Lecture 1
On the Functions of the Nervous System and
the Threshold of the Spiritual World
Meaningless Forms of Thought
Dornach, December 2, 1917
In these days I
have tried to show you the conditions of human life from an
individual aspect, and also from a wider aspect. You will
have noticed that even during the public lectures which I
held recently, I was anxious to point out the problems of
spiritual science needed for an understanding of mankind. For
we must abandon certain vicious circles of thought that are
now to be found throughout the world, and are, really, one of
the causes which led to the catastrophic events of the
present.
Above all,
people must understand where the boundary line between the
so-called physical world and the spiritual really lies. This
boundary-line really lies in the very center of man. In order
to understand the world, it is very important to know that
this boundary-line between the physical world and the
spiritual world can be found in man himself. I have often
pointed out, from the aspect of spiritual science, the great
importance of scientific methods of thinking, both for the
present and for the future, and have shown that scientific
thought really stands more or less where it has always stood
from its beginnings. One might well say that it is qualified
to spread darkness over some of the most important truths of
life.
Let us be quite
clear that the evolution of the times only begins today to
introduce scientific thinking gradually into the conceptions
of the universe and of life. Today a few monistic societies,
and others too, are engaged in introducing scientific
conceptions into the consciousness of the general public
— often in a shockingly amateurish way. This is only
one of the channels through which scientific thinking will
flow gradually into the human soul. A far more effective and
incisive way is the one of publicity.
Not by chance,
but in accordance with an inner reality, the new scientific
way of thinking entered the evolution of mankind at the same
time as the invention of printing. All new things that
mankind has learnt so far through printed books (with the
exception of books containing old things that existed
already) came from the scientific consciousness. I mean that
the new element came from the scientific consciousness. Above
all, the way in which thoughts have been captured came from a
scientific way of thinking.
Theologians
will of course raise this objection: Have we not printed
theological wisdom and all kinds of religious things during
the last years, decades and centuries? Yes, this is true, but
to what has it led us? The way in which human souls have
become conversant with spiritual life under the auspices of
printing has brought about this result, that the spiritual
element has gradually left the sphere of religious
consciousness altogether. Under the influence of scientific
thought, even Christ-Jesus has become the
“simple man of Nazareth” (you know this already)
and although he has been characterized in many ways, he has
nevertheless been placed on the same level as other great
personalities of history — but for the present at least
he still stands above the others. The real spiritual element
connected with the Mystery of Golgotha gradually disappeared
— at least for those who think that they have advanced
in the civilization of our times.
I have already
explained that the scientific way of thinking was obliged at
first to cooperate in producing a certain darkening of the
spirit, in support of what the Spirits of Darkness bring into
human thinking, ever since 1879. In the scientific sphere
this assumes a very subtle aspect. The scientifically trained
thinker, or better, the scientific expert who cooperates in
the general education of our age and in the formation of a
world-conception, cannot help diverting man from casting a
glance at the boundary-line between the physical world and
the spiritual world, which exists in him. He cannot help this
because science is as it is, and he does his very best
(excuse this banal expression) to work in this direction by
popularizing the scientific methods of thought. A future age
will dawn for human thinking (it is terrible that such things
are mentioned today – terrible for those who follow a
particular line of thought), an age in which certain ideas
will be looked upon as comical — ideas now
ruling in science, which have not entered the consciousness
of the masses, but influence them, because scientists
(forgive me) are considered to be authorities.
I have often
pointed out the following thought — even publicly in my book
Riddles of the Soul:
It is a current scientific
idea that in the nervous system (we will limit ourselves to
man, for the moment, although this can also be applied to
animals) we can distinguish sensory, or sense-nerves or
perceptive nerves, and motor nerves. It can be drawn
schematically, by showing, for instance, that any nerve, say
a nerve of touch, carries the sensation of touch to the
central organ — let us suppose, to the spinal cord. The
sensations from the periphery of the body reach the spinal
cord. Then, from another point of the spinal cord goes out
the so-called motor nerve. From there, the impulse of the
will is sent on (see drawing).
In the brain
this is shown in a more complicated way, as if the nerves
were like telegraphic wires. The sense-impression, the
impression on the skin, is led as far as the central organ:
from there, an order goes out, as it were, that a movement
must be carried out. A fly settles somewhere on the body
— this causes a sensation; the sensation is led on to
the central organ; there, the order is given to lift the hand
as far as the forehead to chase away the fly. From a
diagrammatic aspect, this is an idea that is generally
accepted. A future age will look on this as
something very comical indeed, for it is comical only for him
who can detect this. But it is an idea that is accepted by
the majority of professional scientists. Open the nearest
book on the elements of science dealing with these things and
you will find that today we must distinguish between sensory
and motor nerves. You will find that they mention
particularly the very comical picture of the telegraphic wire
— that the sensation is conducted to the central organ
and that the order is given out from there for the production
of a movement. This picture is still very much diffused in
popularized science.
It is far more
difficult to see through reality than through the thoughts
that set up comparisons with telegraphic wires, reminding us
of the most primitive kinds of ideas.
Spiritual Science
alone enables us to see through reality. An
impulse of the will has nothing in common physical
matter. Nerves — both sensory and motor nerves —
obey a uniform function, and this can be seen no matter
whether the nerve-cord is interrupted in the spine or in the
brain; in the brain it is merely interrupted in a more
complicated way.
This
interruption or break exists not only in order that something
from the external world may be conducted through the one half
to the central organ and then, in the form of will, from the
central organ through the second half to the periphery
— this interruption exists for an entirely
different reason. Our nervous system is interrupted in this
regular way because at the very point of the interruption,
reflected in an image in man, there lies the boundary line
between physical and spiritual experience; it is the bodily
reflection of a complicated spiritual reality. This boundary
exists in man in a very remarkable way. Man enters into a
relationship with the world immediately around him, and this
process is connected with that part of the nerve-cord that
goes as far as the interruption. But man must also have a
link with his own physical body as a soul-being. This
connection with his own physical body is transmitted through
the other nerve-cord. When an external impression causes me
to move my hand, the impulse to move the hand already lies
here (shown in the diagram), already united with the
soul, with the sense-impression. And that which is conducted
along the whole sensitive nerves, along the so-called motor
nerve, from a to b, is not “conducted
as a sense-impression as far as c, where an order is
given that gives rise to b”– no, the
soul-element is already fructified when an impulse of the
will takes place at a, and passes through the entire
nerve-path indicated in the diagram.
It is quite out
of the question that such infantile ideas should correspond
to any form of reality — ideas which presuppose that
the soul is to be found somewhere between the sensory and the
motor nerves, where it receives an impression from the
exterior world and transmits an order from there, like a
telegraphic operator. This childish idea, which is met with
again and again, is very strange when found in conjunction
with the demand that science must at all costs avoid being
anthropomorphic! Anthropomorphic lines of thought must be
avoided, yet people do not realize how anthropomorphic they
themselves are, when they say that an impression is received,
an order sent out, etc., etc. They talk and talk and have not
the slightest idea what mythological beings they conjure into
their dreams about the human organism! They would realize it
if they would take things seriously.
Now the
question arises: Why then is the nerve-cord interrupted? It
is interrupted because, if this were not so, we should not be
included in the whole process. Only because at the point of
interruption the impulse springs over the gap, as it were
(the same impulse, let us say, an impulse of the will, starts
from a), because of this fact, we ourselves are in
the world and are at one with this impulse. If the entire
process were uninterrupted, with no break at this point, it
would be entirely a process of Nature, in which we would not
participate.
Imagine this
process in a so-called reflex movement: A fly settles
somewhere on your body, you chase away the fly, and the whole
process never enters your consciousness fully. The entire
process has its analogy, an entirely justified analogy, in
the sphere of physics. Inasmuch as this process demands an
explanation by means of physics, the explanation will be only
a little more complicated than that of another physical
process. Take a rubber ball, for instance: you press it here,
and deform it. But the ball fills out again and reassumes its
former shape. You press in and the ball presses out again.
This is the plain physical process, a reflex movement, except
that there is no organ of perception, there is nothing
spiritual in the process. But if you interpolate something
spiritual at this point by interrupting the process, the
rubber ball will feel itself an individual being. However, in
this case the rubber ball must have a nervous system, so that
it can feel both the world and itself. A
nervous system always exists in order that we may feel the
world in ourselves: it never exists in order to pass
on a sensation along one side of the wire, and a motor
impulse along the other side.
I am pointing
this out because the pursuance of this subject leads us into
one of the many points where natural science must be
corrected before it can supply ideas that correspond
approximately to the real facts. The ideas ruling today are
instruments of the impulses coming from the Spirits of
Darkness. The boundary line between physical and spiritual
experience lies in man himself.
You see, this
piece of nerve that I indicated in red really serves to place
us into the physical world, so that we may have sensations in
the physical world. The other piece of nerve, indicated in
blue, really serves to make us feel
ourselves as body. There is no essential
difference whether we experience a color consciously from
outside, through the nerve-cord a c, or whether we
experience an organ, or the position of an organ, etc., from
inside, through the cord d b; in essence, this is
the same. In the one case we experience something physical is
in us, i.e., enclosed within our skin. Not only that which is
outside, but also what is within us, places us in the process
that can be experienced as a will-process. The strength of
the perception varies according to the nerve-cords that
transmit it — the cord a c, or the cord d b. Indeed, a
definite weakening of the intensity takes place. When an idea
is linked up with a will-impulse in a, the impulse is passed
on from a; when it jumps from c to d, the whole process
weakens to such an extent in our consciousness or experience
that we experience its continuation — for instance, the
lifting of our hand — only with that slight intensity
of consciousness which we possess during sleep. When we lift
our hand we are again aware of the will, but in the form of a
new sensation from another side. Sleep extends continually in
an anatomical and physiological sense into our waking life.
We are connected with the exterior physical world, but we are
completely awake only with that part of our being that goes
as far as the interruption of the nerves. What lies in us
beyond this interruption in the nerves is wrapped in
sleep, even by day. In the present stage of the evolution of
the Earth this process is not yet physical; it takes place on
a certain spiritual level, although it is connected to a
great extent with the lower qualities of human nature.
However, I have often expounded the secret that just man's
“lower nature” is connected with the higher
manifestations of certain spiritual beings. If we note all
the places in the human being where the nerves are
interrupted, and jot them down in a diagram, we obtain the
boundary-line between the experiencing in the physical world
and the experience that comes from a higher world. Hence I
can use the following diagram: Suppose that I indicate here
all the nerve-interruptions — here is the head and here
is a leg. Now suppose that a so-called impression goes out
from here and that the interruption of the nerve is in this
place. “Walking” will be the result, and the real
process consists in this — that everything that we
experience through the nerve here, is experienced by day in a
waking way. But what we experience here as unconscious will
is experienced in a sleeping way, even when we are awake. The
spiritual world forms and creates directly everything that
lies below the point of interruption in the nerves.
You may find
these things difficult if you hear them for the first time,
but they should make you aware that you cannot enter into the
more intimate questions of knowledge without some
difficulty.
When it becomes
clear to you that everything above the boundary line connects
man with the physical world, and everything below
the boundary with a spiritual world, of which he possesses
only an inferior kind of physical image, you will be able to
reach the following conception: — Think of the
plant-world; the plants grow out of the earth, but they would
not do so unless they received from the universe forces which
are intimately connected with the life of the Sun, and which
receive everything that the earth generates in the form of
forces. All these cosmic forces, everything that pours in
from the universe out of the Sun's life, with all that
emanates from the earth, belongs to the life of the
plants.
This joint
action of cosmic and telluric, or earthly, forces is part of
the life and existence in the physical world, as we must
understand it. The forces working on the plants below this
line, from the earth, together with the plant's germinating
force (the seed is put into the earth) are of the
same kind as those that we must seek here, where the
red lines are indicated [original article notes “This
diagram cannot be given.”] You must look for the forces
that the plant receives from the earth through its roots,
above the boundary-line indicated in the diagram. Man takes
from the earth in a more delicate way, through his eyes and
ears, and above all through his skin, what the plant
assimilates from the soil through its roots. Man is an
earthly being through his nerves, and through what he
receives in the form of telluric or earthly forces in the air
he breathes, and in the food that the earth gives him. What
the plant receives from the earth (except that the plant
sends its roots into the earth), man receives through organs
that he unfolds after death, from the earth; but he receives
it in a more delicate way, and the plant in a coarser way
through its roots.
The plant
receives other forces as well; it receives forces that stream
in from the Sun's sphere, from the heavenly sphere —
the sphere of the cosmic spaces, or the universe. In my
diagram, this sphere is indicated in blue; it
represents the forces that the plant receives from the
universe. They are of the same kind as those indicated in
blue, beyond the boundary line. Man draws out of his body
what the plant draws out of the universe. From the earth, man
receives in a more refined state the forces and substances
which the plant assimilates more coarsely from the soil
through its roots. From this body, man receives more
coarsely the same forces and substances that the
plant draws from the universe in a more refined state. These
forces do not exist in the universe in the form in which man
draws them out of his own body; they existed as such during
the old Moon period. Man has preserved them from that period.
Through what lies beyond this limit (shown in the
blue part of the diagram) man does not receive his
perceptions immediately from the present, but from what he
brought over as an inheritance from the old Moon period. He
has carried the cosmic conditions of a past age into the
present. Man has preserved the Moon-conditions in his
body.
You can see,
therefore, that we are cosmic to a certain extent and are
even connected with the universe in such a way that we bear
within us an image of what has already been conquered by the
universe outside.
This is again
an example of what I mentioned last time, that it will not be
of much use if we say, from a general, vague and nebulous
standpoint, that man must take up again a cosmic way of
feeling and cosmic ideas. These things are only of value if
we approach them quite concretely, and if we really
know how matters stand, how they are
connected. This will place the experimental attempts of the
present day on a sound basis, on a really sound basis. If we
know that everything in the human body lying beyond the
nerve-interruptions is connected with the Moon nature, we
shall find in the universe and in the life on earth the
forces that make us ill or that heal us. We shall find them
through these relationships, and when we know how that which
lies on this side of the boundary-line is
connected with the conditions of the earth (in a finer way
than the plant's connection with the soil through its roots),
we shall find, in a really conscious way, the connection
between illness and health and the qualities of certain
plants.
These things
are still in the experimental stage. Man's thinking must
first be placed on a sound basis, and then there will also be
a sound foundation of knowledge for the conceptions and ideas
which he develops, in order that his thinking may regulate,
permeate, and give a certain structure to the social,
ethical, pedagogic and political aspects of life.
In many realms
of knowledge, we perceive that just those people, who in
their scientific thought are broad-minded, able experts,
begin to romance, to talk absolute nonsense, when they
transfer their habitual ideas to the sphere of social life.
But the sphere of social life is not an entirely independent
sphere. The human being, with his physical soul and spiritual
nature, takes his place in social life, and it is not
possible to separate these things from one another. We must
not content ourselves with the fact that men are made
scientifically stupid in the social sphere in order that they
may only be able to talk nonsense where the social sphere is
concerned!
Today it is
quite easy to prove that experienced scientists begin to talk
nonsense when they cross the boundary between science and
spiritual life. Medical men, especially, are very prone to
all kinds of absurdities when they enter the spiritual sphere
with the ideas that are gained today in the realm of science.
We need not search far afield: any example taken from human
life will serve, for wherever we look we shall find confusion
in this respect.
For instance,
here is a pamphlet by a very good doctor, entitled:
“The Injurious Effects of the War upon the Nervous
System and Mental Life.” In order not to arouse your
prejudice, I will not even say what a good doctor he
is. This excellent medical man, however, observed the nervous
system, concerning which science has not even a glimmer of a
correct idea (this can be realized from the few examples I
have given today); he observed to what extent the nervous
system has been injured by the present war conditions. We
need only consider the most primitive examples, in order to
show how really sound thinking ceases when scientific
conceptions are transferred to that which is connected, to
some extent, with the spiritual sphere — I will not
even say, the spiritual sphere itself! The discussion of such
a subject as “The Injurious Effects of the War upon the
Nervous System and Mental Life” implies the necessity
of expressing what is supposed to take place in the
nerves, as a result of all kinds of things
pertaining to the spiritual (mental) life — naturally,
that spiritual life which takes its course on the
physical plane — through all kinds of ideas which are
taken from this spiritual life.
This man, for
instance, brings forward an idea that is supposed to be
justified under certain conditions of abnormal life of the
nerves, the idea of “over-estimated thoughts.”
They are a symptom of diseased nerves. “Over-estimated
thoughts” — what does this mean? You see, anyone
who brings forward such a conception must make sure that it
is really effective in life. What is an over-estimated
thought? This doctor says it arises when the feeling, or the
sensation, in the thought is emphasized too strongly, when it
is a one-sided thought; in fact, he brings forward all kinds
of vague ideas. Of course, I cannot give you a precise idea
of this, but do not ascribe this lack of a clear definition
to spiritual science, for now I am quoting. An over-estimated
thought arises, for instance, if one hates a foreign country
excessively, owing to the war. A “valued thought”
would be real patriotism. But this real patriotism becomes
“over-valued” when the nervous system is
irritated. One does not only love one's country, but hates
the other countries: then the thought has become
“over-valued.” The “valued” thought
is sound, and from the valued thought one must conclude that
the nerves also are sound. But if the thought is over-valued,
the nerves are injured. Do we meet reality anywhere, if we
characterize, on the one hand a nerve process, and on the
other hand a thought which is supposed to have a certain
quality? As a thought, it is supposed to be
“over-valued”; the nerve process is on one side
and the idea “over-valued” on the other. People
would do well to think out such things always to the very
end, for a thought reveals itself as correct or incorrect,
i.e., as real or unreal, only if it is thought to the end.
For instance, it would be an over-valued thought if I were to
think that I am the King of Spain; undoubtedly this would be
an over-valued thought. But it need not be
“over-valued” if I really happened to be the King
of Spain. In this case my nervous system would be quite
sound, although the thought is the same. It has the same
content. Hence the thought itself is not over-valued;
otherwise we must believe the King of Spain to be afflicted
with nerve troubles because he thinks that he is the King of
Spain! This is so, is it not? Consequently, this connection
is not important, nevertheless there is a great deal of talk
about this. There is not only talk: conceptions, definitions,
etc., are formed. The results are very strange and not worth
more than idle chatter.
You see, now,
that this man has formed the idea of over-valued thoughts.
The over-valuation of thoughts is a symptom for disturbances
in the life of the nerves. Very well. But his
sub-consciousness does not feel very much at ease, for
sub-consciously he feels that while he is explaining to
people all these matters concerning the over-valuation of
thoughts, they, too, have all kinds of sub-conscious
thoughts, they think there is a flaw in the argument; but
this remains, of course, in the sub-consciousness of people,
for this person is an “authority”! Hence their
impressions must not rise into consciousness , for, with the
designation “over-valuation” is expressed not
only the vivid and high valuation of the ideas in question,
but also their “over-valuation” in connection
with the real facts which lie at their foundation. The
over-valued thought rules consciousness to such an extent
that there is no room beside it for other objective thoughts,
which are also justified. The latter are pushed aside and
lose their efficacy in consciousness and their influence in
bridling and limiting the over-valued thoughts. Thus a
one-sided exaggeration arises when judgments are formed, a
one-sided tendency in the strivings of the will, and a
turning away from all other spheres of thought which are not
immediately connected with the center of the over-valued
thoughts.
(It is more or
less the same thing as arguing that poverty comes from
“pauvreté”!)
Certainly, two
people may have the same thought substance, but in one case
this is Lucifer, in the other case Ahriman,
and in a third case it may be in keeping with the normal
evolution of humanity. Instead of coining the empty
expression “over-valued thoughts,” we must accept
the idea of spirituality, such as the luciferic or
the ahrimanic spirituality; then we shall know that the
important point is to recognize whether a human being wills
something out of himself, or whether something
else in him wills it. But of course, so-called science
still shrinks from such views.
And if we
expect real, concrete results from science, things become
very amusing! Listen to this:
“First of
all, I will define” (he tries to explain himself,
because he wishes to show the symptoms of certain nervous
disturbances), “first of all, I will define the
thoughts that often play the chief role in the nervous
disturbances of individuals” (he means also in the
modern nationality-mania), “the ideas of
despondency, care, fear, lack of courage and of self-
confidence.” Very well, these are the things that
characterize the nervous system in the life of the nerves
that is determined by over-valued thoughts.
Despondency,
care, fear, lack of courage and of self-confidence —
well, such a lecture is meant to be of help somehow, for this
authority does not speak merely to cause vibrations in the
air, but because he wishes it to be of use. Hence one would
expect this gentleman to tell us how humanity can
overcome these handicaps, because he finds, not only in
individuals, but also in humanity, lack of courage, care,
despondency, lack of self-confidence as symptoms of nervous
disturbances; now we should expect him to tell us how to get
rid of these things, how to get beyond this lack of courage,
care, despondency, lack of self-confidence. One would take
this for granted. Indeed he takes it for granted, for he
says:
“Thus for
a time at least, that discontented, discouraged mood can
spread among the great masses of the people, which is to be
feared more than anything else. For it leads to the
abandonment of strong sound impulses of the will, it loosens
the firm, united striving after a goal, and it weakens energy
and endurance.”
Now we expect
something, and he continues: “Not to be nervous,
therefore, means above all courage, confidence, trust in
one's own strength, and not swerving from what has been
recognized as the right course of action.”
So now we have
the conclusion. People are nervous when they are oppressed by
care, lack of courage, despondency, lack of self-confidence.
How do they get rid of their nervousness? When they are not
oppressed by all this! This is quite clear, is it not? When
they are not oppressed by all these things!
The
worthlessness of thought is carried over into substantiality
also in science. Certain authorities have at their disposal
all the material, have taken possession of it. It is already
confiscated when any attempt is made to work upon it with
reason. But when they work upon it themselves, they do so
with worthless thoughts. All anatomical, physiological and
physical subject matter is consequently lost. Nothing is
created, for at the very table where something useful for
humanity should be produced, people stand with these
worthless thoughts. Certainly nothing can come of the
dissection of a corpse, when — forgive the hard
expression — an “empty head” dissects. Here
already the matter becomes social. Things must be considered
from this point of view. And a very promising
treatise ends in the manner I have just shown.
I have given
you one example. Not be become nervous means above all not to
lose courage, confidence and trust. But when today the
average reader takes up such a treatise and reads: “The
Injurious Effects of the War upon the Nervous System and
Mental Life” — and thinks, “here I shall be
enlightened, for this is by Professor So-and-so, director of
the Medical Hospital in So-and-so.” — well, now
he is clear about it, now naturally he is enlightened.
But on page 27,
where national hatred is discussed, we read: —
“Certainly similar impulses flared up within us, and we
found it almost a relief and satisfaction to oppose our
greatest enemies with a similar attitude on our side. And
yet, only a little quiet consideration is needed to realize
that this general national hatred is only the outcome of a
diseased, overstimulated attitude of soul, into which the
various peoples have fallen through mutually inflaming,
inciting and imitating one another.”
How then has
the history of national hatred arisen, according to this
statement? Here are various peoples: a, b,
and c, but neither a, b, nor
c is in any way capable of hating, of itself, for
the whole history has not arisen thus, — this general
national hatred has developed through a diseased,
over-stimulated attitude of soul into which the various
peoples have fallen through mutually inflaming,
inciting and imitating one another. Thus, a cannot
bring it about, b also cannot, nor can c;
but what each is unable to do, they achieve by mutually
provoking one another. Consider how ingenious the thought is.
I explain something and have before me a,
b, and c. All this is unable to provide an
adequate explanation, but does so just the same. I explain
something therefore out of nothing at all in the most
beautiful manner
People pick up
such things and read them without observing that they are
simply nonsense.
It is necessary
to point out such things for they show how disjointed and
worthless the thought is which today assumes authority.
Naturally in science, which pertains to what already exists,
this does not come to light so strongly and cannot be
controlled. But just as people think here in the realm of
science, so they also think in social, pedagogical and
political life and this has been prepared during the last
four centuries. This is the present situation.
So it has come
about that gradually out of the disjointed, worthless
thought, just such impulses as those which meet us in the
present catastrophic events have arisen. Here we must
penetrate thoroughly to the roots of the matter. And only
when people then come to the surface of things, where the
matter becomes actual for the single individual, and may also
become so for the social structure of whole peoples, there
the matter becomes especially terrible and tragic. It is our
task on the one hand to grasp these things, is it not? We
must learn to know them within their mutual limits, if we are
to understand them. If we wish to understand such an event as
the present war, which is so complicated and which
unquestionably cannot be grasped in its details from the
physical plane, we must — as people say — trace
it back to its sources. But everyone believes, when he has
traced a matter back to its source, when he has understood it
in this manner, that it was a necessity, that it had to
happen just as it now is. Today for instance, one does not in
the least notice that the one has nothing whatever to do with
the other. Because we understand something in its
interrelationships, this does not also establish the fact
that the event had to take place, that it could not
have been omitted. He who tries to make clear to himself, in
a more or less intelligent way, why the present war had to
come, why it is not something determined by a few
people, but something connected with deeper causes in the
evolution of humanity — often goes away satisfied and
says: Now I understand that nothing else was possible except
that this war should come. It is obviously a necessity
— in the sense that when we know its causes it develops
with absolute necessity out of them, out of these concrete
conditions. But this does not mean that we may draw the
conclusion that things had to happen just as they have
happened. No event arising in world history is
necessary in this latter sense. Although in the former sense
it is necessary, no event is necessary in this
latter sense. Each event might have been different,
and each might not have happened at all.
He who speaks
of absolute necessity might reflect with the same right: I
should like to know when I shall die. Now if I go to a life
insurance company, they reckon out — determining the
amount of the insurance policies accordingly — how many
people out of a certain number have died in a given length of
time and how many still live. The insurance money is paid
accordingly. I go to a life insurance company for information
and it must appear from their calculations whether I shall be
dead or not in 1922.
This is
naturally complete nonsense. But it is exactly the same
nonsense when we try to derive the necessity of one event
from another, from the realization of the cause that must
lead to it. Here I touch upon a theme which indeed is not
easy, for the reason that just in this sphere the most
disjointed ideas are prevalent, because very little
will to become clear about things exists in this
realm today.
If we really
wish to be clear on this point, we must recognize that when
something takes place, it does so under the influence of
certain conditions. In the sequence of circumstances we
always come to a certain point where there are beginnings
— real beginnings. If today we see a sapling that is
still small, later on it will become larger; the largeness of
the tree develops of necessity from its smallness. After a
short time we may say: It is a necessity that this tree has
developed thus. I could see how it developed according to
necessity when it was still very small, perhaps while it was
unfolding its very first germinating forces out of the earth.
If I am a botanist I can see that in time a large tree must
of necessity arise. But if the seed had not fallen into the
earth at this particular spot — perhaps someone planted
it there, but if he had not done so — then here would
be a point where necessity would not have been introduced.
For necessity must begin here. We have before us a mighty
oak, let us say — it is not here in reality — we
look at it and admire it; it was once naturally a sapling and
has grown from this sapling, according to necessity. But now
imagine that a good-for-nothing boy (or girl!) had come along
while it was still very small and pulled it up. Because it is
pulled up, the whole necessity does not result. In a negative
sense also the necessity may be done away with. Starting
points, where necessities begin, these reveal themselves to
the thought that conforms to reality. This is the essential
point.
But we do not
reach these starting points when we observe merely the outer
course of events. We reach them only when we can at least
feel the spiritual foundations. For just as you have here a
bunch of roses, and when you form a concept of it, if you are
an abstract person, an idea will result which is a copy of
the reality (for the bunch of roses is real and the idea of
it is a copy of reality) — so for the occultist the
bunch of roses is not a reality at all when he conceives it,
because the bunch of roses does not exist; the roses can only
exist when with their roots they are connected with the
earth. The real concept does not result when we form an image
of something that is from the outset external, but only when
we have formed out of the reality this fully experienced
concept. But this fully experienced concept yields itself
only to spiritual-scientific contemplation — even in
the case of outer sense reality.
A valid concept
of a world-historical event is only reached when we can view
this event according to the methods of spiritual science.
Here we find that it may indeed be traced in regard to its
necessity; we find its ramifications, its roots within
reality. But something is accomplished only by actually
tracing the roots, not by the general statement of an
abstract necessity.
Had, for
instance, certain events during the eighties of the
nineteenth century been different, the events in 1914 would
also have been different. But this is just the important
point, not to proceed as the historian does, who says: What
now takes place is the effect of preceding events, these are
in turn the effect of preceding events, which are the effect
of still other events, etc. We come thus not only to the
beginning of the world, but still farther, into cornplete
nothingness. One such idea rolls along behind the other.
This, however, is not the important point, but we must follow
the matter concretely to where it first took root. Just as
the root of a plant begins somewhere, so also do events.
Seeds are sown in the course of time. If the seeds are not
sown, then the events do not arise. I have touched upon a
theme here that I naturally cannot exhaust today. We will
have more to say later on this subject that I will describe
essentially thus: “In spite of all considerations of
necessity, there is not a single event which is absolutely
necessary.”
It is really
essential that men of the present day should, in their whole
attitude of mind, emerge from this frightful dogmatism that
permeates modern science, and that matters should be [taken]
seriously.
I will give you
a good example. At Zurich and Basle I endeavored to explain
what nonsense it is to consider a sequence of historical
events in such a way that one event must necessarily arise
from another. This is the same as if I said: Here is a light
that illumines first an object a, then an object b, then an
object c. I do not notice the light itself, but merely the
fact that first a, then b, then c
in turn becomes illumined. I should be mistaken if, on seeing
a and then b illumined, I were to say that
b is lighted from a, and when I see that
c is illumined, I were then to say: c is
lighted from b. This would be quite incorrect, for
the illumination of b and c have nothing to
do with a; they all receive light from a common
source. I gave this example in my lectures in order to
explain historical events.
Now suppose
that somebody found this idea quite a nice one. This is
possible, is it not, that an idea which has sprung up on
anthroposophical soil should be found quite good? Indeed,
here and there even our opponents have taken such ideas to
use for themselves. Many indeed have become opponents because
such things had to be censured. Thus it is quite possible
that an analogy brought forward from an anthroposophical
quarter should not be absolutely foolish. Suppose some person
took it and used it in a connection differing from that in
which I had used it. Suppose that he used it dogmatically,
not symptomatically as I did. Suppose that he used it from
quite a different attitude of mind, and that I heard a
lecture in which he said: “The sequence of cause and
effect is quite wrongly explained by saying that effect
b is the result of cause a, effect
c of cause b, for this would be the same as
saying: ‘When three objects, a, b,
and c, are illumined, then b is illumined
by a, c by b’.”
Suppose I am
listening to all this, and that the explanation is not given
in the same connection in which I spoke at Basle and Zurich,
then I should perhaps object to the lecturer's conclusions,
arising from his connection. I should perhaps say:
“Supposing that a, b and c
are luminescent substances — there are such substances;
when exposed to light they become luminous and can give light
even when the source of light is removed — suppose that
a, being luminescent, actually illumines b,
and that b, being luminescent, illumines c,
then b would in truth be lighted by a, and
c by b. In this way the whole analogy can
become very brittle, when it is used by someone who, in the
course of his lecture, has not explained that concepts for
the realities in the spiritual life are like photographs,
which differ when taken from different points of view. If
this is not said at the outset, if the lecturer does not lead
up to ideas that conform to reality, so that these ideas are
always ideas from a certain point of view, then what has been
said quite rightly from a certain perspective may become
nonsense when used in an absolute sense.
The difference
lies in this: Does the speaker start from reality or
ideas? If from the latter, he will always be
one-sided. If he takes as his starting point reality
— since he can only bring forward ideas and nothing
else, and every idea is one-sided — he may and must
produce one-sided ideas, for that is quite obvious. You will
now understand that a complete, a fundamental alteration of
the soul-life is essential. For this reason it is easy for
people to criticize many ideas of which I am the author. I do
not know if anyone has hit upon this particular criticism. I
have myself already made all the criticisms that are
necessary.
Men
must now realize in what way the idea is related to
the reality. Only then shall we be able to penetrate into
reality. Otherwise we shall always quarrel about ideas. Today
the whole world is fighting about ideas in the social sphere,
even when this fight has been transformed into external
deeds. The fight about ideas changes very frequently into
external deeds. These things lead into the intimacies of the
spiritual life. Those who would understand existence must
reflect on such things.
I have called
your attention to these matters today in a more theoretical
way. Next time I will speak of contemporary history from this
standpoint and will show how far certain events have been
necessary, and how far they were quite unnecessary, how quite
different events might have happened, and how the
catastrophes under which we all suffer need not have happened
at all. We shall speak of these important questions in the
next lecture.
|