Spiritual-Scientific Consideration of Social and Pedagogic Questions
GA 192
23 April 1919, Stuttgart
II. Esoteric Prelude to an Exoteric Consideration of the Social Question I
Today I should like to introduce as a sort of parenthesis a deeper, Spiritual-Scientific consideration of the subject of our preceding lecture, the threefolding of the social organism. Naturally much of the thought underlying what I want to say, you will yourselves discover gradually from the general world-conception of Spiritual Science. One can hardly present the whole foundation of the Threefold Commonwealth in each single lecture. But today, in order to obtain a deeper view, will consider from the inside, as it were, that which confronts us outwardly as the necessity of threefolding the social organism.
It is really not difficult for one who has lived to some extent with spiritual-scientific conceptions to call up in himself a feeling for the profound differences between those three spheres of life into which it is our intention that the social organism should be divided. As soon as one realizes that the Threefold Commonwealth is something to be taken very seriously, there develops in one's feelings the possibility of strongly differentiating among the three spheres. They are already fairly well known to you. First, that sphere of life which we call the spiritual life, in so far as it manifests itself or has form in what we call the physical world—thus, the entire field of the so-called (I must use a paradox) physical-spiritual life. You know of course what we have to understand by that. It embraces everything that is connected with men's individual faculties and talents. As we shall see directly the spiritual life is much more comprehensive for us than for a person of materialistic mind. We think of the spiritual life as much more material than the materialistic person does, in so far as we speak of the physical-spiritual life. That fact is ingrained already in my lectures. One can only understand the spiritual life if one starts with the realization that all material life is really concretely saturated by the spiritual: so that for us there is never a purely material something; that which reveals itself through the medium of matter is always according to its inner being also—I say also—a spiritual something. Art, science, conceptions of right, the ethical impulses of mankind—all these things, roughly speaking, come within the boundaries or the spiritual life. Above all, It includes everything that belongs to the cultivation of individual talents, thus the whole field of education and individual training.
Next, it is important to distinguish something which is connected in a certain way with the physical-spiritual life but which nevertheless is fundamentally different. That is, everything that one can described as rights-life, political life, state life. Naturally one must employ all one's powers of perception hare to see the important distinction, otherwise one will make the mistake of thinking that the rights-life is practically the same as the sense of right. But we who are accustomed, to careful discrimination must distinguish between phases of ideas of right, between—if I may so express myself—the being-inspired with ideas of right, and right as it is applied in the outer world. We will speak more fully about all these things directly.
The third sphere is the one you can most easily distinguish from the other two, the economic life.
Now, as we have said, man stands in an entirely different relation to each one of these three spheres of life. If you try with a healthy feeling to understand what the physical-spiritual life is, you will feel (try to lead your soul-faculties of perception in the direction I have indicated) that anything rooted in any degree in man's individual talents, individual faculties, leads into the innermost part of human nature, springs from the very depths of human nature. Now if one proceeds quite scientifically in the work of perceiving, then one experiences everything that comes to expression in art and science, in the impulses of education, as a psychic-spiritual something that lives and works in us, when we surrender to its activity, in such a way that we can only experience it properly if we withdraw somewhat from the outer world. Certainly we must give expression to it in the outer world; but that is different from experiencing it inwardly: we cannot as men get a true conception of that something that manifests itself in art and science, in educational impulses, we cannot grasp it inwardly, unless we are able to withdraw a little from life. One does not need, of course, to withdraw to a hermit's cell: One can be taking a walk, as far as that matters; but one must withdraw into one's self, into one's soul-life, one must live in oneself. That fact becomes apparent to the human soul as soon as it cultivates the most simple feeling for the physical- spiritual Spiritual Science must express it in these words: the physical-spiritual life is lived in such a way by our human soul that in unfolding it we do not entirely depend upon our body. In this respect, Spiritual Science—as you can gather from everything that Spiritual Science has already disclosed—takes the very opposite stand to the materialistic analysis of the human being, which nurses the delusion that when one creates within oneself something that belongs to the physical-spiritual life, one accomplishes this creation entirely through the instrument of the brain, the nervous system, etc.. We know that is not true. We know that an independent inner life must be present in man in order that manifestations of this physical-spiritual life may be possible. Something is present in man in this physical-spiritual life without there being any corresponding physical manifestation in the physical body; something transpires solely within the spiritual-psychic being of man.
It is different when we manifest those life impulses which we desire to place on a democratic basis in our Threefold Commonwealth, to which every man rives expression in relation to all other men. They appear when men allow themselves to be instruments of their bodily nature, in order to unite with each other. Not theoretical ideas of right, but impulses of right for life; not inner ethical ideas, but ethical impulses for life, that are active among men, and that are manifested in the way men meet one another, work with one another, in the way men exchange their experiences with one another. Those Rights-impulses are only present when men do business with one another, when men turn their bodily outer nature to one another, when they communicate with one another, see and live with one another in mutual experiences—in short, they can only be cultivated amid the vicissitudes of human intercourse. With respect to everything that is cultivated on the basis of our individual talents, that is, with respect to what in the sense of the above is independent of our body, we live as individual men, each one a separate personality, an entity. Except for slight distinctions that arise through differences in race and people, but which are a small matter as compared with the differences in men caused by individual talents and abilities (if one has any perceptive organ one must know that)—with that exception, we are equal as men with respect to our outer physical humanness, through which we meet men as men; through which we express ethical impulses, impulses of right. We are equal here as men in the physical world precisely through the sameness of our human body, simply through the fact that we all have a human face. This fact makes us develop for ourselves as outer physical man impulses of right, ethical impulses, on a democratic basis,—it makes us equal in this sphere. We are different one another in our individual talents, which belong to our inner nature.
With respect to the third, the economic sphere: truly one does not need to adopt a false asceticism (it is certainly contrary to the prevailing tendency of our day, that is, in the West) in order to perceive how the economic life allows men to be submerged, as it were, here in the physical world, in a stream of life in which to a certain degree they are lost as men. Do you not feel, my dear friends, that in economic life you are immersed in something that does not allow you to be so fully man as in the rights- or state-life? And it is so in still greater contrast to the life that flows out of your individual talents, out of the individual talents of all mankind. Without, as I said, adopting a false ascetic attitude, one feels with respect to the economic life that we cease to be complete men when we engage in economic activity. We are obliged to pay tribute to that part of us which is sub-human when we concern ourselves with economic life. (We have the same processes of economic life, that is, production, circulation, and consumption of commodities in spiritual production that grows out of economic life and has the same character as the circulation of commodities—and we have all of that life because, so to say, we are men and not animals. When its economic aspect comes into consideration, spiritual production has the same character as any economic activity concerned with material goods. The material goods are necessary to satisfy our bodily needs; also, spiritual,activity within the economic life—dentistry, for instance, and the like—in the end leads to this, that through an exchange of commodities the dentist, etc., is able to live physically within the economic life.) At all events, economic life is always connected with physical life, and that brings us into a certain relation with animal life, even though it is on the human plane. It submerges us in experiences which we have instinctively together with the animals. There you have as a beginning a simple healthy feeling for the different relations an individual man has to these three spheres of life.
Now let us approach the subject in a more deeply spiritual-scientific way. Spiritual Science must first of all observe the periods of human life, the evolution of human life between birth, or conception, and death. Whoever allows himself the possibility of perceiving the course of human life will be strongly impressed by the way in which everything that partakes of the nature of a man's individual faculties is unmistakably announced during the early days of childhood. To one who has a spiritual eye for it and who acknowledges his life experience, the special form of the child soul is easily perceptible. In what develops during the first three life-periods, from the 1st to the 7th year, the 7th to the 14th, and the 14th to the 21st year, there lies the prophecy as from an inner elementary force, of the man's future individual gifts. And not only what we are accustomed to think of as a man's individual gifts, but connected with that, whether he will be able to do much or little muscular work. That is where we are obliged to extend the spiritual further into the material than materialistic thinkers do. Through spiritual vision we see a strong connection between the nature of a man's muscular system and his individual talents. For one who can observe the human being, everything is connected with the development of the human head. Even a man's outer form, whether he has strong less or weak legs, whether he can run much: all that is seen by one who has developed his spiritual vision, from the man's head, precisely from his head. Whether a man is skillful or clumsy, one sees from his head. These so-called physical abilities of man, which are closely connected with his fitness for outer physical , manual work, are connected with the form or his head. Now you know what I have often told you about the shape of the head, basing my remarks on the most varied fundamental facts: everything that comes into shape in the human head, that gives the human head its conformation, its form, points to something before birth, to that which man brings through birth into physical life from out of the spiritual worlds—from the spiritual world itself or from previous incarnations on the earth. And so, when one sees the connection between all human individual talents, either spiritual or manual, and the formation of the human head: then one is led further in one's seeing, and one is able to trace back everything that comes from man's individual talents to his life before birth. That, you see, is what gives the spiritual-scientist such important enlightenment as to physical-spiritual life is. Physical-spiritual life, my dear friends, is here in the physical world because we as men bring something with us at birth. Physical-spiritual life, in the sense in which I have spoken of it today, does not arise out or this physical world: all of it arises out of impulses which we bring from the spiritual world through birth into physical existence. Inasmuch as we bring into physical existence echoes of a supersense existence, we create in human society here in the physical world that which comprises the physical-spiritual life. There would be no art, no science—at the most, in science, a recording of experiments—there would be no impulse for education, no education of children at all, if we did not bring impulses through birth into physical life out of our life previous to birth. That, then, is one thing.
Now let take everything in my book Theosophy, or in Occult Science, that describes the supersense world. Take especially what is said in those books about the relation that exists between human souls when they are disembodied, when they are living between death and a new birth. You know that we have to speak of quite other relations existing between souls there than those which exist here in tae physical world. You remember how I described what is experienced there from soul to soul as being reflected here in shadowy images. You remember the description in Theosophy of life in the soul-world: when I wanted to describe the disembodied life of the supersensible world between death and a new birth I had to speak of certain reciprocal influences, of soul forces and astral forces, that do not exist in the physical world. There, souls have an inner relation to one another, a relation of soul to soul which is called out by the inner force of the soul itself. Now if one is thoroughly imbued with the idea of what relation exists in the supersensible world between souls, if one fixes one's vision upon the relation quite objectively, then one makes a remarkable discovery if one draws a comparison to it in the right way. You know it depends very much on the tendency to such inner activity as this, whether one is led to knowledge of the supersense world, or even to knowledge of the connections between the supersensible world and the sense world. If one turns directly to the Rights-, State-, or political life, one finds that there is no greater contrast to the particular form of supersense life than the political or Rights-life here on the physical plane. They are the two great opposites, my dear friends, that one experiences when one ready learns to know the supersense life. Supersense life has nothing at all that can be regulated bylaws of right or outer ethical impulses; there, everything is regulated through inner soul impulses. It is just the opposite here in the physical world where everywhere state-life has to be established because through birth into the physical world we lose those deep impulses that are alive in the soul in the supersense world and that make the relations there between souls. Here, we make laws of right that will create what must be created: relations of Right—because man has lost that which in the supersense world makes the relation between souls. Those are the two opposite poles: supersense relation of soul to soul, and state-relation here on the physical plane.
In the physical-spiritual cultural life we carry from man to man something that stays with us after birth as a reflection from the supersense world. We spread, as it were, a lustre over life here by letting in the light from the supersense world, and seeking to reflect it here in art, science, and education. It is quite different with the Rights life: we have to establish that on the physical earth as a substitute for what we lose of supersense relations when we enter through birth into physical existence. That gives you an idea, too, of what certain religious documents mean (and you know how far religious documents are always penetrated by this or that absolute truth) when they speak of the authorized “Kingdom of this world”. They mean by that, that the state should not presume to any right to control that which man brings with him as a reflection of the supersense world when he comes through birth into the physical world. It should confine itself to ruling the kingdom of Rights, which is the life we need here because by our physical birth we have lost the impulses of the spiritual world. The task of the state life is to create what is necessary for human intercourse in the physical world. It has meaning only for our life between birth and death.
Let us look at the third, the economic life. Something must be said about it that is quite paradoxical: expressing it crudely, we are submerged in a sub-humanness, in engaging in an economic life. At the same time, however, something is going on in our soul when we concern ourselves with the subhuman. And that, you can experience. Think how very actively you must struggle within yourselves when you give yourselves up to spiritual culture; and on the other hand, how thoughtless men can be in purely economic life, often following mere impulses and instincts. Economic activity proceeds, on the whole, without much truly active inner thought. And in that case, we sink into a subhumanness. Our soul stays hidden in the background. Spiritual Science would say that our body is more exerted when we are engaged in a material activity than one ordinarily believes. Consider the end members of the economic process, eating and drinking: we can realize that there is not a complete balance there between bodily and spiritual activity, that the body outweighs the spiritual-psychic in activity. But then this spiritual-psychic carries on a strong unconscious activity. And within this unconscious activity a seed is hidden. We carry this seed through the gate of death. The soul can rest, as it were, when we are busy with economic life; but in what appears to outer consciousness as rest, a seed is developing which we carry through the gate of death. And if we cultivate brotherliness in economic life, as I always describe it, then we carry a good seed through the gate of death—precisely by virtue of what we cultivate in our relations with men in the economic life. It may seem materialistic to you when I say: Precisely in the brotherliness of economic life man is planting the seed in his soul for his life after death; in his spiritual culture, he is spending his inheritance from his life before birth. It may appear materialistic to you, but it is true, simply true to the spiritual-scientific investigator. However materialistic this may seem to you it is true when I say: when you are submerged in animalness take care of your humanness, for you are planting supersensible seeds for time after death.
Man is a threefold being. He has in the first place an inheritance from time before birth; then, he evolves something here that has value only for the time between birth and death; finally, he develops here in the physical world something by which he links his physical life here with lire after death. That which is manifested here as the lustre of life and the promise and interest of life, in the physical-spiritual culture, is an inheritance from the spiritual world that we bring with us into this physical world. In possessing this spiritual wealth we show ourselves as belonging to the spiritual world; we bring into the physical world a reflection of the supersense world through which we passed before our conception and birth.
You see, abstract science, even abstract philosophy, talks—naturally—always in abstractions. They talk about proving the eternity of substance, how the human substance present at birth remains and then lasts on through death. Such proofs can never be gained out of mere thinking. The philosophers have always sought them, but no proof has ever held against inner logical knowing, because the thing simply is not so. Something much more spiritual is connected with immortality. Nothing at all material, much less anything substantial, is present in any such way. What is present after death is consciousness: consciousness that looks back into this world. That is what we have to consider when we are considering immortality. We must be much less materialistic than the abstract philosophers themselves when we talk of these higher things. It is like this: we use up what I have characterized as a reflection of the supersense world , which we reveal as the ornament, the polished surface of life here—we use that up, and must make here, during our life, a new link for the chain of our eternal existence, to carry through death. Anyone who only thinks of what goes forward in this life, must conclude, if he is consistent, that the thread wears out; only when he knows that he makes here a new part of the chain that goes out beyond death, only then has he come to immortality.
And so man is this threefold being. He cultivates talents in himself that bring a reflection of the supersense world into this life. He develops a life that forms the bridge between life before death and life after death, that expresses itself in all that which has its roots only in the time between birth and death, the outward Rights, or State-impulses, etc. And in that he is submerged in economic life and is able to plant something moral in this economic life—brotherliness—he develops the seed for his life after death. That is the threefold man.
Now think of this threefold man in such a phase of evolution ever since the 15th century that he must now cultivate consciously everything that formerly was instinctive. For that reason it is necessary today that his outer social life should afford him the opportunity of standing with his threefold human nature in a threefold organism. We unite in ourselves three very distinct members of one being, the pre-birthly, the one that is active on the earth, and the after-death member; therefore, we can only stand in the social organism properly in three parts. Otherwise we come as conscious men into disharmony with the rest of the world; and we will come into more and more disharmony unless we will consider shaping this world that lies around us into a threefold social organism.
There, you see, you have the question from the inside. I am trying to show how spiritual-scientific research points out the way to the threefold social organism: how it must be wrested out of human nature itself.
Many persons nave thoughts about what I have evolved. But in open lectures and also on other occasions I have always warned you that these thoughts to which I give expression should not be confused with the thoughts of the elder Schäffle in his book On the Structure of the Social Organism, or with the dilettantism of Merey's most recent book Concerning World-mutations, and similar works. The spiritual scientist cannot be concerned with mere play of analogy, such as these books offer; it is at most unfruitful. What I should like when speaking about the social organism is that men should train their thinking.
The general training of thought today is not even adequate for natural science to be able to grasp facts that I investigated at 35, and that I presented in my book Riddles of the Soul, showing that a human being consists of three members: nerve-sense-life, rhythmic life, and metabolic life. The nerve-sense-life can also be called the head life; the rhythmic life can be called the breathing life, or blood life; and the metabolic life includes all the rest of the organism as a kind of structure. Just as this human organism consists of three members, each centred in itself, so in the social organism each of the three members works for the whole because of the very fact that it is centred in itself. The physiology and biology of today believe that man is a centralized, unified being. That is not true. Even in regard to his communication with the outer world man is a threefold being: the head life is in independent connection with the outer world through the senses; the breathing life is connected with the outer world through the air; the metabolic life is in connection with the outer world through independent outlets. The social organism also must be threefold, with each part centred in itself. Just as the head cannot breathe but nevertheless receives what is communicated by the breathing through the rhythmic system, so the social organism should not itself develop a Rights-life, but should receive bights from its State-member.
However, I said that one must not mistake what is presented here for a mere play of analogy, such as arises when one works from all kinds of hypotheses. Spiritual Science is real investigation, and does not stop short at appearances. People believe that a Spiritual Scientist just thinks something out. Before one is a real spiritual investigator one has to learn to observe the spiritual world. One has to give up thinking; that has value only for the physical world. Naturally one does not give it up for the whole of life, only for spiritual research.
I have told you one usually comes to things upside down if one sets out to describe the spiritual world by using analogies from the sense world. Spiritual research shows, for instance, that the earth is really an organism; that what geology and mineralogy find is only a bone system; that the earth is living, it sleeps and wakes like man. But one cannot go farther in the analogy. If ordinarily you ask a man: When is the earth awake and when is it asleep? he will undoubtedly answer: The earth is awake in summer and asleep in winter. And that is the opposite of what is actually the truth. The truth is, the earth is asleep in summer and awake in winter. Naturally one only finds that out if one actually investigates in the spiritual world. That is the puzzle that makes spiritual research so liable to error, the fact that when one goes with some inquiry from the physical into the spiritual world one gets perhaps the very opposite of the physical fact, or perhaps quarter-truths. One has to investigate every single case.
So it is also with the surface analogy that people draw between the three members or the human, and the three members of the social, organism. that will a man say, using this analogy? He has to say: On the outside is a spiritual life, art, science. He will draw a parallel between that and the human head system, the nerve-sense-life. How could he do otherwise? Then, when he establishes that, he will compare the metabolic life , to which I have referred in my Riddles of the Soul as the most material, with economic life. Nothing could be more upside down than that. And nothing whatever is accomplished by looking at it in that way. One must give up toying with analogies if one wants to reach the truth. People outside of Spiritual Science believe that these ideas have been obtained by a thought game of analogies. That is the greatest illusion. It is to no purpose to parallel outer physical-spiritual life with the head system. It is to no purpose to relate economic life to the metabolic system. All that is of no avail if one wants to fathom the question.
When one makes a real investigation one gets a very paradoxical result. Comparing the social organism to the human organism one comes to the truth only if one stands upside down in the social organism. One must compare economic life with the nerve-sense-life, state-life with the rhythmic system,and physical-spiritual life with the metabolic system for the laws obtaining in them are similar. That which is present in economic life as natural conditions is of exactly the same significance for the social organism as are for man the individual talents that ne brings with him at birth. As man in his individual life is dependent upon what he brings into life with him, so the economic organism is dependent upon what Nature bequeaths it in the way of existing conditions. The preliminary natural conditions of economic life—land, etc.,—are the same as the individual talents that man brings into individual life. How much coal, now much metal is in the earth, whether land is fertile or not, are as it were the talents of the social organism. And as man's metabolic system is related to the human organism and its functions, human spiritual production is related to the social organism. The social organism eats and drinks what we give it in the form of art, science, technical ideas, etc. That is its nourishment. That is its metabolism. A country that has unfavorable natural conditions for its economic life is like a man who is poorly gifted. And a country in which the people produce nothing in the way of art, science, or technical ideas, is like a man who must go hungry because he has nothing to eat. That is the reality, the truth! The social organism is our angry spiritual child. And the natural conditions of the social organism are its capacities, its talents. A comparison of the spiritual life with the human head system has meaning perhaps for one who is playing with analogies; out one reaches the correct and helpful truth only if one knows that the laws stand as I have presented them. One can know that these are the laws of human metabolism; but one must direct the same thinking to them as one directs to the social organism and then one easily gets a larger result. To tamper with spiritual things without such guiding threads is extraordinarily difficult and wearisome. Because of the fact that today analogies are often merely toyed with, on account of which there is a prejudice against this drawing of parallels between the social and the human organism, I have only just touched upon it in my book, but I tried at least to indicate it because it can be a great help to those who think healthily about it.
And so you see that today men are in a peculiar position. Natural science which has made this great progress, which has so influenced men's minds that at bottom-even though it is not conscious of social thinking orientates itself in the direction of natural science,—this Natural Science is not capable of analyzing man correctly. For instance; it says the greatest nonsense about feeling being transmitted through the nervous system. That is pure nonsense. Feeling is transmitted directly through the breathing system, the rhythmic system, and thought through the nerve-sense-system. And the will is made possible through the metabolic system, not through the nervous system in any elementary way. The thought or willing is transmitted through the nervous system. Only when you have as men a real consciousness or willing does the nervous system take any part. When you think along with your willing then the nervous system is concerned in it. It is because this is not known that the physiology and anatomy of today have made that frightful error of distinguishing between sensory nerves and motor nerves. There is no greater falsity than this differentiation of sensory and motor nerves in the human body. The anatomists are always in a dilemma when they get to their chanter on nerves and they don't get out of it. They are in a frightful dilemma because there is no difference anatomically between these two kinds of nerves. It is pure speculation. And everything that is deduced by examining the nerves is absolutely without support. The reason that the motor nerves are not distinguishable from the sensory nerves is that there aren't any motor nerves there. The muscles are set in motion by the metabolic system. And as you perceive the outer world through the senses with the so-called sensory nerves, with other nerves you perceive your own movements, your muscular movements. The Physiology of today is wrong when it calls them motor nerves. Frightful mistakes such as this exist in science, and corrupt what goes into the popular consciousness—and they have a much more, corrupt influence than one would ordinarily think.
Thus Natural Science is not so far advanced as to perceive this threefold man. We can wait for theoretical views of Natural Science to become popular; a year sooner or later will not affect men's happiness. But the thinking does not exist for comprehending this threefold man. The same quality of thinking must however exist to comprehend the threefold nature of the social organism. And there the thing is serious. We are today at the point of time when it must be comprehended. Therefore a change of thought, a new method of thinking, is essential not only for the simple man, but, truly, most of all for the learned man. Simple men at least know nothing about all those things that have been advanced in natural science in order unconsciously to conceal man's threefold nature. But the learned men are stuck full of all those concepts that today make this threefolding seem like nonsense. To the physiologist of today it is pure folderol. If one tells him that there are no motor nerves and that feelings are not transmitted in the same way as thoughts—through the nervous system—but only the thought connected with a feeling, in other words the consciousness of it—not the feeling as such as he will object strenuously. His objections are well known. Men can naturally say: Now look, you perceive music; you perceive that through your senses. No, experience of music is much more complicated than that. It is like this: The breathing rhythm meets with the sense perception in our brain, and in the contact of the breathing rhythm with the outer sense perception arises the musical-aesthetic experience. Even there, the fundamental thing is in the rhythmic system. And what brings this fundamental thing to consciousness is in the nervous system.
However, this all shows you, my dear friends, that in regard to many things we are living in a time of transitions. Every period is indeed a transition from the past to the future. That is so if one speaks abstractly and one can see that every period is more or less a time of transition. I want rather to say in what particular respect our time is a transition. it is a time of very important inner transition, in regard to important inner human impulses. To men capable of perception this shows itself clearly in a certain way. Men today are not very apt to consider incidental symptoms with sufficient earnestness.
I want to tell you of a purely spiritual-scientific perception. Naturally I can as little prove this perception to you as the man who has seen a wallfish can prove to you that it exists. He can only tell you about it. Then one has developed one's power of spiritual vision so far as to be able to have communication with human souls that are evolving between death and a new birth, then one makes indeed very surprising discoveries. This communication can only be had in thought; and when we think here in the physical body some element of speech is always present in our thoughts. Something of speech always vibrates with the thoughts. We think in words. I had the experience once of declaring energetically: “I am fully conscious of the fact that I can think without words resounding simultaneously”, and of having Hartmann answer: “That is nonsense! That is not possible; man cannot think unless he thinks in words”. Thus there are very spiritual philosophers who do not believe that one can think without an inner forming of words. One can. But in ordinary everyday thinking man thinks in words, especially when he would develop some spiritual intercourse with the dead. For you know intercourse with the dead cannot be carried on in abstractions—any more than we can think in blue. It has to be concrete, this intercourse with the dead. That is why I have said: definite pictures that are formed very concretely reach the dead, but not abstract thoughts. Because this is so we are especially apt to let speech sound innerly in our thought communication with the dead. Then we make the most peculiar discovery ( you may believe it or not, but it is a fact) that, for instance, the dead do not hear substantives. Substantives are like holes in our sentences when we communicate with the dead.
Adjectives are better, but still very weak; but verbs, words of activity, is what their understanding grasps. One learns that slowly at first. One cannot think why so much of the communication goes badly; and one gradually realizes that it is the nouns. One cannot use many nouns. And you see one comes to realize this: that in using words of activity, verbs, one cannot help but be within the words oneself. There is something personal in verbs—one lives in the activity; while a noun always becomes something quite abstract.
Therein lies the basis of the symptom of which I wanted to speak. You see that speech is something that unites us with the super-sense world only in a very limited measure; and the fact that the whole tendency of speech is more and more toward substantives brings about the possibility of our separating ourselves from the spiritual world. The more we think in substantives the more we break our connection with the spiritual world. I only wanted this fact to indicate to you that speech has a great significance for our supersense life, a fundamental significance. But speech evolves within human evolution itself. And the characteristic of the evolution of speech is that it brings men more and more to abstractions, that it takes them farther and farther away from living inner thought-life. You can become aware of this outwardly by asking yourselves, How are the Western languages formed as compared to the Eastern? Take the language that outwardly on the physical plane has progressed the furthest, the English language: it almost spends itself in words, it has least thought content. That is the progress of speech from East to West. That is an important distinction to make in connection with social folk-life.
Now there is a man of our time who has developed great acuteness in his observation of human speech. This man is so clever that already he is stupid again. There is, in other words, a degree of cleverness where one begins again to be a bit stupid in the face of colossal cleverness. It is true. One may have a great respect for this cleverness but one should not value it too highly in face of the corresponding truth. This man is Fritz Mauthner, who has out-Kanted Kant in his Critique of Speech, and also in his Dictionary: observations, however, made undeniably out of the impulses of the time. Mauthner has reached something quite definite that must especially strike the spiritual-scientist: it is this, that in reality human inner soul-activity has, as it were, three stages. The first is ordinary sense perception as it is reflected in art. Mauthner believes in this as something that is real, something that is a reality. Now through sense perception one can arouse inner experiences, that lead over into the supersensible; Fritz Mauthner allows such inner experience. He calls it “Mystic experience,” “religious experience.” Beautiful; but he says:•;When man has this mystic experience he can only be dreaming. One is permitted to dream, out one is outside of reality them. Mauthner altogether doubts the possibility or reaching reality then; the only reality to him is sense perception—at most, art can reach it. As soon as one gets so far away from sense perception as to be experiencing something in mystic religious life, then one is merely dreaming about reality; one has already let reality go by. And then one can go still further, according to Mauthner.
He comes to all these convictions through a consideration of speech. He makes an analysis, a criticism of speech, especially in his philosophical Dictionary. It makes terrible reading. I have already on another occasion drawn your attention to the torture one undergoes reading these articles—and they go all the way from A to Z. One begins to read one or another of the articles; something is said. Then another sentence in which what has just been said is just a little bit qualified. Then a third sentence, and that which was just qualified is again qualified, so that one comes back a little to the first sentence again. One hedges around and around and around, and in the end—one has got nothing, even though one has read the whole article to the end. The article entitled “Christianity” is awful. A frightful torture. But it is proper, in Mauthner's sense, that it should be so. Mauthner thinks that, and he really condemns his reader to the torture; he has gone through it himself. He does not believe that man is capable, when he wants to know something, of getting anything else than just such hedging. He is an absolute skeptic. He finds nowhere in speech any other content than the speech itself. It has only an incidental value to him.
And so to him, inner mystic experience is only a dream. As soon as one gets out of speech one is inwardly dreaming. But according to Mauthner there is a third stage: one can believe that one is thinking but one is only speaking inwardly. Whether one uses this or that language, the language, the words, originated once in outer sense things. I have spoken to you before of the various opinions of learned men of how speech originated. You know that their opinions can be divided into two main classes: the Bimbam theory and the Wan-wan theory (those are the technical terms). Now Mauthner finds that everything has evolved from outer sense perception; real thoughts do not exist for man. In science he strives for real thoughts, when ne reaches the third stage. But he does not succeed there in knowing anything real. In mysticism he is still dreaming; when he in search of thought reality, for instance to natural laws, then ne is no longer dreaming, then he is fast asleep. Therefore for Mauthner all science is Docta ignorantia (learned ignorance). Those are his three stages.
Now my dear friends, as I told you, one can have a certain respect for such observation for it is not altogether incorrect—that, is, not incorrect for today. Something to which mankind tends today has been felt correctly by Mauthner. It is this: when the man of today wants to come to mysticism it is something quite different than with men formerly. The man of earlier times was still inwardly pound up with reality. The man of today has not that possibility; as a mystic he really is dreaming. And the natural laws that man finds today—well, one cannot quite endorse such crude points of view as those of certain theorizers who have analyzed the matter similarly to Mauthner, as for example the French thinker Boutroux, or Ernst Mach. But nevertheless one must say: if one sounds the content of the so-called natural laws today there are fundamentally no thoughts there; one only believes they ate thoughts; they are only combinations of facts. They are really only records. These things have been noticed by individuals, Mach, for example. Mauthner has observed thoroughly—therefore he speaks of Docta ignorantia, of a learned unknowing, of an ignorant learnedness. Yes, as human evolution is today, that is quite true. Today, in mysticism and in science alike, man has become sterile. Only, in his pride, he is not yet aware of it as having any significance. But that is not generally characteristic of humanity. Mauthner and the others believe that it is, because in reality they do not consider human evolution; they think: as the soul is today, so it was always. But really, it is only a characteristic of the present time. Their observation only has significance for the soul life of today; we do come to dreaming and to learned ignorance today, when we want to rise in these stages.,
But one must not conclude that human nature is such that it is obliged to sink either into mystic dreaming or into learned ignorance (as those do who think as Mauthner does). One must come to this conclusion: what the ancients reached in old ways must therefore be found now in new ways. That means, we must seek a new mysticism, we must not get into old mysticism. This new mysticism is sought in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. must rise to this new Imagination, to a new Inspiration, but we must rise of new methods. I have elaborated that in my book "Riddles of Humanity". Because we dream in mysticism and sleep in science the necessity is before us today of waking up. Therefore I have described the phenomenon of present day knowledge in this book as an "awakening". We must put in the place of mystic dreams a wide-awake Imagination; in the place of Docta ignorantia, Inspiration; in the sense in which I have talked of it in my book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. We live today in a transition period in respect to the human soul; we must evolve out of the deepest foundation of this human soul active power that leads to the spiritual. We will not find our way through the chaos of the present age unless we develop the will to evolve active inner soul powers. The spiritualists do the opposite. They perceive that nothing springs up unconsciously from within, and so they allow themselves to project spirits in outer manifestation, outer sense vision.
And a tragic phenomenon makes its appearance in the present day. We have the experience today of seeing men who a short time ago still believed that materialism could satisfy their souls become alarmed in their advancing years about materialism. That is nothing else than what the healthy soul should feel, in spite of the biology of today, or the sociology: a smell of decay, a smell of the corpse of one's soul, that one only prevents by an inner soul activity. Many do not want that activity today. And therefore the tragedy of men growing old who will not have anything to do with spiritual scientific research and who go back to Catholicism. That allows the soul to remain passive, and gives it something that it can believe is a spiritual content. It is a great danger.
That points from another angle to the transition-humanity is making in the present age. Quite secretly the human soul is going through an important stage of development. And with this transition through an important stage of development is intimately connected the necessity of learning to think anew in many other respects concerning man. Read how the individual man, when entering the supersense world, begins to divide into three parts. Read it in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. Thinking, feeling, and willing that here in the sense world are fused as the natural condition for man—read the chapter on the “Guardian of the Threshold”: thinking, feeling, and willing become separate from one another when one gets into the supersense world. Mankind is going through that process today secretly in the subconscious. A threshold is being crossed there. Man divides inwardly into a threefold man in a different way than was formerly the case. Observation of this passing of men over a certain threshold teaches one that the threefolding of the social organism is dictated to us out of the spiritual foundations of existence itself. If in the future we want to find a picture of ourselves in the outside world so that we shall agree with it, then we shall have had to threefold the social organism.
You see the signs that spiritual science gives for the Threefold Commonwealth. But I again emphasize the point: once the Threefold Commonwealth is found it can, like all occult truths, be comprehended by a healthy human understanding. To find it, spiritual scientific research is necessary; but once it is found, healthy human, understanding proclaims its truth. That is also something that we must recall at every opportunity.
I have tried today to give you a deeper consideration of what in service to our time must be said today about the Threefold Commonwealth. Next Sunday we will extend this consideration and conclude it, and perhaps bring it to full inner completeness.
Zweiter Vortrag
Heute möchte ich gewissermaßen episodisch etwas einfügen, was zu tun hat mit der das letztemal auch vor Ihnen hier erwähnten Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Ich möchte es als Episode einfügen gewissermaßen zu einer tieferen geisteswissenschaftlichen Betrachtung der Sache. Natürlich, manches von dem, was auch unsere heutigen Ausführungen begründen wird, müssen Sie aus der Gesamtheit der geisteswissenschaftlichen Weltanschauung nach und nach zusammennehmen. Man kann nicht in jedem einzelnen Vortrage weitläufig die Begründungen geben. Aber dasjenige, was uns äußerlich als die Notwendigkeit einer Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus entgegentritt, das wollen wir heute einmal gewissermaßen von innen, von seiner Innenseite her betrachten, und es dadurch etwas vertiefen. Es ist eigentlich nicht schwierig für den, der sich etwas eingelebt hat in geisteswissenschaftliche Vorstellungen, bei sich eine Empfindung hervorzurufen von der großen Verschiedenheit der drei Lebensgebiete, in die der soziale Organismus nach unseren Intentionen gegliedert werden soll. Ist man nur einmal aufmerksam darauf, daß eine solche Dreigliederung etwas Ernsthaft-zu-Nehmendes ist, dann ergibt sich zunächst empfindungsgemäß eine mögliche Unterscheidung zwischen diesen drei Gebieten, die jedes einzelne stark unterschieden von den anderen wahrnehmen läßt.
Diese drei Gebiete, sie sind Ihnen ja jetzt schon hinlänglich bekannt: das Gebiet dessen, was wir das geistige Leben nennen, insofern dieses geistige Leben sich ausgestaltet, sich offenbart in dem, was wir die physische Welt nennen, also der ganze Umfang des sogenannten — wenn ich das paradoxe Wort brauchen soll - physischen Geisteslebens. Wir wissen ja, was wir darunter zu verstehen haben. Dazu wird alles das gehören, was zusammenhängt mit den individuellen Fähigkeiten und Begabungen des Menschen. Für uns ist, im Gegensatz zu den materialistisch gesinnten Menschen, das Geistesleben nämlich etwas weit Ausgedehnteres, wie wir gleich nachher sehen werden, als für den materialistisch gesinnten Menschen. Wir sind nämlich genötigt, das Geistesleben viel materieller zu denken als die materialistischen Menschen, sofern wir vom physischen Geistesleben sprechen. Das hat ja schon manchen meiner Vorträge durchdrungen, daß das Geistesleben nur erfaßt werden kann, wenn man davon ausgeht, daß alles materielle Leben vom Geistigen wirklich konkret durchtränkt ist, so daß es für uns ein bloß Materielles gar nicht gibt, sondern immer dasjenige, was durch das Mittel des Materiellen sich offenbart, seinem inneren Wesen nach auch, ich sage auch, ein Geistiges ist. Kunst, Wissenschaft, Rechtsanschauungen, sittliche Impulse der Menschheit, alles das würde zunächst, grob gesprochen, den Umfang dieses Geisteslebens ausmachen. Vor.allen Dingen aber würde in den Umfang dieses Geisteslebens fallen alles das, was zur Pflege der individuellen Begabungen gehört, also das gesamte Erziehungs-, Unterrichts- und Schulwesen.
Dann ist deutlich von diesem Leben eines wiederum zu unterscheiden, das in einer gewissen Weise zusammenhängt mit dem physischen Geistesleben, das aber doch sich prinzipiell von ihm unterscheidet. Das ist alles das, was man bezeichnen kann als Rechtsleben, als politisches Leben, als Staatsleben. Natürlich muß man sein Wahrnehmungsvermögen etwas einstellen auf deutliche Unterscheidungen auf diesem Gebiet, wenn man nicht in den Fehler verfallen will, sich zu sagen: das Rechtsleben ist ja im Grunde genommen das, was Rechtlichkeit ist. Aber wir, die wir gewohnt sind, genau und deutlich zu unterscheiden, wir werden unterscheiden müssen zwischen dem Erfassen von Rechtsideen, zwischen dem - wenn ich mich so ausdrücken darf - Inspiriertsein von Rechtsideen und dem Ausleben des Rechtes in der äußeren Welt. Wir werden von all diesen Dingen gleich genauer sprechen.
Das dritte ist dann, das werden Sie leicht unterscheiden können von den beiden anderen, das Wirtschaftsleben. Nun steht der Mensch zu den drei Gebieten des Lebens, die wit eben verzeichnet haben, in einem ganz anderen Verhältnis. Wenn Sie versuchen, durch eine rein gesunde Empfindung aufzufassen dasjenige, was physisches Geistesleben ist, so werden Sie verspüren — versuchen Sie nur einmal, die Wahrnehmungsfähigkeiten der Seele in die Richtung zu lenken, von der ich jetzt gesprochen habe -, daß alles das, was irgendwie wurzelt in der individuellen Begabung, den individuellen Fähigkeiten des Menschen, gewissermaßen am allerinnerlichsten für die menschliche Natur verläuft, am allerinnerlichsten von der menschlichen Natur erzeugt wird. Geht man nun ganz wissenschaftlich an die Arbeit des Wahrnehmens heran, so findet man, daß alles, was sich auslebt in Kunst und Wissenschaft, in den Impulsen der Erziehung, empfunden werden kann als Geistig-Seelisches, das in uns lebt, wenn wir uns seiner Betätigung hingeben; so in uns lebt, daß wir es nur in der richtigen Weise innerlich erfahren können, wenn wir uns etwas zurückziehen aus der äußeren Welt. Gewiß, wir müssen es offenbaren in der äußeren Welt — das ist dann etwas anderes, als es innerlich zunächst erleben -, aber wir können als Menschen das, was sich in Kunst und Wissenschaft, in Erziehungsimpulsen auslebt, nicht konzipieren, nicht innerlich erfassen, wenn wir uns nicht etwas vom Leben zurückziehen können. Natürlich braucht das nicht ein Zurückziehen in eine Eremitenklause zu sein, man kann spazierengehen meinetwillen, aber man muß sich etwas zurückziehen, muß seelisch werden, muß in sich leben. Das ist etwas, was sich für eine ganz naive Empfindung, wenn sie nur ausgebildet werden will in der Menschenseele, für das physische Geistesleben ergibt, und was die Geisteswissenschaft so ausdrücken muß, daß sie sagt: Dieses physische Geistesleben wird von unserer Menschenseele so erlebt, daß wir ohne völlige Inanspruchnahme des Leibes dieses physische Geistesleben ausleben. Da muß Geisteswissenschaft, und das können Sie aus allem entnehmen, was Geisteswissenschaft Ihnen bisher gebracht hat, in der allerentschiedensten Weise gegen die materialistische Ausdeutung des Menschenwesens sich wenden, welche in dem Aberglauben lebt, daß sich, wenn man innerlich ausgestaltet, was dem physischen Geistesleben angehört, diese Ausgestaltung ganz restlos durch das Instrument des Gehirns, des Nervensystems und so weiter vollzieht. Nein, wir wissen, das ist nicht wahr. Wir wissen, daß ein selbständiges Innenleben im Menschen vorhanden sein muß, wenn Offenbarungen dieses physischen Geisteslebens zustande kommen sollen. Es geht etwas vor im Menschen bei diesem physischen Geistesleben, das nicht seine Parallelerscheinungen im physischen Leibe hat; es geht etwas vor, was nur abläuft innerhalb des geistig-seelischen Wesens im Menschen.
Anders ist das, wenn wir diejenigen Impulse des Lebens ausbilden, die wir in unserer Dreigliederung auf eine demokratische Grundlage stellen wollen, wenn wir ausbilden, was gewissermaßen alle Menschen vor allen Menschen gleich erscheinen läßt. Das kann sich nur ausbilden, wenn wir uns bedienen der Werkzeuge unserer Leiblichkeit, die Mensch mit Mensch verbinden. Nicht innerliche Rechtsideen, aber Rechtsimpulse des Lebens, nicht innerlich sittliche Ideen, aber sittliche Impulse des Lebens, die also zwischen den Menschen tätig sind, die bilden sich aus, indem Mensch zu Mensch herantritt, Mensch gegen Mensch wirkt, Mensch und Mensch austauschen, was sie aneinander gegenseitig erleben. Diese Dinge bilden sich nur aus, wenn Menschen miteinander verkehren, wenn Menschen ihre leibliche Außenseite einander zukehren, wenn sie miteinander sprechen, wenn sie sich sehen, wenn sie durch Mitempfindung miteinander leben, kurz, nur im menschlichen Wechselverkehr kann das ausgebildet werden. Mit Bezug auf alles das, was sich auf Grundlage unserer individuellen Fähigkeiten ausbildet, also mit Bezug auf das, was in dem eben genannten Sinn unabhängig von unserer Leiblichkeit ist, sind wir als Menschen individuell gestaltet, jeder ein Eigener, jeder ein Individuum. Mit Ausnahme der viel geringeren Differenzierung, welche durch Rassenunterschiede, Volksunterschiede und dergleichen hervortreten, die aber eben als Differenzierung eine Kleinigkeit sind — wenn man nur ein Organ dafür hat, muß man das wissen — gegenüber der Differenzierung durch individuelle Begabungen und Fähigkeiten, mit Ausnahme davon sind wir mit Bezug auf unsere äußere physische Menschlichkeit, durch die wir als Mensch den Menschen gegenübertreten, durch die wir Rechtsimpulse, Sittenimpulse ausbilden, als Menschen gleich. Wir sind als Menschen gleich, hier in der physischen Welt, gerade durch die Gleichheit unserer menschlichen Gestalt, einfach durch die Tatsache, daß wir alle Menschenantlitz tragen. Dieses, daß wir alle Menschenantlitz tragen, daß wir uns als äußere physische Menschen begegnen, die miteinander auf dem demokratischen Boden die Rechtsimpulse, die Sittenimpulse ausbilden, dieses macht uns auf diesem Boden gleich. Wir sind verschieden voneinander durch unsere individuellen Begabungen, die aber unserer Innerlichkeit angehören.
Das dritte, das wirtschaftliche Gebiet: Man braucht wahrhaftig nicht einer falschen Askese zuzuneigen, denn diese falsche Askese ist ganz gewiß gegen die Grundtendenz unserer gegenwärtigen Zeit, namentlich des Abendlandes — darüber haben wir oftmals gesprochen hier -, aber man kann wahrnehmen, wie das Wirtschaftsleben den Menschen gewissermaßen untertauchen läßt hier in der physischen Welt in einen Lebensstrom, in ein Lebensmeer, in dem er sich bis zu einem gewissen Grade als Mensch verliert. Haben Sie nicht die Empfindung, dem Wirtschaftsleben gegenüber, daß Sie untertauchen in etwas, was Sie nicht so Mensch sein läßt, wie das Rechts- oder Staatsleben? Noch mehr ist das der Fall gegenüber dem Leben, das aus Ihren individuellen Fähigkeiten, überhaupt aus den individuellen Fähigkeiten des Menschen fließt. Wir fühlen es, wie gesagt, ohne in falsche asketische Neigung zu verfallen, wir fühlen: dem Wirtschaftsleben gegenüber ist es so, daß wir aufhören, indem wir wirtschaften müssen, Vollmenschen zu sein. Wir müssen einen Tribut zahlen an das in uns, was untermenschlich ist, indem wir wirtschaften.
Wir haben sozusagen dasjenige, was dem Wirtschaftsleben angehört als Warenproduktion, Warenzirkulation, Warenkonsum, auch wenn es sich hinaufsteigert zu geistigen Leistungen, die aber eben deshalb mit demselben Charakter wie Warenzirkulation des Wirtschaftslebens entstehen, weil wir Menschen sind und nicht Engel, wir wissen, daß auch das, was geistige Produktion ist, insofern das Wirtschaftliche dafür in Betracht kommt, den Charakter annimmt des Wirtschaftlichen, das in den materiellen Gütern verläuft. Und die materiellen Güter, die zur Befriedigung unseres Leiblichen notwendig sind, und geistige Leistungen, wie zahnärztliche und dergleichen, im Wirtschaftsleben müssen sie auch zuletzt durch den Warenaustausch dazu führen, daß der Zahnarzt durch das Wirtschaftsleben physisch leben kann. Irgendwie hängt das Wirtschaftsleben immer mit dem physischen Leben zusammen. Das ist aber etwas, was uns in eine gewisse, wenn auch ins Menschliche hinaufgehobene Beziehung zum Tierischen bringt. Es läßt uns untertauchen in dasjenige, was instinktiv mit dem Tier zusammen erlebt wird. Da haben Sie zunächst einer naiven, aber gesunden Empfindung gegenüber dasjenige, was die drei Gebiete für den einzelnen individuellen Menschen unterscheidet.
Gehen wir jetzt tiefer geisteswissenschaftlich in die Sache ein. Der Geisteswissenschafter muß da besonders beobachten die Gliederung des menschlichen Lebens in der Zeit, die Entwickelung des menschlichen Lebens zunächst von der Geburt oder Empfängnis bis zum Tode. Derjenige, der sich ein Wahrnehmungsvermögen aneignet für den Verlauf des Menschenlebens, der wird stark beeindruckt sein davon, wie sich alles das, was individuelle Fähigkeiten des Menschen sind, in der allerersten Kindheit bedeutsam ankündigt. Für den, der sich dafür ein geistiges Auge und Lebenserfahrung angeeignet hat, für den ist stark vorhanden die Wahrnehmung der besonderen Ausgestaltung der Kindesseele. In dem was heranwächst in den drei ersten Lebensstufen vom ersten bis zum siebten, vom siebten bis zum vierzehnten, vom vierzehnten bis zum einundzwanzigsten Jahr, in dem kündigt sich dasjenige wie aus einer inneren elementaren Kraft heraus an, was individuelle Fähigkeiten des Menschen sind. Und nicht nur das, was wir gewöhnlich geneigt sind, als individuelle Fähigkeiten des Menschen zu betrachten, kündigt sich da an, sondern damit hängt dann zusammen, ob wir physisch stark oder schwach sind, ob wir mehr oder weniger Muskelarbeit leisten können. Da ist es, wo wir das Geistige mehr in Materielles ausdehnen müssen als die materialistisch Denkenden. Geistig angeschaut sehen wir einen guten Zusammenhang zwischen der Ausgestaltung des Muskelsystems und der individuellen Veranlagung des Menschen. Alles das hängt für den, der das Menschenwesen beobachten kann, mit der Entwickelung des menschlichen Hauptes zusammen. Auch sogar in den äußeren Formen, ob einer starke Beine hat oder schwache, ob einer viel laufen kann, das sieht der, der sich einen geistigen Blick erworben hat, schon dem Kopfe an, gerade dem Kopfe. Ob einer geschickt oder ungeschickt ist, sieht man dem Kopfe des Menschen an. Diese sogenannten physischen Fähigkeiten des Menschen, die eng zusammenhängen mit seiner Eignung für äußere materielle, manuelle Arbeit, sie hängen mit der Ausgestaltung des Kopfes zusammen. Nun wissen Sie, was ich Ihnen über die Ausgestaltung des Kopfes wiederholt gesagt und aus den verschiedensten Untergründen heraus begründet habe. Ich habe Ihnen gesagt: Alles das, was im menschlichen Haupte zur Ausgestaltung kommt, was dem menschlichen Haupte seine Konfiguration, seine Formung gibt, das weist hin auf das Vorgeburtliche, das weist hin auf dasjenige, was der Mensch aus den geistigen Welten, sei es aus der geistigen Welt selbst oder sei es aus vorhergehenden Erdeninkarnationen, sich durch die Geburt mit herein ins physische Leben bringt. Indem nun ein Zusammenhang geschaut wird zwischen allen individuellen Fähigkeiten des Menschen, seien sie nun geistige oder manuelle Fähigkeiten, gerade mit der Ausbildung des menschlichen Hauptes, wird man dann weitergeleitet in seinem Schauen, so daß man alles, was aus der individuellen Fähigkeit des Menschen hervorgeht, zurückleitet auf das vorgeburtliche Leben.
Sehen Sie, das ist es, was den Geisteswissenschafter zu einer für ihn so bedeutungsvollen Beleuchtung dessen führt, was physisches Geistesleben ist. Physisches Geistesleben ist deshalb hier in der physischen Welt, weil wir als Menschen uns etwas durch die Geburt mit hereinbringen. Alles physische Geistesleben, in dem Umfang, wie ich heute davon zu Ihnen gesprochen habe, entsteht nicht bloß aus dieser physischen Welt heraus, es entsteht aus denjenigen Impulsen heraus, die wir hereintragen durch unsere Geburt aus der geistigen Welt in das physische Dasein. Indem wir Menschen sind, die hereinbringen in das physische Dasein Nachklänge eines übersinnlichen Daseins, gestalten wir in der menschlichen Gesellschaft hier in der physischen Welt dasjenige aus, was dieses physische Geistesleben ist. Es gäbe keine Kunst, es gäbe keine Wissenschaft, höchstens eine Experimentalbeschreibung, eine Beschreibung von Experimenten, es gäbe keine Erziehungsimpulse, wir könnten die Kinder nicht erziehen, wir könnten keine Schulbildung erteilen, wenn wir nicht durch die Geburt Impulse aus dem vorgeburtlichen Leben in das physische Leben hineinbrächten. Das ist das eine.
Nun bitte, nehmen Sie alles das, was Sie an Beschreibung der übersinnlichen Welt in meiner «’Theosophie» oder in der «Geheimwissenschaft» finden. Nehmen Sie insbesondere das, was in diesen Büchern gesagt ist aus der übersinnlichen Welt heraus über die Beziehungen, die da herrschen zwischen Menschenseele und Menschenseele, wenn diese Seelen entkörpert sind, wenn diese Seelen leben zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt. Sie wissen, wir müssen da von ganz anderen Beziehungen von Seele zu Seele sprechen, als diejenigen, von denen wir hier in der physischen Welt sprechen können. Sie erinnern sich, wie ich zusammengesetzt habe das, was von Seele zu Seele erlebt wird, aus Grundklängen, die hier in schattenhaften Bildern vorhanden sind. Sie erinnern sich der Beschreibung in der « Theosophie » des Lebens in der Seelenwelt, wie ich von gewissen Wechselwirkungen, von in der physischen Welt nicht vorhandenen Seelen- und Astralkräften sprechen mußte, indem ich das entkörperte Leben in der übersinnlichen Welt zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt schildern wollte. Da steht Seele zu Seele in einer inneren Beziehung. Da ist ein Verhältnis von Seele zu Seele, welches durch die innere Kraft der Seele selbst hervorgerufen wird. Durchdringt man sich nun ganz fest mit dem, was so als Verhältnis von Seele zu Seele existiert in der übersinnlichen Welt, faßt man das ins Auge und macht man sich so recht gegenständlich, was so existiert, dann bekommt man, wenn man in der richtigen Weise vergleicht, eine merkwürdige Anschauung heraus. Sie wissen, es beruht auf solch inneren Tendenzleistungen sehr vieles, was zur Erkenntnis in der übersinnlichen Welt, oder auch zur Erkenntnis der Zusammenhänge der übersinnlichen mit der sinnlichen Welt führt. Man wird da direkt auf das Rechts-, Staats- oder politische Leben geleitet, und zwar so, daß es keinen größeren Gegensatz gibt gegen die besondere Ausgestaltung des übersinnlichen Lebens als das politische, das Rechtsleben hier auf dem physischen Plan. Das sind die beiden großen Gegensätze, und man empfindet diese Gegensätze, wenn man in sachgemäßer Weise das übersinnliche Leben kennenlernt. Das übersinnliche Leben hat gar nichts von dem, was durch Rechtssatzungen oder äußere Sittenimpulse geregelt werden kann, denn da wird alles durch innere Seelenimpulse geregelt. Hier, im physischen Leben, wird der volle Gegensatz aufgestellt, indem man das Staatsleben mit seiner Grundnuance aufstellt, weil uns durch die Geburt dasjenige verlorengeht, was in der Seele lebt als Grundimpulse, die von Seele zu Seele das Verhältnis herstellen; weil das verlorengeht, weil wir uns das Gegenteil hier aneignen zwischen Geburt und Tod. Dieses Gegenteil sind die Rechtssatzungen, die existieren; die stellen her, was hergestellt werden muß, das Rechtsverhältnis, weil der Mensch das, was in der übersinnlichen Welt das Verhältnis von Seele zu Seele angeht, verloren hat. Das sind die beiden Pole: übersinnliches Verhältnis von Seele zu Seele — Staatsverhältnis hier auf dem physischen Plan.
Von Mensch zu Mensch tragen wir in die physische Geisteskulturwelt etwas herein, was uns durch die Geburt als Nachklang bleibt aus der übersinnlichen Welt. Wir breiten gleichsam einen Glanz über das Leben aus dadurch, daß wir hereinleuchten lassen das, was wir in die Welt hineintragen, indem wir es zu offenbaren suchen in Kunst, Wissenschaft und Erziehung der anderen Menschen. Das ist mit dem Rechtsleben etwas anderes. Das müssen wir hier begründen auf der physischen Erde als einen Ersatz für das, was wir in übersinnlicher Beziehung verlieren, indem wir durch die Geburt in das physische Dasein hereinkommen.
Das gibt Ihnen zu gleicher Zeit einen Begriff davon, was gewisse religiöse Urkunden meinen - und Sie wissen, inwiefern religiöse Urkunden immer etwas durchdrungen sind von diesen oder jenen okkulten Wahrheiten -, wenn sie sprechen von dem berechtigten «Fürsten dieser Welt». Sie meinen, wenn sie davon sprechen: der Staat soll sich nur ja nicht darauf einlassen, dasjenige verwalten zu wollen, was der Mensch sich durch die Geburt aus der übersinnlichen Welt als deren Abglanz hereinbringt in die physische Welt. Er soll sich darauf beschränken, den rechtlichen Fürsten auszubilden, der das gerade Gegenteil hier im Staatsleben ausgestaltet: das Leben, das wir brauchen, weil uns die Impulse der geistigen Welt, indem wir durch die Geburt gegangen sind, verlorengingen. Das Staatsleben hat die Aufgabe, das auszubilden, was notwendig ist für den Menschenverkehr in der physischen Welt; es hat nur eine Bedeutung für das Leben zwischen Geburt und Tod.
Sehen wir uns das dritte an, das Wirtschaftsleben. Da wird etwas gesagt werden müssen, was ganz besonders paradox ist: Wir tauchen, kraß ausgedrückt, gewissermaßen unter in ein Untermenschliches, indem wir uns in das Wirtschaftsleben einlassen. Dadurch aber zieht immer etwas vor unsere Seele, indem wir uns in das Untermenschliche einlassen. Und das können Sie ja spüren. Denken Sie einmal, wie sehr Sie sich anstrengen müssen in sich, aktiv, wenn Sie sich der geistigen Kultur hingeben, und wie gedankenlos manche Menschen sein können im bloßen Wirtschaftsleben. Man überläßt sich oftmals den Trieben und Instinkten. Das Wirtschaften geht eben überhaupt ohne viel unmittelbar innerlich aktives Denken vor sich. Aber jedenfalls: wir tauchen unter in ein Untermenschliches. Da bewahrt sich die Seele innerlich etwas zurück. Geisteswissenschaftlich gesprochen ist der Körper mehr angestrengt, wenn wir bei einer materiellen Tätigkeit sind, als man sogar gewöhnlich glaubt. Wir müssen, wenn wir vom Wirtschaftsleben sprechen, auch von dem Endgliede des Wirtschaftsprozesses sprechen, von Essen und Trinken. Wir müssen uns klar sein, daß da nicht ein voller Parallelismus ist zwischen leiblicher und geistiger Tätigkeit, daß da der Körper überwiegt in bezug auf die Tätigkeit gegenüber dem Geistig-Seelischen. Aber dieses GeistigSeelische, das entwickelt dann eine stark unbewußte Tätigkeit. Und in dieser unbewußten Tätigkeit liegt ein Keim. Diesen Keim, den tragen wir durch die Pforte des Todes. Die Seele kann gewissermaßen ruhen, wenn wir wirtschaften. Das aber, was äußerlich dem Bewußtsein als Ruhe erscheint, das entwickelt einen Keim, der durch die Pforte des Todes getragen wird. Und entwickeln wir gar moralisch die Brüderlichkeit im Wirtschaftsleben, wie ich es jetzt immer schildere, dann tragen wir einen guten Keim durch die Pforte des Todes, gerade durch das, was wir als Mensch dem Menschen gegenüber im Wirtschaftsleben entwickeln. Mag es Ihnen materialistisch erscheinen, wenn ich sage: Gerade in der Brüderlichkeit des Wirtschaftslebens legt sich der Mensch in die Seele die Keime für sein Leben nach dem Tode, während er in dem, was Geisteskultur ist, von der Erbschaft desjenigen zehrt, was er hereinbringt aus vorgeburtlichem Leben, - mag Ihnen das materialistisch erscheinen, es ist wahr, einfach wahr gegenüber der geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung. Mag es Ihnen materiell erscheinen, daß ich Ihnen sage: Wenn Sie untertauchen in die Tierheit, sorgt Ihre Menschheit dafür, daß Sie das Übersinnliche für die Zeit nach dem Tode entwickeln — es ist so. Der Mensch ist ein dreigliedriges Wesen. Er hat in seinem Wesen ein Erbgut aus vorgeburtlicher Zeit, er entwickelt etwas, was zwischen der Geburt und dem Tode allein Gültigkeit hat, er entwickelt hier in der physischen Welt etwas, durch das er anknüpft das Zukunftsleben nach dem Tode an das physische Leben hier. Dasjenige, was hier ausgestaltet wird, was hier geoffenbart wird als Lebensglanz und Lebenszukunft und Lebensinteresse in der physischen Geisteskultur, das ist ein Erbgut der geistigen Welt, das wir uns hereinbringen in die physische Welt. Indem wir dieses Geistesgut erleben, es recht erleben, erweisen wir uns als Angehörige der geistigen Welt, bringen in die physische Welt einen Abglanz der übersinnlichen Welt, die wir durchlaufen haben vor unserer Geburt und Empfängnis.
Die abstrakte Wissenschaft, auch die abstrakte Philosophie, redet ja natürlich immer im Abstrakten herum. Die redet davon, man müsse die Ewigkeit der Substanz, also das, was von der menschlichen Substanz bei der Geburt vorhanden ist, dann bleibt, und dann wiederum durch den Tod geht, beweisen. Solche Beweise können nie aus dem bloßen Denken gelingen. Die Philosophen haben sie auch immer gesucht, aber es hat der Beweis niemals standgehalten gegenüber dem inneren logischen Gewissen, weil die Sache einfach nicht so ist. Mit der Unsterblichkeit verhält es sich nämlich viel geistiger. Nichts irgendwie Materielles, geschweige denn Substantielles ist in einer solchen Weise vorhanden. Was vorhanden ist, ist das Bewußtsein, das Bewußtsein nach dem Tode, das zurückschaut in diese Welt. Das ist das, was wir betrachten müssen, wenn wir die Unsterblichkeit betrachten. Wir müssen viel immaterieller werden, als selbst die abstrakten Philosophen, wenn wir von diesen höheren Dingen reden. Aber die Sache ist so, daß wir das, was ich eben charakterisiert habe, als einen Abglanz der übersinnlichen Welt, den wir offenbaren als den Schmuck, den Glanz des Lebens hier, daß wir den verbrauchen und neu anknüpfen hier im physischen Leben, daß wir ein neues Kettenglied unseres ewigen Daseins hier anknüpfen müssen, das wir durch den Tod tragen. Wenn jemand nur an das denkt, was sich fortsetzt in dieses Leben hinein: wenn er konsequent forscht, muß der Faden abreißen; nur wenn er weiß, daß er ein neues Kettenglied ansetzt, das hinausgeht über den Tod, kommt er an die Unsterblichkeit heran.
So ist der Mensch dieses dreigliedrige Wesen. Er entwickelt in sich Fähigkeiten, die diesen Abglanz der übersinnlichen Welt in dieses Leben hereintragen. Ein Leben entwickelt er, das die Brücke bildet zwischen dem vorgeburtlichen und dem nachtodlichen Leben, und das sich auslebt in all dem, was nur seine Wurzel hat in dem Leben zwischen Geburt und Tod, was sich äußerlich darstellt in dem äußerlichen Rechts-, Staatsorganismus und so weiter. Und indem er untertaucht in das Wirtschaftsleben, und indem er in der Lage ist, in diesem Wirtschaftsleben ein Moralisches zu pflanzen, das Brüderliche, entwickelt er die Keime für das nachtodliche Leben. Das ist der dreifache Mensch.
Und denken Sie sich diesen dreifachen Menschen nun seit dem fünfzehnten Jahrhundert in einer solchen Entwickelungsphase, daß er alles das, was früher instinktiv war, bewußt ausbilden muß. Dadurch ist er heute in die Notwendigkeit versetzt, daß sein äußeres soziales Leben ihm Anhaltspunkte bietet, daß er drinnen stehe mit seiner dreifachen Menschlichkeit in einem dreifachen Organismus. Wir können nur, weil wir drei ganz verschiedene Wesensglieder, das Vorgeburtliche, das Irdischlebendige, das Nachtodliche in uns vereinigen, in dem sozialen Organismus richtig drinnen stehen in drei Gliedern. Sonst kommen wir als bewußte Menschen in einen Mißklang mit der übrigen Welt. Und wir werden immer mehr und mehr dahin kommen, wenn wir nicht danach trachten würden, diese umliegende Welt als dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus zu gestalten.
Sehen Sie, da haben Sie die Sache verinnerlicht. Ich versuche zu zeigen, wie sich der geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung der Finger bietet, um den dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus zu finden; wie er gefunden werden muß aus der menschlichen Natur selber heraus. Auf den bloßen Gedanken von dem, was ich jetzt entwickelt habe, auf den sind ja manche Menschen schon gekommen. Aber ich habe mich in öffentlichen Vorträgen und auch sonst immer dagegen verwahrt, daß, wenn ich auch Anhaltspunkte gebe für diese Gedanken, man das verwechselt mit den Gedanken des alten Schäffle «Vom Bau des sozialen Organismus», oder mit den Dilettantismen des jüngst erschienenen Buches von Meray über «Weltmutation», oder ähnliche Dinge. Solche Analogiespiele treibt der Geisteswissenschafter nicht; sie sind höchst unfruchtbar. Das, was ich möchte, auch wenn ich spreche über sozialen Organismus, das ist, daß der Mensch seine Gedanken schult. Die allgemeine Gedankenschulung ist heute nicht einmal so weit, daß in der Naturwissenschaft begriffen würde, was ich nach fünfunddreißigjähriger Forschung in meinem Buche «Von Seelenrätseln» dargestellt habe, wo ich gezeigt habe, daß das ganze menschliche Wesen besteht aus den drei Gliedern: Nerven-Sinnesleben, Rhythmusleben, Stoffwechselleben. Das Nerven-Sinnesleben kann man auch das Kopfleben nennen, das rhythmische Leben kann man auch das Atmungsleben, das Blutleben nennen, das Stoffwechselleben ist das, was den übrigen Organismus konstruktionsmäßig umfaßt. Ebenso wie dieser menschliche Organismus dreigegliedert ist und jedes der Glieder in sich zentriert ist, so muß sich auch der soziale Organismus dadurch zeigen, daß jedes seiner Glieder gerade dadurch für das Ganze wirkt, daß es in sich zentriert ist. Die heutige Physiologie und Biologie glaubt, daß der Mensch ein zentralisiertes Wesen als Ganzes ist. Das ist nicht wahr. Sogar bis in die Kommunikation nach außen ist der Mensch ein dreigliedriges Wesen: das Kopfleben steht dutch die Sinnenwelt selbsttätig mit der Außenwelt in Verbindung, das Atmungsleben ist verbunden mit der Außenwelt durch die Luft, das Stoffwechselleben wiederum steht durch selbständige Öffnungen mit der Außenwelt in Beziehung. In dieser Weise muß auch der soziale Organismus dreigliedrig sein, jedes Glied in sich zentriert. Wie der Kopf nicht atmen kann, sondern das, was durch die Atmung vermittelt wird, durch das rhythmische System empfängt, so soll der soziale Organismus nicht selber etwa ein Rechtsleben entwickeln wollen, sondern er soll das Recht empfangen von dem Staatsorganismus.
Aber ich sagte: Man darf das, was hier auseinandergesetzt wird, nicht verwechseln mit dem bloßen Analogiespiel, das dann eintritt, wenn man allerlei Hypothesen sucht. Geisteswissenschaft ist wirkliche Forschung und geht auf die Erscheinungen los. Wenn man Geisteswissenschafter ist, glauben nur die anderen Menschen, man denke etwas aus. Bevor man richtiger Geistesforscher ist, fängt man nur an, diese geistige Welt zu beobachten. Man muß sich das Denken erst abgewöhnen; das gilt für die physische Welt. Natürlich nicht für das ganze Leben abgewöhnen, sondern bloß für die geistige Forschung.
Ich habe Ihnen gesagt, man kommt in der Regel auf das Verkehrte, wenn man nach Analogien der sinnlichen Welt die geistige Welt charakterisieren will. Erinnern Sie sich an ein Beispiel. Die Geistesforschung zeigt, daß die Erde eigentlich ein Organismus ist; daß das, was die Geologen, die Mineralogen finden, ein Knochensystem nur ist, daß die Erde lebend ist, daß sie schläft und wacht wie der Mensch. Aber jetzt kann man nicht äußerlich nach einem Analogiespiel gehen. Wenn Sie äußerlich einen Menschen fragen: Wann wacht die Erde und wann schläft die Erde? — dann wird er ganz gewiß sagen: Sie wacht im Sommer und schläft im Winter. — Das ist das Gegenteil von dem, was wahr ist. Das Wahre besteht darin, daß die Erde tatsächlich im Sommer schläft und im Winter wach ist. Auf das kommt man natürlich nur, wenn man wirklich in der geistigen Welt forscht. Das ist das Vexierspiel, was das geistige Forschen so leicht dem Irrtum aussetzt, daß, wenn man etwas hineinträgt aus der physischen in die geistige Welt, man zumeist auf das Gegenteil oder auf Viertelswahrheiten kommt. Man muß eben jeden einzelnen Fall erforschen.
So ist es auch mit dem Analogiespiel, das die Leute treiben zwischen den drei Gliedern des individuellen Organismus und den drei Gliedern des sozialen Organismus. Was wird derjenige sagen, der dieses Analogiespiel treibt? Er muß sagen: Außen ist ein Geistesleben, Kunst, Wissenschaft. Das wird er in Parallele ziehen mit dem, was der menschliche Kopf hervorbringt, mit dem Nerven-Sinnesleben. Wie sollte er anders! Dann wird er, wenn er das gelten läßt, was ich in meinen «Seelenrätseln» angeführt habe, als das Materiellste das Stoffwechselleben mit dem Wirtschaftsleben in Zusammenhang bringen. Das ist das Verkehrteste, was herauskommen kann. Und man kommt auf keinen grünen Zweig, wenn man die Sache so ansehen will. Deshalb muß man sich, um zur Wahrheit zu kommen, alles Spielen mit Analogien abgewöhnen. Die außer der Geisteswissenschaft Stehenden glauben, daß man durch ein Gedanken-Analogiespiel zu diesen Dingen komme. Das ist das Allertäuschendste. Es paßt nichts, wenn man das äußere physische Geistesleben mit dem Kopfleben parallelisiert. Es paßt nichts, wenn man das Wirtschaftsleben mit dem Stoffwechselleben zusammenhält. Sobald man eingehen will auf die Sache, so paßt nichts. Wenn man wirklich forscht, so erhält man ein sehr paradoxes Resultat. Wenn man vergleicht den sozialen Organismus mit dem menschlichen Organismus, so kommt man nur zurecht, wenn man sich den sozialen Organismus umgekehrt hingestellt denkt: Wenn man das Wirtschaftsleben mit dem menschlichen NervenSinnesleben vergleicht. Dann allerdings kann man vergleichen das Staatsleben mit dem rhythmischen System. Aber das physische Geistesleben, das muß man mit dem Stoffwechsel vergleichen, denn da sind ähnliche Gesetze vorhanden. Denn das, was als Naturgrundlage vorhanden ist für das Wirtschaftsleben, das ist für den sozialen Organismus ganz gleichbedeutend mit den individuellen Befähigungen, die der Mensch durch die Geburt mitbringt. Wie der Mensch im individuellen Leben von der Erziehung, von dem, was er mitbringt, abhängt, so hängt der wirtschaftliche Organismus ab von dem, was die Natur ihm liefert durch eigene Vorbedingungen des Wirtschaftslebens. Die Vorbedingungen des Wirtschaftslebens, der Boden und so weiter, ist dasselbe wie die individuellen Begabungen, die der Mensch mitbringt in das individuelle Leben. Wieviel Kohle, wieviel Metalle unter der Erde sind, ob ein fruchtbarer oder unfruchtbarer Boden vorhanden ist, das sind gewissermaßen die Begabungen des sozialen Organismus.
Und in demselben Verhältnis, in dem das Stoffwechselsystem des Menschen zu dem menschlichen Organismus und seinen Funktionen steht, in diesem Verhältnis stehen die menschlichen Hervorbringungen des Geisteslebens zum sozialen Organismus. Der soziale Organismus ißt und trinkt dasjenige, was wir ihm zuführen in Form von Kunst, Wissenschaft, technischen Ideen und so weiter. Davon nährt er sich. Das ist sein Stoffwechsel. Ein Land, das ungünstige Naturbedingungen für sein Wirtschaftsleben hat, ist wie ein Mensch, der schlecht begabt ist. Und ein Land, dem seine Bewohner nichts zuführen an Kunst, an Wissenschaft, an technischen Ideen, das ist wie ein Mensch, der verhungern muß, weil er nichts zu essen hat. — Das ist die Realität, das ist die Wirklichkeit. Der soziale Organismus ißt unsere geistigen Erzeugnisse und trinkt sie. Und die Befähigungen, die Begabungen des sozialen Organismus, das sind die Naturbedingungen. Der Vergleich des geistigen Organismus mit dem Kopfleben hat nur so lange eine Bedeutung, solange man ein Analogiespiel treibt. Dann erst kommt man auf das Richtige, was einem helfen kann, wenn man weiß, daß die Sache so ist, daß die Gesetze so sind, wie ich es dargestellt habe. Man kann wissen: die Gesetze des menschlichen Stoffwechsels sind diese. Aber dabei muß man dasselbe Denken anwenden, das man anwendet auf den sozialen Organismus, und dann bekommt man das weitere leicht heraus. Geistige Dinge ohne solchen Leitfaden zu treiben, ist außerordentlich schwierig und langwierig. Weil heute dadurch, daß manchmal ein Analogiespiel getrieben wird, eine starke Abneigung vorhanden ist gegen dieses Parallelisieren des sozialen Organismus mit dem menschlichen Organismus, habe ich das in meinem Buche nur gestreift; aber ich versuchte es wenigstens anzudeuten, weil für die, welche die Sache gesund denken, es wiederum eine große Hilfe sein kann.
So sehen Sie, daß wir heute als Menschen in einer eigentümlichen Lage sind. Die Naturwissenschaft, welche diese großen Fortschritte gemacht hat, welche die Denkgewohnheiten der Menschen so beeinflußt hat, daß im Grunde genommen alles soziale Denken bei den Leuten, die sozial denken, naturwissenschaftlich orientiert wird, wenn sie es auch nicht wissen — die Naturwissenschaft ist nicht fähig, den Menschen in der richtigen Weise zu beurteilen. Sie sagt zum Beispiel den krassen Unsinn: Wenn Sie etwas fühlen, das Gefühl sei auch durch das Nervensystem vermittelt. Es ist der reine Unsinn. Das Gefühl ist direkt ebenso durch das Atmungssystem, das rhythmische System vermittelt, wie der Gedanke durch das NervenSinnessystem. Und der Wille ist durch den Stoffwechsel vermittelt, gar nicht durch das Nervensystem in elementarer Weise. Erst der Gedanke des Wollens ist durch das Nervensystem vermittelt. Nur indem Sie als Menschen ein deutliches Bewußtsein haben von dem Wollen, ist das Nervensystem beteiligt. Indem Sie Ihr Wollen mitdenken, ist das Nervensystem beteiligt. Weil man das nicht weiß, ist herausgekommen jenes furchtbar Beirrende der heutigen Physiologie und Anatomie, daß man sensitive Nerven und Bewegungsnerven unterscheidet. Es gibt gar keine krassere Unrichtigkeit als diese Unterscheidung der sensitiven Nerven und Bewegungsnerven im menschlichen Leibe. Die Anatomen sind immer in Verlegenheit, wenn sie dieses Kapitel besprechen, aber sie kommen nicht darüber hinaus. Sie sind in furchtbarer Verlegenheit, weil sich anatomisch diese beiden Arten von Nerven nicht unterscheiden. Das ist reine Spekulation. Und alles das, was sich durch Untersuchungen der Tabes anschließt, das ist durchaus alles ohne Halt. Die Bewegungsnerven unterscheiden sich nicht von den sensitiven Nerven, weil die Bewegungsnerven nicht dazu da sind, die Muskeln in Bewegung zu setzen. Die Muskeln werden in Bewegung gesetzt durch den Stoffwechsel. Und während Sie mit den sogenannten sensitiven Nerven auf dem Umweg durch die Sinne die Außenwelt wahrnehmen, nehmen Sie mit den anderen Nerven ihre eigenen Bewegungen, die Muskelbewegungen wahr. Die heutige Physiologie nennt sie nur falscherweise Bewegungsnerven.
Solche furchtbaren Vorurteile sind in der Wissenschaft und korrumpieren das, was in das populäre Bewußtsein übergeht und viel korrumpierender wirkt, als man gewöhnlich denkt,
Also die Naturwissenschaft ist nicht so weit, diesen dreigliedrigen Menschen zu durchschauen. In der Naturwissenschaft kann man warten, ob theoretische Anschauungen ein paar Jahre früher oder später populär werden. Das macht nichts aus für das Glück der Menschen. Aber das Denken ist nicht vorhanden, um diesen dreigliedrigen Menschen zu begreifen. Dieselbe Art zu denken muß aber vorhanden sein, um den sozialen Organismus in seiner Dreigliedrigkeit zu begreifen. Da wird die Sache ernst. Da stehen wir heute an dem Zeitpunkte, wo begriffen werden uf. Deshalb ist eine solche Umkehr des Denkens, ein solches Umlernen wahrhaftig nicht nur für die naiven Menschen notwendig, sondern für die gelehrten Menschen am allermeisten. Die naiven Menschen wissen wenigstens nichts von dem, was alles in der Naturwissenschaft aufgestellt worden ist, um unbewußt die Dreigliedrigkeit des Menschen zu kaschieren. Die gelehrten Menschen aber sind vollgesteckt mit all diesen Begriffen, die heute diese Dreigliederung für einen Unsinn erklären lassen. Für den heutigen Physiologen ist sie das reine Blech. Wenn man ihm sagt, es gibt keine Bewegungsnerven, und davon spricht, daß die Gefühle nicht ebenso wie die Gedanken durch das Nervensystem vermittelt sind, sondern nur der Gedanke an das Gefühl durch den Nerv vermittelt wird, also das Bewußtsein davon, nicht das Gefühl als solches, dann wird er große Einwendungen machen. Die Einwendungen gegen diese Dinge kennt man gut. Die Menschen können natürlich sagen: Nun ja, sieh einmal, du nimmst Musikalisches wahr, das nimmst du durch die Sinne wahr. — Nein, das musikalische Empfinden ist viel komplizierter vorhanden. Es beruht darauf, daß sich der Atmungsrhythmus in unserem Gehirn begegnet mit der Sinneswahrnehmung, und in dem Zusammenschlag zwischen dem Atmungsthythmus und der äußeren Sinneswahrnehmung entsteht die musikalisch-ästhetische Empfindung. Auch da ist es so, daß das Elementare im rhythmischen System liegt. Und das, was dieses Elementare zum Bewußtsein bringt, ist im Nervensystem.
Das alles weist Sie aber darauf hin, daß wir mit Bezug auf viele Dinge heute doch in einer Übergangszeit leben. Sie wissen, ich liebe es nicht, von Übergangszeiten zu sprechen, denn jede Zeit ist ja eine Übergangszeit von der Vergangenheit in die Zukunft. Das ist es, wenn man abstrakt spricht, und von jeder Zeit kann einem mehr oder weniger vorkommen, daß es eine Übergangszeit sei. Aber nicht davon will ich sprechen, daß unsere Zeit eine Übergangszeit ist, sondern in was sie es ist. Sie ist innerlich in sehr bedeutsamer Weise in bezug auf wichtige innere Menschheitsimpulse eine Übergangszeit. Das zeigt sich aber auch bei Menschen, welche diese Wahrnehmung machen können, in einer gewissen Weise scharf. Es sind die Menschen heute nicht sehr geneigt, Nebensymptome mit dem nötigen Ernst zu betrachten. Ich will Ihnen zuerst eine rein geisteswissenschaftliche Wahrnehmung sagen. Natürlich kann ich Ihnen diese geisteswissenschaftliche Wahrnehmung ebensowenig beweisen, wie Ihnen der Mensch, der schon einen Walfisch gesehen hat, beweisen kann, daß er existiert. Er kann nur erzählen.
Wenn man es dahin gebracht hat, sein geistiges Anschauungsvermögen wirklich so zu gestalten, daß man eine Verbindung mit Menschenseelen haben kann, die zwischen dem Tode und einer neuen Geburt sich entwickeln, dann macht man recht sehr überraschende Erfahrungen. Diese Kommunikation kann nur in Gedanken hergestellt werden; aber indem wir hier im physischen Leibe denken, klingt immer in unseren Gedanken etwas an, was von der Sprache herkommt. Mit dem Gedanken vibriert immer etwas von der Sprache. Wir denken immer stark in Worten. Ich habe es sogar einmal erleben müssen, als ich energisch behauptete: Ich bin mir wohl bewußt, daß ich denken kann, ohne daß Worte mitklingen -, daß Hartmann mir sagte: Das ist ein Unsinn, das gibt es gar nicht. Der Mensch kann nicht denken, ohne daß er in Worten denkt.
So gibt es also sehr geistvolle Philosophen, die überhaupt nicht glauben, daß man ohne innerliche Wortpräsenz denken kann. Man kann es. Aber im gewöhnlichen alltäglichen Denken denkt der Mensch in Worten, besonders dann, wenn er einen Verkehr mit den Toten spirituell entwickeln soll. Denn Sie wissen ja, daß dieser Verkehr mit den Toten nicht in Abstraktionen verlaufen darf - das ist so, wie wenn wir ins Blaue hineindenken würden -, sondern er muß in Konkretheit verlaufen, der Verkehr mit den Toten. Deshalb sagte ich: Bestimmte Bilder, die sehr konkret vorgestellt werden, die kommen an die Toten heran, nicht abstrakte Gedanken. Besonders weil das so ist, sind wir dann auch sehr geneigt, in diesem Gedankenverkehr mit den Toten in der Sprache zu denken, die Sprache innerlich mit anklingen zu lassen. Da machen wir die eigentümliche Erfahrung -— Sie mögen es glauben oder nicht, aber es ist eben eine Erfahrung -, daß zum Beispiel die Toten Substantive nicht hören. Das sind wie Lücken in unseren Sätzen im Verkehr mit den Toten. Eigenschaftswörter sind schon besser, aber auch noch sehr schwach. Aber bei Verben, Tätigkeitswörtern, da greift ihr Verstehen ein. Das lernt man erst ganz allmählich. Man weiß nicht, warum manches so schlecht geht in diesem Verkehr. Man kommt erst nach und nach darauf, daß man bei diesem Verkehr nur ja nicht viele Hauptwörter anwenden darf. Man kann es ja für sich übersetzen, damit man es versteht. Und man kommt darauf, daß das davon herrührt, daß der Mensch, indem er Tätigkeitswörter, Verben gebraucht, nicht anders kann, als innerlich selber dabei sein, bei den Wörtern. Es ist etwas Persönliches in den Verben. Man erlebt die Tätigkeit mit, während das Substantiv immer zu etwas ganz Abstraktem wird. In dem liegt es wohl, daß diese Erscheinung eintritt, von welcher ich gesprochen habe. Daraus ersehen Sie aber, daß das sprachliche Element etwas ist, was uns nur in sehr beschränktem Maße mit der übersinnlichen Welt verbindet, was sogar dadurch, daß in dem Gebiet der Sprache immer mehr die Neigung zu Hauptwörtern auftritt, bewirkt, daß wir uns abschnüren können von der geistigen Welt. Und je mehr wir in Hauptwörtern denken, desto mehr schnüren wir uns ab von der geistigen Welt.
Ich wollte Ihnen mit dieser Tatsache nur andeuten, daß die Sprache für unser übersinnliches Leben eine große Bedeutung hat, eine fundamentale Bedeutung hat. Aber die Sprache ist in der menschlichen Entwickelung selber in voller Entwickelung begriffen. Und das Eigentümliche in der Sprachentwickelung ist, daß sie immer mehr und mehr den Menschen zur Abstraktion hinbringt, daß sie ihn immer mehr und mehr von dem lebendigen, inneren Gedankenerleben entfernt. Sie können das äußerlich dadurch wahrnehmen, daß Sie sich fragen: Wie sind die westlichen Sprachen im Vergleich zu den östlichen Sprachen gestaltet? Nehmen Sie zum Beispiel die äußerlich auf dem physischen Plan am weitesten vorgeschrittene Sprache, die englische: sie verläuft fast nur in Worten, hat am wenigsten Gedankeninhalt. Nehmen Sie die orientalischen Sprachen: sie sind ganz voll mit Gemütsinhalt, mit Gedankeninhalt. Das ist der Zug der Sprache vom Osten nach dem Westen. Die Sprache entleert sich des Gedankeninhaltes von Osten nach Westen. Das ist eine wichtige Differenzierung mit Bezug auf das soziale Völkerleben.
Nun gibt es in unserer Zeit einen Mann, der hat einen großen Scharfsinn entwickelt in der Beobachtung der menschlichen Sprache. Dieser Mann ist so gescheit mit Bezug auf die Beobachtung dessen, was mit der menschlichen Sprache zusammenhängt, ja fast so gescheit, daß er schon beinahe wiederum nicht gescheit ist. Es gibt nämlich einen Grad von Gescheitheit, wo man wieder anfängt ein bißchen dumm zu werden vor übergroßer Gescheitheit. Es ist schon wahr. Man kann ja einen großen Respekt haben vor dieser Gescheitheit, man soll sie aber vor der entsprechenden Wahrheit nicht überschätzen. Da ist Fritz Mauthner, der Kant überkantet hat in seiner «Kritik der Sprache». Es sind außerordentlich feine Bemerkungen in dem schrecklichen Buche über die «Kritik der Sprache», und auch im «Wörterbuch», Beobachtungen, die doch aus den Impulsen der Zeit heraus gemacht sind. Das läßt sich gar nicht leugnen. So ist nun Mauthner auf etwas ganz Bestimmtes gekommen, das ganz besonders den Geisteswissenschafter frappieren muß: darauf, daß eigentlich die menschliche innere Seelentätigkeit in einer Art von Dreistufigkeit verläuft. Das erste ist das gewöhnliche sinnliche Wahrnehmen, wie es dann organisch gestaltet ist in der Kunst. An das glaubt Mauthner als an etwas, was real ist, was eine Wirklichkeit ist. Wenn man nun innerlich erlebt, angeregt durch die sinnliche Wahrnehmung, etwas, was in das Übersinnliche schon hineinführt, so läßt Fritz Mauthner solches innerliche Erleben gelten. Er nennt es «mystisches Erleben », «religiöses Erleben». Schön, aber er sagt: Indem der Mensch so mystisch erlebt, kann er nur träumen. Es ist ja angenehm zu träumen, aber man ist aus der Wirklichkeit heraus. Mauthner zweifelt überhaupt an der Möglichkeit, an die Wirklichkeit der Dinge heranzukommen, denn die einzige Wirklichkeit ist ihm die sinnliche Wahrnehmung. Höchstens die Kunst kann noch heran. Aber sobald man sich von der sinnlichen Wahrnehmung entfernt, so weit, daß man etwas erlebt in mystisch-religiösem Leben, so träumt man eigentlich über die Wirklichkeit; man hat sie schon verlassen. Und dann kann man noch weiter gehen, meint Mauthner. Er kommt zu all diesen Überzeugungen durch die Betrachtung der Sprache. Er analysiert, er kritisiert die Sprache, besonders in seinem philosophischen Wörterbuch: Es ist etwas Schreckliches, das zu lesen. Ich habe Sie schon aufmerksam gemacht bei einer anderen Gelegenheit auf jene Qualen, die man durchmacht, wenn man von diesen Artikeln, die von A bis Z laufen, den einen oder anderen liest. Man fängt an, einen solchen Artikel zu lesen: Da wird etwas gesagt. Dann wird ein anderer Satz gesprochen, wo das, was gesagt wird, ein bißchen eingeschränkt wird. Dann ein dritter Satz, wo das, was eingeschränkt wird, wiederum eingeschränkt wird, so daß es ein bißchen auf den ersten Satz zurückkommt. Man dreht sich, dreht sich, dreht sich, und hat am Ende nichts, wenn man den ganzen Artikel zu Ende liest. Schrecklich ist der Artikel «Christentum». Eine furchtbare Qual. Aber es ist begründet, in Mauthners Sinn, daß das so ist. Mauthner weiß das, und er verurteilt eigentlich seinen Leser dazu, solche Qualen zu empfinden. Er hat sie selbst empfunden. Er glaubt nicht, daß der Mensch imstande ist, wenn er etwas wissen will, zu etwas anderem zu kommen als zu einem solchen Sichdrehen. Er ist absolut Skeptiker. Er findet nirgends in der Sprache einen anderen Inhalt, als die Sprache selbst hat. Sie hat für ihn nur einen Zufallswert. Und so wird ihm auch zu einem Traume das innere mystische Erleben. Will man aus der Sprache herauskommen: indem man herauskommt, wird sie zum innerlichen Träumen.
Man kann aber zu einer dritten Stufe gehen: Man kann glauben zu denken, aber man spricht nur innerlich. Ob man nun der einen oder anderen Sprache zuneigt, die Sprachlaute, die Worte sind einmal an den äußeren sinnlichen Dingen entwickelt. Ich habe Ihnen ja gesprochen von verschiedenen Anschauungen der Gelehrten, wie Sprache entstanden ist. Sie wissen, daß man die Anschauungen über Sprachentwickelung in zwei Hauptklassen teilt: Bimbamtheorie und Wauwautheorie. Das sind Termini technici. Nun findet Mauthner, daß alles nur entwickelt ist an der äußeren Sinneswahrnehmung. Eigentlich sind wirkliche Gedanken nicht für den Menschen vorhanden. Aber in der Wissenschaft strebt er wirkliche Gedanken an, indem er auf die dritte Stufe gestiegen ist. Er gelangt aber nicht dazu, etwas Wirkliches zu wissen. In der Mystik träumt er noch. Wenn er sich zur Gedankenwirklichkeit, zum Beispiel zu Naturgesetzen erhebt, dann träumt er nicht einmal mehr, dann schläft er schon. Daher ist für Mauthner alle Wissenschaft Docta ignorantia. Das sind seine drei Stufen.
Nun, ich sagte Ihnen, man kann einen gewissen Respekt haben vor einer solchen Beobachtung, denn sie ist nicht einmal unrichtig, aber eben nicht unrichtig für die heutige Zeit. Es ist nämlich etwas, wozu jetzt die Menschheit neigt, von Mauthner richtig empfunden. Es ist so: Wenn der heutige Mensch zur Mystik kommen will, so ist das etwas ganz anderes als beim früheren Menschen. Der frühere Mensch war innerlich noch verbunden mit der Realität. Der heutige Mensch kann das nicht; er träumt wirklich als Mystiker. Und die Naturgesetze, die der Mensch heute findet — nun, man kann sich ja nicht ganz auf solch schroffen Standpunkt stellen wie gewisse ’Theoretiker, die die Sache auch bemerkt haben wie Mauthner, wie zum Beispiel der französische Denker Boutroux oder Ernst Mach -, aber man muß doch sagen, was man heute Naturgesetze nennt, wenn man diese Naturgesetze auf ihren Inhalt prüft, so sind im Grunde genommen keine Gedanken da — man glaubt nur, sie seien Gedanken -, sondern nur Zusammenfassungen von Tatsachen. Es sind eigentlich bloße Registraturen. Das haben einzelne bemerkt, zum Beispiel Mach. Mauthner hat es gehörig bemerkt, daher spricht er von Docta ignorantia, von einer gelehrten Unwissenheit, von einer unwissenden Gelehrsamkeit. Ja, für den heutigen Entwickelungszustand der Menschen ist das schon so. Der Mensch ist heute sowohl mystisch wie naturwissenschaftlich sehr unfruchtbar geworden. Er bemerkt es nur noch nicht deutlich genug in seinem Hochmut. Das ist aber nicht ein allgemein menschliches Zeichen. Mauthner und die anderen glauben nur, es sei dies, weil sie in Wahrheit doch nicht an menschliche Entwickelung denken, sondern weil sie glauben: wie heute die Seele ist, so war sie immer. Aber es ist charakteristisch für die heutige Zeit. Deutlich ist für das heutige Seelenleben nur die Wahrnehmung. Wir kommen in ein Träumen hinein und gar in gelehrte Unwissenheit, wenn wir in frühere Stufen steigen wollen. Man darf aber daraus nicht den Schluß ziehen: Die menschliche Natur ist so, daß sie entweder in mystisches Träumen verfallen muß oder in gelehrte Unwissenheit — wie es die tun, die denken wie Mauthner -, sondern man muß daraus den Schluß ziehen: Also muß auf neuen Wegen gefunden werden, was die Alten auf alten Wegen gefunden haben. Das heißt, wir müssen eine neue Mystik suchen, nicht in alte Mystik hineinkommen. Diese neue Mystik ist gesucht in «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?». Wir müssen aufsteigen zu einer neuen Imagination, zu einer neuen Inspiration, aber wir müssen aufsteigen auf neuen Wegen. Ich habe das scharf ausgeführt in meinem Buche «Vom Menschenrätsel»: Weil wir mystisch träumen oder gar wissenschaftlich schlafen, haben wir es heute notwendig, daß wir aufwachen. Deshalb habe ich das Urphänomen der heutigen Erkenntnis in diesem Buche als ein «Aufwachen » bezeichnet. Wir müssen an die Stelle des mystischen Träumens eine wache Imagination setzen, an Stelle der Docta ignorantia die Inspiration, in dem Sinne, wie es gemeint ist in dem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten? ».
In bezug darauf stehen wir heute in einem Übergang, gerade in bezug auf die Menschenseele, daß wir aus den tiefsten Untergründen dieser Menschenseele heraufentwickeln müssen aktive Kraft, welche zum Geistigen führt. Wir finden uns sonst nicht durch das Chaos der gegenwärtigen Zeit hindurch, wenn wir nicht den guten Willen entwickeln, aktive innere Seelenkräfte zu entwickeln. Die Spiritisten tun das Gegenteil. Sie spüren unbewußt, daß aus dem Innern nichts quillt, also lassen sie sich die Geister in äußerer Erscheinung vorführen, in äußerer sinnlicher Anschauung.
Und eine tragische Erscheinung tritt in der Gegenwart auf. Wir können es heute erleben, daß Menschen, die vor kurzem noch glaubten, daß der Materialismus ihre Seele ausfüllen könnte, im zunehmenden Alter doch am Materialismus irre werden. Das ist ja nichts anderes als das, was die gesunde Seele erfühlen muß gegenüber der heutigen Biologie, der Soziologie auch: Leichengeruch, seelischen Leichengeruch, den man nur losbekommt durch eine innerliche Seelenaktivität. Das wollen heute viele nicht. Daraus entsteht die Tragik der bejahrten Menschen, die aber nicht an geisteswissenschaftliches Forschen heranwollen und in den Katholizismus zurückgehen. Der gibt den passiv bleibenden Seelen dann etwas, von dem sie glauben, daß es ein geistiger Inhalt ist. Das ist eine große Gefahr. Das weist wiederum von einer anderen Seite auf den Durchgang hin, den wir als Menschheit in der gegenwärtigen Zeit durchmachen. Ganz im geheimen geht die Menschenseele durch einen wichtigen Entwickelungspunkt. Und mit diesem Durchgang durch einen wichtigen Entwickelungspunkt hängt innerlich zusammen die Notwendigkeit, daß wir neu denken lernen in bezug auf den sozialen Organismus, daß wir in manchem anderen auch umdenken lernen in bezug auf den Menschen.
Nun lesen Sie, wie der einzelne Mensch, wenn er in die übersinnliche Welt hinaufrückt, anfängt, sich dreizuteilen. Lesen Sie es in «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?». Die Durcheinanderschmelzung von Denken, Fühlen und Wollen, die hier in der Sinneswelt beim Menschen das Natürliche ist - lesen Sie das Kapitel vom «Hüter der Schwelle» -—, Denken, Fühlen und Wollen treten auseinander, wenn man in diese übersinnliche Welt hineinkommt. Das macht die Menschheit heute im geheimen durch im Unterbewußtsein. Da wird eine Schwelle überschritten. Die Menschen gliedern sich innerlich in einen dreigliedrigen Menschen in anderer Weise, als das früher vorhanden war. Dieses Beobachten des Durchganges des Menschen durch eine gewisse Schwelle, die belehrt einen, daß aus den geistigen Untergründen des Daseins selbst heraus uns diktiert wird die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Wenn wir in Zukunft finden wollen ein Bild von uns in der Außenwelt, so daß wir damit zusammenpassen, dann müssen wir den sozialen Organismus dreigegliedert haben.
Sehen Sie, das sind solche Winke, die die Geisteswissenschaft gibt für die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Aber ich betone auch dabei wiederum: Ist einmal die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus gefunden, so kann sie, wie alle okkulten Wahrheiten, aus gesundem Menschenverstand eingesehen werden. Zum Finden ist notwendig geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung. Ist sie gefunden, dann spricht der gesunde Menschenverstand die Sache aus. Das ist auch etwas, was wir bei jeder Gelegenheit berücksichtigen müssen.
Nun habe ich heute versucht, Ihnen etwas zu verinnerlichen, was heute, der Zeit dienend, über die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus gesagt werden muß. Am nächsten Sonntag wollen wir diese Betrachtung erweitern, abschließen, und vielleicht erst zu dem bringen, was sie sein soll, nämlich zur völligen inneren Vollständigkeit.
Second Lecture
Today I would like to insert something episodic, so to speak, that has to do with the threefold social organism I mentioned last time here before you. I would like to insert it as an episode, so to speak, for a deeper spiritual-scientific consideration of the matter. Of course, some of what will form the basis of our remarks today will have to be gathered little by little from the totality of the spiritual-scientific worldview. It is not possible to give extensive explanations in every single lecture. But what appears to us externally as the necessity of a threefold social organism, we want to look at today, as it were, from the inside, from its inner side, and thereby deepen our understanding of it somewhat. It is not really difficult for those who are somewhat familiar with spiritual scientific ideas to evoke within themselves a sense of the great diversity of the three spheres of life into which the social organism should be divided according to our intentions. If we are attentive to the fact that such a threefold division is something to be taken seriously, then we initially perceive a possible distinction between these three spheres, each of which can be perceived as very different from the others.
These three areas are already well known to you: the area of what we call spiritual life, insofar as this spiritual life develops and reveals itself in what we call the physical world, that is, the entire scope of what is called — if I may use the paradoxical term — physical spiritual life. We know what we mean by this. This includes everything related to the individual abilities and talents of human beings. In contrast to materialistic people, we believe that spiritual life is something much more expansive than it is for materialistic people, as we will see shortly. We are compelled to think of spiritual life in much more material terms than materialistic people, insofar as we are speaking of physical spiritual life. This has already permeated many of my lectures, that spiritual life can only be grasped if one starts from the premise that all material life is truly and concretely permeated by the spiritual, so that for us there is no such thing as mere matter, but always that which reveals itself through the medium of matter is, in its inner essence, also, I would say, spiritual. Art, science, legal concepts, moral impulses of humanity—all of this would, roughly speaking, constitute the scope of this spiritual life. Above all, however, everything that belongs to the cultivation of individual talents, that is, the entire system of education, teaching, and schooling, would fall within the scope of this spiritual life.
Then we must clearly distinguish this life from another that is in a certain way connected with the physical spiritual life, but which is nevertheless fundamentally different from it. This is everything that can be described as legal life, political life, and state life. Of course, one must adjust one's perception somewhat to make clear distinctions in this area if one does not want to fall into the error of saying that legal life is basically what legality is. But we, who are accustomed to distinguishing precisely and clearly, will have to distinguish between grasping legal ideas, between being inspired by legal ideas, if I may put it that way, and living out the law in the outer world. We will speak more precisely about all these things in a moment.
The third is then, as you will easily be able to distinguish from the other two, economic life. Now, human beings stand in a completely different relationship to the three areas of life that we have just listed. If you try to grasp what physical spiritual life is through a purely healthy perception, you will feel — just try to direct the soul's powers of perception in the direction I have just mentioned — that everything that is somehow rooted in the individual talents and abilities of the human being proceeds, so to speak, in the innermost part of human nature, is produced in the innermost part of human nature. If we approach the work of perception in a completely scientific manner, we find that everything that is expressed in art and science, in the impulses of education, can be perceived as something spiritual and soul-like that lives within us when we devote ourselves to its activity; it lives within us in such a way that we can only experience it inwardly in the right way when we withdraw somewhat from the external world. Certainly, we must reveal it in the external world — that is something different from experiencing it internally at first — but as human beings we cannot conceive of what is expressed in art and science, in educational impulses, we cannot grasp it internally unless we can withdraw somewhat from life. Of course, this does not have to be a withdrawal into a hermit's cell; one can go for a walk, for all I care, but one must withdraw somewhat, become soulful, live within oneself. This is something that arises for a very naive feeling, if it is allowed to develop in the human soul, for the physical life of the soul, and which spiritual science must express by saying: This physical life of the soul is experienced by our human soul in such a way that we live out this physical life of the soul without making any demands on the body. Here spiritual science must, and you can see this from everything spiritual science has brought you so far, turn in the most decisive way against the materialistic interpretation of the human being, which lives in the superstition that when one develops inwardly what belongs to the physical life of the spirit, this development is carried out completely and utterly by the instrument of the brain, the nervous system, and so on. No, we know that this is not true. We know that an independent inner life must exist in human beings if revelations of this physical spiritual life are to come about. Something is happening in human beings during this physical spiritual life that does not have its parallel manifestations in the physical body; something is happening that only takes place within the spiritual-soul being of human beings.
It is different when we develop those impulses of life that we want to place on a democratic foundation in our threefold social order, when we develop what makes all human beings appear equal before all other human beings. This can only develop if we use the tools of our physicality that connect human beings with one another. Not inner ideas of justice, but legal impulses of life; not inner moral ideas, but moral impulses of life that are active between human beings. These develop when human beings approach one another, when human beings influence one another, when human beings exchange what they experience in one another. These things only develop when people interact with each other, when people turn their physical exterior toward each other, when they talk to each other, when they see each other, when they live with each other through empathy—in short, only in human interaction can this be developed. With regard to everything that develops on the basis of our individual abilities, that is, with regard to what is independent of our physicality in the sense just mentioned, we are individually constituted as human beings, each of us unique, each of us an individual. With the exception of the much lesser differentiation that emerges through racial differences, ethnic differences, and the like, which, however, are insignificant as differentiation—if one has only one organ for this, one must know this—compared to the differentiation through individual talents and abilities, with the exception of this, we are equal as human beings with regard to our external physical humanity, through which we encounter other human beings as human beings, through which we develop legal impulses and moral impulses. We are equal as human beings, here in the physical world, precisely because of the equality of our human form, simply because we all have a human face. This fact that we all have a human face, that we encounter each other as external physical human beings who develop legal impulses and moral impulses together on democratic ground, makes us equal on this ground. We are different from one another through our individual talents, but these belong to our inner nature.
The third, the economic sphere: There is certainly no need to incline toward false asceticism, for this false asceticism is quite certainly contrary to the fundamental tendency of our present age, especially in the West—we have often spoken about this here—but one can perceive how economic life causes human beings to sink, as it were, here in the physical world into a stream of life, a sea of life in which they lose themselves as human beings to a certain extent. Do you not have the feeling, when you look at economic life, that you are submerged in something that does not allow you to be as human as you are in legal or political life? This is even more the case with regard to the life that flows from your individual abilities, indeed from the individual abilities of human beings in general. We feel it, as I said, without falling into false ascetic tendencies; we feel that in relation to economic life, we cease to be whole human beings when we have to engage in economic activity. We have to pay tribute to the subhuman in us by engaging in economic activity.
We have, so to speak, what belongs to economic life as commodity production, commodity circulation, commodity consumption, even if it rises to intellectual achievements, which, however, arise with the same character as the commodity circulation of economic life, because we are human beings and not angels; we know that even what is intellectual production in this respect, the economic aspect takes on the character of the economic, which runs in material goods. And the material goods that are necessary for the satisfaction of our physical needs, and intellectual achievements, such as dental care and the like, in economic life must ultimately lead, through the exchange of goods, to the dentist being able to live physically through economic life. In some way, economic life is always connected with physical life. But this is something that brings us into a certain relationship with the animal world, albeit one that has been elevated to the human level. It allows us to immerse ourselves in what is instinctively experienced together with animals. Here you have, first of all, a naive but healthy feeling toward what distinguishes the three realms for the individual human being.
Let us now delve deeper into the matter from a spiritual scientific perspective. The spiritual scientist must pay particular attention to the structure of human life in time, the development of human life from birth or conception to death. Those who acquire an awareness of the course of human life will be deeply impressed by how all of the individual abilities of human beings manifest themselves significantly in early childhood. For those who have acquired a spiritual eye and life experience, the perception of the special nature of the child's soul is very strong. In what grows during the first three stages of life, from the first to the seventh year, from the seventh to the fourteenth year, and from the fourteenth to the twenty-first year, what are the individual abilities of human beings announce themselves as if from an inner elemental force. And it is not only what we are inclined to regard as individual abilities of human beings that reveal themselves here, but also whether we are physically strong or weak, whether we are capable of more or less muscular work. This is where we must extend the spiritual into the material more than those who think materialistically. From a spiritual perspective, we see a clear connection between the structure of the muscular system and the individual predisposition of human beings. For those who are able to observe human beings, all of this is connected with the development of the human head. Even in external forms, whether someone has strong or weak legs, whether they can run a lot, those who have acquired a spiritual insight can see this in the head, precisely in the head. Whether someone is skilled or unskilled can be seen in the head of the human being. These so-called physical abilities of the human being, which are closely related to his aptitude for external material, manual work, are connected with the structure of the head. Now you know what I have repeatedly told you about the structure of the head and explained from various different perspectives. I have told you: everything that takes shape in the human head, everything that gives the human head its configuration, its form, points to the prenatal, points to that which the human being brings with him into physical life through birth from the spiritual worlds, whether from the spiritual world itself or from previous incarnations on earth. By seeing a connection between all of a person's individual abilities, whether spiritual or manual, and the development of the human head, one's vision is broadened so that everything that emerges from a person's individual abilities can be traced back to their pre-birth life.
You see, this is what leads the spiritual scientist to such a meaningful illumination of what physical spiritual life is. Physical spiritual life is here in the physical world because we as human beings bring something with us through birth. All physical spiritual life, to the extent that I have spoken to you about it today, does not arise merely from this physical world; it arises from the impulses that we bring with us through our birth from the spiritual world into physical existence. Because we are human beings who bring echoes of a supersensible existence into physical existence, we shape what this physical spiritual life is in human society here in the physical world. There would be no art, there would be no science, at most an experimental description, a description of experiments, there would be no educational impulses, we could not educate children, we could not provide school education if we did not bring impulses from pre-birth life into physical life through birth. That is one thing.
Now, please take everything you find in my “Theosophy” or in “The Secret Science” in terms of descriptions of the supersensible world. Take, in particular, what is said in these books from the supersensible world about the relationships that exist between human souls when these souls are disembodied, when these souls live between death and a new birth. You know that we must speak of entirely different relationships between souls than those we can speak of here in the physical world. You will recall how I composed what is experienced from soul to soul from fundamental tones that are present here in shadowy images. You remember the description in Theosophy of life in the soul world, how I had to speak of certain interactions, of soul and astral forces that do not exist in the physical world, in order to describe disembodied life in the supersensible world between death and a new birth. There, soul stands in an inner relationship to soul. There is a relationship between soul and soul that is brought about by the inner power of the soul itself. If one now permeates oneself completely with what exists as a relationship between soul and soul in the supersensible world, if one grasps this with one's eyes and makes what exists in this way really concrete, then, if one compares in the right way, one gains a remarkable insight. You know that much of what leads to knowledge of the supersensible world, or even to knowledge of the connections between the supersensible and the sensible world, is based on such inner tendencies. One is led directly to legal, state, or political life, in such a way that there is no greater contrast to the particular form of supersensible life than political and legal life here on the physical plane. These are the two great opposites, and one senses these opposites when one gets to know the supersensible life in the proper way. The supersensible life has nothing at all that can be regulated by legal statutes or external moral impulses, for there everything is regulated by inner soul impulses. Here, in physical life, the complete opposite is established by setting up state life with its fundamental nuance, because through birth we lose what lives in the soul as fundamental impulses that establish the relationship between soul and soul; because this is lost, we acquire the opposite here between birth and death. This opposite is the legal system that exists; it establishes what must be established, the legal relationship, because human beings have lost what in the supersensible world is the relationship from soul to soul. These are the two poles: the supersensible relationship from soul to soul — the state relationship here on the physical plane.
From human being to human being, we bring something into the physical world of spiritual culture that remains with us after birth as an echo from the supersensible world. We spread a kind of radiance over life by allowing what we bring into the world to shine through, seeking to reveal it in art, science, and the education of other human beings. This is different from the life of law. We must establish this here on the physical earth as a substitute for what we lose in a supersensible relationship when we enter physical existence through birth.
This gives you at the same time an idea of what certain religious documents mean — and you know to what extent religious documents are always imbued with these or those occult truths — when they speak of the justified “prince of this world.” What they mean when they speak of this is that the state should not attempt to administer what human beings bring into the physical world through birth from the supersensible world as its reflection. It should confine itself to training the legal prince who does the exact opposite here in state life: the life we need because we lost the impulses of the spiritual world when we went through birth. State life has the task of training what is necessary for human interaction in the physical world; it only has meaning for life between birth and death.
Let us look at the third, economic life. Something will have to be said here that is particularly paradoxical: to put it bluntly, we sink, as it were, into something subhuman when we engage in economic life. But in doing so, something always pulls at our soul when we engage in subhuman activities. And you can feel that. Think about how much effort you have to make within yourself, how active you have to be when you devote yourself to spiritual culture, and how thoughtless some people can be in mere economic life. People often give in to their drives and instincts. Economic activity takes place without much immediate inner thinking. But in any case, we are immersed in something subhuman. The soul holds something back inwardly. In spiritual scientific terms, the body is more strained when we are engaged in material activity than is usually believed. When we speak of economic life, we must also speak of the final link in the economic process, of eating and drinking. We must be clear that there is no complete parallelism between physical and spiritual activity, that the body predominates in relation to the spiritual-soul activity. But this spiritual-soul activity then develops a strong unconscious activity. And in this unconscious activity lies a seed. We carry this seed through the gate of death. The soul can rest, so to speak, when we are engaged in economic activity. But what appears to the consciousness as rest develops a seed that is carried through the gate of death. And if we develop brotherhood in economic life in a moral way, as I am now describing, then we carry a good seed through the gate of death, precisely through what we develop as human beings toward other human beings in economic life. It may seem materialistic to you when I say that it is precisely in the brotherhood of economic life that human beings lay the seeds for their life after death in their souls, while in spiritual culture they live on the inheritance of what they bring in from their pre-birth life — it may seem materialistic to you, but it is true, simply true in terms of spiritual scientific research. It may seem materialistic to you when I say that when you immerse yourself in animal nature, your humanity ensures that you develop the supersensible for the time after death — but it is so. Human beings are threefold beings. They have a genetic heritage from pre-birth, they develop something that is only valid between birth and death, and they develop something here in the physical world through which they connect their future life after death to their physical life here. What is developed here, what is revealed here as the splendor of life, the future of life, and the interest in life in the physical spiritual culture, is a genetic heritage from the spiritual world that we bring into the physical world. By experiencing this spiritual heritage, by experiencing it correctly, we prove ourselves to be members of the spiritual world and bring into the physical world a reflection of the supersensible world that we passed through before our birth and conception.
Abstract science, including abstract philosophy, naturally always talks in abstract terms. It talks about the need to prove the eternity of substance, i.e., that which is present in human substance at birth, remains, and then passes away through death. Such proofs can never be obtained from mere thinking. Philosophers have always sought it, but the proof has never stood up to inner logical conscience, because that is simply not the case. The situation with immortality is much more spiritual. Nothing material, let alone substantial, exists in this way. What exists is consciousness, consciousness after death, which looks back into this world. That is what we must consider when we consider immortality. We must become much more immaterial than even abstract philosophers when we talk about these higher things. But the thing is that what I have just characterized as a reflection of the supersensible world, which we reveal as the adornment, the splendor of life here, we consume and reconnect here in physical life, that we must connect a new link in the chain of our eternal existence here, which we carry through death. If someone thinks only of what continues into this life, if he investigates consistently, the thread must break; only if he knows that he is adding a new link in the chain that goes beyond death can he approach immortality.
Thus, man is this threefold being. He develops abilities within himself that carry this reflection of the supersensible world into this life. He develops a life that forms a bridge between pre-birth and post-death life, and that lives itself out in everything that has its roots only in the life between birth and death, which is expressed externally in the external legal and state organism and so on. And by immersing themselves in economic life, and by being able to plant something moral, something brotherly, in this economic life, they develop the seeds for life after death. That is the threefold human being.
And now imagine this threefold human being since the fifteenth century in a phase of development in which he must consciously develop everything that was previously instinctive. As a result, he is now compelled to find points of reference in his outer social life that show him that he stands with his threefold humanity within a threefold organism. It is only because we unite three completely different elements of our being—the pre-birth, the earthly life, and the post-death—that we can stand correctly within the social organism in three members. Otherwise, as conscious human beings, we come into disharmony with the rest of the world. And we will come more and more into this disharmony if we do not strive to shape the world around us as a threefold social organism.
You see, you have internalized the matter. I am trying to show how spiritual scientific research lends itself to finding the threefold social organism; how it must be found from human nature itself. Many people have already arrived at the mere idea of what I have now developed. But in public lectures and elsewhere, I have always cautioned against confusing these ideas, even though I provide clues for them, with the ideas of the old Schäffle in “Vom Bau des sozialen Organismus” (On the Structure of the Social Organism), or with the dilettantism of Meray's recently published book on “Weltmutation” (World Mutation), or similar things. The humanities scholar does not engage in such analogies; they are highly unproductive. What I want, even when I speak about the social organism, is for people to train their thoughts. General thought training today is not even at the stage where natural science understands what I have presented in my book Von Seelenrätseln (On the Riddles of the Soul), the result of thirty-five years of research, where I have shown that the whole human being consists of three members: nerve-sense life, rhythmic life, and metabolic life. The nerve-sense life can also be called the head life, the rhythmic life can also be called the respiratory life, the blood life, and the metabolic life is that which encompasses the rest of the organism in terms of its structure. Just as this human organism is threefold and each of the members is centered within itself, so too must the social organism show itself in such a way that each of its members works for the whole precisely because it is centered within itself. Today's physiology and biology believe that the human being is a centralized being as a whole. This is not true. Even in its communication with the outside world, man is a threefold being: the life of the head is connected to the outside world through the senses, the life of respiration is connected to the outside world through the air, and the life of metabolism is connected to the outside world through independent openings. In this way, the social organism must also be threefold, each member centered within itself. Just as the head cannot breathe, but receives what is conveyed through breathing through the rhythmic system, so the social organism should not want to develop a legal life of its own, but should receive the law from the state organism.
But I said: One must not confuse what is being discussed here with the mere game of analogy that arises when one seeks all kinds of hypotheses. Spiritual science is real research and goes to the phenomena themselves. When one is a spiritual scientist, only other people believe that one is thinking something up. Before you are a true researcher of the spirit, you only begin to observe this spiritual world. You must first unlearn thinking; this applies to the physical world. Not unlearn it for your whole life, of course, but only for spiritual research.
I have told you that you usually come to the wrong conclusion if you try to characterize the spiritual world by analogies from the sensory world. Remember an example. Spiritual research shows that the earth is actually an organism; that what geologists and mineralogists find is only a skeletal system, that the earth is alive, that it sleeps and wakes like a human being. But now we cannot proceed by means of external analogies. If you ask someone externally, “When does the earth wake and when does it sleep?” they will certainly say, “It wakes in summer and sleeps in winter.” That is the opposite of what is true. The truth is that the earth actually sleeps in summer and is awake in winter. Of course, you can only come to this conclusion if you really investigate the spiritual world. This is the puzzle that makes spiritual research so prone to error: when you transfer something from the physical world into the spiritual world, you usually end up with the opposite or with half-truths. You have to investigate each individual case.
The same is true of the analogy game that people play between the three members of the individual organism and the three members of the social organism. What will the person who plays this analogy game say? He must say: Outside there is a spiritual life, art, science. He will draw a parallel with what the human head produces, with the nerve-sense life. How could he do otherwise? Then, if he accepts what I have stated in my “Riddles of the Soul,” he will associate the most material thing with the metabolic life and the economic life. That is the most wrong thing that could come out of it. And you will get nowhere if you look at things in this way. Therefore, in order to arrive at the truth, you must give up all playing with analogies. Those who stand outside spiritual science believe that you can arrive at these things through a game of thought analogies. That is the most deceptive thing of all. Nothing fits when one draws parallels between the outer physical life of the spirit and the life of the head. Nothing fits when one links economic life with metabolic life. As soon as one wants to get to the heart of the matter, nothing fits. If one really investigates, one arrives at a very paradoxical result. If you compare the social organism with the human organism, you can only get it right if you think of the social organism in reverse: if you compare economic life with human nervous and sensory life. Then, however, you can compare state life with the rhythmic system. But physical mental life must be compared with metabolism, because similar laws are at work there. For what exists as the natural basis for economic life is, for the social organism, entirely equivalent to the individual abilities that human beings bring with them at birth. Just as human beings in their individual lives depend on their upbringing and on what they bring with them, so the economic organism depends on what nature provides it with through the preconditions of economic life. The preconditions of economic life, the soil and so on, are the same as the individual talents that people bring with them into their individual lives. How much coal or metal there is in the ground, whether the soil is fertile or infertile, are, in a sense, the talents of the social organism.
And in the same way that the human metabolic system relates to the human organism and its functions, so do the human products of spiritual life relate to the social organism. The social organism eats and drinks what we feed it in the form of art, science, technical ideas, and so on. This is what nourishes it. This is its metabolism. A country with unfavorable natural conditions for its economic life is like a person who is poorly endowed. And a country whose inhabitants contribute nothing in the way of art, science, or technical ideas is like a person who must starve because he has nothing to eat. That is reality, that is the truth. The social organism eats and drinks our spiritual products. And the abilities, the talents of the social organism, are the natural conditions. The comparison of the spiritual organism with the life of the head only has meaning as long as one engages in a game of analogy. Only then does one arrive at the right conclusion, which can help one if one knows that this is how things are, that the laws are as I have described them. One can know that these are the laws of human metabolism. But one must apply the same thinking that one applies to the social organism, and then one can easily figure out the rest. To pursue spiritual matters without such a guide is extremely difficult and tedious. Because today, due to the fact that analogies are sometimes used, there is a strong aversion to drawing parallels between the social organism and the human organism, I have only touched on this in my book; but I tried at least to hint at it, because for those who think about the matter in a healthy way, it can be a great help.
So you see that we as human beings are in a peculiar situation today. Natural science, which has made such great progress and influenced people's habits of thinking to such an extent that, basically, all social thinking among people who think socially is oriented toward natural science, even if they are not aware of it — natural science is not capable of judging human beings in the right way. For example, it says the blatant nonsense that if you feel something, that feeling is also mediated by the nervous system. This is pure nonsense. Feelings are conveyed directly through the respiratory system, the rhythmic system, just as thoughts are conveyed through the nervous sensory system. And the will is conveyed through the metabolism, not at all through the nervous system in an elementary way. Only the thought of wanting is conveyed through the nervous system. Only when you as a human being have a clear awareness of wanting is the nervous system involved. By thinking through your will, the nervous system is involved. Because this is not known, the terrible confusion of today's physiology and anatomy has arisen, whereby a distinction is made between sensitive nerves and motor nerves. There is no more blatant inaccuracy than this distinction between sensitive nerves and motor nerves in the human body. Anatomists are always embarrassed when they discuss this chapter, but they cannot get beyond it. They are terribly embarrassed because anatomically these two types of nerves are no different. It is pure speculation. And everything that follows from studies of tabes is completely without foundation. The motor nerves do not differ from the sensory nerves because the motor nerves are not there to set the muscles in motion. The muscles are set in motion by metabolism. And while you perceive the outside world via the so-called sensory nerves, which take a detour through the senses, you perceive your own movements, the movements of your muscles, via the other nerves. Today's physiology incorrectly calls them motor nerves.
Such terrible prejudices exist in science and corrupt what passes into popular consciousness, and have a much more corrupting effect than is usually thought.
So natural science is not yet ready to understand this threefold human being. In natural science, one can wait and see whether theoretical views become popular a few years earlier or later. That does not matter for human happiness. But the thinking is not there to understand this threefold human being. But the same way of thinking must exist in order to understand the social organism in its threefold nature. That is where things become serious. That is where we stand today, at the point where understanding is needed. That is why such a reversal of thinking, such a re-learning, is truly necessary not only for naive people, but most of all for educated people. Naive people at least know nothing of what has been established in natural science in order to unconsciously conceal the threefold nature of the human being. Educated people, however, are full of all these concepts that today make this threefold division seem like nonsense. For today's physiologists, it is pure nonsense. If you tell them that there are no motor nerves, and that feelings are not conveyed by the nervous system in the same way as thoughts, but that only the thought of the feeling is conveyed by the nerves, i.e., the consciousness of it, not the feeling as such, they will raise strong objections. The objections to these things are well known. People can of course say: Well, look, you perceive music, you perceive it through the senses. — No, musical perception is much more complicated than that. It is based on the fact that the breathing rhythm in our brain encounters sensory perception, and the musical-aesthetic sensation arises from the interaction between the breathing rhythm and external sensory perception. Here, too, the elementary lies in the rhythmic system. And what brings this elementary to consciousness is the nervous system.
All this points to the fact that, in relation to many things, we are living in a transitional period. You know, I don't like to talk about transitional periods, because every period is a transition from the past to the future. That is true in abstract terms, and every period of time can seem more or less like a transitional period. But I do not want to talk about our time being a transitional period, but rather about what kind of transitional period it is. Internally, it is a transitional period in a very significant way with regard to important inner impulses of humanity. This is also evident in a certain way among people who are able to perceive it. People today are not very inclined to take secondary symptoms seriously. I would first like to share with you a purely spiritual scientific perception. Of course, I cannot prove this spiritual scientific perception to you any more than a person who has seen a whale can prove to you that it exists. He can only tell you about it.
Once you have developed your spiritual perception to such an extent that you can connect with human souls developing between death and a new birth, you have some very surprising experiences. This communication can only take place in thought; but because we think here in our physical bodies, something that comes from language always resonates in our thoughts. Something from language always vibrates with our thoughts. We always think strongly in words. I even experienced this once when I emphatically stated, “I am well aware that I can think without words resonating,” and Hartmann replied, “That is nonsense; that does not exist. Human beings cannot think without thinking in words.”
So there are very intelligent philosophers who do not believe at all that one can think without the inner presence of words. One can. But in ordinary everyday thinking, people think in words, especially when they are supposed to develop spiritual communication with the dead. For you know that this communication with the dead must not take place in abstractions — that would be like thinking into the blue — but must take place in concreteness, the communication with the dead. That is why I said: Certain images that are imagined very concretely reach the dead, not abstract thoughts. Particularly because this is so, we are then also very inclined to think in this exchange of thoughts with the dead in language, to let the language resonate inwardly. We then have the peculiar experience—you may believe it or not, but it is an experience—that the dead do not hear nouns, for example. These are like gaps in our sentences when communicating with the dead. Adjectives are better, but still very weak. But with verbs, action words, their understanding kicks in. You learn this only very gradually. You don't know why some things go so badly in this communication. Only gradually do you realize that you must not use many nouns in this communication. You can translate it for yourself so that you understand it. And you realize that this stems from the fact that when people use action words, verbs, they cannot help but be inwardly present with the words. There is something personal in verbs. You experience the action, while the noun always becomes something completely abstract. This is probably why the phenomenon I mentioned occurs. From this you can see that the linguistic element is something that connects us to the supersensible world only to a very limited extent, and that the increasing tendency to use nouns in the realm of language causes us to cut ourselves off from the spiritual world. And the more we think in nouns, the more we cut ourselves off from the spiritual world.
I only wanted to point out with this fact that language has great significance for our supersensible life, that it has fundamental significance. But language itself is in the process of full development in human evolution. And the peculiar thing about the development of language is that it leads people more and more toward abstraction, that it distances them more and more from the living, inner experience of thought. You can perceive this outwardly by asking yourself: How are Western languages structured in comparison to Eastern languages? Take, for example, the language that is most advanced on the physical plane, English: it consists almost entirely of words and has the least thought content. Take the Oriental languages: they are full of emotional content, of thought content. This is the movement of language from East to West. Language empties itself of thought content from East to West. This is an important distinction with regard to social life among peoples.
Now, in our time, there is a man who has developed great acumen in observing human language. This man is so clever in observing everything related to human language that he is almost too clever, to the point of being almost unintelligent. There is a degree of intelligence where one begins to become a little stupid again due to excessive intelligence. It is true. One can have great respect for this intelligence, but one should not overestimate it in relation to the corresponding truth. There is Fritz Mauthner, who outdid Kant in his “Critique of Language.” There are extraordinarily subtle remarks in that terrible book on the “Critique of Language,” and also in the “Dictionary,” observations that were nevertheless made under the influence of the times. That cannot be denied. Mauthner has thus arrived at something very specific that must strike scholars of the humanities in particular: that human inner soul activity actually proceeds in a kind of three-stage process. The first stage is ordinary sensory perception, as it is then organically shaped in art. Mauthner believes in this as something that is real, that is a reality. When, stimulated by sensory perception, one experiences something within oneself that leads into the supernatural, Fritz Mauthner accepts such inner experience. He calls it “mystical experience” or “religious experience.” Fine, but he says: by experiencing something mystically in this way, man can only dream. It is pleasant to dream, but one is removed from reality. Mauthner doubts the very possibility of approaching the reality of things, because for him the only reality is sensory perception. At best, art can come close. But as soon as one moves away from sensory perception to the point where one experiences something in a mystical-religious life, one is actually dreaming about reality; one has already left it behind. And then one can go even further, says Mauthner. He arrives at all these convictions through his observation of language. He analyzes and criticizes language, especially in his philosophical dictionary: It is terrible to read. I have already drawn your attention on another occasion to the torment one goes through when reading one or the other of these articles, which run from A to Z. One begins to read such an article: something is said. Then another sentence is spoken, where what is said is slightly restricted. Then a third sentence where what is qualified is qualified again, so that it comes back a little to the first sentence. One turns and turns and turns, and in the end one has nothing when one has read the whole article. The article “Christianity” is terrible. A terrible torment. But it is justified, in Mauthner's sense, that this is so. Mauthner knows this, and he actually condemns his readers to feel such torment. He has felt it himself. He does not believe that human beings are capable, when they want to know something, of arriving at anything other than such turning in circles. He is an absolute skeptic. He finds no content in language other than that which language itself has. For him, it has only a random value. And so the inner mystical experience also becomes a dream for him. If one wants to escape language, by escaping it becomes inner dreaming.
But one can go to a third stage: one can believe one is thinking, but one is only speaking inwardly. Whether one inclines toward one language or another, the sounds of language, the words, are developed from external sensory things. I have spoken to you about the different views of scholars on how language came into being. You know that views on language development are divided into two main classes: the Bimbam theory and the Wauwau theory. These are technical terms. Now Mauthner finds that everything is developed solely from external sensory perception. Real thoughts do not actually exist for human beings. But in science, he strives for real thoughts by rising to the third level. However, he does not succeed in knowing anything real. In mysticism, he is still dreaming. When he rises to the reality of thought, for example to the laws of nature, he is no longer even dreaming, he is already asleep. Therefore, for Mauthner, all science is docta ignorantia. These are his three stages.
Well, I told you that one can have a certain respect for such an observation, because it is not even incorrect, but it is not incorrect for the present time. For it is something to which humanity now tends, correctly perceived by Mauthner. It is like this: when modern man wants to come to mysticism, it is something quite different from what it was for earlier man. People in the past were still inwardly connected to reality. People today cannot do that; they really dream as mystics. And the laws of nature that people find today—well, one cannot take quite such a harsh stance as certain “theorists” who have also noticed this, such as Mauthner, the French thinker Boutroux, or Ernst Mach— but one must say that what we call natural laws today, when one examines the content of these natural laws, are basically not thoughts — one only believes they are thoughts — but only summaries of facts. They are actually mere registrations. Individuals have noticed this, for example Mach. Mauthner noticed it quite clearly, which is why he speaks of docta ignorantia, of learned ignorance, of ignorant scholarship. Yes, that is indeed the case for the current state of human development. Today, humans have become very unproductive, both mystically and scientifically. They just don't notice it clearly enough in their arrogance. But that is not a universal human trait. Mauthner and the others believe that this is because they do not really think about human development, but because they believe that the soul is today as it has always been. But it is characteristic of the present age. The only thing that is clear in today's soul life is perception. We fall into a dream and even into learned ignorance when we try to ascend to earlier stages. However, one must not conclude from this that human nature is such that it must either fall into mystical dreaming or into learned ignorance — as do those who think like Mauthner — but one must conclude from this that what the ancients found by old ways must be found by new ways. This means that we must seek a new mysticism, not enter into old mysticism. This new mysticism is sought in How Does One Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds? We must ascend to a new imagination, to a new inspiration, but we must ascend by new paths. I have explained this clearly in my book The Mystery of Man: because we dream mystically or even sleep scientifically, we need to wake up today. That is why I have described the fundamental phenomenon of today's knowledge in this book as an “awakening.” We must replace mystical dreaming with a waking imagination, and docta ignorantia with inspiration, in the sense meant in the book How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds.
In this respect, we are now in a transition, especially with regard to the human soul, in that we must develop active forces from the deepest depths of this human soul that lead to the spiritual. Otherwise, we will not find our way through the chaos of the present time unless we develop the good will to develop active inner soul forces. Spiritualists do the opposite. They unconsciously sense that nothing springs from within, so they allow spirits to be presented to them in external appearances, in external sensory perception.
And a tragic phenomenon is occurring in the present. We can see today that people who recently believed that materialism could fill their souls are, as they grow older, becoming disillusioned with materialism. This is nothing other than what the healthy soul must feel toward today's biology and sociology: the smell of death, the spiritual smell of death, which can only be removed through inner soul activity. Many people today do not want this. This gives rise to the tragedy of elderly people who do not want to engage in spiritual scientific research and return to Catholicism. This gives the souls that remain passive something they believe to be spiritual content. This is a great danger. From another perspective, this again points to the transition that we as humanity are going through at the present time. In secret, the human soul is passing through an important point of development. And this transition through an important point of development is intrinsically linked to the necessity that we learn to think anew in relation to the social organism, that we also learn to rethink many other things in relation to human beings.
Now read how the individual human being, when he ascends into the supersensible world, begins to divide himself into three parts. Read about it in How Does One Achieve Knowledge of the Higher Worlds? The confusion of thinking, feeling, and willing, which is natural for humans in the sensory world—read the chapter on the “Guardian of the Threshold”—thinking, feeling, and willing separate when one enters this supersensible world. This is what humanity is doing today in secret, in the subconscious. A threshold is being crossed. Human beings are dividing themselves internally into a threefold human being in a different way than was previously the case. Observing this passage of the human being through a certain threshold teaches us that the threefold division of the social organism is dictated to us from the spiritual foundations of existence itself. If we want to find an image of ourselves in the outer world in the future that fits with us, then we must have a threefold social organism.
You see, these are the hints that spiritual science gives us for the threefold division of the social organism. But I emphasize again: once the threefold division of the social organism has been found, it can be understood with common sense, like all occult truths. Spiritual scientific research is necessary to find it. Once it has been found, common sense speaks for itself. This is also something we must bear in mind at every opportunity.
Today I have tried to help you internalize what needs to be said about the threefold social organism in order to serve the needs of our time. Next Sunday we will expand on these considerations, bring them to a conclusion, and perhaps finally arrive at what they are meant to be, namely, complete inner wholeness.