set about his robbers in 1777, it may therefore have been the following factors that influenced him. 1. A degenerate time - the idea of something better, of freedom and natural morality, gave the piece its content. 2. His suffering, which he had to endure from society, gave the piece the character of the energetic. 3. His reading led him to endow everything with a certain Titanismus. For it is precisely the works of the Sturm und Drang period that are characterized by that last trait, by that Titanismus, which manifests itself in curses and imprecations. 4. Finally, something else influenced the character of his early works. That was his medical studies. Although it is certain that Schiller never achieved anything in law, if these assertions are also extended to his medical studies, then Schiller is very much wronged; he had even studied medicine very diligently. Indeed, he once made a firm resolution to study nothing but medicine for two years and to completely renounce poetry during that time. Even if we didn't know that, Schiller's striving in relation to medicine is evident in his essay, which he defended upon his release from the Karlsschule in 1780: “On the Connection of Man's Animal Nature with His Spiritual Nature”. This essay had already been written by Schiller a year earlier under the title “Philosophy of Physiology”, but had been unfavorably assessed by one of his superiors at the time; however, in the end the same superior had to admit that “incidentally, the fiery execution of a completely new plan gives unmistakable proofs of the author's good and striking soul powers, and his all-searching spirit promises a truly enterprising [useful] scholar after the ended youthful fermentations.” The duke thought that in order to achieve the last expressed purpose, it would be good if Schiller would remain in the Karlsschule for another year. After this somewhat longer excursion, the [breaks off, missing manuscript part] storm howls your names of the rejected. A feverish urge to picture out precisely that which the sense of beauty strives to withdraw from view. But even more striking is the imperfect command of expression; almost everywhere where the poet [tries] to present the thought sensually to the eye, he lapses into bombast; his sensuality is confused by brooding, his thought by medical notions. It is a well-known fact that the destructive urge, the discomfort in poetic feeling, occurs long before agreement with the world. And so our young poet is always looking for destruction first. In one of his earliest poetic attempts, still from 1775, it says:
His first poem to be printed dates back to 1776. It is a beautiful presentation of beautiful thoughts, but where do they lead us? They lead us to that moment when there is no more time, when there is no more thing. In 1777, Schiller imitated his beloved Schubart, who had quarreled with the conquerors in The Eternal Jew, and also worked these down, which Schubart was not a little delighted about. Hell had its triumphal song, and Schiller was able to put curses and gruesome words into the mouths of the devils, in which he was so strong. The despotic monarchs were also properly belittled. But soon something else would follow this destructive urge; after all, great poetic genius never reveals itself in the mere art of destruction. The poetry of love follows. Not of individual love for any person, but of a philosophical principle that he called love. A principle that holds the universe together, worlds with worlds, hope with despair, virtue and vice.
In his essay “On Naive and Sentimental Poetry”, he sought to enlighten himself theoretically through the theoretical presentation. The idea expressed in it is as follows. The poet either represents nature directly around him, in which case he is a naive poet, or he represents the opposition between nature and idea, in which case he is a sentimental poet. If he is more interested in nature, then he is a satirist, and either pathos-laden satire when he is critical, when he is serious; or, if he is cheerful, more in the realm of understanding than of will, then he is a jesting satirist. If the poet is more interested in the ideal, his poetry is elegiac. If he mourns the ideal, he is elegiac in the proper sense of the word; if he rejoices in the ideal, he is an idyllic poet. This is preceded by a philosophical consideration of the naive.
In an essay “On the Moral Utility of Aesthetic Customs,” he seeks to excuse himself for the earlier, too strongly expressed idea against aesthetic customs “in which taste, if not of genuine morality, is nevertheless beneficial to the legality of our behavior” - and these are [necessary] to consolidate the social classes. In his treatise on the sublime, he suggests how man should behave in the sensual world without having to come into conflict with his morality. XXVIII.At the beginning of this epoch, Schiller had also been led to the study of antiquity. In fact, in his earlier years he had even wanted to learn Greek in order to be able to enjoy the art of this primitive people at the source, but Körner dissuaded him from this. The fruits of this work are translations – namely from the 2nd and 4th books of the Aeneid [and] Iphigenia in Aulis. But it was also during this time that the artist created works that gave a poetic form to the thoughts expressed in his aesthetic writings. In 1793, Schiller went to his homeland, where he stayed for several months. He met Cotta and agreed with him on the magazine Die Horen – it was now the Horen that provided the opportunity for the iron alliance with Goethe. Humboldt had also become close friends with Schiller, and it was for this very reason that he had moved with his wife to Jena. What Schiller sought in his aesthetic studies, he found in them, namely, where the bridge lies between the world of ideas and reality, in poetry. And to this he decided to return. — His association with Goethe also contributed to this, and as early as 1795 Schiller wrote to Goethe, “the poet is the only true human being, and the best philosopher is only a caricature compared to him”. He saw Wilhelm Meister emerging before his eyes, and a decisive return to poetry followed. When he began Wallenstein in 1796, the publication of the Horen became a burden to him, and he gave it up in 1797. But he had already been concerned with the publication of a “Musenalmanach” in 1795 and had contacted the most important poets for this purpose. Schiller took charge of five volumes of it, but when he had completed Wallenstein in 1799, he also gave that up, seeing it as nothing more than a disruptive sideline. The Xenien by the two poets appeared in the Musenalmanach, along with Schiller's ballads, which surprised the world in 1797. In 1799, Schiller moved to Weimar to be closer to Goethe and the theater. In 1802, at the instigation of the Duke, he was ennobled by the Emperor. Let us consider Schiller's shorter poems from the last period. They were opened with the Reich der Schatten (The Empire of Shadows). This marked the beginning of a large series of poems that have been called philosophical poems. His philosophical research is also laid out in these poems. But he also set down his historical research in a series of poems called the cultural-historical ones. The latter include, for example, the walk. Here the poet skillfully manages to hide the fact that he starts from an idea. And we really see a whole series of magnificent landscape paintings in front of us. At the same time, however, we have also wandered through the course of humanity, initially in a united alliance with nature, then degraded by a false culture, and through a revolution, it restores its rights. The Poem of the Four Ages of Man belongs here, and from there, quite nicely, a few others of Schiller's shorter poems. The third age takes us to the artificially formed Hellas, which is also the subject of the Greek gods. Similarly, only the Knights of St. John follow the Eleusinian Mysteries. |
46. Posthumous Essays and Fragments 1879-1924: Goethe's Theory of Colors
|
---|
[beginning missing] the color fringes. Those who believe that Goethe did not understand or consider this objection should consider what he says in the History of the Theory of Colors, the author's confession, Hempel volume... p. 416ff. and they will be cured of their error. |
46. Posthumous Essays and Fragments 1879-1924: Goethe's Theory of Colors
|
---|
[beginning missing] the color fringes. Those who believe that Goethe did not understand or consider this objection should consider what he says in the History of the Theory of Colors, the author's confession, Hempel volume... p. 416ff. and they will be cured of their error. Goethe considered it very carefully, but found it insufficient. If, after emerging from the prism, the divergence of the light rays were the cause of the color appearance, then only the parallel running of the same can be the reason for their union into white before entering. Now allow the question of whether this divergence is not present in a more extended light source in the same way as in a less extended one. What should be the reason for the mixing of differently colored light rays if the only condition for their occurrence, the divergence, is maintained? There is no other way: if divergence were the cause of the color appearance, it could not disappear even though the divergence is not eliminated. There is no question that for those who are trapped in the Newtonian doctrine, for those who are unable to see that Goethe's views on color theory have uses quite other than interpreting this experiment, the same will always form a weighty objection. The reasons that are being asserted against Goethe here are still the most plausible ones. Incidentally, it should be noted that Newton, who thought of colors as material and their combination into white as a chemical compound, still had some semblance of justification for himself. After all, the combination behind the prism could well happen again when the light substances come together. A positive cause for this is probably not present, but one could imagine the chemical relationship of the substances to be so great that mere contact is enough to combine them. But how the modern mechanical view, which regards light as propagating vibrations, conceives of this combination both in front of and behind the prism is absolutely incomprehensible. And in no work treating this subject – and the author of this essay dares to claim that he will refute every objection concerning this point in every single case – is an explanation of this union even attempted. [In the margin in pencil:] “Series of archetypal phenomena”. So Goethe was right in his previous explanation. |