Lecture 5
Stuttgart,
June 24, 1920
Today's meeting provides a further
opportunity for me to speak to you who are friends of the
anthroposophical movement before I leave. I wish to do
something which in a way is particularly close to my
heart, to discuss some of the things that really need to
be discussed. It is possible that most of what I have to
say today is a repetition of things that have been
discussed on a number of occasions from all kinds of
different aspects, things now also taken into
consideration in public lectures. There are reasons,
however, why it is necessary for us to consider some of
them once again today.
I have
often stressed that it is necessary for a sufficient
number of people to fully understand the following. To
prevent the decline into which we have got ourselves in
the civilized world from continuing into utter ruin,
certain impulses must be brought into modern civilization
that can only arise if spiritual science reveals the
nature of the world to its fullest extent.
Materialism
has come to Europe over the last three or four centuries,
coming to a crest in the 19th and then tumbling over in
the 20th century. It has a peculiarity that seems
paradoxical, particularly if one fails to realize the
true causes. The peculiar thing about materialism is that
it has no possibility of recognizing the material world
as it really is. I think I have already given you an
example of this. The materialistic way of thinking has in
more recent times given rise to an idea that is believed
by a great many people, namely that the heart is a kind
of pump in the human organism that pumps the blood
through the organism. This idea of the human heart being
a pump comes up in all kinds of variations nowadays. The
facts are rather different, however, and should be seen
like this: The whole of our rhythmical circulatory system
is something alive. It cannot be compared with a system
of channels or the like with water flowing through them,
water kept circulating with the aid of a pump. Our
rhythmical circulatory system, our blood system, is
something alive. It is kept alive by a number of factors,
the major factors being breathing, hunger, thirst and so
on. These clearly function at the level of soul and
spirit. Our blood system is set in motion by entirely
primary causes, and the movement of the heart arises when
this spiritual principle enters into the rhythm of the
blood. The rhythm of the blood is the primary, living
principle, and the heart is caught up in this rhythm. The
facts are therefore entirely the opposite of what every
professor of physiology is teaching today, with the
result that it is dinned into people's heads at school
and indeed from their earliest childhood.
It
therefore has to be said that materialism has not even
managed to get a real understanding of the physical
processes relating to the heart in the human organism.
The material aspect in particular is completely
misunderstood. This is just one of many examples.
Material things in particular have found no explanation
whatsoever under the influence of materialism. The heart
is not a pump. It it something we might regard more as a
sense organ incorporated within the human organism to
give human individuals a kind of subconscious perception
of their circulation, just as the eye perceives colour in
the world outside. Basically the heart is a sense organ
within the circulatory system, yet exactly the opposite
is taught nowadays.
This would
appear to be an example of limited relevance. I can
imagine some philistine saying: ‘Well, it can't do
much harm if people have entirely the wrong idea about
the nature of the human heart. Of course, if doctors had
the wrong idea about the nature of the human heart that
would be cause for general alarm. After all, it does make
quite a difference in human life if doctors have the
right or the wrong idea about the heart.’ But this
also holds true for other things. Everything is connected
with everything else in life, and because of this
humankind is absolutely full of wrong ideas, completely
upside-down ideas. One might well think, if one was
serious about it, that being hung up on wrong ideas would
cause real havoc in our thinking processes. It certainly
does. Our thinking is utterly ruined because it has been
dinned into us and we have become used to thinking that
things are the opposite of what they really are. That is
why we never acquire the habit of steady, purposeful
thinking. How can our thinking grow purposeful in social
life, for example, if in areas where truth should be
sought above all else we are in fact going in the
opposite direction?
You see,
some things that are important to know are a closed book
for People today. When the human organism is investigated
in conventional institutes nowadays, in physiological and
biological laboratories, in hospitals and similar
institutions, the brain for instance is examined by
analyzing it bit by bit as it presents itself to the eye.
The liver is examined by the same kind of analysis. In
doing so, people never consider one thing that is
absolutely essential if one wishes to understand the
human being: The whole of the head organization as We
have it today and everything it governs is entirely
different from the rest of the human organism.
Let me show
you what lies behind this. You can draw it like this. I
intend to lead up gradually to what I really want to say.
You can say that the human being has two organs of
perception, and the direction in which they perceive is
approximately like this [see (a) in the diagram]. Two
other directions in which we perceive show a certain
relationship to these. In diagrammatic form I would draw
them like this (b):
The human being thus perceives in four
directions, as shown in the diagram.
I
deliberately did not tell you where these organs are to
be found in the human organism. If I draw nothing but two
arrows to indicate direction (a) here, where one
stretches out, as it were, to perceive, and two others
here, (b), where we perceive sideways, it makes no
difference at all if these are the directions in which
feeling and sensation pass through my legs and these
where they pass through my arms. Here we have something
that is in accord. I perceive my own gravity, as it were,
I stand with my two feet on the ground. I really perceive
something. And I also perceive something when I stretch
out my hand, stretch out my arm, even if I do not
actually touch anything. I can draw it like this (a). The
same drawing can also stand for something different.
Imagine this is the horizontal plane. The two arrows
could represent the two visual axes; I could draw the two
visual axes like this. And these arrows (b) could
indicate the directions of my ears. The same diagram
would serve to indicate perception by the eyes and ears.
On the one occasion I have the whole organism within the
head, though the plane has turned through a 90°
angle, on the other within the rest of the organism.
There is a higher point of view where both are the same.
Our two legs are merely directions in which we perceive
that have become flesh. The same directions exist in a
less physical form where they extend from the brain
through the eyes to perceive colour. Elsewhere we
perceive gravity and everything connected with it. We see
our weight and we step on colour, we could say, if we
were to change the two things over, entirely in organic
terms, of course. I hear the blackboard chalk, I touch a
C or C sharp that is sounding. The difference is merely
one of degree. In the head everything has gone through a
90° angle and is less physical; the other is in the
vertical plane, and is physical. In the final instance
both are the same. It is only that I am aware of the way
my eyes step on colours, my ears touch sounds; I know
about it, it is part of my ordinary conscious life.
Everything my legs see with regard to gravity and all
kinds of other things that my arms hear — all these
are in the subconscious sphere. Conditions belonging to
the cosmic sphere are present in the subconscious. With
the whole of my subconscious I have knowledge of the
cosmic sphere, knowledge of the way the earth relates to
other bodies in the universe, knowledge of the universal
background to gravity. I hear the music of the spheres
with my arms and not with my ears.
Thus we may
say that we have a lower organism, as it is called, with
subconscious cosmic awareness, and we have a head with
early awareness; this however is a
‘conscious’ awareness. The whole of the human
being is organized on the basis of these differences. Our
outer form and configuration depends entirely on these
differences. You know that the head we carry today is the
transformed body of our previous incarnation, our
previous earth life, and that the rest of our present
organism will be the head in our next life. The head,
then, is the rest of the organism which has undergone a
transformation. It is more perfect, more finished in a
way. As a result the legs have become fine visual threads
extending beyond the eye and stepping on the colours in a
very lively way. The arms of our former life have become
so ethereal that they now extend from our ears and touch
the sounds we hear.
These are
concrete facts about the human being. It does not get
People anywhere to know about repeated earth lives and so
on. Those after all are dogmas and it makes no difference
if you have the dogmas of the Catholic or Protestant
church or the dogma of repeated earth lives. Real
thinking only starts when you enter into concrete events,
when you come to realize that looking at the human head
you are looking at the transformed body of your previous
earth life, and that the head you had then was the
transformed body of the preceding life — you must
imagine it without the head, of course. The head you see
now is the transformed organism of the last life lived on
earth. The rest of the organism as you see it now will be
the head in the next life. Then the arms will have
metamorphosed and become ears, and the legs will have
become eyes. We must look at the physical world and
understand it in its transformed non-physical form, our
intellect must illumine the material world in this way.
Then at last we shall have what humankind is much in need
of today. Once the human mind has been organized so that
it no longer produces the kind of folly that has been put
forward as a potential social theory, particularly in the
second half of the 19th century, human beings will indeed
be ready to develop social ideas that can be put into
effect in this world. It is necessary to gain a thorough
understanding of this today. It is a serious matter when
people say today: Something else will have to take the
place of the science which has evolved and is so highly
respected, of all the things that are generally
disseminated. There can be no other way.
It is
nonsense, and I also said so recently in a public
lecture, [ Note 30 ] to
talk about setting up adult education thinking that the
same kind of work can be done there as at ordinary
universities. It is the work done at the universities
that has brought us to these disastrous situations,
because it has become the materialistic view of a few
leading personalities. This is now to be presented to the
masses; that is, millions are to head for the disasters
that so far have come about because the wrong lead was
given by a few. Something that proved useless for a few
is now to be spread among many. It is not as easy as
that, however. Popular education cannot be introduced
simply by teaching outside the universities what until
now has been alive inside them. It would mean teaching
something that is altogether unsuitable for human beings.
This may sound radical, but it is absolutely essential
that it is fully understood if there is to be even the
least hope of the decline being halted and something new
and positive developing. These are the things one wishes
one could speak of in words that truly go to the heart.
These concrete truths must reach as many hearts as
possible. It was therefore important to me to point out
in my public lectures that something has been achieved in
the Waldorf School, that anthroposophy has positively
influenced the history lessons in some places. I was also
able to refer to the teaching of anthropology in class 5.
There, too, anthroposophy was effective. Not that one
would teach anthroposophy to the children — we
would never think of doing such a thing — but
lessons come to life if anthroposophy is the foundation,
if the inspiration of anthroposophy is there in what we
teach. This brings the souls of the children to life;
they are quite different when this influence is there. It
would be taking the easy way simply to teach
anthroposophy in our schools. No, that is not what we are
about, but rather to use anthroposophy to enliven the
subject matter. It will of course be necessary for
anthroposophy to come alive in oneself first of all, and
that is something that really comes hard, to let
anthroposophy come alive in human beings. Otherwise the
potential is there today for all kinds of disciplines,
not only in science but all kinds of disciplines in life,
to have the full benefit of what life in anthroposophy is
able to give.
That is a
general way of looking at it. Let me go on to something
specific, so that you can see the things we are
considering in their proper context.
Marxist
philosophy, Marxist views are widespread today. They have
their most radical expression in Leninism and Trotskyism,
which are destroying the world. A view of history known
as ‘historical materialism’ plays a great
role in Marxist philosophy, particularly the dogma of the
fundamental importance of the modes and relations of
production. Millions of proletarians have accepted this
dogma according to which tradition, law, science,
religion and so on are like smoke, like an ideology
rising from the modes and relations of
Production—you will find further details in my book
Towards Social Renewal [ Note 31 ] — and that the
modes and relations of production are the Only reality on
which to base one's view of history.
It was very
important to me on past occasions — this has to do
with the feeling I have that I was really able to achieve
something and create a potential basis at the Worker's
Education Institute in Berlin [ Note 32 ] — to speak in
proletarian circles about the view that the modes and
relations of production are the only effective element,
and to present a clear picture. My aim therefore was not
to teach historical materialism but the truth. That was
of course also the reason why I was thrown °in, for
it offended those in charge at the time just as much as
the idea of a threefold social order offends people
today. Authoritarian thinking and belief in authority
were and still are as great in the socialist movement as
in the Catholic church.
What really
matters is to gain a clear understanding of social
relations in this world. Real understanding of the
natural threefold order of the human organism, of the way
the human organism is an organism of nerves and senses,
rhythmical organism and a metabolic organism, as shown in
my book Von Seelenrätseln, [ Note 33 ] leads to a way of
thinking that can also apply to social life. People of
little understanding will say: ‘You are using
analogy in applying the threefold order of the human body
to the social organism’. This is nonsense of
course. Analogy is not the method used in Towards
Social Renewal. All I said was that if people
succeeded in letting their thinking escape from the
strait jacket put on it by modern scholarship and
particularly public opinion, they would free their
thinking to the extent that it will be possible to think
sensible thoughts concerning social issues. The kind of
thinking that puts the human brain side by side with the
liver, examining everything as though it were of the same
substance, will never come to sensible conclusions.
Using
external analogies we might say: The social organism is
threefold by nature and so is the human organism. The
head is the organ of mind and intellect; it should
therefore be compared with the cultural and intellectual
life in the threefold organism. The rhythmical system
establishes harmony between different functions in the
action of the heart, in respiration—that would be
the rights sphere in the social organism. Metabolism, the
most physical, material aspect — something mystics
tend to look down on to some extent, though they say they
also have to eat and drink--would be compared to the
sphere of economics.
This is
definitely not the case, however. I have repeatedly
pointed out on other occasions that in reality things are
very different than mere analogy would make them to be.
It cannot be said, for instance, that summer is
comparable to the waking state for the earth and winter
to a state of sleep. The reality is different. In summer
the earth is asleep, in winter it is awake. I have gone
into this in detail.
The same
applies if we consider the real situation in comparing
the social and the human organism. The economic sphere of
the social organism actually compares to the activities
of the human head. As to the sphere of rights, the legal
sphere, people were quite rightly comparing this, the
middle realm, with rhythmical activities in the human
organism. The life of mind and intellect however has to
be compared with the metabolism. This means that economic
life has to be compared with the organs that serve the
mind and intellect, and the cultural and intellectual
sphere of the social organism with the metabolic organs.
There is no way round this. Economic life is the head of
the social organism; cultural life is the stomach, liver
and spleen of the social organism but not of the
individual human being. It is of course too much of an
effort for anyone whose thinking is in a strait-jacket to
make distinction between social life and the life of an
individual person.
Again the
essential point is that spiritual science prepares us to
see things as they really are and not to produce
analogies and elaborate symbolism. We will then arrive at
important conclusions. We shall find, for example, that
we can say: But in that case economic life, if it really
is the head in the social organism, will have to live on
the rest of the organism, just as the head does in the
human organism. In that case we cannot say morality,
religious life and the search for knowledge are
ideological elements arising from economic life. Quite
the contrary, in fact. Economic life is dependent on
cultural life, on the metabolism of the social organism,
just as the human head depends on respiration, on
stomach, liver and spleen. We then come to see that
economic life arises out of cultural and religious life.
If we did not have a stomach we could not have a head. Of
course we also could not have a stomach if we did not
have a head, but it is the head after all that is fed by
the stomach, and in the same way economic life is fed by
cultural life and not the other way round. The socialist
theories that now threaten to spread through the whole of
the civilized world are therefore quite erroneous, a
dreadful superstition. No one has thought to look for the
truth in recent centuries; on a purely emotional basis
everyone has been promulgating the kind of truth their
class and point of view suggested to them. Now at last it
is realized that it is a total delusion to see historical
evolution as the product of the modes and relations of
production. The idea is now to compare the actual facts
and not to talk in analogies. Now a realistic view is
taken and it is realized that if the stomach is
undermined in the human organism, the head will suffer.
In the same way there can be no sound metabolism in the
social organism and economic life must fall into decline
if morality, religious life and intelligent thought are
undermined in the social organism. Nothing in fact
depends on economic life; primarily everything depends on
the views, the ideas, the cultural life of humankind.
The head is
always dying—I have spoken of this in other
lectures — and we only maintain the head organism
because it is constantly dying and the rest of the
organism rebels against this. The same applies in the
sphere of economics. Economic life is constantly bringing
death and decay into the progress of history; rather than
generating everything else it brings about the death of
everything. This element of death constantly has to be
counterbalanced by what the cultural organism is able to
produce. The situation is therefore exactly the other way
round. Anyone speaking in materialistic terms and saying
economic life is the basis for progress is not speaking
the truth. The truth is that economic life is the basis
of something that is always dying in stages, and the mind
and spirit have to make up for this dying process. To
proceed the way people are now proceeding in Russia is to
help the world to its death. The only possible outcome of
proceeding in this way is to help the world to its death,
for the simple reason that the laws of death are inherent
in the things that are being done there.
You can see
the eminent social importance of these things. We have
now been working in anthroposophy for twenty years, and
all the time I have tried to make it utterly clear and
apparent in all kinds of lectures that what matters to us
is not the cultivation of a philosophy full of inner
self-gratification, a kind of spiritual snobbery, but to
develop the most important impulse that is needed in the
present age.
I wanted to
present this to you again today in a slightly different
form in connection with a number of things that can help
us understand the essential nature of the human being. It
is important that those who call themselves friends of
the anthroposophical movement clearly perceive the
connection between this anthroposophical movement and
other events as we know them.
The ideas
put forward by myself and other friends are often
seriously distorted. It is therefore difficult to speak
freely to such a large audience, even if it is
anthroposophical. As there is no immediate opportunity,
however, to discuss these things at a more intimate level
and yet it is necessary to speak of them, let me draw
your attention to a few things. We must be aware,
particularly here in Stuttgart, that the anthroposophical
movement we have now had for twenty Years has indeed
reached a new stage. If we are serious about the movement
this means we have accepted the obligation to follow this
change, to adapt to this change. You must properly
understand that because our friends Molt, Kühn,
Unger, Leinhas [ Note 34 ]
and others have attempted to take the anthroposophical
approach to its practical conclusion something has
happened that concerns us all. It concerns us all and we
must take account of it in everything we say and do. The
fact is — and let us be very clear about this
— that until then the anthroposophical movement was
a current in the life of the mind and spirit. Such things
continue on their way, cliques and closed groups, however
objectionable, that go by personal and heaven knows what
other interests, may form; a spiritual movement may even
proceed by the agency of privy councillors like Max
Seiling [ Note 35 ] . One
does of course have to approach it properly in view of
what is called for, but for as long as it is a purely
spiritual or cultural movement it can be ignored. Now,
however, three things have grown out of this spiritual
movement.
The first
followed the appeal I made last year. [ Note 36 ] It now forms part of
the struggling threefold movement, the Association for a
Threefold Social Organism. This has not yet been able to
get anywhere near the real objectives. What the appeal
had to say has in a sense met with rejection, and it
would be a good thing to be fully aware that there has
been this rejection, that only very little of what was
intended has come to fruition.
This does
of course mean that I have many requests made to me. The
idea has come up in Dornach, for example, of issuing a
further appeal that would make it known internationally
what Dornach means to the world. I had to explain to our
friends that in the ordinary life outside that is now
heading for a breakdown, appeal usually follows appeal,
programme on programme. We cannot do this if we work out
of anthroposophy. It is important to realize that, in a
way, it is not at all healthy if something is undertaken
that does not come off. It is important to make a careful
assessment of the chances of success, and not just do
what comes to mind but only the things that have a chance
of success. This is why I then said — it is
important and I must ask you to consider it carefully
— that I would not dream of making a similar appeal
again, for what has happened to the first appeal should
not happen a second time. It was possible to let the
appeal for a Cultural Council [ Note 37 ] go out, for that was not
my work, but we must be very clear that things are
getting a great deal more serious than people are
inclined to think if something like the anthroposophical
movement stands behind them.
Three
things have now evolved out of the anthroposophical
movement, in a way, each of them quite distinct. A
threefold order following that appeal — we will
have to work at it, for it partly meets with rejection;
secondly the Waldorf School; [ Note 38 ] thirdly the financial,
commercial and industrial enterprise called Der
Kommende Tag (Dawn of Tomorrow). [ Note 39 ]
Coming to
Stuttgart in the past, when we only had the
anthroPosophical movement — I am referring only to
Stuttgart — I would spend three or four days here
and you know how many personal interviews I managed.
These things have had some effect, as is now becoming
apparent. It was not without significance that whatever
had happened in the meantime — people will
understand what I mean if they want to — could be
put to rights again in those personal interviews. Events
could then proceed until the next time. Now the position
is such that following those outer developments one has
to attend meetings from morning till night, and indeed
well into the night, and there is no question of
continuing in the ways we got used to when we were only
an anthroposophical movement. Now there are many people
who feel that it is a nuisance that things are no longer
the way they were. It is necessary, however, to look at
all the changes and really say to oneself: Things have
changed since the spring of last year and this will have
to be taken into account.
The
situation cannot remain as it is, but a united effort
must be made to see that it does not remain this way. It
cannot remain as it is because everything that is done
— be it for the Waldorf School or the Kommende Tag
— has its basis in spiritual work. Without the
spiritual work that has been done and must continue to be
done there is no point to it all. The spiritual work must
give form, vigour and content to the whole. To continue
the way we are going would mean that the institutions
which have now been established would swallow up the
original spiritual movement. We would be taking away the
original basis. Nothing growing out of the
anthroposophical movement should be allowed to swallow up
the movement as such.
You see,
these are serious matters we have to discuss today, and I
think at least some of you will understand what I mean.
Things will not be different unless we accept it as a
reality that anthroposophical work has been done for many
years, for decades. This work must be seen as something
real.
I would ask
you also to consider the following. There is much
conflict in the world, but where is most of this conflict
to be found? It takes a certain form and people fail to
notice, but most of it takes place in the sphere of
spiritual endeavour. There is no end to the conflict
within the body we call the anthroposophical movement,
for example. When our movement evolved out of older
practices — it was necessary to start from these,
you know the reasons—that is, when many people
familiar with the old theosophical practices joined our
movement, I had the feeling that a gentleman, who at the
time was particularly vehement in his defense of the line
we were following, would very soon be in conflict with
various other people. Conflict is likely to be
particularly bad in this sphere. In fact I always made it
quite clear that the gentleman in question, a theosophist
of the purest Water, would not only come in conflict with
others, but that his right side and his left would be
involved in a desperate struggle. People Will find that
the left side of this individual will have the most
dreadful quarrel with his right side.
It will of
course be necessary to develop the other extreme, where
the conflicts that constantly arise are overcome. Such
conflicts are due to the very nature of spiritual
movements, because they all aim to develop the human
individuality. The other pole, the other extreme, of
human understanding, must be there as well; it is the
pole of human understanding where it is possible to enter
into a human individual, to go deeply into the life
impulses of another person, and so on. It must be
possible for the Kommende Tag and the Waldorf School we
are now running to be given a sound moral basis by the
anthroposophical movement here in Stuttgart, the moral
basis that is the work of decades, or at least should
have been such. That has to be the foundation, for it is
the only way in which we can go ahead and restore the
balance between a life consisting of meetings and the
necessary spiritual work which after all should be the
basis. We cannot achieve this, of course, if things go on
all the time where one is told, for instance, that
dreadful things have been going on again, with someone
causing trouble all the time, someone upsetting all the
rest. Well, that may be so. To date — and on this
visit such things have come up again countless times
— I have not been able, however, to pursue such an
affair to the point where the second person, when
approached, told the same story as the first. When it
came to the fifth or sixth person, I would hear the
absolute opposite of what the first had told me. I do not
want to criticize, to apportion praise or blame, really,
not even the latter, but that is how it is. What is
needed, particularly among anthroposophists, and I have
said this on many occasions, is an absolute and unerring
feeling for the truth. It is very difficult to continue
working in all these areas unless there is a basis of
truth, of genuine, immediate truth. If there is this
basis of genuine truth, surely it must happen that when
something comes up and one pursues the matter further a
fifth or sixth person would still present the same facts.
Yet it happens that I am told about something
‘dreadful’ and everybody I ask tells me
something different. I cannot, of course, apply the
things I have from other sources to external life; I have
said this many times. It is not a question of whether I
know about it, know who is right and who is wrong. The
question is whether the first says the same as the sixth
or seventh. What I know has nothing to do with it. As a
rule I do not allow people to pull the wool over my eyes,
and that is not why I ask people. The reasons are quite
different. As a rule it does not interest me very much
what people tell me. The point is that I hear what the
first person says and then the seventh, only to find on
many occasions that one person says one thing and the
seventh says the opposite. It evidently follows that one
of the two things cannot be true. It seems to me that
this does follow.
In outer
physical life which for this very reason is going into a
decline people have always wanted to shut their eyes to
the function, the crucial significance, of untruths. Even
unintentional untruths are destructive in their effects.
In spiritual science working towards anthroposophy it is
absolutely essential to realize that an untruth in the
life of mind and spirit is the same as a devastating bomb
in physical life. It is a devastating force, an
instrument of destruction, and this in very real terms.
It would certainly be possible to do important and
fruitful work in the spiritual sphere again, in spite of
the many new developments, providing these things are
given some attention — objective attention,
however, not subjective attention.
You know I
do not normally go in for tirades; it is not my habit to
moralize. Just for once, however, I really must discuss
the facts that have become very obvious at this time,
because the situation is serious. We are looking at
undertakings that must not fail, that will have to
succeed, and there can be no question of any kind of
failure; we have to say today that they shall succeed.
They must not however swallow up the original
anthroposophical movement, and this means that everybody
must do his share to ensure that the moral foundation
established in the work of many years really exists.
Everybody must do his part. It is really necessary for
everybody to to their part.
It saddens
my heart that I am unable to respond to almost all the
many requests that are made to me. I had to keep refusing
to help my friends because time cannot be used twice, and
meetings go on not only from morning till night, but even
well into the night. Quite obviously I cannot use the
same time to talk to individuals. The membership in the
widest sense must come to its senses and get rid of the
things that play a role in all aspects of life here, the
kind of thing I have just been mentioning. Every single
member must reflect and see that here in this very place
these things have to be done away With Unless this is
done—and these things are connected—it will
not be possible to find the time to do real fundamental
spiritual work. Everything arising out of anthroposophy
will succeed. Yet unless some things change the original
spiritual movement will be swallowed up. The will
impulses of those who consider themselves the bearers of
this spiritual movement would then lead to a new
materialism, as the original spiritual movement will have
been aborted. The spirit needs to be nurtured or it will
die. Materialism does not arise of its own accord; you
cannot create materialism, just as you cannot create a
corpse. A corpse is produced when the soul leaves the
organism. In the same way everything created here on a
spiritual basis, out of something that has soul, will
become entirely material unless there is a genuine desire
to nurture the spirit. It means that above all the moral
and ethical basis which we have been able to establish is
given careful attention. It is necessary above all to
ensure that we do not become subject to illusion, that we
do not think it is enough to accept Certain views just
because they are easy to accept. We must look at life
without flinching.
It is
really very bad for people to say things like: ‘The
threefold order is a good thing; we must take it
up.’ Feeling rather good about it they will say:
‘I am getting something organized and it is very
much in accord with the threefold order; aren't I good!
It makes me really feel good getting something organized
that is a nucleus of threefoldness’. Licking your
lips morally speaking, full of inner self
gratification—you may feel like this when you are
doing such things, but it does not mean that you have a
sense of reality. The threefold idea is true to reality
because it requires genuine effort to bring it to
realization. Many people's ideas are however so
unrealistic that the idea of threefoldness goes against
the grain with them. The first and most essential thing
is for this idea to be taken up by a sufficiently large
number of people. We must have the necessary sense of
reality and practical common sense.
Eight days
ago I had to speak here in Stuttgart about the
consequences the threefold order has for the management
of landed property. [ Note
40 ] I said that the threefold order obviously aims
to achieve a situation where social exchange, social
conditions relating to landed property, are such that
land cannot be bought and sold like other goods That is
entirely based on reality; to say the opposite would be
unrealistic. I had to discuss the subject on a day when I
actually got here late because we had been going round
the countryside all day trying to buy land. If we have a
sense of reality we cannot base ourselves on the
threefold order and say: ‘I must be good; I am
forming a nucleus for the threefold order.’ No, it
has to be accepted, and there can be no illusions, that
in a certain respect the only possible way in which we
can work for a threefold order is by working on the most
important aspect, not basing our work on the immediate
present.
It is not a
question of morally licking our lips as we say that we
follow a particular idea. This would make it unfruitful
and abstract. It is a question of really seeing the
reality, seeing what is necessary. This is the difference
between people whose approach is utopian and dogmatic and
those who take a practical view. The latter will take an
idea as far as it can go, but they are not unworldly
people living for some private pleasure; they take hold
of the reality. We really only give ourselves up to
illusion for our own private pleasure. This must be
realized. It is also necessary to realize that many other
things go in the same direction. I am sorry, it could not
be helped. There were quite a number of things that I
could have talked about on this last occasion before my
departure. I might have drawn your attention to many
things that were put to me more or less in passing,
things that do have an effect on the fruitful activities.
One of the main problems with those fruitful activities
is that there is a constant need to have endless
discussions on matters that should be dealt with in half
an hour, because things are thrown into the pool that
really should not be there. If you have sound thinking
habits — and those are the habits we must acquire
if spiritual science as it is presented here is to come
about — and then find yourself — I am not
speaking theoretically — right in the middle of
what is nowadays called business practice, the best way
of defining what goes on is that people kill as much time
as possible, that time is wasted. There are practical
people today who boast of being busy all day long. If
they did not waste so much time, their work, which let us
say takes ten hours, could be easily done in one hour.
Time is killed particularly in what is called active life
today. This killing of time causes thoughts to be drawn
out. Entering into practical life as it goes on today one
really gets the feeling that one is in a noodle factory
where thoughts that ought to be concentrated are drawn
out, pulled apart like strudel or noodle dough;
everything is pulled well apart. It is dreadful to come
across those spread-apart thoughts that are cultivated in
practical life. If you wanted to use thoughts like these
to get a clear understanding of the world, of the things
I have spoken of today by way of an introduction, you
would not get anywhere. All this ‘strudel-dough
thinking’ has arisen in the process of killing
time. Thoughts that ought to be concentrated, for that is
the only way for them to be effective, simply come to
nothing by being drawn out. Something which functions
properly at a certain density will of course be useless
once it has become thin and worn. Many of the things that
play a large role in modern economics are quite useless
when it comes to making world affairs progress. Our
particular task would thus be to grow concise in our
thinking also with regard to practical things, and not to
kill time. However, time still has to be killed these
days, unless the anthroposophical movement, which after
all supports our enterprises, becomes what it ought to
be: A movement based on truth in every respect, a
movement where all untruth eliminates itself because we
have no use for it and because it would immediately show
itself to be what it is.
This is
what I wanted to say to you today. It is not addressed to
anyone in particular. Please do not continue to go around
saying that I was aiming at one thing or another in
particular. I wanted to give you a clear picture of the
facts as they are in general. The world situation is
serious today and the things that have been going on
among us here in Stuttgart really reflect the serious
situation that exists for the whole of civilization. The
things that haunt us in our community here can teach us a
lot about the things that haunt the world as a whole.
I do not
wish to hurt anyone's feelings. Nor do I want to
moralize, to preach at you. The intention has been to
discuss the things that have been obvious to the eye and
to the soul on so many occasions over the last two
weeks.
|