Health and Illness I
GA 348
19 October 1922, Dornach
I. Concerning the World Situation; Causes of Illness
Dr. Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Have any of you thought of something you would like to ask me?
Question: Concerning the political situation, is Britain sincere in its dealings with Germany, or is it actually conspiring with France to destroy her? On the one side stand the French trying to suppress Germany with reparations, and on the other stand the big capitalists. It is the same with Russia. We know that Germany has made a trade agreement with her, but now we learn that France, too, has made one. Was this done to sabotage the German agreement? Are you perhaps in a position to make a few remarks on these and other German affairs?
Dr. Steiner. Well, gentlemen, perhaps this is the reason why lately we have been more inclined to speak about scientific matters than to discuss political problems. It is much wiser to do so for the simple reason that all these affairs you have touched upon lead to absolutely nothing. In reality, nothing at all can come of them. Just look at the present situation. Basically, none of the protagonists know where they're heading; everything they do is done from fear, is really a product of fear.
Other things are much more important than all these matters that are based, for example, on England's not knowing how to act. England cannot turn her back on France because in England the opinion prevails that promises must be kept. It is the general attitude over there that a person is obliged to keep his promises. But to what extent this notion is sincere—well, that's something that has nothing to do with the actual conditions. Sincerity pertains only to individual human beings. In regard to public life the most we can say is that a kind of basic principle is acknowledged: “Promises must be kept.” One must play the game by the rules of fair play. Therefore, England quite naturally takes the position that she cannot desert the old Entente, but this stand contradicts the whole purpose of the war. That whole undertaking was calculated to shift industrial production toward the West and to suppress the economies of Eastern and Central Europe, to turn these areas into markets. This was, in fact, the original intention. The economy of Central Europe—and the same would have eventually held true of Eastern Europe as well—was much too prosperous to suit people in the West; they simply didn't want things that way.
Now, this opinion in England exists side by side with another. If Germany is totally suppressed, a needed export market is lost. On the other hand, the French, above all else, feel their lack of money and purchasing power. Their only objective is to squeeze profits out of Germany by hook or by crook. You can understand now that the English sit between two chairs and, as a result, don't accomplish much of anything. If one thinks that Germany at some point has been hurt too much, then a little something is done here or there to brighten the general outlook a bit.
In the affairs of the Middle East, England and France are right now in sharp confrontation. England must push back the Turks because she wants to dominate the world. Granted, the English are protecting the Christians, but the sincerity of their motives is something we needn't consider. At the moment, France is not interested in that cause. First and foremost, the French want an influx of money, and for this reason they support the Turks. In the Middle East, then, these two powers are squared off. Basically, world politics everywhere are in a state of chaos today.
Added to all this is something else especially evident in England just now. With this we come to an important issue, and many people should realize its importance. Incidentally, all the things said over there carry no weight whatsoever. What Lloyd George or anybody else says, matters not in the least; it is all at variance with the facts. Of course, it isn't done consciously; people imagine they are talking about the issues, but in fact they are by-passing them. Another matter, however, is of much greater significance. In England, Lloyd George is the centre of a controversy. Should he or should he not remain in office? Now, why is the position of such a man, who can express himself most eloquently in public, so precarious? Quite simply, he no longer has strong party support; his backing is minimal. Yet, what would happen if Lloyd George were replaced? The minister taking his position would himself soon be ousted. Lloyd George has to be retained solely because he has no qualified successors. The crux of the matter is that everywhere we must settle for individuals whose past performances are a matter of public knowledge, because people can no longer discern whether or not candidates are competent and have a real grasp of the issues.
Not even the Social Democratic Party can find capable men anymore. It just continues to support the old guard and shuts the door against aspiring younger members. Because everywhere people cannot recognize human ability, graybeards, who have lost the faculty to comprehend the present situation, are being kept in office. This is why nothing is accomplished anywhere! So today it doesn't matter what party a person joins to receive this or that position; what matters is that we bring about an environment from which individuals arise who have insight into existing conditions and whose speech and actions are based only on facts. Men's awareness for what is required diminishes daily. Comments like, “Well, it would be better if the English did this, the French that, and the Germans and the Turks thus and so,” are so much idle chatter. Whatever is done merely from the standpoint of the past cannot succeed.
Take an issue of the last few days. You'll agree that Germany has suffered greatly from speculation in foreign currency. Even schoolboys have bought foreign money and have “made it” in foreign exchange. Somebody with 50 marks one day could buy foreign currency and have 75 the next. Huge sums of money could be made from speculation. So what does the German government do? As you know, it passed an emergency law controlling speculation in foreign currency. Now, let's assume that the government agencies are so clever that they themselves can succeed in speculation. I don't believe they are, but let's assume so. In the next few weeks there would then be less private trading in foreign currencies in Germany. It is no exaggeration that boys thirteen and fourteen years old were trading in foreign money. What would happen if all this were stopped for a few weeks? A huge gap would arise between the price of necessities like groceries and the amount of money people could afford to spend on them. For example, in Germany today one cigarette costs seven marks. Well, people will pay that amount. Why? Because of the speculation in foreign money. You know that today old men can't afford seven marks for a cigarette, but young people who have made all kinds of money speculating can. Now, if this source of income is cut off, soon no one will be able to buy a good cigarette. This is just one aspect of the matter; another is that wages would have to be lowered in the cigarette industry. Then you would have the discrepancy of consumer goods being kept at their former prices and consumers unable to afford them. A new crisis would arise, and this is, in fact, the next to come.
Everything is done on the spur of the moment, which insures that one crisis follows another—and all this because people see only what is closest at hand. No results can be achieved in this manner. The only way to get out of the present chaotic situation is to have competent men in office again. To achieve anything, we must have men who know what they're doing, but present conditions indicate that nowhere are capable persons being consulted. So we must see to it that qualified people are again elected. Things won't progress by the clichés and vacuities people utter; all this is worthless. Just look at any newspaper. You may even happen to like one because it represents your party, but regardless of their political persuasions the facts they publish are worthless and lead to nothing. For this reason, it's almost a waste of time to occupy oneself with world politics; the field is barren. The only thing that needs to be considered is that once again education should produce competent people. Competence is what we should aim for because today nobody knows anything.
Those powers confronting the Europeans know the most. The Turks, for example, know exactly what they want, as do the Japanese. They want to further their own cultures, solely their own. Strangely enough, Europeans are indifferent about theirs. You can see now why one is reticent to talk about politics. It's like going to a party and discovering that everyone is indulging in platitudes; you will then not want to participate. That's pretty much the situation in politics these days.
Not long ago, Lloyd George delivered a speech. If you want to give a figurative description of it and you said it resembled a pile of chaff in which a few grains of wheat yet remained, then this comparison would not be quite rate. You should say, rather, that no wheat was left, that every last grain had been flailed out. Only then would we have a true picture of the speech Lloyd George gave a few days ago. Yet, I can say without a moment's hesitation that it was the most significant address delivered by a statesman in recent weeks. You see, even though his speech was vapid, he did have his fist in it. He did not actually do so, but one can imagine his having pounded the table every so often. That's one thing he can do. His words are empty, but there is something in his fist.
It's this way everywhere. I've stopped reading the speeches of Wirth, because the few lines that appear on the front page of the Basel newspaper tell me enough. It's then quite apparent that his whole speech amounts to nothing. The situation is absolutely pathetic, and it's pointless to become elated or depressed over any part of it. The thing is, anyone who is really sincere in his regard for humanity must say to himself that everything hinges on our finding competent men who can understand something of the world's problems and who can think, truly think.
For if one considers the remarks of Lloyd George—and perhaps he is actually the most capable of all these politicians—one discovers that he has never had an original thought. He can hold on to his position just because he has no thoughts. Thus, he can vacillate in one or the other direction and what he says is really trite. Were he ever to utter a thought, were the Union Party, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party to discover how they all stood with him, he would, of course, be thrown out of office. His whole skill consists in speaking in such a way that the others can't discern how they fare with him. If somebody's speech is continually inane, no one knows what to make of it. His great asset is his lack of thoughts, and he can use it because he himself does not know where he stands.
These are the conditions today, but this wasn't the case a few years ago. Two or three years ago one always had to say, “Something must be done before it's too late,” but today it is too late. Nothing can be suggested because now it is too late; it's simply too late. The most I can say is that things will improve only when qualified men again enter public life. Germany and Russia can sign as many treaties as they want but nothing will come of them. It isn't a question of signing treaties but of unfolding a healthy economic life.
The Stinnes conglomerate is a good example. Do you think for a moment that Mr. Stinnes could accomplish anything within the German labour force? Of course not; that's impossible. Stinnes is an industrialist who has advanced through skilful manipulation of foreign currency. But that is all he knows, how to advance himself, nothing else. Many people today have noticed that the government is getting nowhere, that all its treaties have had no effect on the economy. Since Stinnes acts independently of the government, the results are probably better, some say, but in any event his ideas are based solely on the manipulation of his interests in Germany and France. This is their only basis. Look at the Stinnes agreements and you'll see what heavy financing they would require. What Stinnes intends to do must be financed. Things are at such a pass, however, that to finance such ventures would just about deplete one's resources, would “raze all the woods in Austria.”
Naturally, a person can talk about all the things he would like to do when in reality none of them can succeed. As soon as he tries to carry one out, it won't work. People have seen that government treaties lead nowhere, no economic growth results from them. Stinnes's ventures are independent of government help so it is hoped that they will produce results. But it won't work. It doesn't matter that he naturally works arm in arm with other big capitalists. His plans cannot be realized because even he will not be able to finance them. Hence, Stinnes offers no solution.
Journalists are fascinated by the columns of figures he manipulates, and you see, gentlemen, when they write their editorials or feature sections, they are under no obligation; they can say whatever they please. You probably haven't saved them, but if you compare the articles written in 1912 with those written today in the same paper, you will discover a curious thing. After all, newspaper articles are ephemeral, no one gives them a second thought, and so journalists can make them as interesting as they like. Anyone who feels responsible for his statements, however, and does not fabricate articles at random knows that all of them are nothing but rubbish. This is the situation everywhere. Because people have no original ideas things have become desperate. Above all else we need original thoughts, new ideas; without these everything will go to ruin.
In Germany today, it takes 215 marks to buy a toothbrush. But what are 215 marks? Not even one franc! This sounds cheap to us here, but where does a German get 215 marks? Other consumer goods are proportionately more expensive. Today no one can afford an umbrella, but it can't be helped. When I was in Vienna I once went by taxi because I was in a hurry and it happened to be a holiday. The distance was one half mile, no more. The fare, gentlemen, was 3600 kronen! Today it would be ten times that. The same ride would cost 36,000 kronen. This is obviously absurd, but other things are equally so, even if people don't know it. For what is done to remedy this situation? If a short taxi ride costs 36,000 kronen, 500,000 kronen notes will be printed, and if it costs 360,000 kronen, one million notes will be issued. But such measures have no effect on economic life. Nothing is altered except that those who have a little money in their pockets today have nothing tomorrow, and those who speculate cleverly have double their former amount. But speculation with currency accomplishes nothing as far as
the mint par of exchange is concerned. It merely enables some people to make money without thought or effort, and when work comes to a halt in the world, hampered by usurious speculation, then things will have indeed reached a breaking point. So it accomplishes nothing at all. People simply have to realize that capable persons with insight into the affairs of the world must again take things in hand; there is no other way out.
To accomplish this, we must start with the right kind of education. Today people must begin to learn in school to comprehend the world. The other day I was reading a textbook that recommended a certain problem in arithmetic, and when I describe it you'll say, “So what?” But the arithmetic problem posed in this textbook is indicative of the most important thing in the world. It goes like this:
One person is 5 2/12 year old
Another is 18 7/12 years old
Another is 36 4/12 years old
Another is 35 5/12 years old
What is the total number of years of these four persons?
The children are asked to add all this together; this is what the textbook recommends. Of course, they will do so and arrive at the total of 173 6/12 years. Now I ask you, gentlemen, what bearing has this sum to reality? When would you ever need to figure out something like this? For the problem to have any meaning at all, it would have to be posed so that the first person happened to die just when the second was born, and the third died when the last was born. How many years elapsed from the birth of the first person to the death of the last? The former problem is unrealistic; no one will ever have to figure it out in actuality. Giving children problems like this amounts to giving them the most abstract arithmetic imaginable. Children are required to use their good sense to compute real nonsense.
Well, the person who devised this problem once learned that things could be added up. Now let's consider this case. Someone was born on a certain date, went to school until he was 14½ years old and then served as an apprentice for 5½ years. Following that, he worked under various masters for 3 years and then got married. Four years later he had a son, and when the son was 22, the father died. By adding up the years we arrive at the man's age, which is 49. This is something concrete, something real. Children are led out into real life when they are given problems like this and this applies to all situations. Otherwise, they sit for an hour over something that never occurs in actuality, but no one is shocked by this. If you point this out to people, they reply, “It doesn't matter how children learn arithmetic.” They don't think it's terribly important. But it happens to be of prime importance, for the people who read rubbish in textbooks as children will eventually spout it as adults; they'll talk nonsense, nothing but nonsense.
From all this you can understand the need for a renewal in education. The educational method I have spoken of bases everything on reality; from the very beginning it leads the human being into reality. This is what actually counts, and this is also why conditions will invariably worsen if people do things as they have in the past. You can start as many newspapers as you like, but if they are written in the same tired spirit, the same chaos will remain. This is why it is so important today for us to occupy ourselves with matters that will turn people into thinking human beings. For this to happen, however, we must see to it that teachers and textbooks do not present arithmetic problems like the one cited but only those that apply to life. Unfortunately, children are also learning languages, science and social studies in that unrealistic way. Everything is divorced from reality.
I've told you that in England it is customary to give those who receive a Master of Arts degree a medieval gown. This had meaning a few hundred years ago and was a reality. Today, it's different. Today someone can be a consultant to the government or something else and it means absolutely nothing. Things are just the same in those countries that underwent revolutions. You must realize that a complete change in education is called for; everything depends on that.
Does anybody else have a question that concerns you?
Question: It is claimed that the appendix may be removed without harm to the patient. We know that frequently this and other organs are taken out in operations. Earlier, we discussed the significance of the internal organs, and I would like to know what effect it has on a person if he is missing any.
Dr. Steiner. I shall answer this question after we have considered something else first, which I shall gladly do now.
Question: In recent lectures we have discussed the influence of the planets on man; I am interested in hearing more about this.
Dr. Steiner: What I have to say now will have a bearing on it. I shall answer these questions today and see how far we get. But first I would like to tell you a story to demonstrate the kind of knowledge we will be pursuing from now on.
In the early 'nineties of the last century, about thirty or thirty-one years ago, an official North American Trading and Transport Company held a convention. Invited to this meeting was a prominent financier named William Windom. By the standards of those gathered there he was a brilliant man, a person whom one immediately recognized as an authority. He was expected to give an address at this convention, and indeed he did so.
Windom began his speech by saying, “We need to reform our whole trade and transport system, for as they are today they contain something unhealthy.” He then went on to explain what money is; in his fairly short speech he touched on the significance of money. He said, “Well, gentlemen, I have now analysed national economic matters for you. But the point is that one realizes that the whole thing does not work. However much the currency circulates due to commerce and passes from hand to hand, that does not determine what in fact makes a national industry a sound one. What does make an industry sound are the moral concepts that people have. Unless moral concepts also flow through commerce, and money circulates in such a way that moral concepts are tied in with it, we get no further.” That is what he said.
Windom said that immoral conceptions in the commercial and industrial life is like having poison in the human blood stream. If immoral concepts accompany the circulation of money in transportation and industry, it is as if poison were to contaminate the blood in the arteries. Just as a man becomes ill on account of poison in his system, so does the economic body become unhealthy when poison—that is, immoral concepts—runs through its network.
Now it struck his listeners that Mr. Windom became a bit gray as he spoke of arteries in the context of economic life. They were surprised that someone who had previously spoken only of matters pertaining to economy and finance, who had in fact begun his speech on these subjects, should suddenly use this rather apt analogy and even elaborate on it. He described in detail how poison penetrates the blood and referred to moral concepts. This was indeed a change of subject, and when he uttered the words, “It is like this in economic life that immoral concepts go like poison through the arteries of industrial commerce,” he collapsed. He had a stroke and died on the spot.
Here you have an example of the phenomena I have often mentioned and from which we may learn a great deal. It is quite obvious what happened here. The man certainly did not die from the speech because he was not even excited at the time. He would have had a stroke even if he had been doing something completely different; the conditions for it were simply present in his system. By no means was the stroke brought on by the speech, although it conceivably hastened it by an hour. In any event, his system had been predisposed to a stroke for a long time, and he would have had it anywhere else as well.
The other point to be observed here is that he suddenly left his topic and began to describe his own inner condition. This he did quite logically and within the boundaries of his talk. Imagine, the man stands before his audience and speaks to them about something thoroughly economic; suddenly the course of this thought changes as he turns rather gray. He keeps to the theme of his address, but what he describes now is his own condition before death. This is what he turned to; his speech took this direction on account of his own inner condition. Much can be learned from this, which also happens in other, less drastic forms.
Let us suppose a speaker loses his train of thought. This is something I have witnessed more than once. Usually, whereas at first the speaker confidently faced his audience, having lost his train of thought, he would now make a slight movement and glimpse downward. He had placed his top hat in front of him, and his speech was under it! After he found his thread of thought he could resume talking. Something like that can happen. I once saw a mayor who got stuck after the first ten words pick up his hat and bravely proceed to read the speech right off. The mayor could read, but if he had continued to talk without his notes, if he had spoken impromptu, well, nothing but twaddle would have come out. He could read; otherwise, his speech would have amounted to nothing.
How would William Windom have fared? The conditions for the imminent stroke were in his system, and if we consider man's whole constitution, it makes little difference whether we are in the situation of William Windom or of the mayor. The mayor could read, as we saw, and so could the man who suffered the stroke. But where did William Windom read? He read what was happening in his own body; he simply read that off. From this you may see that what spiritual science has discovered is correct. Whenever we talk we are actually always reading something that is going on within us. Naturally, what we say is based upon our external experiences, but that mingles with what goes on in our bodies. Our utterances are actually read off from our inner processes, which, of course, do not always have such sad consequences for us as a stroke. Every time you say something, even if it's only five words, you read it from within your body. If you jot something down, five days later you can read it in your notebook; and if you commit it to memory, then it becomes part of the script within you and you can read it from within. It is the same process as reading from a book. The act of reading is the same whether done from without or within; only the direction in which we look is different. It doesn't matter if you have noted “five nails, seven hooks” on paper or in your brain. If you have noted it in a book you can read it off from the page where it was recorded; if you have made a mental note of it, a brain cell imprinted with “five” has linked itself with others carrying the messages “seven,” “nails” and “hooks.” A whole loop has come into being in your brain, and, without being aware of it, you look at these loops within yourself and read off the mental notations. This is what we are led to realize from examining such a drastic case as William Windom's.
I have mentioned another example that we may briefly recall now. This incident concerns Karl Ludwig Schleich, a well-known doctor, and was reported by him. A man came rushing to him and said, “I've just pricked myself with this pen; look, there is still ink on me. You must amputate my right arm or I'll die of blood poisoning!”
Schleich, whom I knew well—he died just recently—told me this himself. He said to the man, “What's the matter with you? As a surgeon I cannot take the responsibility of amputating your arm! The ink just needs to be sucked out. It's really nothing, and it would be nonsensical to cut off your arm!”
The person replied, “All right, but then I will die! You absolutely must take off my arm.”
Dr. Schleich said to him, “I won't do it; I can't cut off an arm for no reason whatsoever.”
“Well,” said the patient, “then I will die.”
When Schleich let him go, the man rushed to a second doctor to ask him to amputate. Naturally, he also refused the request, and the fellow kept running around the whole evening saying, as he had to Dr. Schleich, that he would die in the night.
Schleich was quite concerned about the man. Of course, there were no grounds for amputating his arm, but the first thing the following morning Schleich inquired about him. He had easily sucked the ink out of the man's small wound, since pricking yourself with a pen is a minor matter. But when Schleich arrived at the man's house the next morning he found him dead; he had indeed died! Now, what did Schleich say? He said that the man had died of auto-suggestion, that he had talked himself into dying and that his own thoughts had killed him. It's true that in a case like this, one speaks of auto-suggestion, but I told Schleich that even though all kinds of things happen through auto-suggestion, it cannot account for a death like this. To say so is nonsense. Schleich did not believe me.
What really happened? Only one who sees completely through the human being can discover what really occurred in this case. The doctors performed an autopsy and found no trace of blood poisoning. There was no sign of anything amiss, and so they were satisfied with the conclusion that death had been caused by auto-suggestion. But here, too, the real cause was a stroke that would have been difficult to diagnose and, as you can imagine, had been building up for several days. The conditions for the stroke had been mounting in the delicate organs for days. The man dimly saw this happening within himself, just as Windom sensed that poison was penetrating his arteries moments before he was stricken. He felt that his body was about to succumb on account of the negative substances introduced into his system by some food. One can carry on for a long time without any apparent change on the surface while within, the conditions of death are maturing. The man in question somehow sensed this, became nervous and pricked his hand. He would not have done so otherwise. Up until this moment he was not aware of what was occurring within him and what was going to happen, but when he pricked himself, he said what he could not have said before, “I shall die from the pen prick!” Nobody says, “I feel death approaching me” if he feels perfectly healthy otherwise, but now he could ascribe his imminent death to the pen prick, even though it was the wrong cause. There was no auto-suggestion here; the man would have died the following night in any event. But he became nervous, and when he pricked his hand with a pen, the thought of imminent death arose in him in a completely erroneous form. He consulted doctors, but even Ludwig Schleich, who was a brilliant man, did not believe him. He thought that this was just a case of auto-suggestion and was convinced that the man had talked himself into dying. But this is nonsense. In fact, the cause of death already existed and the pen prick was but the result of apprehension.
From this you may see that much is happening within ourselves, and if these matters are not properly studied we simply cannot cope with them. Our starting point must be the origin of man. We must know in what form he existed when the ichthyosauria, the plesiosauria and the megatheria swam about in a thick fluid on what was then the earth. We cannot discover the interconnections of things without reference to and study of the human being.
There are many other aspects to be considered as well. At what age do people die most frequently? We know that infants die most often within the first few months after birth. Afterward, the mortality rate slowly decreases. Children have their childhood diseases up to the time of their change of teeth, and if they took better care of themselves by sitting up properly and the like, they would have fewer illnesses during their school years. Even so, the fewest illnesses occur between the ages of seven and fourteen. Then it starts up again. There is a great difference, however, between the diseases of infancy and those of puberty.
If we look at the illnesses that children die from during the earliest periods of life, we always find a quite definite form of blood suppuration. The blood becomes purulent. The child has a delicate constitution at that age and can succumb without it being established what develops from this suppuration. In fact, the child would develop jaundice. When an adult has suppuration of the blood, the condition progresses to the stage of jaundice, which generally can be cured quickly. The infant, however, dies before reaching this stage.
Many children get diarrhoea, which cannot be cured by the means one uses with adults. External remedies such as enemas or compresses must be used, but it's worthless to give a child medication. Children also get thrush, blisters that spring up mainly on the tongue, and all the other childhood diseases that sprout up from within—scarlet fever, measles and the like—as though the whole internal constitution were blooming. Adults can also get these illnesses, of course, but they belong essentially to childhood. They predominate during the early ages and then decline after the child gets his second teeth. These illnesses, which call for a careful diet and preferably external treatment, do not occur in this form after the second teeth. It is difficult to discover what causes purulent blood in a child. It arises from deep within the system. Convulsions, so-called childhood spasms, also frequently afflict children.
The illnesses that human beings contract during puberty are completely different. You need only consider the complaints of young girls. They develop anaemia, a problem caused by the body not properly nourishing the blood. When a child has blood suppuration, something else within the constitution contaminates the blood stream; when a girl has anaemia, the blood itself becomes ill. It is one problem if something within the system is infecting the blood and quite another if the blood becomes diseased. It is quite a different problem if the blood becomes sluggish, as it may, for example, in a boy or girl, a condition that then leads to haemorrhoids.
Thus, it is that in two periods of his life man is particularly prone to illness: up to the age of seven and between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one. In the intervening period he is predisposed to health. It is important to understand that the human being is not at all times equally prone to illness, that the times vary and that the illnesses have a completely different character at these various times. A study of this can lead us ever deeper into the human organization, and in this way we can begin to understand the functions of the inner organs.
You see, on the one hand you have the case of Mr. William Windom, who suddenly starts to speak of his organs as death approaches; on the other, you have the appearance of diseases in early childhood and the 'teens, which tell us that different processes occur during the successive stages of life. We must learn to decipher what occurs in man; we must learn to read these processes. When a child gets thrush or red patches on the body, for example, we must understand what is happening internally. Only when we have learned to read his inner processes can we arrive at a real knowledge of man.
If you merely put a dead human being on the dissecting table and only examine an individual organ, the removal of which causes no special effect, you won't discover anything pertinent. A diseased spleen, for example, can be surgically removed, and the operation can benefit the patient. He will be in better health for a period of time than if the spleen had remained in his body in its diseased condition. If you simply look at a spleen that has been surgically removed, you won't see what distinguishes it from, say, the stomach. Yet, if the whole stomach is removed, the patient has a difficult time. This is risky and in the long run someone with an artificial stomach cannot expect to have good health. There are organs that simply cannot be taken out: both lungs, for instance, and least of all, the brain. If a certain spot in the brain is hit with a mere needle, the person will die immediately. The elephant also has this spot in his brain. If you make a puncture there and hit it precisely—it need not even be cut out—this huge beast will be instantly killed. You may remove its spleen, however, and the animal will live on for many years. Thus, you see, it makes a difference which organ is removed from the body—a spleen, an appendix or something else.
To grasp this fact, we must thoroughly study the human being. Remember what I have said about these little brain creatures, these cells representing recollection that I have sketched here. They are still soft and alive in the small child and only gradually harden. Only when a child reaches his seventh year and has gone through the change of teeth have they hardened sufficiently. Then, at the onset of puberty, other cells called leucocytes start to move about more freely in the blood. They go through the whole blood stream and become more active at puberty. Before that time, they move about sluggishly. There are two periods in our lives when conditions arise that make us prone to illness. The first occurs from infancy to age seven, when the organism—or actually, the soul within the physical organism—must exert itself to mould and harden the brain cells. The second falls at puberty, when the soul must take pains to give mobility to the leucocytes, those little creatures contained in the blood.
To use an analogy, if you are building a house you must use mortar that will properly harden; otherwise, you will not succeed. So it is with the brain cells; they must harden sufficiently. When they do not, children become victims of this or that disease. We shall go further into the causes of these various illnesses next time. After puberty one is dealing with millions upon millions of white blood corpuscles. Until then, they are sluggish, and if they were a herd, it would take a great many shepherds to get them going. If this goading impulse is absent, anaemia results. So we see it depends on these aspects that in the early years of childhood and again at puberty certain illnesses may appear.
If the human being is studied like this, we can gradually comprehend all the interconnections. Indeed, we cannot accomplish anything in social life either unless we know these facts of natural science.
Erster Vortrag
Guten Morgen, meine Herren! Haben Sie sich noch etwas zu fragen ausgedacht?
Es wird gefragt in bezug auf die politische Lage: ob es der Engländer wohl ehrlich mit Deutschland meine, oder ob der nur vorgeschoben werde, und der Franzose doch mit dem Engländer Hand in Hand gehe, um Deutschland zu vernichten; auf der einen Seite wird von den Franzosen Deutschland zu bekämpfen versucht durch die Reparationen, und auf der anderen Seite stehen die Großkapitalisten. Und ebenso jetzt in Rußland. Von der einen Seite ist doch bekannt, daß Deutschland mit Rußland ein Wirtschaftsabkommen getroffen hat; jetzt liest man aber wieder, daß der Franzose ebenfalls mit Rußland ein Wirtschaftsabkommen getroffen haben soll, um eventuell das deutsche Abkommen zu hintertreiben? - und was sonst deutsche Angelegenheiten sind. Wenn Herr Doktor vielleicht in der Lage wäre, einige Andeutungen zu geben?
Ja, wissen Sie, das ist ja vielleicht der Grund, warum wir in der letzten Zeit, ich möchte sagen, aus einer gewissen Übereinstimmung heraus, mehr über wissenschaftliche Angelegenheiten gesprochen haben, was in der gegenwärtigen Zeit nämlich viel gescheiter ist, als über politische Angelegenheiten zu sprechen, aus dem Grunde, weil alle diese Verhältnisse, alle diese Angelegenheiten, die Sie berührt haben, eigentlich zu nichts führen. Aus allen diesen Dingen kommt in Wirklichkeit doch gar nichts heraus. Sie müssen nur bedenken, daß die Sachen ja so liegen, daß gegenwärtig im Grunde genommen alle miteinander eigentlich nicht wissen, was sie in der Zukunft machen sollen. Und alle diese Dinge, die geschehen, sind eigentlich nur Angstprodukte, richtige Angstprodukte. Viel wichtiger als alle diese Dinge, die ja zum Beispiel einfach darauf beruhen, daß England augenblicklich nicht weiß, was es tun soll- denn auf der einen Seite kann es noch nicht recht von Frankreich sich trennen, nachdem in England immer die Meinung vertreten wird, man muß Versprechen einhalten —, viel wichtiger sind ja den Leuten ganz andere Dinge. Das ist eine allgemeine Meinung dort: Man muß Versprechen einhalten. Nicht wahr, inwiefern darinnen Aufrichtigkeit oder nicht Aufrichtigkeit ist, das ist ja etwas, was also eigentlich die wirklichen Verhältnisse nicht viel angeht; das geht die einzelnen Menschen an, ob sie wahre oder unwahre Menschen sind. Aber im öffentlichen Leben kann man eben nur sagen: Es herrscht so der Grundsatz, man muß Versprechen einhalten, man muß fair play machen, daß heißt, man muß anständiges Spiel machen. So also steht natürlich England auf dem Boden, man kann sich von der alten Entente nicht trennen. Auf der andern Seite widerspricht das ja im Grunde genommen wiederum dem ganzen Sinn, der vom Anfange an mit dieser Kriegsunternehmung verbunden war. Denn diese Kriegsunternehmung war ja darauf berechnet, die Produktion allmählich ganz nach dem Westen zu ziehen und die europäischen, die östlichen und mitteleuropäischen Produktionen zu unterdrücken, um diese mehr als Absatzgebiete zu haben. Das war ja eigentlich die ursprüngliche Absicht. Die Produktion ist einfach in Mitteleuropa — und das wäre auch in Osteuropa gekommen — den Leuten im Westen zu üppig geworden. Sie wollten sie nicht so haben.
Nun, jetzt besteht auch in England die Meinung: Wenn man Deutschland ganz unterdrückt, dann hat man kein Absatzland. Man will es aufrecht erhalten. Die Franzosen aber, die spüren vor allen Dingen ihren Mangel an Geld, an Finanzen, überhaupt ihren Mangel an finanzieller Kraft. Die wollen ja vor allen Dingen auf einem Gewaltwege aus Deutschland nun wieder etwas herausschlagen. Nun, nicht wahr, setzt man sich in England zwischen zwei Stühle. Und so pendelt man halt hin und her. Dabei kommt nichts Besonderes heraus. Wenn man einmal glaubt, man tut Deutschland zu weh, so macht man da und dort etwas, das ein bißchen bessere Stimmung machen soll. Dazu kommen die orientalischen Angelegenheiten, wo Frankreich und England einander schroff gegenüberstehen, weil England im gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt die Türken zurückdrängen muß, weil es ja mit einem Schlag die Welt beherrschen will. Daß es die Christen in Schutz nimmt — nicht wahr, das tut es ja in Wirklichkeit wiederum auch; inwieweit das aufrichtig ist, braucht man wiederum nicht zu untersuchen. Aber Frankreich, das legt gegenwärtig darauf keinen Wert, da es vor allen Dingen sein Geld hereinbekommen will, und unterstützt also die Türken. So stehen sich im Orient die beiden Mächte schroff gegenüber. So ist im Grunde genommen alles in der Welt heute in der großen Politik ein Chaos.
Dazu kommt etwas anderes. Gerade in England zeigt sich das gegenwärtig. Da kommt man auf den Punkt, worauf es eigentlich ankommt. Das ist nun sehr wichtig, daß viele Leute sehen, worauf es eigentlich ankommt. Alle die Dinge, die so besprochen werden, auf die kommt es eigentlich gar nicht an. Sehen Sie, was Lloyd George postuliert, oder irgendeiner spricht, darauf kommt es gar nicht an, denn das redet alles an den Tatsachen vorbei - nicht bewußt, denn die Leute glauben, daß sie von den Tatsachen reden, aber sie reden eben gar nicht von den Tatsachen, sondern sie reden vorbei an den Tatsachen.
Aber eine andere Sache ist viel wichtiger. Sehen Sie, jetzt ist ja in England der große Kampf um Lloyd George, ob er überhaupt bleiben soll oder gehen soll. Warum kann sich denn dieser Mensch, der immerhin die schönsten Worte der Welt gegenwärtig machen kann, nicht halten? Er kann sich nicht halten aus dem Grunde, weil er keine genügend große Partei mehr hat. Das sind lauter kleine Parteien, die er hat. Er kann sich nicht mehr halten, weil er nicht mehr genügend große Parteien hat. Wenn man Lloyd George jetzt ersetzen wollte, so könnte man es nicht recht. Man kann weiterhin einen Minister obenauf bringen, aber der würde sehr bald auch wieder abgesetzt. Und so ist es unmöglich, an die Stelle von Lloyd George jemand andern zu bringen. Also muß man ihn behalten! Und darauf beruht das Ganze. Es ist gegenwärtig kein Nachwuchs. Man muß überall diejenigen Leute nehmen, von denen man noch weiß: Ja, der ist einmal etwas gewesen. Aber irgend jemand darauf anzuschauen, ob er etwas versteht, ob er etwas kann, ob er die Verhältnisse überschaut, das ist bei niemandem mehr vorhanden.
Das ist auch nicht mehr bei der Sozialdemokratischen Partei vorhanden. Die hält auch nur ihre alten Bonzen aufrecht, läßt nicht die neuen heran. Also überall haben die Menschen die Möglichkeit verloren, noch irgendwie zu sehen, ob einer etwas versteht oder nicht. Und daher ist man gezwungen, die alten Leute, die gar nichts mehr von der Gegenwart wissen, überall in den Stellungen zu haben. Dadurch kann natürlich nirgends etwas herauskommen! So daß es heute ganz gleich ist, ob einer der oder jener Partei angehört, der dann irgendwie in eine Stellung hineinkommt; sondern darauf kommt es an, daß wir wiederum die Zeit herbeiführen, wo es Leute gibt, die von den Verhältnissen etwas verstehen, die also tatsächlich aus den Tatsachen heraus reden, nicht immer an den Tatsachen vorbeireden und -handeln. Das wird mit jedem Tag weniger, daß die Leute erkennen, was eigentlich geschehen soll. Das wird mit jedem Tag schlechter. Und daher ist es im Grunde genommen auch heute ein ganz unnützes Reden, wenn man sagt: Ja, wäre es nun gescheiter, wenn die Engländer das täten, oder die Franzosen das täten, oder die Deutschen oder die Türken das und das täten. — Nicht wahr, was auch geschieht von alten Standpunkten aus, das ist eine Sache, die gar keine Erfolge hat,
Nehmen Sie irgendeine Tatsache in den allerletzten Tagen. Eine Tatsache: Nicht wahr, Deutschland leidet in der letzten Zeit ungeheuer unter den sogenannten Devisenspekulationen. Die Schulbuben kauften schon Devisen, «machten in Devisen». Es war ja so: Wenn irgendeiner 50 Mark hatte, so kaufte er sich Devisen, und am nächsten Tage hatte er 75 Mark. Man konnte durch die Devisenspekulationen ungeheuer viel verdienen. Was tut also die deutsche Regierung? Sie macht ein Gesetz — Sie wissen ja, ein Notgesetz ist gemacht worden gegen diese Devisenspekulationen —, also die Regierung macht ein Gesetz: Die Devisenspekulation soll kontrolliert werden. Nehmen wir an, die Regierung ist so gescheit in ihren Organen — was ich ja noch nicht glaube —, aber nehmen wir an, sie kann wirklich mit Devisen spekulieren: sie hat dann günstige Erfolge. Nehmen wir das an. Dann wird also in den nächsten Wochen in Deutschland weniger mit Devisen gehandelt. Wie gesagt, es ist nicht übertrieben, daß dreizehn-, vierzehnjährige Schulbuben in Devisen Spekulationen gemacht haben. Nehmen wir also an, das wird für einige Wochen untergraben. Was wird kommen? Es wird eine riesige Differenz eintreten zwischen dem, was Nahrungsmittel und andere lebensnotwendige Dinge kosten, und demjenigen, was man haben wird zum Bezahlen. Also nehmen Sie zum Beispiel an, eine Zigarette kostet heute in Deutschland 7 Mark. Nun, sie wird gekauft. Warum? Weil die Devisenspekulation da war. Nicht wahr, ein alter Mann kann ja heute keine Zigarette kaufen; die jungen Leute kaufen sie sich, diejenigen, die unter allen möglichen Devisenspekulationen viel Geld verdienen. Nun nehmen wir an, sie verdienen nicht mehr. Ja, jetzt, in den nächsten Tagen und Wochen kauft keiner eine gute Zigarette. Dies nur als Beispiel. Noch ein anderer Punkt: Dann ist es ganz selbstverständlich, daß die Zigarettenfabrikation in die Notwendigkeit kommt, wiederum die Arbeitslöhne zu drücken. Und dann haben Sie das: Die Dinge haben noch ihren Preis von früher; keiner kann sie kaufen. Eine neue Krisis ist da. Das ist die nächste Krisis, die kommen wird.
Alles dasjenige, was kommen wird, wird nur aus dem allernächsten Augenblick gemacht. Die Leute sehen nur das nächste, und das ist, daß immer dafür gesorgt wird auf diese Weise, daß die eine Krise in die nächste hinüberläuft. Auf diese Weise kann man ja nicht zu einem Resultat kommen. Das ist ganz unmöglich, daß man aus diesen Verhältnissen, die ein Chaos sind, heute anders herauskommt als dadurch, daß man wieder tüchtige Kerle hat, die zu irgendeinem Resultat kommen. Das allerwichtigste ist, daß wieder tüchtige Kerle da sind. Und da ist es eben doch so — das zeigt die gegenwärtige Zeit -: es werden keine wirklich tüchtigen Menschen herangezogen. Also müssen wir sehen, daß wir wieder eine Zeit haben, die tüchtige Menschen heranzieht. Mit den alten Phrasen geht es nicht weiter. Die alten Phrasen sprechen alle Leute aus. Daher hat es gar keinen Wert. Wenn Sie heute irgendeine Zeitung in die Hand nehmen, welcher Partei sie auch angehört, da lesen Sie allerlei — es kann Ihnen gerade gefallen, daß die Zeitung aus einer Partei heraus spricht, der Sie selber angehören -, aber dasjenige, was Ihnen da an Tatsachen aufgetischt wird, hat ja nicht den allergeringsten Wert. Es kommt dabei gar nichts heraus. So daß man sagen kann: Es ist heute fast eine verlorene Zeit, wenn man sich mit all diesen Dingen beschäftigt, die da in der Welt als politische herumgehen. Es kommt nichts dabei heraus! Und wenn irgend etwas behandelt werden soll, ist es nur das, daß wiederum tüchtige Kerle erzogen werden. Das ist das einzige, was man anstreben kann; denn es weiß eben niemand heute etwas.
Am meisten wissen schließlich diejenigen, die den Europäern gegenüberstehen. Die Türken zum Beispiel wissen ganz genau, was sie wollen. Die Japaner wissen auch, was sie wollen. Die wollen aber alle ihre eigene Kultur fördern - ihre eigene Kultur! Und just dem Europäer ist seine Kultur ganz einerlei! Und das ist dasjenige, was es heute macht, daß man eigentlich nichts mehr sagen kann zur Politik. Es ist so, nicht wahr, wie wenn Sie sich in eine Gesellschaft setzen und Sie hören eine Zeitlang zu, und Sie kommen darauf, daß die Leute eigentlich bloß leere Phrasen dreschen. Da werden Sie sagen: Da rede ich nicht mit. — So ist es nämlich fast mit der Politik der Gegenwart.
Sehen Sie, der Lloyd George hat vor ein paar Tagen eine Rede gehalten. Wenn Sie diese Rede bildlich ausdrücken wollen und Sie nehmen Strohhalme, in denen man einzelne Weizenkörner noch drinnengelassen hat, trifft das Bild nicht mehr zu; es muß ganz ausgedroschenes Stroh sein, es muß das letzte Weizenkorn herausgedroschen sein, dann ist das ein Bild der Rede, die der Lloyd George vor einigen Tagen gehalten hat. Aber trotzdem stehe ich keinen Augenblick an zu sagen, daß es die bedeutendste Rede ist, die ein Staatsmann in den letzten Wochen gehalten hat. Denn, nicht wahr, wenn schon gar nichts mehr drinnen ist, so ist doch das einzige, was drinnen ist, die Faust. Man spürt, wenn er es auch nicht wirklich tut, wie er alle Augenblicke auf den Tisch geschlagen hat. Das kann er. In der Faust ist etwas drinnen. Aber in den Worten ist nichts drinnen.
Und so ist es überall. Wirthsche Reden lese ich nicht mehr, weil ich genug habe aus den paar Zeilen, die vorne in den «Basler Nachrichten» stehen. Da hat man schon genug ungefähr über den Inhalt, und daß, was er geredet hat, nichts ist, kann man ja sehen. Also es ist absolut trostlos, das ganze Treiben. Und so ist es so, daß es eigentlich vollständig überflüssig ist, sich nach irgendeiner Seite hin zu begeistern oder zu entgeistern. Das ist eben die Sache. Also wer es heute ehrlich und aufrichtig mit der Menschheit meint, der muß eigentlich sich sagen: Es kommt alles darauf an, daß man tüchtige Kerle kriegt, die wiederum etwas von der Welt verstehen, die überhaupt denken können, wirklich denken können.
Denn nicht wahr, wenn man Lloyd George betrachtet, vielleicht ist er eben durchaus der tüchtigste Mensch von allen diesen, aber er hat niemals einen Gedanken gehabt. Und gerade dadurch hält er sich, daß er keine Gedanken hat. Da kann er fortwährend nach dieser Richtung und nach jener Richtung hinüber schwimmeln, und er redet eigentlich dummes Zeug. Aber nicht wahr, sobald er einen Gedanken äußern würde, da kann die Unionistische Partei, oder die Konservative Partei, oder die Labour Party sehen, wie sie dran ist. Sowie er irgendeinen Gedanken äußert, dann weiß man, wie man dran ist mit ihm. Dann sägt man ihn ab selbstverständlich, wenn man weiß, wie man dran ist mit ihm. Seine ganze Kunst besteht darin, daß man nicht wissen kann, wie man dran ist mit ihm. Aber wenn einer immerfort inhaltloses Zeug redet, weiß niemand, wie man dran ist mit ihm — kein Mensch weiß es. Und seine große Kunst besteht darinnen, daß er eigentlich keine Gedanken hat. Die Kunst kann er nämlich ausüben, weil er selber auch nicht weiß, wie er dran ist.
So sind eben die Dinge heute. Aber das war noch nicht der Fall vor einigen Jahren. Vor zwei, drei Jahren mußte man immer sagen: Es muß etwas geschehen, ehe es zu spät ist. Heute ist es nach dieser Richtung zu spät. Es ist gar nichts zu sagen. Es ist zu spät - es ist zu spät. Heute kommt es darauf an, daß tüchtige Leute wiederum an die Oberfläche der Dinge kommen. Das ist alles, was ich Ihnen sagen kann. Denn, nicht wahr, Sie können ja Verträge schließen, so viel Sie wollen, zwischen Deutschland und Rußland; heraus kommt dabei nichts. Es kommt ja nicht darauf an, daß man Verträge schließt, sondern wirtschaftliches Leben entfaltet.
Nehmen Sie den Stinnes-Konzern. Dieser ist ein Beispiel dafür. Glauben Sie einen einzigen Augenblick, daß der Stinnes irgendwie mit, sagen wir zum Beispiel der deutschen Arbeiterschaft etwas machen könnte? Das werden Sie doch nicht glauben! Das ist ja ausgeschlossen. Also er ist wirtschaftlicher Großunternehmer, der sich dadurch, daß er lange Zeit geschickt gewirtschafter hat mit seinen reinen Devisen, heraufgebracht hat. Er weiß sonst nichts, als wie man sich auf diese Weise heraufbringt. Er weiß sonst nichts. Nicht wahr, jetzt sehen einfach sehr viele Leute, daß mit der Regierung nichts zu machen ist. Die kann so viele Verträge schließen, als nur irgend möglich sind, es kommt nichts dabei heraus im wirtschaftlichen Leben. Nun sagen diese Leute: Wenn das der Stinnes ohne die Regierung macht, wird es vielleicht gescheiter sein. Aber sie haben keinen anderen Grund, als daß der Stinnes sowohl in Deutschland wie in Frankreich geschickt arbeitet. Das ist der einzige Grund. Aber, meine Herren, wenn Sie die Stinnes-Abkommen studieren, dann müssen Sie sehen, daß, wenn sie realisiert werden sollen, sie finanziert werden müssen. Dasjenige, was der Stinnes beabsichtigt, muß ja finanziert werden. Nun ist es heute schon ungefähr so, daß, wenn man diese Dinge finanzieren sollte, man wirklich fast alle Wälder in Österreich abrasieren müßte! Nicht wahr, man kann sagen, man wird das tun, aber man kann es nie eigentlich ausführen. Es geht nicht. Sobald man die Dinge daraufhin ansieht, wie man sie ausführen soll, da geht es nicht mehr. Nun, die Leute haben gesehen: Mit den Regierungsverträgen geht es nicht; da kommt kein wirtschaftliches Leben heraus. Der Stinnes macht es ohne die Regierung; so wird es auf diese Weise gehen. — Es wird auf diese Weise auch nicht gehen. Der Stinnes macht es natürlich mit Großkapitalisten. Aber es kommt auch da nichts weiter heraus. Es gibt keine Möglichkeit, das zu realisieren, denn selbst der Stinnes kann nicht die Finanzkräfte finden, um da irgend etwas zu realisieren. Also ist es auch nichts.
Es ist ja für denjenigen, der bloß ein Feuilleton oder einen Zeitungsartikel überhaupt schreiben will, ganz interessant, dieses ungeheuer interessante Treiben zu beobachten, wie der da mit allerlei Zahlenreihen aufspielt. Ja, meine Herren, Leitartikel oder Feuilletons schreiben, das legt heute keine Verpflichtung, keine Verantwortung auf. Das kann man ganz nett machen, denn, ich bitte Sie, lesen Sie jetzt einmal — Sie heben sich vielleicht die Zeitungen nicht auf -, aber lesen Sie jetzt einmal die Artikel, die im Jahre 1912 geschrieben sind, und vergleichen Sie sie mit den Artikeln derselben Zeitung von heute, so werden Sie ein kurioses Bild finden. Nicht wahr, Zeitungsartikel, die verfliegen; um die kümmert sich später kein Mensch. Daher kann man natürlich da allerlei interessante Betrachtungen anstellen. Aber wer unter Verantwortlichkeit redet, wer nicht Zeitungsartikel in den Tag hinein fabriziert, sondern unter Verantwortung reden will, kann natürlich nicht in den Tag hinein reden. Der weiß, daß das alles Wischiwaschi ist. So sind eben die Dinge einmal, und so kann man über alle Dinge reden. Es ist eben trostlos, wenn die Leute keine neuen Gedanken haben. Und was wir vor allen Dingen brauchen, das sind neue Gedanken. Wenn wir nicht neue Gedanken kriegen, so geht alles in die Binsen — ich weiß nicht, ob man hier auch so sagt -, alles geht in die Binsen. Eine Zahnbürste kostet jetzt in Deutschland 215 Mark. Nun ja, aber was sind 215 Mark? Das ist ja kein Franken; also ist das eine billige Zahnbürste. Aber, nicht wahr, woher soll man schließlich die 215 Mark nehmen? Und entsprechend teurer sind ja alle anderen Dinge. Einen Regenschirm kann sich ja heute überhaupt kein Mensch mehr leisten. Also da ist nichts zu machen.
Sehen Sie, als ich in Wien war, bin ich einmal in einem Auto gefahren, weil ich recht rasch wohin fahren mußte. Es war an einem Feiertag, und ich mußte rasch noch wohin fahren. Es war ungefähr so weit, als wenn ich von hier nach Dornach hinüber fahre, nur nach Dornach, Oberdornach, nicht weiter. Ja, meine Herren, als ich fragte, was es kostet, waren es 3600 Kronen! Das ist heute das Zehnfache; heute würde es 36 000 Kronen kosten für dieselbe Fahrt. An diesen Dingen sehen Sie das Kopflose, weil es einem ja jeden Tag entgegentritt. Aber dieses Kopflose ist in allen übrigen Dingen auch drinnen; da sehen es die Leute nur nicht. Was machen denn die Leute? Schließlich, wenn ein Auto für eine kurze Strecke 36 000 Kronen kostet, so müßten eben die Leute 500 000-Kronen-Noten drucken, und wenn es 360 000 Kronen kostet, so würde man halt 1-Million-Kronen-Noten drucken! Aber damit ändert man die Verhältnisse doch gar nicht! Es ändert sich doch gar nichts, als daß immer wieder diejenigen Leute, die heute etwas Geld in der Tasche haben, morgen nichts mehr haben, und diejenigen, die geschickt spekuliert haben, die haben morgen das Doppelte. Aber damit hat man doch wirklich nichts getan, daß man in Geld spekuliert. Damit ist nichts in der Welt getan. Es wird eigentlich mit dem Devisenhandel in der Valuta nichts erreicht, als daß jeder ohne Gedanken Geld erreichen kann, ohne Arbeit Geld erreichen kann. Wenn natürlich die Arbeit aufhört in der Welt und überwuchert wird von der Devisenspekulation, dann geht alles eben in die Brüche. Es ist also auf diese Weise nichts zu wollen. Es kommt ganz und gar darauf an, daß man endlich darauf kommt, daß wiederum Menschen da sein müssen, die etwas von der Welt verstehen, die wirklich etwas von der Welt verstehen. Anders geht es nicht.
Aber dazu muß man eben in der Schule anfangen. Das ist dringend notwendig, daß man in der Schule schon anfängt. Denn da ist notwendig, daß man wirklich etwas von den Dingen versteht. Ich habe neulich in einem Schulbuch gelesen; da wird eine Rechnungsaufgabe empfohlen für die Lehrer. Diese Rechnungsaufgabe will ich Ihnen einmal angeben, und Sie werden sagen: Das ist eine Lappalie. Aber es ist eine allerwichtigste Sache von der Welt, diese Rechnungsaufgabe, die in diesem Schulbuch angegeben wird. Es ist diese:
Es gibt einen Menschen von 5 2/12 Jahren
einen anderen Menschen von 18 7/12 Jahren
einen anderen Menschen von 36 4/12 Jahren
einen anderen Menschen von 33 5/12 Jahren.
Wieviel Jahre haben diese vier Menschen zusammen?
Das sollen nun die Kinder ausrechnen! Das wird in dem Schulbuch empfohlen. Nun frage ich Sie, meine Herren: Wenn die Kinder das ausrechnen — die Kinder rechnen brav das aus, das sind dann im ganzen 173 6/12 Jahre -, was bedeuten diese 173 6/12 Jahre? Was sind die in der Welt? Wer kommt jemals in die Lage, das ausrechnen zu müssen? Wenn Sie sich überlegen, daß das irgend die geringste Bedeutung haben sollte, so muß das so sein, daß die erste Persönlichkeit gerade stirbt, wenn die zweite in dem Momente geboren wird, und die zweite hier stirbt, wenn die dritte geboren wird und so weiter; dann weiß man wenigstens, wieviel Jahre verflossen sind von der Geburt des ersten bis zum Tode des letzten. Aber das wird niemals vorkommen in der Welt, daß man das überhaupt ausrechnet. Also denken Sie sich, wenn das Kindern geboten wird, so ist das doch die wesenloseste Rechnerei, die man den Kindern vormachen kann. Das ist ja ganz wesenlose Rechnerei! Und die Kinder müssen ihren Verstand dazu verwenden, unwirkliches Zeug zu rechnen.
Also der Kerl, der das ausgedacht hat, der hat einmal gehört, daß man zusammenrechnen kann. Aber nehmen wir einen an, der zu einer bestimmten Zeit geboren wird, bis 14 1/2 Jahre in die Schule ging; dann hat er eine Lehrzeit von 5 1/2 Jahren; dann geht er noch 3 Jahre auf Wanderschaft; dann heiratet er, hat nach 4 Jahren einen Sohn, und als er stirbt, ist sein Sohn 22 Jahre alt. Wenn man diese Dinge zusammenzählt, kriegt man das Lebensalter des Menschen heraus: 49 Jahre. Das ist eine Realität, eine Wirklichkeit. Solche Rechnungsaufgaben soll man den Kindern geben. Das führt sie ins Leben hinein, wenn man ihnen diese Rechnung gibt aus dem Leben heraus. Und das überträgt sich auf alle Verhältnisse.
Sonst sitzen die Kinder eine Stunde lang über einer Rechnung, die eigentlich gar nicht auszuführen ist im Leben. Aber wenn Sie das heute einem Menschen sagen — ja, den schockiert das nicht! Der sagt: Das kommt ja nicht darauf an, daß die Kinder an dem oder jenem das Rechnen lernen. Der findet das gar nicht furchtbar wichtig. Aber das ist in erster Linie wichtig! Denn wenn ein solches Strohzeug in den Schulbüchern steht, reden die Leute, die aus solchen Schulbüchern unterrichtet werden, später in der Welt nur Unsinn, unwichtiges Zeug. Daraus ersehen Sie, daß es gar nicht irgendein Wischiwaschi ist, wenn man heute von einer Erneuerung des Erziehungswesens spricht. In dem Erziehungswesen, von dem ich rede, versucht man alles aus der Wirklichkeit heraus zu machen, von dem untersten Anfang an, so daß die Menschen in die Wirklichkeit hineinwachsen. Auf diese Dinge kommt es halt an. Und deshalb kann man sagen: Man kann ganz überzeugt sein, daß, wenn die Leute so fortmachen, wie sie es jetzt machen, so wird eben die alte Geschichte weitergehen; da können sie machen, was sie wollen. Da können sie noch so viel neue Zeitungen gründen — wenn sie aus demselben Geist heraus geschrieben werden, ist alles nur einfach Chaos. Deshalb ist es so wichtig, sich heute mit dem zu beschäftigen, was wiederum denkende Menschen macht, damit es nicht solche Schulbücher und solche Lehrer in der Schule gibt, die das (die erste Aufgabe aus dem Schulbuch) zusammenrechnen.
Und so ist es auch im andern Unterricht. So lernen die Leute Sprachunterricht, so lernen die Leute Naturunterricht, und so zuletzt sozialen Unterricht. Alles, alles außerhalb der Wirklichkeit!
Ich habe Ihnen erzählt: In England erhält man, wenn man «Master of Arts» wird, von der Universität dort ein mittelalterliches Gewand — das ist eine mittelalterliche Gewohnheit. Das war wenigstens vor Jahrhunderten eine Realität, hat etwas bedeutet. Aber heute bedeutet es nichts, wenn einer Regierungsrat oder so etwas ist; es bedeutet nichts. Das ist der Unterschied. In den Ländern, die eine Revolution durchgemacht haben, ist es auch nicht besser geworden, gar nicht besser geworden. Sie müssen sich klar machen, es kommt alles darauf an, daß einmal Erziehung und Unterricht von Grund auf geändert wird. Das ist das, was notwendig ist.
Hat vielleicht sonst noch jemand eine Frage, die Sie sozial interessiert?
Frage: In bezug auf Blinddarmoperationen: Es wird behauptet, daß es gar nicht schädlich sei für die Gesundheit des Menschen, wenn Organe herausoperiert werden, einfach fortgenommen werden. Es ist auffallend, daß heute so oft Organe herausgeschnitten werden bei den Operationen, und da von der Wichtigkeit der inneren Organe gesprochen worden sei, möchte der Fragesteller wissen, wie es damit sei, wenn diese Organe dann fehlen.
Dr. Steiner: Diese Frage kann ich Ihnen erst beantworten, wenn wir noch etwas anderes besprochen haben. Das will ich nun ganz gern tun.
Weitere Frage: In den letzten Vorträgen wurde über die Einwirkung der Planeten auf den Menschen gesprochen; kann darüber noch etwas mehr gehört werden?
Dr. Steiner: Das führt uns alles darauf. Ich werde also heute anfangen, diese Fragen zu beantworten und sehen, wie weit wir kommen. Ich will Ihnen zunächst eine Geschichte erzählen, die Sie aufmerksam machen kann auf dasjenige, was wir jetzt weiter als Wissen, als Erkenntnis verfolgen wollen. Es war Anfang der neunziger Jahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts — also es ist jetzt vielleicht dreißig oder einunddreißig Jahre her —, da hat eine nordamerikanische Handels- und Transportgesellschaft, eine amtliche Handels- und Transportgesellschaft einen Kongreß abgehalten, und zu diesem Kongreß war auch eine Finanzgröße eingeladen: William Windom hat der Mann geheißen. Der war tatsächlich ein recht gescheiter Mensch im Sinne der Leute, die eben da zusammengekommen sind, also jemand, dem man geradezu ansah, daß er eine Kapazität war. Und man hat erwartet, daß er auf diesem Handels- und Transportkongreß eine Rede hält. Die hat er auch gehalten. Diese Rede begann so, daß er sagte: Wir brauchen eine Reform unserer gesamten Handels- und Transportverhältnisse, denn innerhalb dieser Handels- und Transportverhältnisse, wie wir sie heute haben, da ist etwas Ungesundes. Und nun ging er dazu über, den Leuten in einer kurzen Rede zu erörtern, was das Geld ist, was das Geld bedeutet -- es waren natürlich nur so kurze Andeutungen, was das Geld bedeute. Er sagte: Ja, meine Herren, ich habe Ihnen jetzt auseinandergesetzt volkswirtschaftliche Sachen. Aber es kommt darauf an, daß man auch einsieht, daß das Ganze nicht geht. Mag das Geld noch so durch die Verkehrswege dahinrollen, von Hand zu Hand gehen, das macht nicht dasjenige aus, was eigentlich eine Volkswirtschaft gesund macht. Denn dasjenige, was eine Volkswirtschaft gesund macht, das sind die moralischen Begriffe, die die Leute haben. Und ohne daß die moralischen Begriffe durch die Verkehrswege gehen und das Geld so zirkuliert, daß auch moralische Begriffe damit verbunden sind, ohne das kommen wir nicht weiter. —- So sagte er. Und er sagte weiter: Wenn unmoralische Begriffe im Verkehrsleben und im Wirtschaftsleben drinnen sind, da ist es geradeso, wie wenn Gift durch die menschlichen Adern rollt und das Blut ungesund macht. Alles dasjenige, was an Geld durch die Verkehrswege und durch das Wirtschaftsleben geht, wenn nicht zugleich moralische Begriffe, sondern unmoralische Begriffe durchgehen, ist geradeso, wie wenn Gift durch die Adern geht und der Mensch durch dieses Gift zur Erkrankung getrieben wird, denn das rächt sich. So wird der Wirtschaftskörper krank, wenn Gift, das heißt unmoralische Begriffe, durch seine Adern getrieben wird.
Nun fiel den Leuten auf, die bei seiner Rede waren, daß er etwas grau wurde, als er dieses Bild brauchte von seinen Adern und das auf das Wirtschaftsleben anwendete. Und außerdem, man wunderte sich darüber, daß der Mensch, der früher immer bloß davon geredet hatte, was im Wirtschaftsleben ist und was Finanzen sind — so hat er ja auch angefangen -, nun plötzlich dieses eigentlich ganz schöne Bild brauchte, das er noch im einzelnen ausgeführt hat. Er hat es so beschrieben, wie das durch das ganze Blut geht. Dieses plötzliche Beschreiben der moralischen Begriffe, das war wie ein Abspringen vom Thema. Und wie er den Satz ausgesprochen hat: Das ist im Wirtschaftsleben so, daß dann ein Gift durch die Adern des wirtschaftlichen Verkehrs geht - fällt er um. Der Schlag hat ihn getroffen! Und er ist tot.
Nun, sehen Sie, das ist eines von jenen Naturexperimenten, von denen ich Ihnen oftmals gesprochen habe, an denen man viel lernen kann; denn da ist es nämlich mit Händen zu greifen, was vorgegangen ist. Der Mensch ist natürlich nicht von der Rede getötet worden, denn da hat er sich nicht so furchtbar aufgeregt. Der Mensch wäre selbstverständlich in dem Momente, in welchem er irgendwo etwas anderes getan hätte, auch vom Schlage getroffen worden. Die Bedingungen lagen in ihm. Also ich werde keinen Moment behaupten, daß er vom Schlag getroffen worden wäre, weil er die Rede gehalten hat. Das ist ganz gewiß nicht der Fall. Vielleicht ist es durch die Aufregung eine Stunde früher eingetreten. Das kann ja kommen. Aber jedenfalls ist das längst veranlagt gewesen in ihm. Es lag in ihm. Er wäre vom Schlag auch anderswo getroffen worden. Aber das andere, was der Fall ist, das ist, daß er plötzlich von seinem Thema abspringt, aber noch auf eine ganz logische Weise, und seinen eigenen Zustand, der dazumal in ihm vorgegangen ist, schildert, mitten aus seinem Thema heraus. Also denken Sie sich, der Mensch steht vor seinen Zuhörern und redet ihnen pflichtgemäß über ein ganz wirtschaftliches Thema. Plötzlich springt er ab, in dem Momente, wo er etwas grau wird, und schildert, was in ihm vor sich geht! Nur, daß er Rücksicht nimmt auf seine wirtschaftliche Rede. Denn das, was er da geschildert hat, das war sein eigener Zustand vor dem Tod, und zu dem ist er abgesprungen. Daß er so seine Rede eingerichtet hat, das war eine Folge seines Zustandes. Und aus einer solchen Sache kann man ungeheuer viel lernen. Denn sie kommt sonst auch vor, wenn auch nicht in dieser krassen Weise.
Und jetzt nehmen wir einmal an, es wäre passiert, daß dem Manne der Faden ausgegangen wäre. Nun, ich habe mehr als einmal Redner erlebt, denen der Faden einer Rede ausgegangen ist. Die haben dann gewöhnlich, während sie vorher stolz dagestanden waren, eine Bewegung gemacht, und hinuntergeschielt - sie hatten vorher ihren Zylinder vor sich hingetan: da war die Rede drunter! Da haben sie dann den Faden wieder gefunden. So etwas kommt ja vor. Ich habe einen Bürgermeister gesehen, der nach den ersten zehn Worten stecken blieb; da hat er seinen Klapphut genommen und hat dann dieRede wacker abgelesen! Nun, lesen hat er können. Wenn er das weiter geredet hätte, was ihm dazumal noch eingefallen wäre —nun ja, nicht wahr, dann wäre nichts herausgekommen; nur Kohl wäre herausgekommen.
Nun, dem William Windom, wie war es dem gegangen? Nicht wahr, der Schlag saß in ihm, war in ihm. Und ob einen nun gerade der Schlag trifft, und die Zustände, die dem Schlag vorangehen, da sind, oder ob man so ist, wie der betreffende Bürgermeister dazumal, der eben fortwährend von der Intelligenz ist, wo einen ein Schlag treffen kann, das macht schon keinen großen Unterschied in bezug auf die ganze Verfassung des Menschen. Nun, lesen konnte der Bürgermeister noch. Und der, den gleich nachher der Schlag traf, der konnte auch noch lesen, aber wo las der? Der las in seinem eigenen Körper. Der las das ab, was in seinem eigenen Körper vor sich ging.
Daraus können Sie aber sehen, daß das richtig ist, was man durch anthroposophische Geisteswissenschaft herauskriegt: daß wir eigentlich immer, wenn wir reden, etwas ablesen von unserem eigenen Körper. Natürlich, wir reden nach unseren äußeren Erfahrungen. Aber in das mischen wir dasjenige hinein, was wir in uns selber ablesen. Es ist nur nicht immer etwas so Trauriges, wie es vor sich geht, wenn uns gleich nachher der Schlag trifft. Aber eigentlich lesen wir das, was wir aussprechen, von unseren eigenen inneren Vorgängen im Körper ab. Jedesmal, und wenn Sie fünf Worte sagen, so ist das abgelesen, abgelesen von Ihren eigenen Körpervorgängen. Wenn Sie sich vor fünf Tagen etwas aufgeschrieben haben, und Sie nehmen Ihr Notizbuch heute heraus und lesen es ab, so lesen Sie es äußerlich ab. Wenn Sie es gedächtnismäßig aufschreiben, so ist es in Ihnen aufgeschrieben durch diejenige Schrift, die da innen ist - wir werden das jetzt nach und nach kennenlernen -, aber Sie lesen es von innen ab. Es ist ganz dasselbe, ob Sie von einem Buch oder von innen ablesen; da ist nur die Richtung, in der Sie hineinschauen, verschieden. Also es kommt tatsächlich nicht darauf an, ob Sie da in Ihrem Notizbuch sich notiert haben, sagen wir: 5 Nägel, 7 Heftel —, oder ob Sie sich das in Ihrem Gehirn notieren. Wenn Sie sich das im Buch notiert haben, so lesen Sie das ab von der Seite, wo Sie es notiert haben. Wenn in Ihnen aber dadurch, daß Sie vor fünf Tagen das notiert haben in Ihrem Gehirnkasten, sich da so eine Zelle, die das fünf bewirkt hat, verschlungen hat mit einer anderen Zelle, und das wieder mit einer anderen Zelle und dadurch das sieben bewirkt hat, und das wiederum sich verschlungen hat mit dem anderen: Heftel, so ist da eine ganze Schlingelei in Ihnen entstanden durch das, was Sie erlebt haben. Und unbewußt, ohne daß Sie es wissen, gucken Sie hin auf diese Schlingelei, die da in Ihnen entstanden ist und lesen das ab.
Das ist also das, worauf Sie geradezu geführt werden, wenn Sie ein solches eklatantes Beispiel haben wie dasjenige von diesem William Windom.
Ein anderes Beispiel habe ich Ihnen schon erzählt. Wir wollen es kurz noch einmal ins Gedächtnis zurückrufen, was der Arzt Ludwig Schleich erzählt, der das selber einmal erlebt hat. Zu ihm kam eines Tages furchtbar schnell ein Mensch gelaufen und sagte: Ich habe mich jetzt gerade mit der Feder in die Hand gestochen. Sehen Sie, es ist noch Tinte drin. Sie müssen mir die Hand mit dem ganzen Arm wegnehmen, denn ich müßte sonst an Blutvergiftung sterben. — Schleich, den ich gut kannte - er ist erst vor kurzem gestorben —, hat es mir selber erzählt. Er sagte zu dem Mann: Was fällt Ihnen denn ein? Ich kann doch als Chirurg nicht die Verantwortung übernehmen, Ihnen jetzt den Arm wegzunehmen! Das brauchen wir ja nur auszusaugen, das ist eine ganz unbedeutende Sache. Das ist ja ein Unsinn, daß ich Ihnen den Arm wegnehmen soll! - Der Mann erwiderte: Ja, aber dann sterbe ich! Sie müssen mir den Arm wegnehmen, ich sterbe sonst! — Da sagte Schleich: Ich kann es nicht machen, ich kann doch nicht für nichts und wieder nichts den Arm wegnehmen! — Ja nun, sagte der Patient, dann sterbe ich. — Schleich ließ ihn weggehen. Der Mann aber lief zu einem zweiten Arzt und wollte haben, daß der ihm den Arm abnehme. Der tat es natürlich, selbstverständlich, wiederum nicht, und der Mensch lief den ganzen Abend noch herum und sagte, er stirbt in der Nacht. Das hatte er dem Schleich ja auch gesagt.
Schleich war natürlich sehr besorgt um den Menschen; den Arm konnte er ihm natürlich nicht abnehmen, da gar kein Grund dazu vorlag, aber er hat sich gleich am nächsten Morgen erkundigt nach dem Manne, dem er die kleine Wunde ausgesaugt hatte. Das ist ja natürlich eine Kleinigkeit, wenn sich einer mit der Feder sticht; das ist durch Aussaugen bald draußen. Aber als der Schleich am nächsten Morgen hinkommt, da war der Mann tot, war gestorben! Nun, was sagte der Schleich? Der Mann ist an Autosuggestion gestorben, er hat sich den Tod eingeredet und ist an seinem eigenen Gedanken gestorben. Nicht wahr, man sagt da: Autosuggestion, Selbstsuggestion.
Ich sagte zu Schleich: Es kommt ja manches vor in der Autosuggestion, aber ein solcher Tod tritt nicht durch bloße Autosuggestion ein; das ist ein Unsinn. Aber der Schleich hat es nicht geglaubt.
Was ist aber in Wirklichkeit vorgegangen? Sehen Sie, nur derjenige, der den Menschen ganz durchschaut, kann in diesem Falle sehen, was wirklich vorgegangen ist. Nicht wahr, die Ärzte haben dann natürlich eine Sektion ausgeführt, haben gefunden, daß nicht im geringsten eine Blutvergiftung vorlag, und waren damit zufrieden: Tod durch Autosuggestion, weil gar nichts da war. Aber was geschehen ist, war, daß der Mann in Wirklichkeit auch von einem sehr schwer konstatierbaren Schlag getroffen worden war. Der Schlag hat sich aber schon tagelang vorbereitet, wie Sie sehen, denn das geschieht natürlich auch nicht auf einmal; der Schlag hat sich in den feineren Organen tagelang vorbereitet. Da hat er in seinem Innern gesehen — geradeso wie der Windom im letzten Momente sieht, wie das Gift durch seine Adern geht, das durch irgendwelche Nahrungsmittel hereingekommen ist —, da hat er gesehen: mein Körper ist im Absterben. Man kann äußerlich natürlich lange herumgehen, gar nicht verändert, im Innern bereitet sich der Tod schon vor. Das hat er gesehen, und dadurch ist er nervös geworden. Daß er sich in die Hand gestochen hat, war bloß die Nervosität. Er hätte sich gar nicht gestochen, wenn er nicht im Innern so nervös gewesen wäre. Weil er sich das nicht im Innern klar gemacht hat, hat er es vorher nicht gewußt. Jetzt, wo er sich gestochen hat, hat er gesagt, was er natürlich vorher nicht sagen konnte - es sagt auch keiner: ich fühle es in meinem Innern, daß der Tod herankommt, wenn er sich sonst als ein gesunder Mensch fühlt -, aber das hat er jetzt gesagt, was er eigentlich ganz falschen Ursachen zugeschrieben hat: Von dem Federstich sterbe ich! - Das war nicht eine Autosuggestion, denn er wäre in der nächsten Nacht auf jeden Fall gestorben. Nur ist er nervös geworden und hat sich die Feder in die Hand gestochen, und dadurch ist der Gedanke in einer ganz falschen Form bewußt geworden. Er hat die Ärzte konsultiert; aber selbst Schleich, der ein ganz gescheiter Mann war, glaubte nicht daran, glaubte, daß eine Autosuggestion vorliege. Er glaubte also, daß der Mann sich den Tod selber eingeredet hätte. Das ist aber ein Unsinn. Die Todesursache war da, und dieser Federstich war erst die Folge der Nervosität.
Daraus sehen Sie aber, daß viel im Innern vorgeht. Und wenn man diese Dinge nicht ordentlich studiert, so kommt man einfach nicht zur Klarheit über den Menschenursprung und über die Art und Weise, wie der Mensch schon gelebt hat in der uralten Zeit, wo die Ichthyosaurier und die Plesiosaurier und die MegÄtherien in einer dicklichen Sauce herumgeschwommen sind. Man kommt gar nicht darauf, wie das alles zusammenhängt, wenn man nicht wiederum zurückgeht und den Menschen ordentlich studiert. Man muß den Menschen ordentlich studieren.
Da aber muß man wieder viel zu Hilfe nehmen. In welchem Lebensalter sterben die allermeisten Menschen? Nun weiß man, daß die Säuglinge am häufigsten sterben in den allerersten Monaten, und allmählich nimmt die Sterblichkeit ab. Die Kinder bekommen noch ihre Kinderkrankheiten bis ungefähr zum Zahnwechsel. Und dann, wenn die Menschen mehr vernünftig wären, würden während der Schulzeit die wenigsten Krankheiten kommen — manche sind aber auch durch falsches Sitzen und so weiter gekommen. Zwischen dem siebenten und vierzehnten Jahre kommen die allerwenigsten Krankheiten. Dann fängt es wieder an. Aber es ist ein großer Unterschied zwischen den Krankheiten, die im allerersten Kindesalter auftreten und denen, die dann in der Geschlechtsreifezeit auftreten. Wenn wir die Krankheiten nehmen, die die Kinder ruinieren im allerersten Lebensalter, so ist es erstens immer eine ganz bestimmte Art von Bluteiterung. Das Blut wird eiterig. Das Kind, das zarte Lebensverhältnisse hat, stirbt eben sehr bald, und daher wird das nicht konstatiert, was aus jeder solchen Eiterung würde. Das Kind würde eben die Gelbsucht bekommen. Wenn ein erwachsener Mensch die Sache kriegt, die das Kind kriegt, so kommt es eben bis zu der Gelbsucht, die man sogar in den meisten Fällen glattweg heilen kann. Aber das Kind bringt es gar nicht bis zur Gelbsucht, sondern stirbt schon vorher.
Eine Krankheit, die sehr viele Kinder bekommen, ist Durchfall. Und da stellt sich das Wichtige heraus: Wenn man einen solchen Durchfall beim Kind ebenso kurieren will wie beim erwachsenen Menschen, erreicht man dadurch nichts. Man muß durch ein Klistier behandeln, nur durch äußere Eingriffe, höchstens noch durch Umschläge, jedenfalls nicht durch Eingeben von Arzneimitteln. Da erreicht man nichts beim Kinde. Und so ist es, daß die Kinder die bekannten Schwämmchen kriegen, die Blasen, die aufsprießen, namentlich auf der Zunge, später die bekannten Kinderkrankheiten, die aus dem Inneren heraufsprießen, wie wenn das ganze Innere blühen würde, Scharlach, Masern und so weiter. Gewiß, diese Dinge können die alten Leute auch bekommen, aber vorwiegend sind sie doch Kinderkrankheiten. Und die Neigung zu diesen Kinderkrankheiten hört auf, wenn der Mensch die Zähne bekommen hat. Da kommen diese Krankheiten, die also vorzugsweise auch von außen behandelt werden müssen und bei denen man den Kindern sorgfältigste Diät geben muß, in dieser Art nicht mehr vor.
Wenn das Kind eiteriges Blut hat, so kann man eigentlich niemals so recht sagen, woher das kommt. Es kommt eben aus dem tiefsten Inneren des Kindes heraus. —- Eine oftmals vorkommende Kinderkrankheit sind ja die Krämpfe, die sogenannten Kinderkrämpfe.
Ganz anders geartet sind die Krankheiten, welche die Menschen bekommen, wenn sie geschlechtsreif geworden sind. Sie brauchen sich ja nur an die Krankheiten zu erinnern, die die Mädchen bekommen, wenn sie geschlechtsreif werden: Bleichsucht zum Beispiel. Da geht die Geschichte direkt vom Blut aus; da weiß man, daß der Körper das Blut nicht ordentlich ernährt. Wenn das Kind Bluteiterung kriegt, wird das Blut eben schlecht gemacht von etwas anderem im Innern. Wenn das Mädchen bleichsüchtig wird, wird direkt das Blut krank. Das ist etwas anderes, ob im Innern etwas sitzt, das das Blut krank macht, oder ob direkt das Blut krank wird, wenn das Blut beim Mädchen oder Knaben dick wird und sie nachher Hämorrhoiden bekommen.
Das sind also Tatsachen, daß der Mensch zweimal in seinem Leben vorzugsweise Krankheitsursachen ausgesetzt ist: zuerst in seinen ersten sieben Jahren, und dann in seinen dritten sieben Lebensjahren. Zwischendrinnen ist der Mensch zur Gesundheit veranlagt. Das ist eine wichtige Sache, daß der Mensch nicht immer in gleicher Weise zu Krankheit und Gesundheit veranlagt ist, sondern sehr unterschiedlich zu den verschiedenen Zeiten, und diese Krankheiten haben auch zu diesen verschiedenen Zeiten ganz verschiedenen Charakter. Das kann uns eben noch tiefer hineinweisen in das menschliche Innere, als uns dasjenige hineinweist, was wir schon besprochen haben. Dadurch, daß man es so betrachtet, lernt man die Organe kennen.
Sehen Sie, auf der einen Seite haben Sie den Mr. William Windom, der plötzlich anfängt, als es zum Tode geht, von seinen Organen zu sprechen. Auf der anderen Seite verraten uns die Krankheiten, wenn wir sieim ersten Kindheitsalter und im späteren Kindheitsalter betrachten, daß da verschiedenes vorgeht in den aufeinanderfolgenden Lebensaltern. Aber wir müssen lesen lernen, was im Menschen vorgeht. Wir müssen lernen zu lesen. Wenn zum Beispiel das Kind Schwämmchen im Munde kriegt, oder wenn das Kind rote Stellen an verschiedenen Stellen des Körpers kriegt, müssen wir lernen zu lesen, was da im Innern vorgeht. Und dann erst kann man eine wirkliche Menschenkenntnis entwickeln, wenn man lernt zu lesen. Und so ist es schon einmal: Wenn Sie einfach den Menschen, wenn er tot ist, auf den Seziertisch legen und nun das einzelne Organ sich anschauen, was, wenn man es herausschneidet, keinen besonderen Einfluß hat, zum Beispiel die Milz — das ist solch ein Organ, das herausoperiert werden kann, wenn es krank wird, und der Mensch kann ja wirklich etwas von der Operation haben, er wird dann eine Zeitlang gesünder sein, als wenn er seine kranke Milz drinnen hat -, ja, meine Herren, wenn Sie sich einfach die Milz anschauen, nachdem sie herausoperiert worden ist, dann finden Sie eben nicht den Unterschied heraus zwischen der Milz und, sagen wir, dem Magen. Wenn man natürlich dem Menschen den ganzen Magen ausschneidet, so hat er es sehr schwer. Es geht ja auch fast nicht. Auf sehr lange Zeit wird ein solcher Mensch mit künstlichem Magen nicht mehr geheilt sein. Aber es gibt eben Organe, die nicht entfernt werden können, zum Beispiel die Lunge und so weiter, und am wenigsten das Gehirn — da gibt es einen Punkt, wenn Sie da nur mit einer Nadel hineinstechen und Sie treffen gerade diesen Punkt, dann fällt der Mensch sofort tot hin.
Dieses Organ hat zum Beispiel auch der Elefant. Wenn Sie da hineinstechen und gerade dieses Organ treffen - man braucht es gar nicht herauszuschneiden -, fällt dieses ganze große Tier tot hin. Sie können natürlich einem Elefanten, wenn Sie wollen, die Milz herausschneiden: er lebt noch Jahre. Da bekommen Sie den Unterschied. Es ist eben nicht so einerlei, ob Sie dem Menschen die Milz oder den Blinddarm herausschneiden, oder etwas anderes. Um das einzusehen, dazu ist aber notwendig, daß man den Menschen richtig studiert. Nun erinnern Sie sich, daß ich Ihnen gesagt habe: Diese Gehirnviecherchen, diese Zellen, die ich Ihnen da hingemalt habe für die Erinnerung, die sind beim Kind noch weich, lebendig, und erst allmählich verhärten sie, so daß diese Gehirnzellen erst in den ersten Kindesjahren, bis zum siebenten Jahre, verhärten müssen. Sie sind nämlich erst in der richtigen Verhärtung, wenn der Mensch durch den Zahnwechsel durchgegangen ist. Wenn nun der Mensch geschlechtsreif wird, dann werden nämlich die anderen Zellen, von denen ich Ihnen gesagt habe, daß sie sich durch das ganze Blut bewegen, später durch die Geschlechtsreife viel beweglicher — sie sind bis dahin wenigstens träge, und gehen träge durchs Blut bis zur Geschlechtsreife. Man hat zweimal Gelegenheit, krank zu werden: das eine Mal, wenn der Körper, eigentlich die Seele im Körper, sich Mühe geben muß, um die Gehirnzellen ordentlich steif zu machen bis zum siebenten Jahre hin. Auf der anderen Seite, wenn sie sich bei der Geschlechtsreife Mühe geben muß, um diese Tiere, die da herumschwimmen im Blute, beweglich zu machen.
Wenn man das äußerlich beschreiben wollte, könnte man sagen: Denken Sie sich, Sie bauen ein Haus und Sie verwenden einen Mörtel, der nicht richtig hart wird — es geht nicht. So ist es, wenn die Gehirnzellen nicht in der richtigen Weise erhärtet werden. Und das ist bei jenen Kindern der Fall, die diese oder jene Krankheit kriegen. Wir wollen diese Krankheitsursachen das nächste Mal noch weiter beschreiben. Nach der Geschlechtsreife hat man es zu tun mit einer ganzen Herde, riesigen Herde von Millionen solcher weißen Blutkörperchen. Die sind bis dahin träge, und wenn es eine richtige Herde wäre, eine Millionenherde, müßten schon sehr viele Hirten dahinter sein, die antreiben, damit sie fleißiger werden. Ja, dieses Antreiben muß da sein. Wenn es nicht da ist, kommt Bleichsucht heraus. Und so hängt es von diesen Dingen ab, daß im ersten Kindesalter der eine Ausgangspunkt ist für eine gewisse Art von Krankheiten, und im letzten Kindesalter, im Geschlechtsreifwerden, der andere Ausgangspunkt.
Aber so muß man den Menschen studieren, dann kommt man allmählich darauf, wie die Dinge zusammenhängen. Überhaupt, Sie können auch im sozialen Leben nichts machen, wenn Sie nicht diese Tatsachen der Naturwissenschaft kennen.
First Lecture
Good morning, gentlemen! Have you thought of anything else to ask?
The question is asked with regard to the political situation: whether the English are sincere in their dealings with Germany, or whether this is only a pretext, and the French are in fact working hand in hand with the English to destroy Germany; on the one hand, the French are trying to fight Germany through reparations, and on the other hand, there are the big capitalists. And the same is true now in Russia. On the one hand, it is well known that Germany has concluded an economic agreement with Russia; but now we read again that the French are also said to have concluded an economic agreement with Russia in order to possibly thwart the German agreement? – and what else are German affairs? Would the doctor perhaps be in a position to give us some hints?
Yes, you know, that is perhaps the reason why we have recently, I would say, out of a certain agreement, talked more about scientific matters, which is much smarter in the current situation than talking about political matters, because all these circumstances, all these matters that you have touched upon, actually lead nowhere. In reality, nothing will come of all these things. You only have to consider that the situation is such that, at present, basically no one knows what to do in the future. And all these things that are happening are actually just products of fear, real products of fear. Much more important than all these things, which are simply based on the fact that England does not know what to do at the moment—because on the one hand it cannot yet quite separate itself from France, since the opinion in England is always that promises must be kept—much more important to people are completely different things. That is a general opinion there: promises must be kept. Whether this involves sincerity or insincerity is something that does not really concern the actual circumstances; it is a matter for individual people, whether they are sincere or insincere. But in public life, one can only say: the principle prevails that one must keep one's promises, one must play fair, that is, one must play decently. So, of course, England stands on the ground that one cannot separate from the old Entente. On the other hand, this basically contradicts the whole meaning that was associated with this war venture from the beginning. For this war was calculated to gradually shift production entirely to the West and suppress European, Eastern, and Central European production in order to have these as sales markets. That was actually the original intention. Production in Central Europe—and this would also have happened in Eastern Europe—had simply become too abundant for the people in the West. They did not want it that way.
Now, even in England, the opinion prevails that if Germany is completely suppressed, there will be no market for its products. They want to keep it going. The French, however, are acutely aware of their lack of money, of finances, of financial power in general. Above all, they want to use force to get something out of Germany again. Well, isn't that right, England is sitting between two stools. And so it just swings back and forth. Nothing special comes of it. Once they think they are hurting Germany too much, they do something here and there to improve the mood a little. Added to this are the Oriental affairs, where France and England are at loggerheads because England must push back the Turks at the present time, since it wants to rule the world at a stroke. That it takes the Christians under its protection—well, in reality it does that too; to what extent this is sincere need not be examined. But France does not attach any importance to this at present, as it wants above all to get its money in, and so it supports the Turks. Thus, in the Orient, the two powers are at loggerheads. So, basically, everything in the world today is in chaos in terms of big politics.
There is something else to consider. This is particularly evident in England at the moment. This brings us to the point that really matters. It is now very important that many people see what really matters. All the things that are being discussed are not what really matters. You see, what Lloyd George postulates, or whatever anyone else says, is not what matters, because it all misses the point – not consciously, because people believe they are talking about the facts, but they are not talking about the facts at all, they are talking past the facts.
But another thing is much more important. You see, there is now a great struggle in England over Lloyd George, whether he should stay or go. Why can't this man, who can utter the most beautiful words in the world, hold on to his position? He can't hold on because he no longer has a party that is large enough. He only has small parties. He can no longer hold on because he no longer has sufficiently large parties. If one wanted to replace Lloyd George now, one could not do so properly. One could continue to put a minister at the top, but he would very soon be removed again. And so it is impossible to replace Lloyd George with someone else. So he must be kept! And that is what the whole thing is based on. There is currently no new blood. Everywhere, you have to take the people you still know: yes, he was once something. But looking at someone to see if they understand anything, if they can do anything, if they have an overview of the situation, that is no longer available in anyone.
This is also no longer the case in the Social Democratic Party. It also only keeps its old bigwigs in place and does not allow new ones to come in. So everywhere, people have lost the opportunity to see whether someone understands something or not. And that is why we are forced to have old people who know nothing about the present in positions everywhere. Of course, this means that nothing can come of it anywhere! So today it doesn't matter whether someone belongs to this or that party and somehow gets into a position; what matters is that we bring about a time when there are people who understand the situation, who actually speak from the facts and don't always talk and act without regard for the facts. Every day, fewer and fewer people recognize what actually needs to be done. It's getting worse every day. And that's why, basically, it's completely pointless to say today: Yes, it would be smarter if the English did this, or the French did that, or the Germans or the Turks did this and that. — Isn't it true that whatever happens from old points of view is a thing that has no success at all?
Take any fact from the very last few days. One fact: Isn't it true that Germany has been suffering tremendously lately from so-called currency speculation? Schoolboys were already buying foreign currency, “making money in foreign currency.” It was like this: if someone had 50 marks, they would buy foreign currency, and the next day they would have 75 marks. You could earn an enormous amount through currency speculation. So what does the German government do? It passes a law—as you know, an emergency law has been passed against this currency speculation—so the government passes a law: currency speculation is to be controlled. Let's assume that the government is so clever in its institutions—which I don't believe yet—but let's assume that it can really speculate with foreign currency: it will then have favorable results. Let's assume that. Then there will be less currency trading in Germany in the coming weeks. As I said, it is no exaggeration to say that thirteen- and fourteen-year-old schoolboys have been speculating in foreign exchange. So let's assume that this will be undermined for a few weeks. What will happen? There will be a huge difference between what food and other essentials cost and what people will have to pay for them. So, for example, suppose a cigarette costs 7 marks in Germany today. Well, it will be bought. Why? Because currency speculation was there. It's true that an old man can't buy cigarettes today; young people buy them, those who earn a lot of money from all kinds of currency speculation. Now let's assume they no longer earn that money. Yes, now, in the next few days and weeks, no one will buy a good cigarette. This is just an example. Another point: Then it goes without saying that cigarette manufacturers will be forced to reduce wages again. And then you have this: things still have their old price, but no one can buy them. A new crisis is here. That is the next crisis that will come.
Everything that will come is made only from the very next moment. People only see the next thing, and that is that care is always taken in this way to ensure that one crisis flows into the next. In this way, it is impossible to achieve a result. It is quite impossible to get out of these chaotic circumstances today other than by having capable people again who can achieve some kind of result. The most important thing is that there are capable people again. And that is precisely the problem—as the current situation shows—no truly capable people are being brought in. So we must ensure that we once again have a time that attracts capable people. The old phrases are no longer working. Everyone uses the old phrases. That's why they have no value. If you pick up any newspaper today, regardless of which party it belongs to, you will read all kinds of things — you may like the fact that the newspaper speaks for a party to which you yourself belong — but the facts presented to you are of no value whatsoever. Nothing comes of it. So one can say that today it is almost a waste of time to concern oneself with all these things that are going on in the world as politics. Nothing comes of it! And if anything is to be done, it is only to educate capable people again. That is the only thing one can strive for, because no one knows anything today.
Ultimately, those who know the most are those who stand opposite the Europeans. The Turks, for example, know exactly what they want. The Japanese also know what they want. But they all want to promote their own culture—their own culture! And Europeans, of all people, don't care about their culture! And that is what makes it impossible today to say anything about politics. It's like when you sit down in a group and listen for a while, and you realize that people are just spouting empty phrases. You'll say to yourself: I'm not going to talk to them. — That's pretty much how it is with politics today.
You see, Lloyd George gave a speech a few days ago. If you want to express this speech figuratively and you take straws in which individual grains of wheat have been left, the image no longer applies; it must be completely threshed straw, the last grain of wheat must have been threshed out, then that is an image of the speech Lloyd George gave a few days ago. But nevertheless, I do not hesitate for a moment to say that it is the most significant speech a statesman has given in recent weeks. Because, you see, even if there is nothing left inside, the only thing that is inside is the fist. You can sense, even if he does not actually do it, how he has been banging on the table every few moments. He can do that. There is something inside the fist. But there is nothing in the words.
And so it is everywhere. I no longer read Wirth's speeches because I have had enough from the few lines at the front of the “Basler Nachrichten.” That gives you enough of an idea of the content, and you can see that what he said is nothing. So the whole business is absolutely hopeless. And so it is completely superfluous to get excited or dismayed about any side. That's the thing. So anyone who is honest and sincere about humanity today must actually say to themselves: It all depends on finding capable people who understand something about the world, who are capable of thinking, of really thinking.
Because, if you look at Lloyd George, he may well be the most capable of them all, but he has never had a thought. And it is precisely because he has no thoughts that he is able to hold his own. He can constantly float in this direction and that direction, and he actually talks nonsense. But as soon as he expresses a thought, the Unionist Party, or the Conservative Party, or the Labour Party can see where they stand. As soon as he expresses any thought, then you know where you stand with him. Then, of course, you cut him down when you know where you stand with him. His whole art consists in not letting anyone know where they stand with him. But when someone constantly talks nonsense, no one knows where they stand with him—no one knows. And his great skill lies in the fact that he actually has no thoughts. He can practice this skill because he himself doesn't know where he stands.
That's just how things are today. But that wasn't the case a few years ago. Two or three years ago, you always had to say: Something has to be done before it's too late. Today, it's too late in that regard. There's nothing to say. It's too late — it's too late. Today, it's important that capable people come to the surface again. That is all I can tell you. Because, you see, you can conclude as many treaties as you like between Germany and Russia; nothing will come of it. It is not a matter of concluding treaties, but of developing economic life.
Take the Stinnes Group. This is an example of this. Do you believe for a single moment that Stinnes could somehow do anything with, say, the German workforce? You don't believe that! That's out of the question. So he is a major economic entrepreneur who has made his fortune by skillfully managing his pure foreign exchange for a long time. He knows nothing else but how to make his fortune in this way. He knows nothing else. It's true that many people now see that nothing can be done with the government. It can conclude as many agreements as possible, but nothing will come of it in economic life. Now these people say: if Stinnes does it without the government, it might be smarter. But they have no other reason than that Stinnes works skillfully in both Germany and France. That is the only reason. But, gentlemen, if you study the Stinnes agreements, you will see that if they are to be realized, they must be financed. What Stinnes intends must be financed. Now, the situation today is such that if these things were to be financed, almost all the forests in Austria would have to be cleared! It is true that one can say one will do it, but one can never actually carry it out. It is not possible. As soon as one looks at how things should be carried out, it is no longer possible. Well, people have seen that it does not work with government agreements; no economic life comes out of it. Stinnes is doing it without the government; that is how it will work. — It won't work that way either. Stinnes is doing it with big capitalists, of course. But nothing will come of it there either. There is no way to realize it, because even Stinnes cannot find the financial resources to realize anything there. So it's nothing either.
It is quite interesting for those who simply want to write a feature article or a newspaper article to observe this tremendously interesting activity, how he plays with all kinds of series of numbers. Yes, gentlemen, writing editorials or feature articles does not impose any obligation or responsibility today. It can be quite enjoyable, because, I beg you, read now—you may not keep newspapers—but read now the articles written in 1912 and compare them with the articles in the same newspaper today, and you will find a curious picture. Isn't that right, newspaper articles that vanish; no one cares about them later. So, of course, one can make all kinds of interesting observations. But anyone who talks about responsibility, who doesn't just churn out newspaper articles day after day, but wants to talk about responsibility, cannot, of course, just talk day after day. They know that it's all wishy-washy. That's just the way things are, and that's how you can talk about everything. It's just depressing when people don't have any new ideas. And what we need above all else are new ideas. If we don't come up with new ideas, everything goes down the drain — I don't know if you say that here too — everything goes down the drain. A toothbrush now costs 215 marks in Germany. Well, yes, but what is 215 marks? It's not a franc, so it's a cheap toothbrush. But, really, where are you supposed to get 215 marks? And everything else is correspondingly more expensive. No one can afford an umbrella anymore. So there's nothing you can do about it.
You see, when I was in Vienna, I once took a car because I had to get somewhere quite quickly. It was a public holiday, and I had to get somewhere quickly. It was about as far as driving from here to Dornach, only to Dornach, Oberdornach, no further. Yes, gentlemen, when I asked how much it would cost, it was 3,600 crowns! Today that is ten times as much; today it would cost 36,000 crowns for the same trip. You can see the senselessness in these things because you encounter it every day. But this senselessness is also present in all other things; people just don't see it. What are people doing? After all, if a car costs 36,000 crowns for a short distance, people would have to print 500,000-crown notes, and if it costs 360,000 crowns, they would just print 1 million-crown notes! But that doesn't change the situation at all! Nothing changes except that the people who have some money in their pockets today will have nothing tomorrow, and those who have speculated cleverly will have twice as much tomorrow. But speculating with money really achieves nothing. It achieves nothing in the world. Foreign exchange trading actually achieves nothing except that anyone can obtain money without thinking, without working. If, of course, work ceases in the world and is overgrown by currency speculation, then everything will simply fall apart. So there is nothing to be gained in this way. It is absolutely essential that we finally realize that we need people who understand something about the world, who really understand something about the world. There is no other way.
But to achieve this, we have to start in school. It is urgently necessary to start in school. Because there it is necessary to really understand something about things. I recently read a schoolbook that recommends a math problem for teachers. I would like to share this math problem with you, and you will say: That's trivial. But this math problem in this schoolbook is one of the most important things in the world. It is this:
There is a person who is 5 2/12 years old
another person who is 18 7/12 years old
another person who is 36 4/12 years old
another person who is 33 5/12 years old.
How many years do these four people have together?
The children are supposed to calculate this! That is what the textbook recommends. Now I ask you, gentlemen: if the children calculate this—and the children dutifully calculate it, which comes to a total of 173 6/12 years—what do these 173 6/12 years mean? What are they in the real world? Who ever finds themselves in a position where they need to calculate this? If you think that this could have the slightest significance, then it must be the case that the first person dies just as the second is born, and the second dies when the third is born, and so on; then at least you know how many years have passed from the birth of the first to the death of the last. But that will never happen in the world, that anyone would ever calculate that. So imagine, if this is taught to children, it is the most pointless calculation you could possibly teach them. It is completely pointless calculation! And children have to use their minds to calculate unreal things.
So the guy who came up with this once heard that you can add things up. But let's assume that someone is born at a certain time, goes to school until the age of 14 1/2, then has an apprenticeship of 5 1/2 years, then travels for 3 years, then he gets married, has a son after 4 years, and when he dies, his son is 22 years old. If you add these things up, you get the age of the person: 49 years. That is a reality, a fact of life. Children should be given arithmetic problems like this. It introduces them to life when you give them these calculations from real life. And that applies to all circumstances.
Otherwise, children sit for an hour over a calculation that cannot actually be carried out in real life. But if you say that to someone today, it doesn't shock them! They say: It doesn't matter that children learn arithmetic from this or that. They don't think it's terribly important. But it is important in the first place! Because when such nonsense is in the schoolbooks, the people who are taught from such schoolbooks will later talk only nonsense, unimportant stuff, in the world. From this you can see that it is not just wishy-washy talk when people talk about a renewal of the education system today. In the education system I am talking about, we try to make everything out of reality, from the very beginning, so that people grow into reality. These things are what matter. And that is why we can say: we can be quite sure that if people continue as they are doing now, the old story will simply continue; they can do whatever they want. They can start as many new newspapers as they like — if they are written in the same spirit, it will all just be chaos. That is why it is so important today to concern ourselves with what makes people think, so that there are no schoolbooks and teachers in schools who add up (the first task from the schoolbook).
And it is the same in other lessons. This is how people learn language lessons, this is how people learn nature lessons, and finally social lessons. Everything, everything outside of reality!
I told you: in England, when you become a Master of Arts, you receive a medieval robe from the university there — that is a medieval custom. At least centuries ago, that was a reality; it meant something. But today, it means nothing if you are a government councilor or something like that; it means nothing. That is the difference. In countries that have undergone a revolution, things have not gotten any better, not at all. You must realize that it all depends on education and teaching being changed from the ground up. That is what is necessary.
Does anyone else have a question that interests you socially?
Question: Regarding appendectomy: It is claimed that it is not harmful to human health at all when organs are surgically removed, simply taken away. It is striking that organs are so often removed during operations today, and since the importance of internal organs has been discussed, the questioner would like to know what happens when these organs are missing.
Dr. Steiner: I can only answer this question once we have discussed something else. I would now like to do that.
Further question: In the last lectures, the influence of the planets on human beings was discussed; can we hear a little more about this?
Dr. Steiner: That brings us to the point. So today I will begin to answer these questions and see how far we get. First, I would like to tell you a story that may draw your attention to what we now want to pursue as knowledge, as insight. It was in the early 1990s — so perhaps thirty or thirty-one years ago — a North American trade and transport company, an official trade and transport company, held a congress, and a financial bigwig was also invited to this congress: his name was William Windom. He was actually a very intelligent person in the eyes of the people who had gÄthered there, someone who was clearly a capacity. And he was expected to give a speech at this trade and transport congress. And he did. He began his speech by saying: We need to reform our entire trade and transport system, because there is something unhealthy about the way it is organised today. He then went on to give a short speech explaining to the audience what money is and what it means – of course, he only touched briefly on what money means. He said: "Yes, gentlemen, I have now explained economic matters to you. But it is important to understand that the whole thing does not work. No matter how much money rolls through the channels of commerce, passing from hand to hand, that is not what actually makes an economy healthy. For what makes an economy healthy are the moral concepts that people have. And without moral concepts flowing through the channels of commerce and money circulating in such a way that moral concepts are also associated with it, we will not get anywhere. —- So he said. And he went on to say: When immoral concepts are present in commerce and economic life, it is just as if poison were flowing through human veins and making the blood unhealthy. Everything that passes through the channels of commerce and economic life in the form of money, if it is accompanied not by moral concepts but by immoral concepts, is just like poison flowing through the veins, causing the person to become ill, because it takes its revenge. In the same way, the economic body becomes ill when poison, that is, immoral concepts, is driven through its veins.
Now the people who were listening to his speech noticed that he turned a little gray when he used this image of his veins and applied it to economic life. And besides, people were surprised that the man who had always talked about what economic life is and what finance is—that's how he started, after all—now suddenly used this actually quite beautiful image, which he explained in detail. He described it as flowing through the whole blood. This sudden description of moral concepts was like a departure from the topic. And as he uttered the sentence: “In economic life, it is like a poison flowing through the veins of economic traffic” — he collapsed. The stroke had struck him! And he was dead.
Well, you see, this is one of those natural experiments I have often told you about, from which one can learn a great deal; for here one can see with one's own eyes what happened. Of course, the man was not killed by the speech, for he did not get so terribly upset. The man would, of course, have been struck down at the moment he did something else somewhere else. The conditions were within him. So I will not claim for a moment that he was struck down because he gave the speech. That is certainly not the case. Perhaps it happened an hour earlier because of the excitement. That can happen. But in any case, it had long been predisposed in him. It was in him. He would have had a stroke somewhere else too. But the other thing that happened was that he suddenly deviated from his topic, but in a very logical way, and described his own state of mind at that moment, right in the middle of his speech. So imagine, this man is standing in front of his audience and dutifully talking to them about a purely economic topic. Suddenly, at the moment when he becomes a little gray, he jumps off and describes what is going on inside him! Only that he takes his economic speech into consideration. For what he has described there was his own state before death, and that is what he has jumped to. The fact that he structured his speech in this way was a consequence of his state. And one can learn an enormous amount from such a thing. For it also happens in other cases, albeit not in such a blatant manner.
And now let us suppose that the man had lost his train of thought. Well, I have seen speakers lose their train of thought more than once. They usually made a movement, whereas before they had stood there proudly, and glanced down—they had placed their top hat in front of them beforehand: the speech was underneath it! Then they found their train of thought again. Such things happen. I saw a mayor who got stuck after the first ten words; he took his folding hat and then bravely read out the speech! Well, he could read. If he had continued to speak whatever came to mind at the time—well, nothing would have come of it; only cabbage would have come out.
Well, William Windom, how did he fare? The blow was in him, wasn't it? And whether the blow strikes you right now, and the conditions that precede the blow are there, or whether you are like the mayor in question at the time, who is constantly aware of where a blow might strike you, it makes no great difference in terms of the overall constitution of the human being. Well, the mayor could still read. And the one who was struck immediately afterwards could still read, but where did he read? He read in his own body. He read what was going on in his own body.
From this you can see that what anthroposophical spiritual science reveals is correct: that whenever we speak, we are actually reading something from our own body. Of course, we speak according to our external experiences. But we mix in what we read within ourselves. It's just that it's not always something as sad as what happens when we are struck immediately afterwards. But actually, we read what we say from our own inner processes in the body. Every time, even if you say five words, it is read from your own bodily processes. If you wrote something down five days ago and you take out your notebook today and read it, you read it externally. If you write it down from memory, it is written down inside you by the writing that is there – we will learn about this gradually – but you read it from within. It is exactly the same whether you read from a book or from within; only the direction in which you look is different. So it really doesn't matter whether you have written down in your notebook, say, 5 nails, 7 staples — or whether you have written it down in your brain. If you have written it down in the book, you read it from the page where you wrote it down. But if, because you wrote that down in your brain five days ago, a cell that caused the five has become entangled with another cell, and that in turn with another cell, causing the seven, and that in turn has become entangled with the other: notebook, then a whole tangle has arisen in you through what you have experienced. And unconsciously, without you knowing it, you look at this entanglement that has arisen within you and read it off.
So that is what you are led to when you have such a striking example as that of William Windom.
I have already told you another example. Let's briefly recall what the doctor Ludwig Schleich, who experienced this himself, recounts. One day, a person came running up to him at tremendous speed and said: I have just stabbed myself in the hand with a pen. Look, there's still ink in it. You have to amputate my hand and the whole arm, otherwise I'll die of blood poisoning.“ Schleich, whom I knew well – he died recently – told me this himself. He said to the man: ”What are you thinking? As a surgeon, I can't take responsibility for amputating your arm now! We just need to suck it out, it's a very minor thing. It's nonsense that I should amputate your arm! The man replied: “Yes, but then I'll die! You have to amputate my arm, otherwise I'll die!” Schleich said: “I can't do it, I can't amputate your arm for nothing!” “Well then,” said the patient, “I'll die.” Schleich let him go. But the man ran to a second doctor and wanted him to amputate his arm. Of course, the second doctor didn't do it either, and the man ran around all evening saying he would die that night. He had told Schleich the same thing.
Schleich was naturally very concerned about the man; of course, he couldn't amputate his arm, as there was no reason to do so, but the very next morning he inquired about the man whose small wound he had sucked out. It's a minor thing, of course, when someone pricks themselves with a pen; it can be removed quickly by suction. But when Schleich arrived the next morning, the man was dead, he had died! Well, what did Schleich say? The man died of autosuggestion, he talked himself into death and died of his own thoughts. Isn't that right, they say: autosuggestion, self-suggestion.
I said to Schleich: Many things can happen with autosuggestion, but such a death does not occur through mere autosuggestion; that is nonsense. But Schleich did not believe it.
But what really happened? You see, only someone who understands human nature completely can see what really happened in this case. Of course, the doctors then performed an autopsy, found that there was no sign of blood poisoning whatsoever, and were satisfied with that: death by autosuggestion, because there was nothing there. But what had happened was that the man had in fact been struck by a blow that was very difficult to detect. But the stroke had been developing for days, as you can see, because of course it doesn't happen all at once; the stroke had been developing in the finer organs for days. He saw it inside himself — just as Windom sees at the last moment how the poison is coursing through his veins, having entered his body through some food — he saw that his body was dying. Of course, one can walk around for a long time without any outward change, but inside, death is already preparing itself. He saw this, and it made him nervous. The fact that he pricked himself in the hand was merely a result of his nervousness. He would not have pricked himself if he had not been so nervous inside. Because he did not realize this inside, he did not know it beforehand. Now that he has stabbed himself, he has said what he could not say before, of course – no one says: I feel inside that death is approaching when they otherwise feel healthy – but now he has said what he actually attributed to completely false causes: I am dying from the pen prick! This was not autosuggestion, because he would have died the next night anyway. He just got nervous and pricked himself with the pen, and that made him consciously aware of the thought in a completely wrong form. He consulted the doctors, but even Schleich, who was a very intelligent man, did not believe it, believing that it was autosuggestion. So he believed that the man had talked himself into death. But that is nonsense. The cause of death was there, and this feÄther prick was only the result of nervousness.
From this you can see that a lot is going on inside. And if you don't study these things properly, you simply cannot gain clarity about the origin of humankind and about the way humans lived in ancient times, when ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and megÄtheres swam around in a thick sauce. You cannot figure out how it all fits together unless you go back and study humans properly. You have to study humans properly.
But here you have to resort to a lot of help again. At what age do most people die? We know that infants die most frequently in the first few months, and mortality gradually decreases. Children still get their childhood diseases until about the time they lose their baby teeth. And then, if people were more sensible, very few illnesses would occur during school age — but some are also caused by incorrect sitting and so on. Between the ages of seven and fourteen, very few illnesses occur. Then it starts again. But there is a big difference between the illnesses that occur in early childhood and those that occur during puberty. If we take the illnesses that ruin children in early childhood, the first thing to note is that they are always a very specific type of blood poisoning. The blood becomes purulent. Children who live in delicate circumstances die very quickly, and therefore it is not possible to determine what would become of such poisoning. The child would develop jaundice. When an adult contracts the same disease as a child, it leads to jaundice, which in most cases can be cured quite easily. But the child does not even reach the stage of jaundice, but dies before that.
One illness that many children get is diarrhea. And this is where the important point becomes clear: if you want to cure such diarrhea in a child in the same way as in an adult, you will achieve nothing. You have to treat it with an enema, only with external interventions, at most with compresses, but in any case not by administering medication. That will achieve nothing in a child. And so it is that children get the familiar little sponges, the blisters that sprout, especially on the tongue, and later the familiar childhood diseases that sprout from within, as if the whole interior were blooming, scarlet fever, measles, and so on. Certainly, older people can also get these things, but they are predominantly childhood diseases. And the tendency to these childhood diseases ceases when the person has grown teeth. Then these diseases, which must therefore be treated primarily from the outside and for which children must be given the most careful diet, no longer occur in this form.
If a child has purulent blood, it is actually impossible to say where it comes from. It simply comes from the deepest innermost part of the child. —- A common childhood disease is convulsions, known as infantile convulsions.
The illnesses that people get when they reach sexual maturity are of a completely different nature. You only need to think of the illnesses that girls get when they reach sexual maturity: anemia, for example. In this case, the problem originates directly from the blood; we know that the body is not nourishing the blood properly. When a child gets blood poisoning, the blood is made bad by something else inside. When a girl becomes anemic, the blood itself becomes diseased. It is one thing if there is something inside that makes the blood diseased, and another if the blood itself becomes diseased when the blood of girls or boys becomes thick and they subsequently develop hemorrhoids.
So these are facts: that humans are particularly susceptible to causes of illness twice in their lives: first in their first seven years, and then in their third seven years. In between, humans are predisposed to health. It is important to note that humans are not always predisposed to illness and health in the same way, but very differently at different times, and these illnesses also have very different characteristics at these different times. This can give us an even deeper insight into the human interior than what we have already discussed. By looking at it this way, we learn about the organs.
You see, on the one hand you have Mr. William Windom, who suddenly starts talking about his organs when he is dying. On the other hand, when we look at illnesses in early childhood and later childhood, they reveal to us that different things happen at different stages of life. But we have to learn to read what is going on inside the human being. We must learn to read. For example, when a child gets sponges in its mouth, or when a child gets red spots on different parts of its body, we must learn to read what is going on inside. And only then can we develop a real knowledge of human nature, when we learn to read. And so it is: if you simply lay a person on the dissecting table after they have died and look at the individual organs, which, when removed, have no particular influence, for example the spleen — this is an organ that can be removed surgically when it becomes diseased, and the person can really benefit from the operation, they will be healthier for a while than if they had their diseased spleen inside them — yes, gentlemen, if you simply look at the spleen after it has been removed, you will not find any difference between the spleen and, say, the stomach. Of course, if you remove a person's entire stomach, they will have a very hard time. It's almost impossible. For a very long time, such a person with an artificial stomach will not be cured. But there are organs that cannot be removed, for example, the lungs and so on, and least of all the brain — there is a point where, if you just prick it with a needle and you hit that point, the person will drop dead immediately.
Elephants also have this organ, for example. If you pierce it and hit this organ – you don't even need to cut it out – this huge animal will drop dead. Of course, you can cut out an elephant's spleen if you want: it will live for years. That's where you see the difference. It is not the same whether you remove a person's spleen or appendix, or something else. To understand this, however, it is necessary to study humans properly. Now remember what I told you: these little brain creatures, these cells that I drew for you to remember, are still soft and alive in children, and only gradually do they harden, so that these brain cells must harden in the first years of childhood, up to the age of seven. They are only properly hardened when the person has gone through the change of teeth. When a person reaches sexual maturity, the other cells, which I told you move through the entire bloodstream, become much more mobile later on through sexual maturity — until then, they are at least sluggish, moving sluggishly through the blood until sexual maturity. There are two opportunities to become ill: the first is when the body, or rÄther the soul in the body, has to make an effort to make the brain cells properly rigid until the age of seven. The second is when, at sexual maturity, it has to make an effort to make these animals swimming around in the blood mobile.
If one wanted to describe this externally, one could say: Imagine you are building a house and you use mortar that does not harden properly — it does not work. This is what happens when the brain cells are not hardened in the right way. And this is the case with those children who contract this or that disease. We will describe these causes of disease in more detail next time. After puberty, we are dealing with a whole herd, a huge herd of millions of such white blood cells. Until then, they are sluggish, and if it were a real herd, a herd of millions, there would have to be a great many shepherds behind them to drive them on so that they become more industrious. Yes, this driving force must be there. If it is not there, anemia will result. And so it depends on these things that in early childhood one starting point is for a certain type of disease, and in late childhood, at the onset of sexual maturity, the other starting point.
But this is how one must study human beings, then one gradually comes to understand how things are connected. In general, you cannot do anything in social life if you do not know these facts of natural science.