8. Thinking as a Higher Experience within Experience
We find, within the unconnected chaos of experience, and indeed at
first also as a fact of experience, an element that leads us out of
unconnectedness. It is thinking. Even as a fact of experience
within experience, thinking occupies an exceptional position.
With the rest of the world of experience, if I stay with what lies
immediately before my senses, I cannot get beyond the particulars.
Assume that I have a liquid which I bring to a boil. At first it is
still; then I see bubbles rise; the liquid comes into movement and
finally passes over into vapor form. Those are the successive
individual perceptions. I can twist and turn the matter however I
want: if I remain with what the senses provide, I find no connection
between the facts. With thinking this is not the case. If, for
example, I grasp the thought cause, this leads me by its
own content to that of effect. I need only hold onto the
thoughts in the form in which they appear in direct experience and
they manifest already as lawful characterizations.
What, for the rest of experience, must first be brought from somewhere
else if it is applicable to experience at all namely,
lawfull interconnection, is already present in thinking in its
very first appearance. With the rest of experience the whole thing
does not already express itself in what appears as manifestation to my
consciousness; with thinking, the whole thing arises without
reservation in what is given me. With the rest of experience I must
penetrate the shell in order to arrive at the kernel; with thinking,
shell and kernel are one undivided unity. It is only due to a general
human limitation that thinking appears to us at first as entirely
analogous to the rest of experience. With thinking we merely have to
overcome our own limitation. With the rest of experience we must solve
a difficulty lying in the thing itself.
In thinking, what we must seek for with the rest of experience has
itself become direct experience.
With this the solution is given to a difficulty that will hardly be
solved in any other way. That we stick to experience is a justified
demand of science. But no less so is the demand that we seek out the
inner lawfulness of experience. This inner being itself must therefore
appear at some place in experience as experience. In this way
experience is deepened with the help of experience itself. Our
epistemology imposes the demand for experience in its highest form; it
rejects any attempt to bring something into experience from outside
it. Our epistemology finds, within experience, even the
characterizations that thinking makes. The way in which thinking
enters into manifestation is the same as with the rest of the world of
experience.
The principle of experience, in its implications and actual
significance, is usually misunderstood. In its most basic form it is
the demand that we leave the objects of reality in the first form in
which they appear and only in this way make them objects of science.
This is a purely methodological principle. It expresses absolutely
nothing about the content of what is experienced. If someone wanted to
assert, as materialism does, that only the perceptions of the senses
can be the object of science, then he could not base himself on this
principle. This principle does not pass any judgment as to whether the
content is sense-perceptible or ideal. But if, in a particular case,
this principle is to be applicable in the most basic form just
mentioned, then, to be sure, it makes a presupposition. For, it
demands that the objects, as they are experienced, already have a form
that suffices for scientific endeavor. With respect to the experience
of the outer senses, as we have seen, this is not the case. This
occurs only with respect to thinking.
Only with respect to thinking can the principle of experience be
applied in its most extreme sense.
This does not preclude our extending the principle of experience also
over the rest of the world. It has in fact other forms besides its
most extreme one. If, for the purpose of scientific explanation, we
cannot leave an object in the form in which it is directly perceived,
this explanation can nevertheless still occur in such a way that the
means it requires are brought in from other regions of the world of
experience. In doing so we still have not stepped outside the region
of experience in general.
A science of knowledge established in the sense of the Goethean world
view lays its chief emphasis on the fact that it remains absolutely
true to the principle of experience. No one recognized better than
Goethe the total validity of this principle. He adhered to the
principle altogether as strictly as we demanded earlier. All higher
views on nature had to appear to him in no form other than as
experience. They had to be higher nature within nature.
In his essay Nature, Goethe says that we are incapable of
getting outside nature. If we therefore wish to explain nature to
ourselves in his sense, we must find the means of doing so within
nature.
But how could one found a science of knowing upon the principle of
experience if in experience itself we did not find at any point the
basic element of what is scientific: ideal* lawfulness? We need only
take up this element, as we have seen; we need only delve into this
element. For, it is to be found within experience.
* i.e., in the form of ideas. –Ed.
Now, does thinking really approach us in such a way, does our
individuality become conscious of it in such a way, that we are fully
justified in claiming for it the characteristics stressed above?
Anyone who directs his attention to this point will find that there is
an essential difference between the way an outer manifestation of
sense-perceptible reality becomes conscious yes, even the way
any other process of our spiritual life becomes conscious and
the way we become aware of our own thinking. In the first case we are
definitely conscious of confronting a finished thing; finished,
namely, insofar as it has come into manifestation without our having
exercised upon this becoming any determining influence. It is
different with respect to thinking. It is only at first glance that
thinking seems to be like the rest of experience. When we grasp any
thought, we know, by the total immediacy with which it enters our
consciousness, that we are most inwardly connected with the way it
arises. Even when a thought occurs to me quite suddenly, whose
appearance therefore seems in a certain sense entirely like that of an
outer event which my eyes and ears must first mediate for me, I
nevertheless know that the field upon which this thought comes to
manifestation is my consciousness; I know that my activity must first
be called upon in order for the sudden thought to come about. With
every outer object, I am sure that the object at first turns only its
outer aspect toward my senses; with a thought, I clearly know that
what the thought turns toward me is at the same time its all, that it
enters my consciousness as a totality complete in itself. The outer
driving forces that we must always presuppose with sense-perceptible
objects are not present with a thought. Indeed it is to those outer
forces that we must ascribe the fact that sense phenomena confront us
as something finished; we-must credit these outer forces with the
becoming of phenomena. With a thought, it is clear to me that its
becoming is not possible without my activity. I must work the thought
through, must recreate its content, must experience it inwardly right
into its smallest parts if it is to have any significance for me at
all.
Thus far we have arrived at the following truths. At the first stage
of our contemplation of the world, the whole of reality confronts us
as an unconnected aggregate; thinking is included within this chaos.
If we move about within this manifoldness, we find one part in it
which, already in the form of its first appearance, has the character
the other parts have yet to acquire. This part is thinking. What is to
be overcome in the rest of experience, namely the form of its
immediate appearance, is precisely what we must hold onto with
thinking. Within our consciousness we find this factor of reality, our
thinking, that is to be left in its original form, and we are bound up
with it to such an extent that the activity of our spirit is at the
same time the manifesting of this factor. It is one and the same
thing, looked at from two sides. This thing is the thought-content of
the world. On the one hand it manifests as an activity of our
consciousness, on the other as a direct manifestation of a lawfulness
complete in itself as a self-determined ideal content. We will see
right away which aspect has the greater importance.
Now, because we stand inside this thought-content, be cause we
permeate it in all its component parts, we are capable of really
knowing its most essential nature. The way it approaches us is a
guarantee of the fact that the characteristics we earlier ascribed to
it really are its due. There fore it can definitely serve as a
starting point for every further kind of contemplation of the world.
From this thought-content itself we can conclude what its essential
character is; but if we wish to determine the essential character of
anything else, we must begin our investigations with this
thought-content. Let us articulate this still more clearly. Since we
experience a real lawfulness, an ideal definement, only in
thinking, the lawfulness of the rest of the world, which we do not
experience from this world itself must also lie already contained in
thinking. In other words: manifestation to the senses and thinking
stand over against each other in experience. The first, however, gives
us no enlightenment about its own essential being; the latter gives us
enlightenment both about itself and about the essential being of the
manifestation to the senses.
|