The Case for Anthroposophy
GA 21
VII. Principles of Psychosomatic Physiology
[ 1 ] My object here is to present in outline certain conclusions I have reached concerning the relations between the psychic and the physical components of the human being. I may add that, in doing so, I place on record the results of a systematic spiritual investigation extending over a period of thirty years. It is only in the last few of those years that it has become practicable to formulate these results in concepts capable of verbal expression, and thus to bring the investigation to at least a temporary close. I must emphasise that it is the results and the results alone that I shall be presenting, or rather indicating, in what follows. Their foundation in fact can certainly be established on the basis of contemporary science. But to do this would require a substantial volume; and that my present circumstances do not permit of my writing.
[ 2 ] If we are seeking for the actual relation between psychic and physical, it will not do to take as our starting-point Brentano’s distribution of psychic experience into representation, judgment and the responses of love and hate. Partitioning in this way, we are led to shelve so many relevant considerations that we shall reach no reliable results. On the contrary we have to start from that very trichotomy of representation, feeling and will which Brentano rejected. If we survey the psychic experience of representation as a whole, and seek for the bodily processes with which that experience is related, we shall find the appropriate nexus by relying substantially on the findings of current physiological psychology. The somatic correlatives to the psychic element in representation are observable in the processes of the nervous system, extending into the sense organs in one direction and into the interior physical organism in the other. Here, however wide the divergence in many respects between the anthroposophical point of view and that of contemporary science, that very science provides an excellent foundation.
It is otherwise when we seek to determine the somatic correlatives for feeling and willing. There we have first to blaze the requisite trail through the findings of current physiology. And once we have succeeded in doing so, we shall find that, just as representation is necessarily related to nervous activity, so feeling must be seen as related to that vital rhythm which is centred in, and connected with, the respiratory system; bearing in mind that, for this purpose, the rhythm of breathing must be traced right into the outermost peripheral regions of the organism. To arrive at concrete results here, the findings of physiological research need to be pursued in a direction which is as yet decidedly unfamiliar. If we take the trouble to do this, preliminary objections to bracketing feeling with respiration, all disappear, and what at first looks like an objection turns out to be a proof. Take one simple example from the wide range available: musical experience is dependent on some feeling, but the content of musical form subsists in representations furnished by auditory perception. How does musical emotion arise? The representation of the tonal shape (which depends on organ of hearing and neural process) is not yet the actual musical experience. That arises in the measure that the rhythm of breathing, continuing further into the brain, confronts within that organ the effects produced there by ear and nervous system. The psyche now lives, not alone in what is heard and represented, or thought, but in the breathing rhythm. Something is released in the breathing rhythm through the fact that neural process impinges on rhythmic life. Once we have seen the physiology of respiration in its true light, we are led on all hands to the conclusion that the psyche, in experiencing emotion, is supported by the rhythmic process of breathing, in the same way that, in representation and ideation, it is supported by neural processes. And it will be found that willing is supported, in the same way, by the physical processes of metabolism. Here again one must include the innumerable offshoots and ramifications of these processes, which extend throughout the entire organism.
When something is “represented”, a neural process takes place, on the basis of which the psyche becomes conscious of its representation; when something is “felt”, a modification is effected in the breathing rhythm, through which a feeling comes to life; and in the same way, when something is “willed”, a metabolic process occurs that is the somatic foundation for what the psyche experiences as willing. It should be noted however that it is only in the first case (representation mediated by the nervous system) that the experience is a fully conscious, waking experience. What is mediated through the breathing-rhythm (including in this category everything in the nature of feelings, affects, passions and the like) subsists in normal consciousness with the force only of representations that are dreamed. Willing, with its metabolic succedaneum, is experienced in turn only with that third degree of consciousness, totally dulled, which also persists in sleep. If we look more closely at this series, we shall notice that the experience of willing is in fact wholly different from the experience of representation or ideation. The latter is something like looking at a coloured surface: whereas willing is like looking at a black area in the middle of a coloured field. We see nothing there in the uncoloured part of the surface precisely because—unlike the surrounding part, from which colour impressions are received—no such impressions are at hand from it. We “have the idea” of willing, because within the psyche’s field of ideational experience a patch of non-ideation inserts itself, very much as the interruptions of consciousness brought about by sleep insert themselves into the continuum of conscious life. It is to these differing types of conscious apprehension that the soul owes the manifold variety of its experience in ideation, feeling and willing.
There are some noteworthy observations on feeling and willing in Theodor Ziehen’s Manual of Physiological Psychology—in many ways a standard work within the tradition of current scientific notions concerning the relation between the physical and the psychic. He deals with the relation between the various forms of representation and ideation on the one hand and neural function on the other in a way that is quite in accord with the anthroposophical approach. But when it comes to feeling (see Lecture 9 in his book), he has this to say:
The older psychology, almost without exception, treats of affects as manifestations of a special, independent faculty. Kant placed the feeling of desire and aversion, as a separate faculty, between those of cognition and appetite, and he expressly emphasised that any further reduction of the three to a common source was impossible. But our previous discussions have shown that feelings of desire and aversion have in fact no such independent existence, they are not any sounding of the “note of feeling”, but simply attributes or signals of sensations and representations.
Here is a theoretical approach which concedes to feeling no independent existence in the life of the soul, seeing it as a mere attribute of ideation. And the result is, it assumes that not only ideation but feeling also is supported by neural processes. The nervous system is thus the somatic element to which the entire psyche is appropriated. Yet the whole basis of this approach amounts to an unnoticed presupposition of the conclusions at which it expects to arrive. It accepts as psychic only what is related to neural processes and then draws the inference that what is not proper to these processes, namely feeling, must be treated as having no independent existence—as a mere signal of ideation.
To abandon this blind alley and return instead to unprejudiced observation of the psyche is to be definitively convinced of the independence of the whole life of feeling. But it is also to appreciate without reserve the actual findings of physiology and at the same time to gain from them the insight that feeling is, as already indicated, peculiar to the breathing-rhythm.
The methodology of natural science denies any sort of existential independence to the will. Unlike feeling, willing is not even a signal of ideation. But this negative assumption, too, is simply based on a prior decision (cf. p. 15 of Physiological Psychology) to assign the whole of the psyche to neural process. Yet the plain fact is that what constitutes the peculiar quality of willing cannot really be related to neural process as such. Thus, precisely because of the exemplary clarity with which Ziehen develops the ideas from which he starts, he is forced (as anyone must be) to conclude that analysis of psychic processes in their relation to the life of the body “affords no support to the assumption of a specific faculty of will”.
The fact remains that unprejudiced contemplation of the psyche obliges us to recognise the existential independence of the will, and accurate insight into the findings of physiology compels the conclusion that the will, as such, must be linked not with neural but with metabolic processes. If a man wants to form clear concepts in this field, then he must look at the findings of physiology and psychology in the light of the facts themselves and not, as so often happens in the present day practice of those sciences, in the light of preconceived opinions and definitions—not to mention theoretical sympathies and antipathies.1Compare p.79 FN.
Most important of all, he must be able to discern very clearly the mutual interrelation of neural function, breathing-rhythm and metabolic activity respectively. These three forms of activity subsist, not alongside of, but within one another. They interpenetrate and enter each other. Metabolic activity is present at all points in the organism; it permeates both the rhythmic organs and the neural ones. But within the rhythmic it is not the somatic foundation of feeling, and within the neural it is not that of ideation. On the contrary, in both of these fields it is the correlative of will-activity permeating rhythm and permeating the nerves respectively. Only materialistic presupposition can relate the element of metabolism in the nerves with the process of ideation. Observation with its roots in reality reports quite differently. It is compelled to recognise that metabolism is present in the nerve to the extent that will is permeating it. And it is the same with the somatic apparatus for rhythm. Everything within that organ that is of the nature of metabolism has to do with the element of will present in it. It is always willing that must be brought into connection with metabolic activity, always feeling that must be related to rhythmic occurrence, irrespective of the particular organ in which metabolism and rhythm are operating.
But in the nerves something else goes on that is quite distinct from metabolism and rhythm. The somatic processes in the nervous system which provide the foundation for representation and ideation are physiologically difficult to grasp. That is because, wherever there is neural function, it is accompanied by the ideation which is ordinary consciousness. But the converse of this is also true. Where there is no ideation, there it is never specifically neural function we discern, but only metabolic activity in the nerve; or rhythmic occurrence in it, as the case may be. Neurology will never arrive at concepts that measure up to the facts, so long as it fails to see that the specifically neural activity of the nerves cannot possibly be an object of physiologically empirical observation. Anatomy and Physiology must bring themselves to recognise that neural function can be located only by a method of exclusion. The activity of the nerves is precisely that in them which is not perceptible by the senses, though the fact that it must be there can be inferred from what is so perceptible, and so can the specific nature of their activity. The only way of representing neural function to ourselves is to see in it those material events, by means of which the purely psycho-spiritual reality of the living content of ideation is subdued and devitalised (herabgelähmt) to the lifeless representations and ideas we recognise as our ordinary consciousness. Unless this concept finds its way somehow into physiology, physiology can have no hope of explicating neural activity.
At present physiology has committed itself to methods which conceal rather than reveal this concept. And psychology, too, has shut the door in her own face. Look, for instance, at the effects of Herbartian psychology. It confines its attention exclusively to the process of representation, and regards feeling and willing merely as effects consequent on that process. But, for cognition, these “effects” gradually peter out, unless at the same time a candid eye is kept on actual feeling and willing; with the result that we are prevented from reaching any valid correlation of feeling and willing with somatic processes. The body as a whole, not merely the nervous activity impounded in it, is the physical basis of psychic life. And, just as, for ordinary consciousness, psychic life is naturally classifiable in terms of ideation, feeling and willing, so is physical life classifiable in terms of neural function, rhythmic occurrence and metabolic process.
The question at once arises: in what way do the following enter and inhabit the organism: on the one hand, sense-perception proper, in which neural function merely terminates, and on the other the faculty of motion, which is the effusion of will? Unbiased observation discloses that neither the one nor the other of these belongs to the organism in the same sense that neural function, rhythmic occurrence and metabolic process belong to it. What goes on in the senses does not belong immediately to the organism at all. The external world reaches out into the senses, as though they were bays or inlets leading into the organism’s own existence. Compassing the processes that take place in the senses, the psyche does not participate in inner organic events; it participates in the extension of outer events into the organism.2For a critical treatment of this subject see my lecture to the Philosophical Congress at >Bologna, 1911. In the same way, when physical motion is brought about, what we have to do with is not something that is actually situated within the organism, but an outward working of the organism into the physical equilibrium (or other dynamic relation) between the organism itself and its environment. Within the organism it is only a metabolic process that can be assigned to willing; but the event that is liberated through this process is at the same time an actual happening within the equilibrium, or the dynamics, of the external world. Exerting volition, the life of the psyche overreaches the domain of the organism and combines its action with a happening in the outer world.
The study of the whole matter has been greatly confused by the separation of the nerves into sensory and motor. Securely anchored as this distinction appears to be in contemporary physiological ideas, it is not supported by unbiased observation. The findings of physiology based on neural sections, or on the pathological elimination of certain nerves, do not prove what the experiment or the case-history is said to show. They prove something quite different. They prove that the supposed distinction between sensory and motor nerves does not exist. On the contrary, both kinds of nerve are essentially alike. The so called motor nerve does not implement movement in the manner that the theory of two kinds of nerve assumes. What happens is that the nerve as carrier of the neural function implements an inner perception of the particular metabolic process that underlies the will—in exactly the same way that the sensory nerve implements perception of what is coming to pass within the sense-organ. Unless and until neurological theory begins to operate in this domain with clear concepts, no satisfactory co-ordination of psychic and somatic life can come about.3In September 1954, forty-seven years after the above words were written, Dr. J. A. V. Bates of the neurological Research Unit (National Hospital) read his paper, Can Voluntary Movement be Localized in the Cerebral Cortex? to a meeting of the British Association at Oxford. He began by demonstrating, on a number of technical grounds, that the inferences drawn from certain well-known facts of observation are not valid inferences, since those facts do not prove that the so-called motor nerve implements movement in the manner that the theory of two kinds of nerve fibre assumes. We should, he suggested. “cease to regard the cerebro-spinal tract as an efferent tract from an area where movements are represented”; and he drew attention to the fact that a similar interpretation of the then observed facts had been brought forward by Francois Franck as long ago as 1886 but had been rejected in flavour of Ferrier’s hypothesis of efferent and afferent nerve fibres. See also Observations on the Excitable Cortex in Man by J. A. V. Bates (“Lectures on the Scientific Basis of Medicine” Volume V:1955-56).
While engaged on this translation, I ventured to write to the author to enquire after the subsequent fate of what was clearly an attempt (to quote from this selection) to “look at the findings of physiology and psychology in the light of the facts themselves, and not, as so often happens in the present-day practice of those sciences, in the light of preconceived opinions and definitions....” I gather from him that it has neither been answered on the one hand, nor accepted on the other. It appears in fact to have been, at least explicitly ignored—as (with the possible exception of pure physics) is evidently the normal practice with scientific interpretation or hypotheses, however well supported experimentally, that are radical enough to interfere with theories so long accepted as to have become embodied in definitions. In his obliging reply to my letter Dr. Bates put the present position as follows:
“I would say that in the last fifteen years what I referred to as the classical hypothesis has come to be held with far less conviction by most of those who are researching in the field, but that it is still taught in text books, and will remain a seductive hypothesis for the beginner, I’m afraid for many years.”—Editor
[ 3 ] Just as it is possible, psycho-physiologically, to pursue the interrelations between psychic and somatic life which come about in ideation, feeling and willing, in a similar way it is possible, by anthroposophical method, to investigate that relation which the psychic element in ordinary consciousness bears to the spiritual. Applying these methods, the nature of which I have described here and elsewhere, we find that, while representation, or ideation, has a basis in the body in the shape of neural activity or function, it also has a basis in the spiritual. In the other direction—the direction away from the body—the soul stands in relation to a noetically real, which is the basis for the ideation that is characteristic of ordinary consciousness. But this noetic reality can only be experienced through imaginal cognition. And it is so experienced in so far as its content discloses itself to contemplation in the form of coherently linked (gegliederte) imaginations. Just as, in the direction of the body, representation rests on the activity of the nerves, so from the other direction does it issue from a noetic reality, which discloses itself in the form of imaginations.
It is this noetic, or spiritual, component of the organism which I have termed in my writings the etheric or life-body. And in doing so I invariably point out that the term “body” is no more vulnerable to objection than the other term “ether”; because my exposition clearly shows that neither of them is predicated materially. This life-body (elsewhere I have also sometimes used the expression “formative-forces body”) is that phase of the spiritual, whence the representational life of ordinary consciousness, beginning with birth—or, say, conception—and ending with death, continuously originates.
The feeling-component of ordinary consciousness rests, on the bodily side, on rhythmic occurrence. From the spiritual side it streams from a level of spiritual reality that is investigated, in anthroposophical research, by methods which I have, in my writings, designated as inspirational. (Here again it is emphasised that I employ this term solely with the meaning I have given it in my own descriptions; it is not to be equated with inspiration in the colloquial sense.) In the spiritual reality that lies at the base of the soul and is apprehensible though inspiration there is disclosed that phase of the spiritual, proper to the human being, which extends beyond birth and death. It is in this field that anthroposophy brings its spiritual investigations to bear on the problem of immortality. As the mortal part of the sentient human being manifests itself through rhythmic occurrences in the body, so does the immortal spirit kernel of the soul reveal itself in the inspiration-content of intuitive consciousness.
For such an intuitive consciousness the will, which depends, in the somatic direction, on metabolic processes, issues forth from the spirit through what in my writings I have termed authentic intuitions. What is, from one point of view, the “lowest” somatic activity (metabolism) is correlative to a spiritually highest one. Hence, ideation, which relies on neural activity, achieves something like a perfection of somatic manifestation; while the bodily processes associated with willing are only a feeble reflection of willing. The real representation is alive, but, as somatically conditioned, it is subdued and deadened. The content remains the same. Real willing, on the other hand, whether or no it finds an outcome in the physical world, takes its course in regions that are accessible only to intuitive vision; its somatic correlative has almost nothing to do with its content. It is at this level of spiritual reality, disclosed to intuition, that we find influences from previous terrestrial lives at work in later ones. And it is in this kind of context that anthroposophy approaches the problems of repeated lives and of destiny. As the body fulfils its life in neural function, rhythmic occurrence and metabolic process, so the human spirit discloses its life in all that becomes apparent in imaginations, inspirations and intuitions. The body, within its own field, affords participation in its external world in two directions, in sensuous happenings and in motor happenings; and so does the spirit—in so far as that experiences the representations of the psyche imaginally (even in ordinary consciousness) from the one direction, while in the other—in willing—it in-forms the intuitive impulses that are realising themselves through metabolic processes. Looking towards the body, we find neural activity that is taking the form of representation-experience, ideation; looking towards the spirit, we realise the spirit-content of the imagination that is flowing into precisely that ideation.
Brentano was primarily sensitive to the noetic side of the psyche’s experience in representation. That is why he characterises this experience as figurative, i.e. as an imaginal event. Yet when it is not only the private content of the soul that is being experienced, but also a somewhat that demands judgmental acknowledgment or repudiation, then there is added to the representation a soul experience deriving from spirit. The content of this experience remains “unconscious” in the ordinary sense, because it consists of imaginations of a spiritual that existentially underpins the physical object. These imaginations add nothing to the representation except that its content exists. Hence Brentano’s diremption of mere representation (which imaginally experiences merely an inwardly present) from judgment (which imaginally experiences an externally given; but which is aware of that experience only as existential acknowledgment or repudiation).
When it comes to feeling, Brentano has no eyes for its somatic basis in rhythmic occurrence; instead he limits his field of observation to love and hate; that is, to .vestiges, in the sphere of ordinary consciousness, of inspirations which themselves remain unconscious. Lastly the will is outside his purview altogether; because he is determined to direct his gaze only to phenomena within the psyche; and because there is something in the will that is not encapsulated in the soul, but of which the soul avails itself in order to participate in the outside world. Brentano’s divisive classification of psychological phenomena may therefore be characterised as follows: he takes his stand at a vantage-point which is truly illuminating, but is only so if the eye is focused on the spirit-kernel of the soul—and yet he insists on aiming from there at the phenomena of ordinary everyday consciousness.4The Section concludes with a remark that these observations are intended as supplementary to a passage in the memorial address on Brentano, which constitutes Chapter III of Von Seelenrätseln. The passage is on page 90.
IV-6. Die physischen und die geistigen Abhängigkeiten der Menschen-Wesenheit
[ 1 ] Skizzenhaft möchte ich nun auch darstellen, was sich mir ergeben hat über die Beziehungen des Seelischen zu dem Physisch-Leiblichen. Ich darf wohl sagen, daß ich damit die Ergebnisse einer dreißig Jahre währenden geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung verzeichne. Erst in den letzten Jahren ist es mir möglich geworden, das in Frage Kommende so in durch Worte ausdrückbare Gedanken zu fassen, daß ich das Erstrebte zu einer Art vorläufigen Abschlusses bringen konnte Auch davon möchte ich mir gestatten, die Ergebnisse hier nur andeutend darzulegen. Ihre Begründung kann durchaus mit den heute vorhandenen wissenschaftlichen Mitteln gegeben werden. Dies würde der Gegenstand eines umfangreichen Buches sein, das in diesem Augenblicke zu schreiben, mir die Verhältnisse nicht gestatten.
[ 2 ] Sucht man nach der Beziehung des Seelischen zum Leiblichen, dann kann man nicht die von Brentano gegebene auf Seite 86 ff. dieser Schrift gekennzeichnete Gliederung des seelischen Erlebens in Vorstellen, Urteilen und in die Erscheinungen des Liebens und Hassens zugrunde legen. Diese Gliederung führt beim Aufsuchen dieser Beziehungen zu einer solchen Verschiebung aller in Betracht kommenden Verhältnisse, daß man nicht zu sachgemäßen Ergebnissen gelangen kann. Man muß bei einer derartigen Betrachtung von der von Brentano abgewiesenen Gliederung in Vorstellen, Fühlen und Wollen ausgehen. Faßt man nun zusammen alles dasjenige Seelische, das als Vorstellen erlebt wird und sucht man nach den leiblichen Vorgängen, mit denen dieses Seelische in Beziehung zu setzen ist, so findet man den entsprechenden Zusammenhang, indem man dabei in weitgehendem Maße den Ergebnissen der gegenwärtigen physiologischen Psychologie sich anschließen kann. Die körperlichen Gegenstücke zum Seelischen des Vorstellens hat man in den Vorgängen des Nervensystems mit ihrem Auslaufen in die Sinnesorgane einerseits und in die leibliche Innenorganisation andrerseits zu sehen. So sehr man vom anthroposophischen Gesichtspunkte aus manches wird anders zu denken haben, als es die gegenwärtige Wissenschaft tut: eine Grundlage vorzüglicher Art ist in dieser Wissenschaft vorhanden. Nicht so steht es, wenn man die leiblichen Gegenstücke für das Fühlen und Wollen bestimmen will. In bezug darauf muß man sich innerhalb der Ergebnisse gegenwärtiger Physiologie erst den richtigen Weg bahnen. Ist man auf denselben gelangt, so findet man, daß man wie das Vorstellen zur Nerventätigkeit so das Fühlen in Beziehung bringen muß zu demjenigen Lebensrhythmus, der in der Atmungstätigkeit seine Mitte hat und mit ihr zusammenhängt. Man hat dabei zu berücksichtigen, daß man zu dem angestrebten Ziele den Atmungsrhythmus mit allem, was mit ihm zusammenhängt, bis in die äußersten peripherischen Teile der Organisation verfolgen muß. Um auf diesem Gebiete zu konkreten Ergebnissen zu gelangen, müssen die Erfahrungen der physiologischen Forschung in einer Richtung verfolgt werden, welche heute noch vielfach ungewohnt ist. Erst wenn man dies vollbringt, werden alle Widersprüche verschwinden, die sich zunächst ergeben, wenn Fühlen und Atmungsrhythmus zusammengebracht werden. Was zunächst zum Widerspruch herausfordert, wird bei näherem Eingehen zum Beweise für diese Beziehung.
Aus dem weiten Gebiet, das hier verfolgt werden muß, sei nur ein einziges Beispiel herausgehoben. Das Erleben des Musikalischen beruht auf einem Fühlen. Der Inhalt des musikalischen Gebildes aber lebt in dem Vorstellen, das durch die Wahrnehmungen des Gehörs vermittelt wird. Wodurch entsteht das musikalische Gefühls-Erlebnis? Die Vorstellung des Tongebildes, die auf Gehörorgan und Nervenvorgang beruht, ist noch nicht dieses musikalische Erlebnis. Das letztere entsteht, indem im Gehirn der Atmungsrhythmus in seiner Fortsetzung bis in dieses Organ hinein, sich begegnet mit dem, was durch Ohr und Nervensystem vollbracht wird. Und die Seele lebt nun nicht in dem bloß Gehörten und Vorgestellten, sondern sie lebt in dem Atmungsrhythmus; sie erlebt dasjenige, was im Atmungsrhythmus ausgelöst wird dadurch, daß gewissermaßen das im Nervensystem Vorgehende heranstößt an dieses rhythmische Leben. Man muß nur die Physiologie des Atmungsrhythmus im rechten Lichte sehen, so wird man umfänglich zur Anerkennung des Satzes kommen: die Seele erlebt fühlend, indem sie sich dabei ähnlich auf den Atmungsrhythmus stützt wie im Vorstellen auf die Nervenvorgänge.
Und bezüglich des Wollens findet man, daß dieses sich in ähnlicher Art stützt auf Stoffwechselvorgänge. Wieder muß da in Betracht gezogen werden, was alles an Verzweigungen und Ausläufern der Stoffwechselvorgänge im ganzen Organismus in Betracht kommt. Wie dann, wenn etwas «vorgestellt» wird, sich ein Nervenvorgang abspielt, auf Grund dessen die Seele sich ihres Vorgestellten bewußt wird, wie ferner dann, wenn etwas «gefühlt» wird, eine Modifikation des Atmungsrhythmus verläuft, durch die der Seele ein Gefühl auflebt: so geht, wenn etwas «gewollt» wird, ein Stoffwechselvorgang vor sich, der die leibliche Grundlage ist für das als Wollen in der Seele Erlebte.
Nun ist in der Seele ein vollbewußtes waches Erleben nur für das vom Nervensystem vermittelte Vorstellen vorhanden. Was durch den Atmungsrhythmus vermittelt wird, das lebt im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein in jener Stärke, welche die Traumvorstellungen haben. Dazu gehört alles Gefühlsartige, auch alle Affekte, alle Leidenschaften und so weiter. Das Wollen, das auf Stoffwechselvorgänge gestützt ist, wird in keinem höheren Grade bewußt erlebt als in jenem ganz dumpfen, der im Schlafe vorhanden ist. Man wird bei genauer Betrachtung des hier in Frage Kommenden bemerken, daß man das Wollen ganz anders erlebt als das Vorstellen. Das letztere erlebt man wie man etwa eine von Farbe bestrichene Fläche sieht; das Wollen so, wie eine schwarze Fläche innerhalb eines farbigen Feldes. Man «sieht» innerhalb der Fläche, auf der keine Farbe ist, eben deshalb etwas, weil im Gegensatz zu der Umgebung, von der Farben-Eindrücke ausgehen, von dieser Fläche keine solchen Eindrücke kommen: man «stellt das Wollen vor», weil innerhalb der Vorstellungs-Erlebnisse der Seele an gewissen Stellen sich ein Nicht-Vorstellen einfügt, das sich in das vollbewußte Erleben hineinstellt ähnlich wie die im Schlafe zugebrachten Unterbrechungen des Bewußtseins in den bewußten Lebenslauf. Aus diesen verschiedenen Arten des bewußten Erlebens ergibt sich die Mannigfaltigkeit des seelischen Erfahrens in Vorstellen, Fühlen und Wollen.
Theodor Ziehen wird in seinem Buche «Leitfaden der physiologischen Psychologie» zu bedeutungsvollen Kennzeichnungen des Gefühls und des Wollens geführt. Dies Buch ist in mancher Beziehung mustergiltig für die gegenwärtige naturwissenschaftliche Betrachtungsart des Zusammenhanges von Physischem und Psychischem. Das Vorstellen in seinen verschiedenen Gestaltungen wird zu dem Nervenleben in die Beziehung gesetzt, die man auch vom anthroposophischen Gesichtspunkte anerkennen muß. Doch über das Gefühl sagt Ziehen (vergleiche 9. Vorlesung in seinem genannten Buche): «Die ältere Psychologie betrachtet fast ausnahmslos die Affekte als die Kundgebungen eines besonderen, selbständigen Seelenvermögens. Kant stellte das Gefühl der Lust und Unlust als besondere Seelenfähigkeit zwischen das Erkenntnisvermögen und das Begehrungsvermögen und betonte ausdrücklich, daß eine weitere Ableitung dieser drei Seelenvermögen aus einem gemeinschaftlichen Grunde nicht möglich sei. Demgegenüber haben unsere bisherigen Erörterungen uns bereits gelehrt, daß die Gefühle der Lust und Unlust in dieser Selbständigkeit gar nicht existieren, daß sie vielmehr nur als Eigenschaften oder Merkmale von Empfindungen und Vorstellungen als sogenannte Gefühlstöne auftreten.»
Diese Denkungsart gesteht also dem Fühlen keine Selbständigkeit im Seelenleben zu; sie sieht in ihm nur eine Eigenschaft des Vorstellens. Die Folge davon ist, daß sie nicht nur das Vorstellungsleben, sondern auch das Gefühlsleben von den Nervenvorgängen gestützt sein läßt. Für sie ist das Nervenleben das Leibliche, dem das gesamte Seelische zugeeignet wird. Doch beruht diese Denkungsart im Grunde darauf, daß sie in unbewußter Art schon das vorausdenkt, was sie finden will. Sie läßt als Seelisches nur dasjenige gelten, was zu Nervenvorgängen in Beziehung steht, und muß aus diesem Grunde dasjenige, was nicht dem Nervenleben sich zueignen läßt, das Fühlen, als nicht selbständig existierend ansehen, als bloßes Merkmal des Vorstellens.
Wer sich nicht in dieser Weise mit seinen Begriffen in eine falsche Richtung bringt, dem wird erstens eine unbefangene Seelenbeobachtung die Selbständigkeit des Gefühlslebens in der bestimmtesten Art ergeben, zweitens wird ihm die vorurteilslose Verwertung der physiologischen Erkenntnisse die Einsicht verschaffen, daß das Fühlen in der oben angedeuteten Weise dem Atmungsrhythmus zuzueignen ist.
Dem Wollen spricht die naturwissenschaftliche Denkungsart alles selbständig Wesenhafte im Seelenleben ab. Dieses gilt ihr nicht einmal wie das Fühlen als Merkmal des Vorstellens. Aber dieses Absprechen beruht auch nur darauf, daß man alles Wesenhaft-Seelische den Nervenvorgängen zueignen will (vergleiche die 15. Vorlesung in Theodor Ziehens «Physiologischer Psychologie»). Nun kann man aber das Wollen in seiner besonderen Eigenart nicht auf eigentliche Nervenvorgänge beziehen. Gerade wenn man dies mit der musterhaften Klarheit herausarbeitet, wie es Theodor Ziehen tut, kann man zu der Ansicht hingedrängt werden, die Analyse der Seelenvorgänge in ihrer Beziehung zum Leibesleben «ergibt keinen Anlaß zur Annahme eines besonderen Willensvermögens». Und doch: die unbefangene Seelenbetrachtung erzwingt die Anerkennung des selbständigen Willenlebens; und die sachgemäße Einsicht in die physiologischen Ergebnisse zeigt, daß das Wollen als solches nicht zu Nervenvorgängen, sondern zu Stoffwechselvorgängen in Beziehung gesetzt werden muß.
Wenn man auf diesem Gebiete klare Begriffe schaffen will, dann muß man die physiologischen und psychologischen Ergebnisse in dem Lichte sehen, das durch die Wirklichkeit gefordert wird; nicht aber so, wie es in der gegenwärtigen Physiologie und Psychologie vielfach geschieht, in einer Beleuchtung, welche aus vorgefaßten Meinungen, Definitionen, ja sogar theoretischen Sympathien und Antipathien stammt. Vor allem ist scharf ins Auge zu fassen das Verhältnis von Nerventätigkeit, Atmungsrhythinus und Stoffwechseltätigkeit. Denn diese Tätigkeitsformen liegen nicht neben-, sondern ineinander, durchdringen sich, gehen ineinander über. Stoffwechseltätigkeit ist im ganzen Organismus vorhanden; sie durchdringt die Organe des Rhythmus und diejenigen der Nerventätigkeit. Aber im Rhythmus ist sie nicht die leibliche Grundlage des Fühlens, in der Nerventätigkeit nicht diejenige des Vorstellens; sondern in beiden ist ihr die den Rhythmus und die Nerven durchdringende Willenswirksamkeit zuzueignen. Was im Nerv als Stoffwechseltätigkeit existiert, kann nur ein materialistisches Vorurteil mit dem Vorstellen in eine Beziehung setzen. Die in der Wirklichkeit wurzelnde Betrachtung sagt etwas ganz anderes. Sie muß anerkennen, daß im Nerv Stoffwechsel vorhanden ist, insofern ihn das Wollen durchdringt. Ebenso ist es in dem leiblichen Apparat für den Rhythmus. Was in ihm Stoffwechseltätigkeit ist, hat mit dem in diesem Organ vorhandenen Wollen zu tun. Man muß mit der Stoffwechseltätigkeit das Wollen, mit dem rhythmischen Geschehen das Fühlen in Zusammenhang bringen, gleichgiltig, in welchen Organen sich Stoffwechsel oder Rhythmus offenbaren. In den Nerven aber geht noch etwas ganz anderes vor sich als Stoffwechsel und Rhythmus. Die leiblichen Vorgänge im Nervensystem, welche dem Vorstellen die Grundlage geben, sind physiologisch schwer zu fassen. Denn, wo Nerventätigkeit stattfindet, da ist Vorstellen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins vorhanden. Der Satz gilt aber auch umgekehrt: wo nicht vorgestellt wird, da kann nie Nerventätigkeit gefunden werden, sondern nur Stoffwechseltätigkeit im Nerven, und andeutungsweise rhythmisches Geschehen.
Die Physiologie wird nie zu Begriffen kommen, die für die Nervenlehre wirklichkeitsgemäß sind, solange sie nicht einsieht, daß die wahrhaftige Nerventätigkeit überhaupt nicht Gegenstand der physiologischen Sinnesbeobachtung sein kann. Anatomie und Physiologie müssen zu der Erkenntnis kommen, daß sie die Nerventätigkeit nur durch eine Methode der Ausschließung finden können. Was im Nervenleben nicht sinnlich beobachtbar ist, wovon aber das Sinnesgemäße die Notwendigkeit seines Vorhandenseins ergibt und auch die Eigenheit seiner Wirksamkeit, das ist Nerventätigkeit. Zu einer positiven Vorstellung über die Nerventätigkeit kommt man, wenn man in ihr dasjenige materielle Geschehen sieht, durch das im Sinne des ersten Kapitels dieser Schrift die rein geistig-seelische Wesenhaftigkeit des lebendigen Vorstellungsinhaltes zu dem unlebendigen Vorstellen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins herabgelähmt wird. Ohne diesen Begriff, den man in die Physiologie einführen muß, wird in dieser keine Möglichkeit bestehen, zu sagen, was Nerventätigkeit ist. Die Physiologie hat Methoden sich ausgebildet, welche gegenwärtig diesen Begriff eher verdecken als ihn offenbaren. Und auch die Psychologie hat sich auf diesem Gebiete den Weg versperrt. Man sehe nur, wie zum Beispiel die Herbartsche Psychologie in dieser Richtung gewirkt hat. Sie hat den Blick nur auf das Vorstellungsleben geworfen, und sieht in Fühlen und Wollen nur Wirksamkeiten des Vorstellungslebens. Aber diese Wirksamkeiten zerrinnen vor der Erkenntnis, wenn man nicht zu gleicher Zeit den Blick unbefangen auf die Wirklichkeit des Fühlens und Wollens richtet. Man kommt durch solches 158 Zerrinnen zu keiner wirklichkeitsgemäßen Zuordnung des Fühlens und Wollens zu den leiblichen Vorgängen.
Der Leib als Ganzes, nicht bloß die in ihm eingeschlossene Nerventätigkeit ist physische Grundlage des Seelenlebens. Und wie das letztere für das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein sich umschreiben läßt durch Vorstellen, Fühlen und Wollen, so das leibliche Leben durch Nerventätigkeit, rhythmisches Geschehen und Stoffwechselvorgänge.
Sogleich entsteht da die Frage: wie ordnen sich in den Organismus ein auf der einen Seite die eigentliche Sinneswahrnehmung, in welche die Nerventätigkeit nur ausläuft, und wie die Bewegungsfähigkeit auf der andern Seite, in welche das Wollen mündet? Unbefangene Beobachtung zeigt, daß beides nicht in demselben Sinne zum Organismus gehört wie Nerventätigkeit, rhythmisches Geschehen und Stoffwechselvorgänge. Was im Sinn geschieht ist etwas, das gar nicht unmittelbar dem Organismus angehört. In die Sinne erstreckt sich die Außenwelt wie in Golfen hinein in das Wesen des Organismus. Indem die Seele das im Sinne vor sich gehende Geschehen umspannt, nimmt sie nicht an einem inneren organischen Geschehen teil, sondern an der Fortsetzung des äußeren Geschehens in den Organismus hinein. (Ich habe diese Verhältnisse erkenntnis kritisch in einem Vortrag für den Bologner Philosophen-Kongreß des Jahres 1911 erörtert.)
Und in einem Bewegungsvorgang hat man es physisch auch nicht mit etwas zu tun, dessen Wesenhaftes innerhalb des Organismus liegt, sondern mit einer Wirksamkeit des Organismus in den Gleichgewichts- und Kräfteverhältnissen, in die der Organismus gegenüber der Außenwelt hineingestellt ist. Innerhalb des Organismus ist dem Wollen nur ein Stoffwechselvorgang zuzueignen; aber das durch diesen Vorgang ausgelöste Geschehen ist zugleich ein Wesenhaftes innerhalb der Gleichgewichts- und Kräfteverhältnisse der Außenwelt; und die Seele übergreift, indem sie sich wollend betätigt, den Bereich des Organismus und lebt mit ihrem Tun das Geschehen der Außenwelt mit. Eine große Verwirrung hat für die Betrachtung aller dieser Dinge die Gliederung der Nerven in Empfindungs- und motorische Nerven angerichtet. So fest verankert diese Gliederung in den gegenwärtigen physiologischen Vorstellungen erscheint: sie ist nicht in der unbefangenen Beobachtung begründet. Was die Physiologie vorbringt auf Grund der Zerschneidung der Nerven, oder der krankhaften Ausschaltung gewisser Nerven beweist nicht, was auf Grundlage des Versuches oder der Erfahrung sich ergibt, sondern etwas ganz anderes. Es beweist, daß der Unterschied gar nicht besteht, den man zwischen Empfindungs- und motorischen Nerven annimmt. Beide Nervenarten sind vielmehr Wesensgleich. Der sogenannte motorische Nerv dient nicht in dem Sinne der Bewegung wie die Lehre von dieser Gliederung es annimmt, sondern als Träger der Nerventätigkeit dient er der inneren Wahrnehmung desjenigen Stoffwechselvorganges, der dem Wollen zugrunde liegt, geradeso wie der Empfindungsnerv der Wahrnehmung desjenigen dient, was im Sinnesorgan sich abspielt. Bevor die Nervenlehre in dieser Beziehung mit klaren Begriffen arbeitet, wird eine richtige Zuordnung des Seelenlebens zum Leibesleben nicht zustand kommen.
[ 3 ] In ähnlicher Art, wie man psycho-physiologisch die Beziehungen des in Vorstellen, Fühlen und Wollen verlaufenden Seelenlebens zum Leibesleben suchen kann, so kann man anthroposophisch nach Erkenntnis der Beziehungen streben, welche das Seelische des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins zum Geistesleben hat. Und da findet man durch die in dieser und in meinen anderen Schriften geschilderten anthroposophischen Methoden, daß sich für das Vorstellen wie im Leibe die Nerventätigkeit, so im Geistigen eine Grundlage findet. Die Seele steht nach der anderen, vom Leibe abgewandten, Seite in Beziehung zu einem geistig Wesenhaften, das die Grundlage ist für das Vorstellen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins. Dieses geistig Wesenhafte kann aber nur durch schauendes Erkennen erlebt werden. Und es wird so erlebt, indem sich sein Inhalt als gegliederte Imaginationen dem schauenden Bewußtsein darstellt. Wie nach dem Leibe hin das Vorstellen auf der Nerventätigkeit ruht, so strömt es von der andern Seite her aus einem geistig Wesenhaften, das in Imaginationen sich enthüllt. Dieses geistig Wesenhafte ist, was in meinen Schriften der Äther- oder Lebensleib genannt wird. (Wobei, wenn ich es bespreche, ich immer darauf aufmerksam mache, daß man sich an dem Ausdruck «Leib» ebensowenig wie an dem andern «Äther» stoßen solle, denn, was ich ausführe, zeigt klar, daß man das Gemeinte nicht im materialistischen Sinne deuten soll.) Und dieser Lebensleib (in dem 4. Buch des 1. Jahrganges der Zeitschrift «Das Reich» habe ich auch den Ausdruck «Bildekräfteleib» gebraucht) ist das Geistige, aus dem das Vorstellungsleben des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins von der Geburt (beziehungsweise Empfängnis) bis zum Tode erfließt.
Das Fühlen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins ruht nach der Leibesseite hin auf dem rhythmischen Geschehen. Von der geistigen Seite her erfließt es aus einem Geistig-Wesenhaften, das innerhalb der anthroposophischen Forschung durch Methoden gefunden wird, welche ich in meinen Schriften als diejenigen der Inspiration kennzeichne. (Wobei man wieder berücksichtigen möge, daß ich innerhalb dieses Begriffes nur das von mir Umschriebene verstehe, so daß man meine Bezeichnung nicht verwechseln sollte mit dem, was oft vom Laien bei diesem Worte verstanden wird.) Dem schauenden Bewußtsein offenbart sich in dem der Seele zugrunde liegenden, durch Inspirationen zu erfassenden geistig Wesenhaften dasjenige, was dem Menschen als Geistwesen eigen ist über Geburt und Tod hinaus. Auf diesem Gebiete ist es, wo die Anthroposophie ihre geisteswissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen über die Unsterblichkeitsfrage anstellt. So wie im Leibe durch das rhythmische Geschehen sich der sterbliche Teil des fühlenden Menschenwesens offenbart, so in dem Inspirations-Inhalt des schauenden Bewußtseins der unsterbliche geistige Seelenwesenskern.
Das Wollen, das nach dem Leibe hin auf den Stoffwechselvorgängen beruht, erströmt aus dem Geiste für das schauende Bewußtsein durch dasjenige, was ich in meinen Schriften die wahrhaftigen Intuitionen nenne. Was im Leibe durch die gewissermaßen niederste Betätigung des Stoffwechsels sich offenbart, dem entspricht im Geiste ein Höchstes: dasjenige, was durch Intuitionen sich ausspricht. Daher kommt das Vorstellen, das auf der Nerventätigkeit beruht, leiblich fast vollkommen zur Darstellung; das Wollen hat in den ihm leiblich zugeordneten Stoffwechselvorgängen nur einen schwachen Abglanz. Das wirkliche Vorstellen ist das lebendige; das leiblich bedingte ist das abgelähmte. Der Inhalt ist derselbe. Das wirkliche Wollen, auch das in der physischen Welt sich verwirklichende, verläuft in den Regionen, die nur dem intuitiven Schauen zugänglich sind; sein leibliches Gegenstück hat mit seinem Inhalte fast gar nichts zu tun. In demjenigen geistig Wesenhaften, das der Intuition sich offenbart, ist enthalten, was sich aus vorangegangenen Erdenleben in die folgenden hinübererstreckt. Und auf dem hier in Betracht kommenden Gebiet ist es, wo die Anthroposophie sich den Fragen der wiederholten Erdenleben und der Schicksalsfrage nähert. Wie der Leib in Nerventätigkeit, rhythmischem Geschehen und Stoffwechselvorgängen sich auslebt, so der Geist des Menschen in demjenigen, was in Imaginationen, Inspirationen, Intuitionen sich offenbart. Und wie der Leib in seinem Bereich nach zwei Seiten das Wesen seiner Außenwelt miterleben läßt, nämlich in den Sinnes- und den Bewegungsvorgängen, so der Geist nach der einen Seite hin, indem er das vorstellende Seelenleben auch im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein imaginativ erlebt; und nach der andern Seite hin, indem er im Wollen intuitive Impulse ausgestaltet, die sich durch Stoffwechselvorgänge verwirklichen. Sieht man nach dem Leibe hin, so findet man die Nerventätigkeit, die als Vorstellungswesen lebt; sieht man nach dem Geiste hin, so gewahrt man den Geist-Inhalt der Imaginationen, der in eben dieses Vorstellungswesen einfließt.
Brentano empfindet zunächst die geistige Seite am vorstellenden Seelenleben; daher charakterisiert er dieses Leben als Bildleben (imaginatives Geschehen). Aber wenn nicht bloß ein eigenes Seelen-Inneres erlebt wird, sondern durch das Urteil ein Anzuerkennendes oder zu Verwerfendes, so kommt zum Vorstellen hinzu ein aus dem Geiste fließendes Seelenerlebnis, dessen Inhalt unbewußt bleibt, so lange es sich nur um das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein handelt, weil er in den Imaginationen von einer dem physischen Objekte zugrunde liegenden geistigen Wesenhaftigkeit besteht, die zu der Vorstellung nur das hinzufügen, daß deren Inhalt existiert. Aus diesem Grunde ist es, daß Brentano das Vorstellungsleben in seiner Klassifikation spaltet, in das bloße Vorstellen, das nur innerlich Daseiendes imaginativ erlebt; und in das Urteilen, das von außen Gegebenes imaginativ erlebt, aber das Erlebnis nur als Anerkennung oder Verwerfung sich zum Bewußtsein bringt. Gegenüber dem Fühlen blickt Brentano gar nicht nach der Leibes-Grundlage, dem rhythmischen Geschehen hin, sondern er versetzt nur dasjenige in den Bereich seiner Aufmerksamkeit, was aus unbewußt bleibenden Inspirationen im Gebiet des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins als Lieben und Hassen auftritt. Das Wollen aber entfällt ganz seiner Aufmerksamkeit, weil dieses sich nur auf Erscheinungen in der Seele richten will, in dem Wollen aber etwas liegt, was nicht in der Seele beschlossen ist, sondern mit dem die Seele eine Außenwelt miterlebt. Die Brentanosche Klassifikation der Seelenphänomene beruht also darauf, daß er diese nach Gesichtspunkten gliedert, die ihre wahre Beleuchtung erfahren, wenn man den Blick nach dem Geist-Kerne der Seele lenkt, und daß er doch damit treffen will die Phänomene des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins. Mit dem hier über Brentano Gesagten habe ich noch ergänzen wollen das oben Seite 90 ff. in dieser Beziehung über ihn Ausgesprochene.
IV-6 The physical and spiritual dependencies of the human being
[ 1 ] I would now like to sketch out what I have discovered about the relationship between the soul and the physical body. I may well say that I am recording the results of thirty years of research in the humanities. It is only in the last few years that it has become possible for me to put into words the thoughts that come into question in such a way that I have been able to bring what I have striven for to a kind of provisional conclusion I would also like to take the liberty of presenting the results here only in outline. Their justification can certainly be given with the scientific means available today. This would be the subject of an extensive book, which circumstances do not allow me to write at this time.
[ 2 ] If one is looking for the relationship of the soul to the body, then one cannot take as a basis the division of mental experience into imagination, judgment and the phenomena of love and hate, as given by Brentano on page 86 ff. of this book. This division leads to such a displacement of all the relationships under consideration that it is impossible to arrive at appropriate results. In such a consideration one must proceed from the division into imagination, feeling and volition rejected by Brentano. If we now summarize all the mental aspects that are experienced as imagination and search for the bodily processes with which this mental aspect is to be related, we find the corresponding connection, in that we can largely follow the results of current physiological psychology. The physical counterparts to the soul of the imagination are to be seen in the processes of the nervous system with their outflow into the sense organs on the one hand and into the bodily inner organization on the other. However much one may have to think differently from the anthroposophical point of view than present-day science does, a foundation of an excellent kind is present in this science. This is not the case when one wants to determine the bodily counterparts of feeling and willing. In this respect one must first find the right path within the results of present-day physiology. Once we have arrived at this path, we find that we must relate feeling to that rhythm of life which has its center in respiratory activity and is connected with it, just as imagination is related to nervous activity. It must be borne in mind that in order to achieve the desired goal, the respiratory rhythm and everything connected with it must be pursued right down to the outermost peripheral parts of the organization. In order to achieve concrete results in this field, the experiences of physiological research must be pursued in a direction that is still often unfamiliar today. Only when this is accomplished will all the contradictions that initially arise when feeling and respiratory rhythm are brought together disappear. What initially provokes contradiction becomes proof of this relationship on closer inspection.
From the broad field that must be pursued here, only a single example should be highlighted. The experience of music is based on a feeling. The content of the musical image, however, lives in the imagination, which is conveyed through the perceptions of the ear. How does the musical emotional experience arise? The imagination of the sound image, which is based on the organ of hearing and the nervous process, is not yet this musical experience. The latter arises when the respiratory rhythm in its continuation into this organ meets in the brain with what is accomplished by the ear and nervous system. And now the soul does not live in what is merely heard and imagined, but it lives in the respiratory rhythm; it experiences that which is triggered in the respiratory rhythm by the fact that what is happening in the nervous system, as it were, pushes against this rhythmic life. One only has to see the physiology of the respiratory rhythm in the right light, then one will comprehensively come to the recognition of the sentence: the soul experiences feeling by relying on the respiratory rhythm in a similar way as it relies on the nervous processes in imagination.
And with regard to volition, we find that it relies in a similar way on metabolic processes. Again, we must consider all the branches and offshoots of the metabolic processes in the whole organism. Just as, when something is "imagined", a nervous process takes place on the basis of which the soul becomes conscious of what it has imagined, just as, when something is "felt", a modification of the respiratory rhythm takes place through which a feeling comes to life in the soul: so, when something is "willed", a metabolic process takes place which is the bodily basis for what is experienced as volition in the soul.
Now a fully conscious awake experience is present in the soul only for the imagination mediated by the nervous system. That which is mediated by the respiratory rhythm lives in ordinary consciousness with the same strength as dream images. This includes all feelings, all emotions, all passions and so on. The volition, which is based on metabolic processes, is not experienced consciously to any greater degree than in that very dull state which is present in sleep. On closer examination of what is in question here, it will be noticed that volition is experienced quite differently from imagination. One experiences the latter as one sees a surface covered with color; the volition as one sees a black surface within a colored field. One "sees" something within the surface on which there is no color precisely because, in contrast to the surroundings from which color impressions emanate, no such impressions come from this surface: one "imagines the volition" because within the imaginative experiences of the soul at certain points a non-imagining is inserted, which introduces itself into the fully conscious experience in a similar way to the interruptions of consciousness during sleep in the conscious course of life. These different types of conscious experience give rise to the diversity of mental experience in imagination, feeling and volition.
In his book "Leitfaden der physiologischen Psychologie" (Guide to Physiological Psychology), Theodor Ziehen is led to meaningful descriptions of feeling and volition. In many respects, this book is exemplary for the current scientific approach to the relationship between the physical and the psychological. Imagination in its various forms is placed in a relationship to nervous life that must also be recognized from the anthroposophical point of view. But Ziehen says about feeling (compare the 9th lecture in his book mentioned above): "The older psychology almost without exception regards the affects as the manifestations of a special, independent faculty of the soul. Kant placed the feeling of pleasure and displeasure as a special faculty of the soul between the faculty of cognition and the faculty of desire and expressly emphasized that a further derivation of these three faculties of the soul from a common ground was not possible. On the other hand, our previous discussions have already taught us that the feelings of pleasure and displeasure do not exist in this independence, that they rather only appear as qualities or characteristics of sensations and ideas as so-called emotional tones."
This way of thinking therefore does not grant feeling any independence in the life of the soul; it sees it only as a property of the imagination. The consequence of this is that it allows not only the imaginative life but also the emotional life to be supported by the nervous processes. For them, the nervous life is the corporeal, to which the entire soul is assigned. But this way of thinking is basically based on the fact that it already thinks ahead in an unconscious way what it wants to find. It only accepts as mental that which is related to nervous processes, and for this reason must regard that which cannot be attributed to nervous life, feeling, as not existing independently, as a mere characteristic of imagination.
Whoever does not in this way misdirect himself with his concepts will, firstly, by an unbiased observation of the soul reveal the independence of the emotional life in the most definite way; secondly, the unprejudiced utilization of physiological knowledge will provide him with the insight that feeling is to be attributed to the respiratory rhythm in the manner indicated above.
The scientific way of thinking denies that volition has any independent essence in the life of the soul. It does not even regard it as a characteristic of imagination, as it does feeling. But this denial is also only based on the fact that one wants to attribute everything that is essential to the soul to nervous processes (compare the 15th lecture in Theodor Ziehen's "Physiological Psychology"). Now, however, volition in its particular character cannot be related to actual nervous processes. It is precisely when this is worked out with exemplary clarity, as Theodor Ziehen does, that one can be forced to the view that the analysis of the processes of the soul in their relationship to bodily life "gives no reason to assume a special volitional faculty". And yet: the unbiased observation of the soul forces the recognition of the independent life of the will; and the proper insight into the physiological results shows that the will as such must not be related to nervous processes, but to metabolic processes.
If one wants to create clear concepts in this field, then one must see the physiological and psychological results in the light that is demanded by reality; but not, as is often the case in contemporary physiology and psychology, in an illumination that stems from preconceived opinions, definitions, even theoretical sympathies and antipathies. Above all, the relationship between nervous activity, respiratory rhythms and metabolic activity must be brought into sharp focus. For these forms of activity are not juxtaposed, but interpenetrate and merge into one another. Metabolic activity is present in the whole organism; it permeates the organs of rhythm and those of nervous activity. But in rhythm it is not the bodily basis of feeling, in nervous activity not that of imagination; but in both it is to be attributed the volitional activity that permeates rhythm and nerves. What exists in the nerve as metabolic activity can only be related to imagination by a materialistic prejudice. An observation rooted in reality says something quite different. It must recognize that metabolism is present in the nerve insofar as volition permeates it. It is the same in the bodily apparatus for rhythm. What is metabolic activity in it has to do with the will present in this organ. We must associate volition with metabolic activity and feeling with rhythmic activity, regardless of the organs in which metabolism or rhythm manifest themselves. In the nerves, however, something quite different takes place than metabolism and rhythm. The bodily processes in the nervous system, which provide the basis for imagination, are difficult to grasp physiologically. For where nervous activity takes place, there is imagination of ordinary consciousness. However, the reverse is also true: where there is no imagination, there can never be found nervous activity, but only metabolic activity in the nerves, and rhythmic events to some extent.
Physiology will never arrive at concepts that are realistic for neuroscience as long as it does not realize that true nervous activity cannot be the subject of physiological sensory observation at all. Anatomy and physiology must come to the realization that they can only find nervous activity by a method of exclusion. That which is not sensually observable in nervous life, but of which the sensory results in the necessity of its existence and also the peculiarity of its activity, that is nervous activity. One arrives at a positive conception of nervous activity if one sees in it that material happening by which, in the sense of the first chapter of this writing, the purely spiritual-soulful essentiality of the living content of the imagination is paralyzed down to the inanimate imagination of ordinary consciousness. Without this concept, which must be introduced into physiology, it will be impossible to say what nervous activity is. Physiology has developed methods which at present conceal rather than reveal this concept. And psychology has also blocked the way in this field. Just look at how Herbartian psychology, for example, has worked in this direction. It has looked only at the life of imagination, and sees in feeling and willing only the effects of the life of imagination. But these efficacies melt away before cognition if one does not at the same time direct one's gaze impartially to the reality of feeling and willing. Through such distortion, one does not arrive at a realistic assignment of feeling and willing to bodily processes.
The body as a whole, not merely the nervous activity enclosed within it, is the physical basis of the life of the soul. And just as the latter can be described for ordinary consciousness by imagination, feeling and volition, so bodily life can be described by nervous activity, rhythmic events and metabolic processes.
The question immediately arises: how do the actual sensory perception, into which the nervous activity only flows, and the ability to move, into which the volition flows, fit into the organism? Impartial observation shows that both do not belong to the organism in the same sense as nervous activity, rhythmic events and metabolic processes. What happens in the senses is something that does not belong directly to the organism. The outside world extends into the senses, as in golf, into the essence of the organism. By encompassing the events taking place in the senses, the soul does not participate in an inner organic event, but in the continuation of the outer event into the organism. (I discussed these relationships critically in a lecture for the Bologna Congress of Philosophers in 1911.)
And in a process of movement we are not dealing physically with something whose essence lies within the organism, but with an effectiveness of the organism in the balance and power relations in which the organism is placed in relation to the outside world. Within the organism, only a metabolic process can be attributed to volition; but the event triggered by this process is at the same time an essential being within the relations of equilibrium and forces of the external world; and the soul, by volitional activity, transcends the realm of the organism and lives with its activity the events of the external world. The division of the nerves into sensory and motor nerves has caused great confusion in the consideration of all these things. As firmly anchored as this division appears in current physiological concepts, it is not based on unbiased observation. What physiology puts forward on the basis of the cutting up of the nerves, or the pathological elimination of certain nerves, proves not what results from experiment or experience, but something quite different. It proves that the difference that is assumed to exist between sensory and motor nerves does not exist at all. On the contrary, both kinds of nerves are essentially the same. The so-called motor nerve does not serve movement in the sense assumed by the doctrine of this division, but as the carrier of nervous activity it serves the inner perception of that metabolic process which underlies volition, just as the sensory nerve serves the perception of that which takes place in the sense organ. Until the theory of nerves works with clear concepts in this respect, a correct assignment of the life of the soul to the life of the body will not be possible.
[ 3 ] In a similar way that one can search psycho-physiologically for the relationships between the life of the soul, which proceeds in imagination, feeling and volition, and the life of the body, one can strive anthroposophically for knowledge of the relationships that the soul of ordinary consciousness has to spiritual life. And there, through the anthroposophical methods described in this and my other writings, one finds that there is a basis for the imagination in the spiritual as there is in the nervous activity of the body. The soul stands on the other side, facing away from the body, in relation to a spiritual entity which is the basis for the imagination of ordinary consciousness. However, this spiritual essence can only be experienced through visual cognition. And it is experienced in such a way that its content presents itself to the seeing consciousness as structured imaginations. Just as the imagination rests on nervous activity towards the body, so it flows from the other side out of a spiritual essence that reveals itself in imaginations. This spiritual entity is what is called in my writings the etheric or vital body. (Whereby, when I discuss it, I always point out that one should not be offended by the term "body" any more than by the other "ether", for what I explain clearly shows that what is meant should not be interpreted in a materialistic sense). And this life-body (in the 4th book of the 1st volume of the journal "Das Reich" I also used the expression "body of formative forces") is the spiritual, from which the imaginative life of the ordinary consciousness flows from birth (or conception) to death.
The feeling of the ordinary consciousness rests on the rhythmic events on the bodily side. From the spiritual side it flows from a spiritual essence which is found within anthroposophical research through methods which I characterize in my writings as those of inspiration. (Whereby one should again bear in mind that within this term I understand only that which I have paraphrased, so that one should not confuse my designation with that which is often understood by the layman with this word). That which is inherent in man as a spiritual being beyond birth and death is revealed to the observing consciousness in the spiritual essence underlying the soul and which can be grasped through inspiration. It is in this area that anthroposophy conducts its spiritual-scientific investigations into the question of immortality. Just as the mortal part of the sentient human being reveals itself in the body through the rhythmic events, so does the immortal spiritual soul essence in the inspirational content of the seeing consciousness.
The volition, which is based on the metabolic processes in the body, flows out of the spirit for the seeing consciousness through what I call in my writings the true intuitions. That which reveals itself in the body through the lowest, so to speak, activity of metabolism, corresponds to a highest in the spirit: that which expresses itself through intuitions. Therefore imagination, which is based on nervous activity, is almost completely expressed in the body; volition has only a faint reflection in the metabolic processes associated with it in the body. The real imagination is the living one; the bodily conditioned one is the paralyzed one. The content is the same. The real volition, even that which realizes itself in the physical world, runs in the regions which are only accessible to intuitive vision; its bodily counterpart has almost nothing to do with its content. The spiritual essence that reveals itself to intuition contains that which extends from previous earthly lives into subsequent ones. And it is in the field under consideration here that anthroposophy approaches the questions of repeated earth lives and the question of destiny. Just as the body lives itself out in nervous activity, rhythmic events and metabolic processes, so does the spirit of man in that which reveals itself in imaginations, inspirations and intuitions. And just as the body in its sphere allows the essence of its external world to be experienced on two sides, namely in the processes of sense and movement, so the spirit on the one side, by experiencing the imaginative life of the soul also in ordinary consciousness imaginatively; and on the other side, by developing intuitive impulses in the will, which are realized through metabolic processes. If we look towards the body, we find the nervous activity that lives as the imaginative being; if we look towards the spirit, we see the spiritual content of the imaginations, which flows into this very imaginative being.
Brentano initially perceives the spiritual side of the imaginative life of the soul; he therefore characterizes this life as a pictorial life (imaginative event). But if not only an inner soul is experienced, but through the judgement something to be acknowledged or rejected, then a soul experience flowing from the spirit is added to the imagining, the content of which remains unconscious as long as it is only a matter of ordinary consciousness, because it consists in the imaginations of a spiritual beingness underlying the physical object, which only add to the imagination that its content exists. It is for this reason that Brentano divides the life of imagination in his classification into pure imagination, which only imaginatively experiences what exists internally; and judgment, which imaginatively experiences what is given externally, but only brings the experience to consciousness as recognition or rejection. In contrast to feeling, Brentano does not look at the basis of the body, the rhythmic events, but only brings into the sphere of his attention that which arises from unconscious inspirations in the realm of ordinary consciousness as love and hate. The wanting, however, is completely omitted from his attention, because this only wants to direct itself to phenomena in the soul, but in the wanting lies something that is not decided in the soul, but with which the soul co-experiences an external world. Brentano's classification of the phenomena of the soul is thus based on the fact that he organizes them according to points of view that experience their true illumination when one directs one's gaze to the spirit-core of the soul, and that he nevertheless wants to hit the phenomena of ordinary consciousness. With what I have said here about Brentano, I have wanted to supplement what has been said about him above on page 90 ff.