The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Distinguished attendees! To the untrained eye, the circumstances of public life in the civilized world over the past 50 years have become unmistakable; their interrelationships have become difficult to grasp and confusing. The present misery has emerged from what might be called the great economic boom before 1914; the most complicated circumstances, caused by the most diverse facts, loom into our decline – facts that are in turn difficult to grasp. It is no wonder that the human being who must live in this decline, must work, must strive, feels from the depths of his soul the yearning for an ascent. But as understandable as this is, anyone who takes a deeper look at today's conditions must recognize that, in the present and in the near future, there is no way out of the decline to a recovery other than an understanding of the great tasks of the time, the great tasks of the time from certain sources, which cannot really be found within small areas. As well as I can in one evening, I will endeavor to try to offer some modest observations on some of these great tasks of our time – I would say that one can only do so in the face of these tasks.

It seems that if anything quite obviously indicates how we have to approach the great tasks, it is the great mistakes that have been made in this time. Two stages today characterize our entire public life in its immediate present development, and it seems to me that these stages point not only to external, economic conditions, but also to legal, moral and especially spiritual conditions within contemporary civilization. But when one names these two stages, Versailles, Spa and all that follows in their train, when one remembers all that they have brought us, then it becomes somewhat difficult to characterize them, because today one is suspected of striving for a certain objectivity. People's opinions are sharply opposed to each other: anyone who wants to judge the West as a member of Central European civilization can be quite sure that his objectivity will be very, very strongly doubted by Westerners. Therefore, I would prefer not to give my own opinion on what happened in Versailles, which is still a painful part of our present, but rather to follow the opinion of the Englishman John Maynard Keynes, who wrote the significant book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”, which I have already referred to in my Stuttgart lectures from a different point of view than today.

Keynes was a person who, until a certain point in time, was present in an outstanding position at the negotiations in Versailles, and he judged [in his book] what happened and also what, in his opinion, should have happened. One might say that in three sentences he roughly summarizes the striking facts of Versailles that are so symptomatic of our present time. He, the Englishman, whom Lenin only recently called the “English philistine”, says quite simply: nothing, absolutely nothing of any magnitude has been achieved at Versailles by those who could claim to be the victors. What did Clemenceau do? He ruined Europe's economic resources and did nothing to rebuild the economy in France itself. What did Lloyd George do? He made a few deals that allowed him to shine in London for a short time. What did Wilson do? Wilson had good intentions regarding what was right and just – according to Keynes – but no way presented itself to him to somehow implement what he may have had in mind in a well-meaning way. The three most important men made the big mistakes of the time.

And now let us take a look at what has actually emerged for Germany from the terrible events that have taken place since 1914. I do not need to describe it to you. To the southeast of Germany, Czechoslovakia has become a relatively large empire. Born out of national aspirations, everything that rules there proves to be economically powerless in the face of the tasks that the economy in particular faces for these areas. To the north of it, Poland. Well, you only need to recall the last few weeks to see, on the one hand, how what has been formed there has only contributed to the unrest in Europe; and on the other hand, you only need to recall the perplexity of the leading European personalities in the face of what is seething and boiling there. One need only think of the “tragicomedy in the transformation of the view of the Polish ‘defeats’ to the Polish ‘victories’, how one was confronted without opinion, without great guidelines, today with this, tomorrow with the opposite. And if you go further east, it may seem today that Leninism and Trotskyism, especially when you add to that the devastating conditions in Italy, have no other guidelines than to develop, out of a phenomenal megalomania, all those forces that can serve to destroy what has been achieved by more recent civilization. The Germans of Austria are crushed, not to mention Hungary, where the sad spectacle is taking place that when members of the party that was at the helm until recently are led through the streets, bound and captured, they are then stabbed in the eyes with umbrellas by ladies in elegant, magnificent attire. This description could be continued for a long time, and one could see what has emerged for humanity from the circumstances since 1914.

And if we look at the ideas of those who are somehow active within this terrible decline – at the ideas of personalities who are often even capable of entertaining tragicomic illusions about an ascent that could be brought about by their intentions – we might be tempted to say: In the short-sighted, in the uncomprehending, that speech that Lenin delivered at the Second Congress of the Third International was monumental, where he once again, entirely in the old Marxist style, proved Western capitalism with all the banalities that have been heard so often. If one approaches what was said in this grandiose speech from a certain world-historical point of view, namely that capitalism, having developed into imperialism, tyrannizes over five-sevenths of humanity, then today, on the other hand, the question must be raised: What would have become of all of modern civilization if it had not been for the accumulation of capital? And should we not ask: Is it not self-evident, after all the forces that our modern times have brought forth, that such capital accumulation has also taken place for the sake of human progress? Can we still get by in today's collapsing world with such abstraction, which only proclaims the struggle in a very abstract form, or should we not ask: Is there not also something moral underlying our decline, especially when this note is struck? Do not perhaps precisely such fighters as Lenin confuse the harmfulness of capitalism in general with the kind of morality or, rather, immorality with which capitalism has operated? Can we not also trace this spiritual note in the effects of capitalism? And might we not arrive at deeper impulses than those which are constantly being declaimed today, and whose declamation has brought so little practical success for the better?

Now, one could say that the opposite view, which also comes from the Englishman Keynes, the harsh critic of the Western powers, is more indicative of today's intellectual, legal and economic situation. But that sounds somewhat different than Lenin's words. Keynes says, for example: Yes, terrible things happened in Versailles. Instead of doing something to build Europe, everything has been done to turn Europe into a heap of ruins of civilization; something terrible has happened, something worse will happen in the coming years. — I am quoting the sense, not the wording. And in an even stranger way, Keynes addresses some of the underlying mental states that have brought us into this present situation. It is interesting to see how this man, who sat through the negotiations led by Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George for weeks on end, realizes what actually caused Wilson, who beguiled so many people with his abstract Fourteen Points, to fail so utterly. This becomes a significant problem for the Englishman Keynes, and something very strange comes to light.

Keynes constructs – as I said, from the way Wilson was sitting – how the others did everything to deceive him, to keep him from finding out what they actually want. It is a remarkable psychological event that Keynes describes and dissects, which, I would like to say, shines a deep and significant light on the whole cultural state of the present. Keynes obviously means: If one had told Wilson that France wanted the Germans of Austria to be prevented from uniting with the Germans of Germany, if one had said this clearly and distinctly, so that Wilson would have heard these words, his sense of justice would have risen up against it. Now, if you are going to visualize the struggle of such a dull mentality - if I may use this Entente word - you have to realize how Wilson feels - as Keynes does - if you now bring the following to mind as a spectator. Keynes says: Yes, the people around Clemenceau and Lloyd George did not say: “The Germans of Austria will not be allowed to unite with the Germans of Germany,” because Wilson would have rebelled against that; that is why they said: “The independence of German-Austria is to be guaranteed by a treaty with the Entente powers until the League of Nations pronounces otherwise.” Wilson understood that the independence and freedom of the Germans of Austria had to be guaranteed. If he had been told that they were forbidden to unite with the Germans of Germany, Wilson would have understood the same thing that he had otherwise understood as freedom and independence as the highest compulsion. If one had told him – as Keynes continues –: “Danzig shall become a Polish city”, he would have revolted against it; that quite obviously contradicts the Fourteen Points. So one told him: “Danzig shall become a free city, but all customs matters shall be handled from Poland, as shall the supervision of all transport matters, and the Poles shall become the protectors of the nationals living abroad. Oh, that sounded different from saying that Danzig should become a Polish city. And one can almost say: Yes, when it is said like that: 'Danzig should become a free city', then Wilson's dull mentality is inspired. But if he had been told that Danzig should become a Polish city, that would have contradicted Wilson's view that every nation should be led to freedom. And if one had told Wilson that the Entente was to supervise the German rivers, he would not have been able to agree to that; but instead one said: 'Navigation, where it passes through several states, is an international matter.' Wilson was satisfied with that again.

If you want to see what the great forces are that are moving the world today, you have to look at what is developing between the – I will speak in German now and translate the Entente word – “state of mind” of the leading personalities who have grown out of the previous circumstances. Is there still any honesty and sincerity there? Is there still any healthy sense and openness? The opposite is true, and what is more, it lives in such a way that one is still convinced of being an honest, open person, because what actually works has become an unconscious habit. How could Wilson actually be so deceived as he has been in this way, as I have just described it after Keynes? People who still cannot bring themselves to believe that an abstract, theorizing mind like Wilson's is a disaster for Europe sometimes say benevolent words like, “He, this Wilson, knew European conditions far too little.” Hypothetically admitted, although I do not admit it, Wilson knew European conditions far too little. But Wilson wrote a work on the state comprising almost 500 pages, in which he describes the conditions of the European states in great detail, the state and legal conditions and so on. So we are faced with the fact that either it is not true that Wilson did not know the European situation, or an influential contemporary figure writes a work on European conditions that is influential in America precisely because he is ignorant of those European conditions. The latter would cast a bright light on the superficiality of our time, on everything that draws only from the superficial spirit and does not delve into what lives in the deeper foundations of things as the real cause of the present events, the present developments and the whole evolution of humanity. But there is something much more significant behind what I have presented.

Many years ago, during a lecture series in Helsingfors – at a time when Wilson was revered everywhere because two significant literary works had been published by him – I drew attention to something that characterizes the whole nature of Wilson's state of mind. Wilson says, for example, that if you look at the time in which, for example, Newton, the great physicist, lived, you find that, as in the theory of constitutional law or in the thinking of those who reflect on economic and financial conditions, the same forms of thought and the same mental images are found for the economic and political conditions that Newton, the physicist, created for physicists. And now Wilson says: We must free ourselves from such a dependence of thought in relation to public, political or economic conditions; we must think today in terms of the organic about politics, about the world economy and so on. And now he develops a kind of political idea, of which one must say: Just as those whom he criticizes for being dependent on Newton in their time, so he is entirely a copycat of Darwinism and thinks Darwinian as a politician, as an economist, and as a legal expert, just as those whom he criticizes thought in a Newtonian way. Darwin is fashionable – so Wilson, the world reformer, thinks Darwinian. But I said at the time: We are now in such a time that we must no longer allow ourselves to be blinded to the real conditions of public life by what comes to us from the natural sciences. What comes to us from the natural sciences – I have often said it here – is quite excellently suited to precisely explore the surface of things; but what ideas want to form about human action, about human coexistence, must go into deeper world reasons than natural science even needs. And that is why – I said – the dangerous thing in our time is precisely a way of thinking like that of Woodrow Wilson.

That was long before the war, at a time when Wilson was still being glorified as a world hero for a long time to come. What matters today, namely, is to avert one's gaze from everything that only holds people to the superficial. It is necessary to be able to sharpen one's gaze into the deeper reasons for becoming and happening. But, esteemed attendees, that is what the school of thought that, like science, approaches the spiritual and soul life in man from a scientific spirit is trying to do. It is the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science that I have been representing here in my lectures in Stuttgart for almost two decades now, and more and more every year.

What must be striven for in our spiritual life in terms of the spiritual science that is meant here? I will only briefly indicate that this spiritual science does not arrive at its results in an external way, but rather through the fact that the human being first performs certain exercises, which are intellectual in nature. Time and again, the human being must say to himself what I characterized as a comparison in one of my last lectures here. I said: If a five-year-old child picks up a volume of Goethe's poetry, he will not be able to do anything with it, he will in any case do something completely different with it than what the volume of poetry by Goethe is intended for. But if he is ten years older, he will have gone through a development and reached a level of maturity by which time he will know what to do with this volume of poetry. The spiritual researcher referred to here says: With the form of consciousness that we use in ordinary life and that we also apply in conventional science, we face the higher world forces as a five-year-old child faces a volume of Goethe's poetry. Thus, forces slumber in every human being that he can develop within himself and that then show him a different, a spiritual, understanding of the world. Above all, they show him that although scientific thinking is a magnificent way to explore the surface of things, and that in this respect science has justly achieved the greatest triumphs, They show him that we cannot, however, understand natural things that play a role in human activity with the scientific way of thinking, if we do not resort to methods and ways of thinking that are permeated by the spirit and with which we can also grasp the human being and the forces within him in a thoroughly scientific way. But then we come from such a grasp of the human being to a completely different grasp of the world than through the conventional spiritual life in which we are immersed today. In the face of this conventional spiritual life, one would like to recall a word spoken by Hölderlin that cuts deep into the heart, when his mind was still bright, not yet clouded, but was finely sensitive to what was present in his cultural environment. Hölderlin, who had immersed himself in the harmonious humanity of ancient Greece and had grown fond of it, looked at the people around him, exaggerating to some extent, as a mind of his calibre would do in his time, and characterized them as follows, comparing them to the Greeks. He said: “Do people live among us ordinary Germans? I see no human beings around me, as the Greeks were; I see officials, teachers, professors, but no human beings; I see lawyers, artists and scholars, but no human beings; I see young and mature people around me, but no human beings; what I miss in my environment is the whole, full, developed humanity that can also gain a harmonious relationship with the universe. Such humanity also lived consciously and unconsciously, sensually and supernaturally in Goethe, and what Goethe himself valued even higher than his poetry — although it was then so little understood after Goethe: his scientific creations. In these lines of scientific thought, Goethe's physicist does not live one-sidedly when he presents a theory of colors, nor does his botanist live one-sidedly when he describes plants, nor does his anatomist live one-sidedly when he characterizes human bones. but in this way of thinking the whole human being lives always and in everything; and the whole human being grasps in the individual parts of nature that which can only be revealed when one experiences it in its effect on all of humanity within oneself.

Over time, this thinking was increasingly confronted with something that has been praised so much, but also occasionally criticized: specialization in all areas of life, the kind of specialization that has found its way into our higher knowledge in particular and has had an impact on it, for example, all the way down to primary school education. This specialization made man a physicist, a botanist, a lawyer, a professor, a teacher, and so on, but it drove out the human being. And we must ask ourselves: Is it really a furthering of knowledge itself, when this knowledge has developed in such a way in modern times that the knowledge that led to a world view has split into those small portions, from which one has lost the human element and can no longer keep an eye on the world? Again and again, a few influential personalities were portrayed as if they were knowledge itself. But anyone who can see into the development of modern times will find that this is not the case. He sees that knowledge and the striving for the abstract unified state, as it has developed over the last three to four centuries throughout the civilized world. He sees that the unitary state, which absorbed everything that we today want to re-organize through the impulse of the threefold social organism, that this unitary state, with its mixing of spiritual, legal and economic life into one fabric, made physicists and chemists, professors and teachers, in short, specialized people, and it was with these that it had to fill its positions if it followed its principles. It was this unified state that sucked the fullness of humanity out of people. This fullness of humanity lived so powerfully in Goethe and was so longed for by Hölderlin for his Germans. It is spiritual science that wants to give this fullness of humanity back to today's humanity, because only from this fullness of humanity can come what is at the same time knowledge, what is feeling with all humanity, what is real right and at the same time reasonable economic life.

If one proceeds according to the methods of spiritual research, one does not get a superficial view of something concocted from the individual disciplines, but one gets fully living spiritual knowledge. But this is like a light that can be cast on the individual areas. And with it one gets the possibility again to place the human being above the specialists; one gets the possibility to put the human being first and the social structure afterwards - and not the other way around, to put the social structure first and only then the human being, and thereby let him wither away into a system template. Because spiritual science is something that really comes from the fullness of the human being, but that must first be gained through spiritual research, that is why it can also have a fertilizing effect on what is fragmented in the world. Fragmented in the world, for example, is our present-day jurisprudence, the individual branches of our present-day economic life - everything is fragmented.

Those who have heard me speak at length and are able to grasp the actual meaning of what I have said know that I do not say such things out of immodesty or silliness. But I may well point out that in February, in Dornach, before an audience of more than thirty medical specialists, I attempted to present the therapeutic element of medicine from a spiritual-scientific understanding of the nature of the human being in such a way that one could really arrive at a genuine therapy that goes straight to the human core. In this single case I have tried to show how a central view of the nature of the natural, soul and spiritual can have a fruitful effect on a single science. And anyone who now considers the social effect of the striving of personalities imbued with our knowledge will reflect on the significance of what I have said.

ar A It is one thing for a physician to be educated in a closed circle and unable to see beyond the boundaries of his science, and quite another for him to grasp his science in such a way that it becomes a light for everything physical, mental and spiritual in the human being and that he thereby also acquires a true sense for all social interaction and coexistence of people and thus, from his art of healing, gains a living, fruitful judgment on the treatment of major social issues.

This fall, beginning on September 26, more than twenty individuals who have immersed themselves in the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science referred to here will give a course of nine lectures at the School for Spiritual Science in Dornach. We have, of course, established our School of Spiritual Science in Dornach, which we cannot open because it is not yet ready, but we will hold these School of Spiritual Science courses at the unopened Dornach School from September 26 to October 16. Personalities from the fields of physics, chemistry, political science, economics and history, practitioners who are involved in life, in the factory or otherwise in life, artistic personalities from all fields, they will first show in this trial course how what specializes [in individual fields] is illuminated by the living spiritual , such a light is shed on these sciences that they are no longer something theoretical - not something one acquires and then has to peel off again for the most part in order to stand in one corner of life and see nothing but one's own specialization. No, it is shown how, through this enlivening of knowledge, which can arise from spiritual science, specialization is overcome, and how, through the new spirit, through a spirit that is just as strictly scientific as the one cultivated at universities today, yes, 'strictly strict science', how this spirit brings together specialists so that they will not go their lonely but humanity-damaging ways in mutual misunderstanding, but will work together socially and be able to help our ailing time to rise again.

These School of Spiritual Science lectures are held at our Goetheanum in Dornach, where every detail seeks to express the style, the architectural, sculptural and pictorial style, that arises out of the artistic aspect of our spiritual science, out of the whole of our intuitive perception. Everything, down to this framing, should act as a symbol, as it were, for what is to happen, what must happen, from the spiritual side. For it must be the spirit that, following its true threads, comes back to the truth, to a truth from which goodness, morality and healthy, strong will follow. This does not arise from superficial knowledge; it arises from deep spiritual knowledge. And I hope that our Dornach lectures will show much more than mere characterizations can express, how the forces to build up our languishing civilization should be sought from the spirit. We do not want to refute such arguments [about the decline of the West] logically, as I characterized them here last time, but through action we want to create that which can be set against the forces of decline. And I am convinced that we would truly not be able to accommodate all the listeners who would come to Dornach and its wider surroundings today - who will hopefully come in large numbers despite the drowsiness of souls today - if the communication difficulties arising from our decline were not so insurmountable.

If I may refer to something closer to home, I would like to return to what our Waldorf School is meant to achieve here. This Waldorf School, which we opened today for the second school year, we described here some time ago with reference to its successes in the first school year. It is exactly what it has become – it could not have become more in its first year – having become what it is because our teachers were inspired and imbued with those feelings towards the developing human being, the child – emotions that come from the research of spiritual science, that spiritual science that must indeed, with regard to certain spiritual things, behave in a completely different way than many people assume with regard to these same things.

We have, of course, confessions in our time that speak about the eternal in man. What have all these confessions come to? If one can really look at the world impartially and listen to everything that is said in sermons or theologies today about the eternal in the human soul, then it is not an appeal to the urge for knowledge, but basically it is an appeal to the finer instincts of the soul. Those who have often heard my lectures will know the foundations on which the spiritual science referred to here speaks of the immortality of man, how it makes certain statements about what man becomes when he has passed through the gate of death and shed his physical body. But the basis of this discussion is different from what has been customary in Western civilization for centuries. What is it that this Western civilization appeals to again and again? The finer instincts of the soul; people do not want their entire being to cease to be when their body decays into dust. This is the human desire for eternity. And I ask you to go through everything that is offered in this direction in traditional confessions, sermons and theologies: it is the appeal to this human egoism, not wanting to die. And because it is only this appeal to egoism, it is even conveniently separated for life: knowledge for the world of sense, and faith for the supersensible world. Naturally one can only speak of the instincts under discussion here if, with regard to the eternal in man, one arrives only at a belief and not at knowledge. But when we investigate the human being by means of spiritual science methods, which are not easier than chemical or astronomical methods, but essentially more difficult (for more details see my books “How to Know Higher Worlds” or “Occult Science: An Outline” and others), then we come not only to speak of immortality, that is, of the forms that the human soul and spirit takes after death, but one then comes to look at what the human being was before birth or conception, before he descended as a spiritual being from the spiritual world into the physical world through birth and assumed a physical body through descent from father and mother. This can become knowledge, but it is knowledge of such inner power that it flashes through our entire being.

If we approach the child as educators with such knowledge, we look at the child quite differently. Then we know something of how the soul and spirit form the human body from the deepest human depths, how the physiognomy and skills that arise from year to year are formed in the body out of the soul and spirit. As a teacher and educator, you develop a feeling without which there can be no fruitful education: the feeling that everything you come into contact with through the human body comes from spiritual worlds. It has been entrusted to you; the gods have sent it down to you. You stand before it with holy reverence.

Dear attendees, just as there are forces that can only be explored through their effects in the external, physical world, for example electricity or magnetism, so does what one acquires as a teacher or educator, as reverence, act as an imponderable force, as something that one only

a en learn to believe when one beholds its effects, when one sees how that which radiates from such sacred reverence for the teacher is something that surrounds the child's spiritual and soul growth just as sunlight surrounds the plant to make it flourish and thrive. A pedagogy that is based on the full human being, that is carried by feelings and perceptions, but by a perception that sees through world and human conditions, a pedagogy that naturally becomes art, that does not talk abstractly about education, it is a pedagogy of this kind that may aspire to make of the generation that will be decisive for the coming decades that which can lead out of our decline towards an ascent. And we can say: What anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has been able to achieve through our teachers has, after all, borne fruit in the first school year.

Only one thing stands ghostly before the mind's eye of the one whose whole heart and mind is with this Waldorf school, especially today, when we have opened the second school year. Out of the spirit we could bring Waldorf education to life through Waldorf education; in this way, one of the great tasks of our time would be solved step by step in practice, not in theory. But we need understanding, understanding in the broadest sense. We may hope that the spirit will continue to support us in our endeavors, because in a certain way it depends on us. But we need understanding, because the buildings in which the school is held are to be built; the teachers are to live in homes, and they are also to eat. All this is necessary. And already the spectre of destitution for such things and for what is behind it, of the lack of understanding of the broadest circles for what belongs to the great tasks of our time, stands before our soul and impairs what we would like to do for the second school year, especially in these days. So what is needed today for the great tasks of the time is understanding in the broadest sense. Many people have idealism, which says: ideals are lofty, it is not dignified to associate them with the material circumstances of the day, because the material world is something base; ideals are lofty, they must find their own way. Therefore, we keep our hands on our wallets and no longer spend anything on our ideals, because why should we give up dirty money, which is not worthy of serving ideals, for our ideals? That may sound trivial, but if you want to do something necessary for the Waldorf school in our days, then it may be said in this case. Today, idealism often expresses itself more through enthusiasm to hold together the material world and to cultivate the ideal in it.

I could now describe something to you that is related to something very new in our spiritual life. For a long time now, we have lost precisely that direction and current of our spiritual life that looks at what I want to characterize, at the prenatal human being. Even the language testifies to it: when we speak of the eternal in man, what do we say? Immortality. - We thus point only to the one end of life, which human egoism also looks at. We have no word for the other: one would have to say “unbornness,” for just as little as we lose our eternal being when we discard the body, we did not receive it with birth either. And when we speak of the eternal in man, we must speak of unbornness as well as of immortality. We do not even suspect what we lack in this direction. What we hope for after death inspires us little for action. But when we know what lives in us, what lives in us as having descended from the spiritual worlds, even if only in a reflection of the spiritual world, then we can say that we feel ourselves to be - I would like to use the word - missionaries of the spiritual world. Our feelings are stirred and our actions inspired by our earthly work, and this is what our task as human beings in earthly existence is. We have to draw strength from the spirit in order to truly penetrate into something like this, which is our task as human beings in earthly existence; for this it is not enough to stick only to the nearest districts of what surrounds us in life. We must look at what surrounds us in the spiritual life, what lives in us inwardly as the spiritual and permeates all life down to the economic. In this respect, people indulge in the strangest illusions.

Anyone with a sense of reality who follows the historical course of humanity will see that they must look for the actual sources of the somewhat more distant spiritual impulses in human life over in the Orient - although not in today's Orient, because today's Orient is in a state of decadence in this regard. What the source of this very special spiritual life is, as I described in that lecture, which I gave on the historical development of mankind, lived in the Orient thousands of years ago. There lived a race of men who understood nothing of what we call 'deductive' or 'logical thinking' — a race of men who, from the same sources that the spiritual science meant here, but in a different way, in a Western way, once knew that something could live in the soul of man that reveals to him the spirit that permeates the world. But it is not in the East that we find a knowledge of the spirit that is not based on proof or reasoning. Today, if we do not want to become antiquated, we can no longer penetrate this oriental spiritual life, but something of it still lives in our ordinary intellectual education. There is a direct line from the spirit that shone in the Vedas, in the Vedanta philosophy, in the ancient Indian yoga system, which itself lived in the Chaldean teachings and in ancient China. It is a direct line that moved in many currents through many channels to the Occident. And in our everyday thinking, we still have traces of that oriental spiritual life before us. Even when the Mystery of Golgotha entered into the development of mankind, when it became necessary to understand Christ Jesus, it was Oriental wisdom that sought to comprehend this event, which could only be grasped through supersensible knowledge. It was Oriental wisdom that was then transformed into the teaching of Christianity and spread with Christianity throughout the Occident. In this Oriental wisdom lives something that today's man can no longer feel and sense in the right way, for which he needs a support. What was present in the original soul life of the Oriental had to be anchored in the West - for centuries already - in dogmatically cohesive religious communities; because the inner source of spiritual life no longer flows in the same way, that is why man needed such religious communities. This is what initially extends into our public life like a first branch - a branch that still has the Orient as its “lifeblood”. And if one were to look at our spiritual life with an open mind, one would still discover effects of what originated in the Orient in what modern man thinks, feels and senses and what lives even in the sciences, right down to physics, but above all in religious beliefs.

In addition to this peculiar oriental spirit, which is little understood today in its entirety and which permeates the West in its own unique way, there was another school of thought that came more from the south and poured into Central Europe, but also fertilized the west. It came from what I would like to call, in a comprehensive sense, legal, state and political thinking. In the wonderful Greek civilization we see a remarkable mixture of what came from the East and still lived in the Greek people, as it had come from the Egyptians, and the now already legal thinking that was not yet fully revealed in Greece, which brought the peculiar evidential way into the imagination of man. In Greece, we see life only sparsely permeated by logical, legal, and state thinking, which was not present at all in the Orient. If, for example, there were commandments in the Orient, they were something quite different there from the commandments in the Occident. We then see the legal spirit essentially absorbed in ancient Rome. We see how there the process of proving, of reasoning, of combining and separating concepts is developed into a special art. We see how a second element is mixed into what flows from the Orient, how the legal and political current pours into the spiritual current, the “state machine”. And we see even the spiritual-religious, the spiritual-scholastic, permeated by this legal element. It would have been quite impossible for the Oriental to think of something like “guilt and atonement” or “redemption” in the original thought of his world view instead of the concept of “karma”. What lived in the Orient in “karma”, in the fate of the world, was something quite different. But then the legal element began to make itself felt in the world view, and it even found its way into the religious conception of the world. At the turn of the ages, man was thought of differently from the way he was in the Orient. Now he was thought of in such a way that he was “judged” by the world judges because he had incurred “guilt”. In the Orient, people spoke only of “guilt” and “judgment”. In the Occident, even the religious element has been infiltrated by the legal-evidential, the divisive-judgmental. And when we go, for example, to the Sistine Chapel in Rome and see the painting by Michelangelo, 'Christ as Judge of the World', where he judges the good and the bad, we see even there the legal, world-political spirit carried into the religious world view. This is the second branch of our civilization, which still has an effect in Fichte and Hegel and which imbues everything that is still emerging in German intellectual life at the turn of the 18th to 19th century. It is not without reason that Fichte and Hegel started their thinking precisely from the roots of right, from the political and state conditions, and the way in which these minds conceive the development of humanity is to be understood in an “emphatic of the state” sense, in contrast to earlier times.

Only in more recent times did a third current join this second one, which developed in the West out of the Western peoples' dispositions and instincts. In the East, in the times when the East was great, nature provided what man needed in such a way that he undertook the distribution of natural products as well as the distribution of what man produced out of his spiritual life. There was no economic thinking, there was not even any legal thinking. If we go back to the 18th century, we find little economic thinking in Central Europe. But we find everything dominated by an increasingly intense legal thinking, by a state-oriented, political thinking. In the West, economic thinking had developed long ago, and it developed more and more out of people's natural instincts and abilities. Circumstances developed in such a way that where people think in a truly “western” way, economic thinking is now also applied to what was previously grasped from the point of view of logic - to science, to truth. It came from America. There they have the doctrine of pragmatism, which roughly says: “True” and “false” is something that is only an illusion; we have taken that from the legal world view. Our view is this: if something proves useful in practical life, then it is right, it is true, and everything that does not prove useful is harmful, is false. According to this view of life, everything is judged only by whether it is “useful” or “harmful”. These ideas have become part of human thought and are also alive in philosophers. Yes, if, for example, one wants to understand Herbert Spencer and other philosophers correctly, one understands them only if one says to oneself: This Herbert Spencer devises philosophical systems, but he has ideas that, as such, are only in the wrong place; instead of devising philosophical systems, he should build factories with his way of thinking, set up trade unions and help the economy on its feet; his ideas are useful for this, but not in the philosophical field.

If we follow the path our humanity has taken in its historical development, we see that first a spiritual life develops, which points back to a heritage from earlier millennia in later times. Then, little by little, a state and political life, a legal way of thinking, develops. Later, the economic life develops alongside this, and this life develops in a differentiated way across the earth. But as we approach the modern age, we see how the spiritual life that came from the East has died out. The dry, pedantic and philistine nature of today's education and upbringing stems in particular from the withering away of that ancient spiritual heritage. But this also points with all vividness to the fact that we should not migrate back to the Orient, but must develop a free and original spiritual life through ourselves again, by opening the sources of this spiritual life for ourselves. The old inheritance is at an end. Our time demands a new spiritual life, and spiritual science now wants to proclaim this from Dornach. With this new spiritual life, it will permeate education, and through something like the Waldorf School, it wants to make it fruitful for modern life.

But there is also little left today for the old legal spirit. I advise you to read characteristic, symptomatic phenomena of the present day, such as the little booklet on jurisprudence by the Mannheim teacher Rumpf, and you will see that Just as religious worldviews today have to rely on outward appearances because the inner life no longer bubbles up, so jurisprudence and political science borrow from economic conditions because they no longer have anything that bubbles up from the inner life. Thus we see that today a mixture of economic thinking and legal thinking is coming about, which spreads chaos over our lives. And anyone who sees through things knows how much of this chaotic confusion has penetrated into the sphere of our public life, and how this is then expressed in deeds, causing social upheaval, social confusion and turmoil. We can only move forward if we seek a new spiritual life in the way I have described. The old spiritual life has passed away as an inheritance. But we will only find the new spiritual life if we do not hand over the school to the state, if we set up the whole spiritual life on its own, because then alone we can lift the spiritual life out of what it is now. When a human being steps down from spiritual heights into the physical world, he brings with him a new, real spiritual element for each generation from his human individuality and personality. We do not want to dictate to people that they must develop according to these or those rules, but we want to let this real spiritual element develop powerfully through love from the teacher to the child. This spiritual life can only be administered by those who are active in it. A new spiritual life will reintroduce the living spirit, which our social life so urgently needs, into the present; it will make fruitful for human coexistence the deep source that man brings with him when he enters physical existence through birth. This is one of the great tasks of our time.

A second task is how we can once again develop a living sense of duty in the social community, through the living interaction between individuals in the democratic structure of the state – not by regurgitating old Roman or old concepts in general, but by original thought. No law dictated from above will ever develop a sense of duty. Only that right which arises between equals, between one mature human and another mature human in lively intercourse, only this right will also make people keen to work, and this right will have to incorporate the [regulation of] labor.

The spiritual life, as I understand it, is described in my “Key Points of the Social Question” in such a way that it must become the regulator of capital. Then the accumulation of capital or means of production, which is necessary for more recent development, will, through the spirit – which will illuminate it when the spirit is formed anew in its freedom, in its fertility, in its progress from generation to generation – then capital will also carry within itself, through the spirit, what, for example, Keynes and others miss: morality. And then, economic life will not be characterized by a capitalism based on egoism and mere self-acquisition; instead, it will be imbued with spirituality, arising from an understanding of the necessities of the world and of humanity and of existence, and it will work in the spirit of the people educated in the new spiritual life. Then labor will no longer be a commodity, but will be incorporated into the independent, self-developing constitutional state; then, in the social fabric in which the mature human being works with every other mature human being on the basis of equal rights, labor will come into its own. And only from the feeling for our duty to work in freedom can arise the upswing in our lives, not from the demand for barracking and duty, which must stifle every sense of justice in man. From an independent spiritual life, from an independent legal life, one must grasp the great tasks of our time.

If we look at economic life, we see that if we separate out everything that is in it today and needs to be separated out – the right to land, because that belongs in the constitutional state, labor, which is paid for like a commodity today, because it belongs in the legal state, and means of production, insofar as they can be capitalized, because they belong in the spiritual link of the social organism. If we take all this out of economic life, what remains is the production and consumption of goods. A product of human labor, a commodity is not only concerned with one person; a commodity passes from one person to another. Not only does the person who produces the commodity and has experience in its production have something to say about it, but so does the person who creates the conditions of exchange for the thing or who has to decide on the needs. Thus, many different kinds of people are involved in economic life, and everything in economic life is a commodity. If we have, on the one hand, the administration of capital in the spiritual element and the administration of labor in the legal element, then what remains for the administration of economic life is the only thing that is justified: the price level, the mutual price value of the goods. But if it is to be carried up from chance to reason, it can only be determined through associations. The various groups of people who, from the point of view that I have characterized, have to do with a product, must be summarized in associations; because people have to do with the product from different starting points in order to determine the price of one product in relation to the other, so that money can only be the external indicator of the value of the product. It is only through associations of economic life that it is possible to arrive at the true price of a product for economic life - that is what matters. And this cannot be determined by dictates and so on, but only by the experiences that are made from association to association.

If, for example, a person is employed in a particular branch of industry and works in it, the price of his product of labor must be set so that it is not too expensive and not too cheap. So if I make a pair of boots, when I have finished them I must get so much in the way of sundry goods for what I get for them that I can satisfy my needs and those of my family with them until I have finished another pair of boots. This cannot be calculated, it can only be experienced in the living interaction of associations. In order to understand that the price problem is at the center of the whole economic life, a more precise study of the “key points” and those writings that point to them will be necessary, especially for example my essays in the Dreigliederungs-Zeitung, which will soon be published in a collection by the publishing house of Kommenden Tages. There you can see what we need to get the spirit back that we need for our ascent.

To solve this one great task of the present, we must have a new spiritual life to cultivate individuality; we must bring out human self-importance and human abilities, which can only be properly placed in a human context through a proper understanding of human personality and human individuality. In order to bring intellectual life into effect in the right way, we need the self-contained – not the intellectual life encompassing, but letting it out of itself – state or legal life or political life in its parliamentary structure; this can never be in intellectual life or in economic life. Morality and mutual assistance can then be produced from this again, in other words, everything that must take place between all people in order for a dignified existence to be possible. And in economic life, we need to solve the price problems as a major task of the present. We can only solve them if we first base economic life on itself, on the basis of association.

And we can only move forward if we allow these three independent links to interact in a certain free way and do not fear any possible “division” or “cutting up” of these three links. One need only reflect a little on the human organism to lose this fear. In my book 'Von Seelenrätseln' (Soul Mysteries) I indicated how the human organism also consists of three independent members: the nervous-sensory activity, the rhythmic activity and the metabolic activity. The entire function of human life is structured from these three activities as activities. Just as one cannot breathe with one's eyes or see with one's lungs, so the state should not determine spiritual life, nor should spiritual life interfere with legal life. And just as one cannot think with one's stomach, so one should not dictate politics or determine rights from the economic point of view. And just as the lungs breathe, the head sees and thinks, and the stomach digests, so the three independent limbs of the human organism work together in unity; this unity does not exist in the abstract, but arises as a living unity from the three independent limbs.

In the same way the true unity of the social organism will come into being when we grasp the three great tasks of the present time in the life of the spirit, in the life of the right and in the life of the economy. These three great tasks are certainly utopian for many people. But even for the people of the 1830s, what developed in Central Europe from 1870 to 1913 would have been utopian in purely economic terms. If we just think that in 1870, 30 million tons of coal were mined and processed in Germany, whereas in 1913, 190 million tons were mined and processed — truly, for a person in the 1930s, that would have been a utopia if one had spoken of such a surge in coal mining and processing at the time. We should not be afraid of being accused of utopianism or fantasy. Even if what is presented as a threefold order cannot be realized immediately, we should remember a saying of Fichte's, spoken to his audience when he was talking about the nature and destiny of the scholar. He said something like this: We know that ideals cannot be immediately realized in practical life, but we also know that great impulses and great powers lie in such ideals, which can advance humanity. If the so-called practitioners do not recognize this, then they are merely testifying that they were not reckoned with in the evolution of the world. And so may a benevolent Deity grant them light and sunshine, good digestion and, if it can be, a little sense as well! Those who are true practitioners count on the real practical forces of life and do not let themselves be annoyed by those objections that are so characteristic of the way Fichte characterizes them, and which say: What is downcast Germany, what is humanity, reduced to misery in Central Europe, to do alone if all the others do not want to go along with the threefold social order?

Dear attendees, if we work with all our strength – even today, when it is almost too late – on this threefold social order, so that it enters as many minds as possible, and really present it to the world in a living way, then the others, even if they are the victors, will accept it as something fruitful and beneficial for the world and for humanity. When the “key points” were translated into English, one could see how almost every discussion of this book began with the words: “One can hardly read this book with any other frame of mind,” but even then one approached the content with a certain objectivity. We lack only people to help us make these ideas fruitful for life. We need people who have a spirit of progress, but not a spirit of empty phrases. And the more we can win such people, the less we need to fear the accusation that we in Central Europe can achieve nothing against the others.

Another objection that is often made is: What can the individual do, even if he sees something like the fertility of the impulse for threefolding? Oh, let no one grieve because the “others” do not see through it, let him alone see it himself as an individual, then he sets an example for others and enters the path where individuals become many. And let us not be annoyed by the other reproach either, when people say again and again: If you seek ascent by such a path, it will take a long time. We do not want to waste time wondering how long it will take, but we do want to be clear about one thing: the more we want it, the sooner it will come! We do not want to engage in idle speculation, but we want to think and act in such a way that our actions, our will and our thoughts make it happen as quickly as possible.

When a person brings to life in his soul the right ways for the right social coexistence, when he ignites his soul and lives through it with these impulses, which show us how spiritual, legal, state or political life and from economic life, then he can work from a single earthly territory, even against the prejudices of the whole world, in such a way that many individual territories arise that take up the impulses and carry them forward for the progress and welfare of humanity. In this way, a long period of pain can become a short one; in this way, one can overcome space and time and manifold [obstacles] if one really wants to find the true good of humanity for a new ascent, based on independent legal consciousness and on the correct economic consciousness of the present.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees,
You have just heard how this evening is to proceed. We will make the best progress in the whole movement, which is to serve the social reconstruction, if we try to communicate on this path of questioning and free discussion about what should happen. Since I will have to inform myself through your later contributions to the discussion about what is to be discussed this evening, I will only take a few words to draw attention to a few things, since it may be good to put them forward in advance of our disputations. Above all, I would like to emphasize once more that this 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism' differs in some respects from other, party-like movements, without these party-like movements being in any way disturbed or impaired by this 'Federation for Threefold Social Organism'. If the “Federation for the Threefold Order of the Social Organism” believes it must take action today, it is for a very specific reason.

You are all well aware of how long the call for socialization has been going around in a more emotional way. You all also know that this call for socialization has taken on a particularly urgent form today. They know that we cannot escape confusion and chaos if we do not take into account what is contained in the demand for socialization, if we do not seriously strive through action for what can really be called socialization.

On the other hand, we see that precisely since the beginning of the German Revolution, it has become clear in so many ways that although the call for socialization is there, at the same time there is a lack of ideas about what should actually be done, how what is demanded as socialization should actually be implemented. Right now, every day brings new evidence of how little people are clear about what needs to be done to bring about socialization. And so we see that the call for socialization is becoming clearer and clearer, more and more justified, but that the government is not doing anything significant, or even insignificant, to achieve true socialization. Yes, we can even say – perhaps you will want to elaborate on this question or provide more precise information later in the course of the disputation – that it can be clearly seen from what is happening that there is no concept of real socialization.

You may have read the draft law that is supposed to initiate – so they say in bureaucratic language – the institution of the so-called works councils. Of course, the first thing one thinks of is the places where they want to initiate such things today, making laws about what works councils should do, what their rights will be, and so on. But if you take the whole thing, what has now been launched as a draft, you will have to say to yourself: Yes, this does not bear the stamp of true socialization in the slightest. It is even called “socialization of the companies,” as if one could actually socialize the individual companies! What this draft contains for the constitution of the works councils is nothing more than, I would say, the introduction of a certain democratic principle of the parliamentarism with which we are all too familiar into the individual companies. In fact, the matter is already often referred to as the “democratization of the companies”. The parliamentary principle should extend certain offshoots, such gulfs, into the companies, where further parliamentarization should then take place. Yes, just as the previous parliamentarism, in that it was practiced in isolation in all kinds of “houses”, was unable to contribute anything to socialization, so this extension of the parliamentary gulfs will be unable to bring anything of socialization to the factories. You see it best from the fact that in this draft, everywhere the old language of “employer” and “employee” is used. Even if it is not openly stated, it is still the case that the old capitalism continues to lurk behind all of this. Everything is conceived in the old capitalist form. Basically, everything should remain the same, and the employees should be reassured by the fact that works councils can now somehow be elected that have all sorts of theoretical negotiations with the employers. But when it comes to the actual social structure, ultimately everything should remain the same. This can be clearly seen from such a draft by anyone who has a sense of reading something like this at all. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to really dismantle capitalism. And so we see that the very first demand for socialization, the dismantling of capitalism, is not tackled by what is now so often called socialization.

What is left for us to think about in the face of such a government? Truly, today we can no longer arrive at any other conclusion than that the only salvation lies in the fact that the great mass of workers are now truly informed about the damage that the social order has caused so far, and that they are informed about what can really bring about improvement. It is, above all, enlightenment that is needed. In this context, it is important that we should no longer listen to those who keep saying, “But enlightenment takes a long time.” It need not take long if we are willing to make a little effort to see things without masks and illusions, if we try to see things as they are and as they must happen. We no longer have the time to wait years for socialization. Something must happen immediately. But something can only happen if a united mass of people carry what is to be done. People keep asking: Yes, where is the practical instruction for what is written in my book, for example, 'The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future'? The most practical thing is to have as many people as possible demanding what is in my book, so that it becomes quite impossible to continue to govern against these demands. The future power will consist in the fact that it will enforce what it is all about. Otherwise a power will never know how to use that power, what it should do. It really depends on knowing what to do. Therefore, proper education must take place in the broadest circles, and one must be able to form an idea of how something like the dismantling of private capital and the abolition of the wage system can take place.

Above all, one must be able to form a thorough idea of the following. You see, the actual economic question, where does it arise? You have to be able to see it in the right place. You must not let gray theories obscure the facts. You have to see the economic question where it is, and start from there. Where is it? Where is it as a fact? Well, it is there where I have to take my wallet out of my pocket and have the money in it for which I am to get something in a store to satisfy my needs. And there must be enough in my wallet for me to be able to get the things I need to live. That is the basic fact of all economic life. Today, everything else is basically only there to obscure this fact.

Why does the tripartite social organism demand a separation of economic life from legal and spiritual life? It demands this separation for the reason that economic life can be truly socialized in itself, so that it is finally presented in its true form, the true form that takes place between the goods in the shop and the contents of the wallet. Only when we extract from the whole remaining social process that which must take place between the purse and the shop, do we put ourselves in a position to think in a truly socialist way. But what does that mean? It means a great deal. But if one does not start from the right fact, then one cannot arrive at correct views with regard to all the other things.

I will educate myself from your disputation about what is to be said about the details. But before that, I would like to give some necessary guidelines, starting from the basic economic fact I have just described. You see, when I go into a shop and there is something in it that I need to satisfy my vital needs, and I come with my purse and spend the money for the goods from this purse, then you have to be clear about the fact that there is a process involved in this that somewhat obscures the true facts. I get goods, I spend money. Is money a commodity? Can money ever be a commodity? You really don't need to do any in-depth studies, but the in-depth studies prove exactly what I am going to say now.

You just need to have a real sense of what a piece of paper is, and you will say to yourself: a piece of paper can never be a commodity in the same way as, for example, a loaf of bread that you buy in a shop. I think that is something that the simplest mind can understand, and no science can claim anything else. What you take out of your wallet as money cannot be a commodity, but only an instruction to receive a commodity, nothing else. But that is why it must come from the commodity. A commodity must have been produced at some point, so something must have been provided. In this sense, services are also goods. This piece of paper must have been created by such a process that produces goods, and so the piece of paper only forms the bridge between the goods that you buy in the store and those goods that must be produced once so that you can receive the paper instruction for those goods. That, to put it simply, is the economic process. Any other element in the economic process is unhealthy. If it is to be healthy, nothing can be exchanged in the economic process except commodity for commodity.

Now, however, we ask: Is only commodity exchanged for commodity in the economic process today? No, and as soon as you think about it properly, you come to the point. Today, in the economic process, not only goods are exchanged for goods, but today, in the economic process, goods, even if perhaps represented by money, are exchanged for labor. In the economic process, labor power is paid just like goods. But this is how labor power is introduced into the economic process.

You see, there is a very simple consideration that can show you that labor does not belong in the economic process at all, because it can never be compared to any commodity in its nature. You just have to correct people's very convoluted ideas about such things today. You have to understand how people have learned to think about these things incorrectly.

You see, it is still associated with a certain amount of effort on the part of the human organism. Now, even if a person has no need to chop wood, for example, he may still feel the need to work. Then he does sports, for example. And the amount of labor that one devotes to sports could, under certain circumstances, wear out the body just as much as the work of someone chopping wood wears out the body – if he exerts himself particularly during sports. Labor has nothing to do with the economic process, but labor has something to do with the economic process only in that it is applied to something economically valuable. Sport is economically worthless, it exists only for human egoism. Chopping wood is valuable. Because labor is economically valuable, it becomes part of the economic process. But the essential thing about work is that I must be a free person with regard to the use of my labor, that I cannot be compelled by economic coercion to put my labor at the service of capitalism in any old way. When it comes to the use of labor, freedom and bondage and coercion intervene. Just as labor as such must be a matter of law and not of economics, so too, what must be made clear in the simplest possible way, is that in economics only what is produced, created by labor, has any significance.

In economic life, only that which is produced and created by labor has any significance; it must be paid for. But there must be an entrepreneur who pays a worker for his labor. How the labor manager and the worker relate to each other must be determined on a completely different basis, namely that of law. In the economic sphere, when true right exists, the laborer and the labor manager can only be partners who distribute the proceeds of the labor among themselves in a just manner. In the future, there must be no more payment for labor, that is to say, the wage relationship must be eliminated, and furthermore, the wage relationship must not exist.

A state must be brought about, and that is then a social state in which the labor manager and the worker jointly produce the goods and share with each other in a just way according to the contract of goods, not according to the contract of employment, what they produce together as free associates. Only when such a transformation of the production relations has been brought about can one speak of socialization. But then one also stops using all the old terms that are still based on capitalism in a socialization program. You have to rethink things very thoroughly. You really have to throw out the old ideas, not just because they are ideas, but because they are embedded in life.

But now something else must be considered. If the labor force is to be placed in a relationship of compulsion within the economic process, then something must be there. What is that? You see, I have to go back to the original fact of the economic process, to the purse and the shop. If the note that I have in my purse is really nothing more than an order for a commodity, then basically no compulsion to work can prevail, because then this note must always lead back in some way to something that has been put into the world as a service. And it is only a matter of this service then circulating in the appropriate way, circulating in such a way that consumption regulates production at all times. But that is not the case today. What I carry in my wallet has become something quite different from an instruction for the goods as a result of the economic process of recent times. It has become a commodity in its own right, something that has an independent value in the social order. But it has only become so because a type of commodity – which, basically, could be eliminated altogether if only the leading trading state, England, would also eliminate it, then it could be eliminated entirely from the economic process; it can always be eliminated from an internal economic process, it can always be eliminated; one would then only need to take another consideration into account with respect to foreign countries –– that this token, which I carry in my wallet, has a different meaning than being a mere order for goods. This is due to the fact that a commodity has been created by the state, which is not really a commodity, namely gold or silver. In reality, neither is a commodity, but they are represented by the note. This separates the monetary process from the economic process, withdraws it from the economic process, thereby turning money itself into a commodity, and thereby allowing money, which in reality should not be a commodity, to become completely independent in economic life. But this is the basis of capitalism.

[If you can trade money independently, what happens? Since money can never be created other than by producing goods, but goods can never be produced other than through labor in an economy based on the division of labor, power over labor arises through capital. Capital is nothing more than power over human labor. You get the opportunity to obtain human labor by detaching money as an independent commodity from the economic process, while money should actually be just a worthless bill in the sense of an order for what you exchange as a commodity through money. But through this detachment of money, labor has become the servant of the power of “capital.” As a result, something in the economic process, such as the formation of prices, is constantly distorted. For while I should only pay for the goods, I also have to pay for the labor. But because power dominates labor, labor is paid as cheaply as possible, because, of course, a power that dominates tends to buy as cheaply as possible. If labor power is included in the economic process itself, then capitalism cheapens it.

What is important now is that labor must be removed from the economic process. Only goods may be in the economic process. However, because the economic process is so distorted, other things can also be in it. You see, for many decades the socialists have repeatedly called for the socialization of the means of production. But today it is necessary to know how this socialization of the means of production must be effected. It is not enough to merely call for socialization in the abstract; instead, one must know how it can be carried out. Today we have reached the point where we can already realize such things if we really want to, if we really have the courage to.

Before we inform ourselves in detail about the peculiar position of the means of production in today's economic life – essentially, they are capital – it is good if we first look at something else.

Today, not only goods can be bought, that is, what is produced by human labor in the social organism through the division of labor, but one can also buy something quite different, which no human being produces, but which is there by nature, that is, land. But this buying of land or taking out a mortgage on land is only a process of falsifying the economic order. It is something quite different from what people actually imagine. You cannot really buy land, because land only has value when it is worked on. What you buy, that is, what you acquire through the so-called purchase, is the exclusive right to use the land. That is what it comes down to, this exclusive right to use the land.

So you are not buying a commodity when you buy land, but a right. And that is the cancer of today's social order, that within the economic process you can not only buy goods, but you can also buy labor and rights. By buying labor, you acquire the ability to draw that labor into the economic process, that is, to rape it. And by buying the right to use land, you acquire power.

It must be clear that this calamity cannot be overcome unless we tackle the matter radically. The finished means of production, or rather, the finished means of production that are used to produce further products, have exactly the same value in the economic process as land, or rather, the same importance. In reality, you can't buy these finished means of production either. But if you buy them, you are actually acquiring the right to use them exclusively. So, you buy a right again. And now you can see best of all from these means of production that when they are finished, they simply must not be for sale, that the means of production must cease to have a value on the economic market. When they are finished, they are just like land. Now the question arises that really contains a social demand: How do we manage that the means of production no longer have an economic value when they are finished? We can only manage this – as I said earlier – by allowing everything that does not belong in the economic process to be transformed into independent members of the social organism.

What is necessary for production? Is capital really necessary? No! It is nonsense that capital is necessary. In order for the means of production to be operated, it is necessary that intellectual work is there. Of course, every worker understands that intellectual leadership and intellectual work must be present. And he also understands that he would soon have to stop working if there were no intellectual leadership or intellectual work. But today it is not about spiritual leadership, but about private ownership of the means of production and about profitability, about the ability to reinvest the capital invested in the means of production. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the means of production from the economic process so that they can always reach the person with the appropriate abilities and in whom the workers have confidence, through the social order itself. Therefore, the threefold social organism requires an independent spiritual organism. It is simply nonsense to say that this would create new ownership structures... In this spiritual life, which is of course closely connected with the other branches of life, it is then ensured that the means of production make their way through the world differently than through purchase. And in what I call the constitutional state – it really has nothing to do with the old state – it will be ensured that labor can get its rights. In the economic life itself, only the production, distribution and consumption of goods then remain.

Then, when we have such an economic process before us, we will be able to demand that there must be a liquidation government. This government then says to itself: Well, I have to exist for a while because the old order must continue. But I must at most retain only something like a Ministry of Police, a Ministry of the Interior, and also a Ministry of Justice, which will establish the legal conditions through the corresponding democratic representation.

It is again a calumny when it is said that then only the legal scholars will prevail on the legal basis. No, the people will rule; there will be a real democracy that will expand. The government to the left and to the right must be a liquidation government that, on the one hand, transfers spiritual life to its own administration and, on the other hand, transfers economic life to its own administration. The liquidation government will have to take the initiative in such a way that it creates the free space for economic life, so that in the economic sphere, out of the forces that regulate the respective values of goods, that is, the prices necessary for the healthy maintenance of life, a real socialization can occur.

You see, I know, of course, that when I explain something like this, people always say from the most diverse points of view: Yes, he expresses himself so vaguely. — I would just like to know how someone should express themselves definitively about something that is an infinite area. One can only point out what actually underlies things. But I always have the hope that precisely those who, out of their life's struggles, have acquired a certain inner sense of the truth of this matter, would like to see that what is presented here is based on a really thorough insight into the entire process of production and consumption. And only from such an insight can one proceed to action. That alone is therefore the truly practical thing, while those who always make the laws or design institutions in such a way that one hole is closed and another is opened as a result are not practical people.

You can set up an economic enterprise quite nicely if you leave it capitalist, that is, leave the whole economy capitalist. Then it may be possible in the individual economic enterprises that even what is so beautifully called a full labor yield comes about for the worker, but that no more surplus value is generated. Walther Rathenau will come and say: the surplus value is there for nothing other than for the reserve, that is, for the continuous improvement of the means of production and the expansion of the business. Everything that is generated in surplus value goes back into the business. I would just like to know how those who do not work but receive royalties or the like live when everything goes back into the business. Well, you can let such people talk. But something else is much more important.

Let us assume that the entire surplus value is simply distributed among the workers. Do you think that if the old capitalist order remained and if the surplus value were distributed among the workers in a company, that there would be no need to work for surplus value? You can still make a profit if you do not socialize the economy. In that case, it is not subtracted from the workers' wages, but the consumer has to pay it. It is not important that no surplus value is generated, but that the producer does not pay for it... the consumer has to pay for it. But who is that? The worker again. So if you add the surplus value to your wages, you in turn have to pay for what you have earned as a consumer. You plug one hole, but open another.

You can never escape this unnatural economic cycle unless you eliminate the fifth wheel, which is only there to enable people who have not worked to make a profit. This fifth wheel is called capital. And you cannot get out of this cycle if you do not establish a direct relationship between the means of production and the intellectual worker on the one hand and the physical worker on the other. If you do not want this, if you do not throw out this fifth wheel on the wagon, which only serves those who do not work, then you will not achieve socialization.

As you will find, the main thing described in my book is that it really strives to eliminate what capital is from economic life and what is a forced relationship of work. This cannot be done otherwise than by creating a legal basis on which labor is regulated independently of economic life, and by creating a spiritual basis on which human individual abilities are regulated independently of economic life. Then they will flow into economic life in the right way.

Those who understand this will not be very impressed when people come and say: Yes, you want to destroy the unity of social life by dividing it into three parts. No, I want to establish precisely this unity, and those people who speak of dividing this unity, like the foolish writer of an article in yesterday's Süddeutsche Zeitung, believe that I want to cut up a horse. I don't want to cut up the horse, but they believe that if I don't put it on a single foot, I will cut it up. What matters to people is that the horse is only a unit when it stands on one leg. But the horse must stand on four legs. I do not want to cut up the social organism, but to place it on its three healthy legs. In doing so, I want to shape it straight into a whole. That is what matters.

Now I have again told you something about how things are to be understood, but from a different angle than I have usually said in lectures. I just wanted to introduce this evening, and I hope that now many of you will say something that can help us move forward this evening. We must move forward, especially with regard to a real dismantling of capitalism and a real dismantling of forced labor.

Discussion

Mr. Biel asks two questions: 1. Is democracy a necessity for the implementation of such a new form of economic life, or is it right, under certain circumstances, to use force if such a state of affairs cannot be brought about through democracy? Can violence in this case also be a right? — 2. Is this threefold division or socialization possible without taking into account international conditions, that is, without all culturally developed peoples coming onto the scene at the same time with the same ideas and demands?

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding the question of whether democracy is a necessity for the implementation of real socialization, I would like to say the following: In a sense, it is true that so far a majority of people have not been able to warm to new ideas, but, as the previous speaker has already said, only small groups have done so. But on this point in particular, we must realize that today we are not on the threshold of a small reckoning of world history, but of a great one. Many things must change, and they will only change if we are willing to strive for something different, especially with regard to the most important issues, from what has existed so far. Those who today not only look back at the practices of earlier times, but can see today what people want, will take into account the most diverse real factors.

For example, the previous speaker said that a small group of people drove humanity into the world war. Well, I will be publishing a small brochure in the next few days about the outbreak of the First World War, which will show how small the number of those was who, for example, were behind it on the German side. This small group worked in a way that was completely out of touch with the circumstances of the time. They simply carried the old conditions into the present. In terms of attitude, not with the technical means, it would not have been possible to govern in Berlin as it was done if, for example, the art of printing had not existed, through which education and the ability to judge were carried into the broadest masses. But did not this catastrophe of the world wars really bring about the downfall of that which had simply continued to be managed? |

Today we are on a different footing, and today people are not so that they want to let small groups dictate to them what they have to do, and that they just want to exchange one small group for another. Today everyone wants to be involved. Today is the time to learn the difference between ruling and governing. It seems, however, that this difference has not yet been thoroughly enough recognized. The people must rule today; a government may only govern. That is what matters. And that is why democracy is necessary today in a healthy sense. That is why I have no hope that one can achieve anything with the most beautiful ideas if one wants to realize them through small groups and if one is not supported by the knowledge and insight of the real majority of the population. The most important task today is to win over the vast majority of the population for what has been recognized as a possibility for change. Thus, today we are faced with the necessity of having the majority of the population on our side in a democratic way for what will ultimately be truly achieved in terms of socialization.

Of course, there could be transitional periods in which a small group would implement something that is not recognized by the majority. But that would only be short-lived. On this point in particular, it must be made clear that even today the time has come when, through democratization, people are to be regarded as equals, and therefore we must create the conditions in which all people can be equal in their judgment, which we must detach from that in which people cannot be equal in their judgment. Just imagine if some child at school is particularly talented at learning arithmetic and you want to make a musician out of him, then by training the child wrongly you are depriving the social life of a very special strength. The healthy development of individuality must be nurtured precisely in the social organism. You cannot democratize there, you can only apply the insight into the real knowledge of human nature. Something completely new must be introduced into the field of education and teaching.

And in economic life, do you want to make democratic decisions? For example, how to make boots or valves? Here, based on factual knowledge, corporations must be formed in relation to production and consumption; here, objective interests must be decisive. The purely factual interests must be separated to the left and to the right, and then the ground of democracy remains in the middle, on which nothing else comes into consideration than what every mature, fully developed person has to demand from every mature, fully developed person as an equal, and from where law then radiates into the spiritual and economic life. Precisely because the call for democracy is so justified today, we must recognize how democracy can be carried out. That was not necessary in capitalist society. There, too, people called themselves democrats, but it was not yet necessary to approach the concept of democracy as thoroughly as it is today. Today we have reached the point where we have to ask ourselves: Because democracy must come, how can we realize it in practice? The answer must be: only by basing it on its own foundations, and what cannot be administered democratically, what cannot be judged by all people, that is separated factually to the left and right.

It is so easy to understand why this tripartite social organism is necessary that one must actually always be surprised that people have so much against it. If they ask who is open and honest about democracy, for example, it is precisely the tripartite social organism, because it seeks to find out how to realize democracy and does not want to mix and confuse everything, so that there can be no democracy in the unitary state. Of course, those who always shout “For throne and altar!” have not made democracy. But, my dear attendees, they will not make democracy either, who put the office in place of the throne and the cash register in place of the altar. Democracy will only be made by those who are sincere about human society and do not want to carry the democratic to where expertise can be the only thing that matters. Therefore, people will have to come to terms with the fact that, as reasonable socialists have always said, there must be factual administrations in the future and no sham administrations through elections and the like. Of course, there must be elections, but beyond the technique of voting, one will have to learn other things than one already knows today. I just want to point out: Democracy must come, but we must have a social organism of such a kind that it thoroughly makes democracy possible.

As for international relations, I will just say that, while this world war was raging, it was precisely because of the internationality of this threefold order that I established it, because I saw only in the threefold order a remedy for somehow emerging from the terrible devastation and devastation of this world war. For if you have been an attentive observer for decades, you clearly recognized that this modern catastrophe, the greatest in world history, which, by the way, is far from over, was bound to happen as a result of the mixing up of everything possible.

Let us illustrate the story with a single phenomenon, the Baghdad Railway question. You may know that the Baghdad Railway question played a major role in the events that led to the First World War. Anyone who studies the negotiations in connection with the Baghdad Railway question knows how intertwined the economic interests of capitalist imperialism or capitalisms and national, chauvinistic, state, and legal prejudices are. For example, a certain German financial consortium thought it had the matter in the bag because it had attracted certain people in England, also financial consortia, that is to say people steeped in capital-economic interests. Then the state dimension emerged and confused everything so much that the English dropped out again. Then the French dropped out for the same reasons. Then again it was against German national interests, and so it went through the whole negotiations. Those who know real life know that in modern life the three spheres of life, intellectual life, to which national life also belongs, economic life and state or legal life, have become increasingly intertwined.

You see, when I came to Vienna during this world war – people judged this world war and their fate in it from the most diverse points of view – some people told me: This whole war is a pig war. – Not condemning, but characterizing, they wanted to express that one of the most important causes was that Hungary refused to let the Serbian pigs be imported. Thus it was a purely economic matter that became entangled with national, that is, spiritual issues. Thus various cauldrons were formed in which what then became a world war was brewed: all kinds of legal, extra-legal, class-legal and similar issues. Therefore, anyone who looks at the international situation must point out that the only hope for the future is to separate the three areas of life so that a three-part social organism is formed. Then the individual areas will support each other, then one will point to the other.

Sometimes people are so stubborn that it is amazing. You see, I once spoke to a person who is a legal scholar and even a ministerial director, and I pointed out to him that if the social organism is tripartite, conflicts can no longer arise at the borders because one does not interfere with the other. I said that state conflicts do not arise so quickly from economic conflicts if everything is not mixed up. Good economic relations, for example, will help with state conflicts and the like. Yes, he said, but if you implement that, then you are going against something that has always been in history, namely that the most important wars in history are actually wars over raw materials. If you want to introduce that, you are eliminating the raw material conflicts from the world, and it is our experience that these raw material conflicts have always been there. I had to answer: Yes, if you had wanted to give me confirmation that I am right, then it would make sense to me. That you tell me it as a refutation, I cannot understand. That is how people are today. When they think straight and naturally, they cannot bring themselves to accept it, because people's ideas have already been distorted.

So, with regard to the international as such, it was precisely the threefold order that was thought of first. It is the basis for a real socialization of international life as well. But it has another special feature. It does no harm at all if one social organism becomes threefold and the others do not yet want to become threefold. If the others are not yet ready, those who have introduced the threefold structure can enjoy the benefits of the threefold organism. Outwardly, if it should hinder them, they can of course act as one. If there are three parliaments, they can join together in negotiations with foreign countries because the others will not yet allow it otherwise. But they will still be ahead of the others because they are realizing the threefold order in their own area. That is precisely the important thing: not to think that you want to revolutionize the whole world, but to start in a particular area. Then it will be - and I am quite sure of this - very contagious when truly salutary conditions arise in an area. That will have a very contagious effect. And that is precisely what will contribute to internationalization. We just have to think practically. The only thing that could happen now is that the Entente would prevent us from introducing these blessings so that we cannot set an example. But we must show courage and drive in what we are able to create. Perhaps it is precisely through something like this that we will be able to fight against the strong capitalist-imperialist powers.

Discussion participant Mittwich asks: 1. How will it be possible to tax people in the socialist economy in the future? - 2. How will we socialize?

Rudolf Steiner: By pointing out the importance of democratization in the transition period, I do not think that the two previous speakers have really presented anything different from what I have said. Of course, misunderstandings could arise in one circle or another, but nothing really different from what I have said has actually been presented.

You see, you have to see this as a basis for the whole impulse of threefolding, namely that it aims at reality everywhere, that it does not theorize at all. In fact, if I may express myself somewhat paradoxically, what is written in my book about the social question is not so important as what happens when one sets about realizing what is written there. There people will notice that all kinds of things come out that they had no idea of before, precisely the things that are unconsciously demanded today by the truly working and productive people. And in a special case this is the case with democracy. Of course, for the transition period a very important question will be this: If we now really get a sufficient majority, and I consider that the only healthy one, because nothing can be maintained in the long run with small groups, if we get a sufficient majority for something that can really be carried out practically, then of course the question arises from the actual circumstances in question, it can only come from them: How do you then, more or less clearly, compliment — you know what I mean by that — those whom you wish were no longer in power? This is, of course, a significant transitional question, and I believe that if there is a real relative majority – I would even say a sufficient majority, it just depends on there being a number of people who can tip the scales and carry the matter, who are there out of conviction, out of insight and not out of following, not out of authority – then there will also be a way in which the new can be achieved.

But, you see, the question, which Mr. Mittwich has discussed very nicely here, does not seem to me to have been dealt with in a completely practical way, especially when I imagine that things are supposed to happen in space and not in our heads, not in our thoughts. Mr. Mittwich was right to say: when it comes to the fateful questions of Germany, when it comes to the big, serious questions of the present, only those who are productive workers, who are in some way truly productively active, should have a say. I fully agree. But you see, human society would be in a bad way if the majority of people were not productive, if they were inactive. The majority are already productively active. And if we only had all those who were productively active, if they really formed a majority, then we would be fine. Then those who are productively inactive would be in a strong minority: the parasites of society.

Now the thing about the tripartite organism is that only the productive workers, that is, those who really produce something and mean something to society, will certainly appropriate what is in its impulses. When they appropriate it, we can rely on these people, and the minority who do not appropriate it do not come into consideration. By accepting what is really reasonable, we will in practice get a majority that can be relied on. So I think that if it is accepted, the matter itself will ensure that the majority of those who are productively active will assert themselves. But how you want to push something through without being able to rely on the majority of those who are productively active, I don't see that in practice yet. It is not enough to demand that only the productive workers should share in the fate of Germany. The question only becomes practical when one considers how the productive workers alone can form a majority. The parasites will be weeded out if we can adhere to the tripartite social organism. Because that will bring about a real socialization, and those who are unproductive social parasites – you can be quite sure of that – will not be able to find any taste in this socialization. They will have to fall back into inactivity – well, they are already in there – but also into inactivity in terms of their vote and so on.

It is true that, economically, capitalism can be used to exert pressure, as I have sufficiently explained. But this compulsion ceases to exist when we render it harmless by ensuring the dismantling of capitalism. That is why I actually cannot understand how people constantly mix up what is appropriate for the present and what is appropriate for the time to come, which must really be just around the corner, because we do not have much time. For the present, one can indeed speak of the fact that the capitalists can strangle us, but we want to prevent them from doing that. So we cannot imagine conditions that we want to eliminate. Therefore, it is not correct to object that the capitalists will have the power. They will not have it if we move forward as the three-part social organism indicates. It will be taken from them. And finally, for those who take a closer look today, the question arises like this: Is capital, as such, really so extraordinarily powerful today, mainly as economic power over wide areas?

You see, I'll try to make something clear to you with a comparison. I once knew a family that had a really big dog. And suddenly, after the woman of the family had looked at this dog very thoughtfully for a long time, she came up with a strange idea. She said that if this dog were suddenly to become aware of its strength and were to use it, then it could tear us all apart. But it is so tame, and we are only saved because it has become accustomed to tameness. — You see, a great deal of the power of old capitalism has already been undermined. People just don't think about how much has already been undermined, how much is only maintained in appearance today by the fact that the old conditions are being propagated. Yes, you see, if after the German Revolution – don't get me wrong, comparisons are always misleading, the comparison is only meant to express the balance of power – those who came up afterwards had produced within themselves the awareness of the power that lies in the bulldog, if they had not allowed themselves to be hypnotized by muddling through in old ways, then we would have come further today.

Now, it is not always easy to answer specific questions, especially when it comes to practical people. I will tell you why. The specific questions are to be answered differently depending on the circumstances. Things can be handled in very different ways, and it is not always necessary to do them in the same way. The programmatic person, the theorist, is usually so clever that he thinks up a socialist program down to the last detail. There have always been such people. But that is not the point, but rather to show how the ground must be shaped so that people can socialize themselves, so that they come together in socializing.

I must always emphasize: I do not feel smarter than others with regard to the details, but I am trying to give suggestions as to how each person can bring out what can contribute to socialization. Therefore, I want people to place themselves on three levels. After all, people will not be divided into classes, but they will all be within each area. And it is people who will form the unity. Therefore, I would like to join the community of ideas in such a way that socialization can really be brought about by the people. Then, under the new conditions, we will also find a fair system of taxation. We must not forget: we cannot find a just principle for taxation from today's wealth statistics, since we are working to place them on a completely different footing. All these things, such as income tax, consumption tax and so on, will be placed on a completely different footing in the future. Read my writing on the social question. There you will see that many things will indeed be quite different in the future. For example, the family man is in the social organism in a completely different way than the single person, and that is because, if the constitutional state really develops as I assume, then every child has the right to an education. Then the situation is not that the family man has to distribute his meager wages among a large family, while the single person can use it all for himself. The circumstances will be quite different. [Interjection: And the other consumer goods?] The right to consumer goods is a matter of course. This is ensured by the fact that the economic process is a real one. Everyone who produces something will, simply through the economic process, have the opportunity to procure the consumer goods, which is much more certain than an abstract right. The aim of the emancipation of economic life is to have enough. Needs are better met if you have a right to consumer goods and thus enough in your wallet. That is the aspect concerning the right to consumer goods. In reality, it is not really important if one is really thinking about realizing the threefold social organism. Then, in fact, what is produced is what really equates one person with another from a certain age onwards.

Isn't it true that, in a truly socialized community, income as such need not be the determining factor for what one can consume. For it is quite possible that a person, by performing some kind of, well, let's call it quality work, may appear to earn more than another in a socialist community; but that does not mean that he has more for his consumption than another; he must spend it in the appropriate way. It is not a matter of keeping this concept of income and consumption in mind in the future, but rather of ensuring that - because one person will be economically fair in relation to another - it will be possible in the future to even eliminate the state as a tax collector from the economic process.

You see, one concept will have to disappear completely in the future: the concept of legal personality, including economic-legal personality. What is to be paid in taxes will actually be paid by individual people, because in the state, in the democratic state, on the ground on which the law is to live, the individual human being faces the individual human being. Human beings can only be equal when one human being is face to face with another. In the sphere of economic life and in the sphere of intellectual life there must be corporations. In the sphere of the state there can only be law, which is the same for all human beings, and which every adult can understand. The corollary of this, however, is that every private person, every individual, is only the bearer of the tax. This can be proportioned so that injustice never occurs, but this proportionality will not be necessary if there is real equality among people. The tax issue will then be something completely different. Therefore, the things that are at stake and that can be asked about today apply more to the transitional stage. Often, things have to be done that are not permanent. Of course, the aim is to gradually create the conditions for taxing the individual, not for taxing complexes [...] Of course, a consumption tax must also be created, by which I do not mean indirect taxes, which are unfair. So, a consumption tax must be created, that is, those who consume a lot of money must, of course, be taxed more than those who do not consume much, because if someone puts the money in the straw bag, it has no significance for social life. It only acquires significance when it is spent.

These are, of course, very specific questions, which today, because they are very specific practical questions, can basically only be answered insufficiently, because the institutions in the transition stage cannot yet be good either. If we can find a way of thinking that makes it possible to distribute fairly what is due to the state, we will also find a way to tax those who today still have a large income more than those who have less. And what Mr. Mittwich said about the future can only be realized when everything that can be created through the threefold social order is in place.

A very real question is how to think about implementing socialization. Some say it can only be achieved by increasing production. Yes, but there are many other things to be considered. In this regard, there is still a lack of clarity in contemporary humanity. You see, I once said in a lecture – I think to Daimler workers – that the peculiar thing about the more recent development of humanity is that, due to machines, the number of workers on the whole earth does not correspond to the number of people given in the encyclopedia as the population of the earth. It says there are about 1500 million people, but in reality, if we count the working population, there are 2000 million, so 500 million more. That is a curious fact. Of course, I am not saying that ghosts are walking around, who would not work even if they were walking around, but that is so because we have machines and can compare what is produced economically using machines, for example, in contrast to the Orient, where there are not yet so many machines, where man does more by hand. This makes it possible to calculate that the increased output resulting from the use of machines throughout the world is equivalent to 500 million people. Imagine how much labor and productive power could be saved if this were actually utilized in a sensible way. But strangely enough, I was met with the following response: Yes, I had said quite correctly that through the machine there are 500 million imaginary people, so 500 million more than in reality, so that the work is done by 2,000 million people, but on the other hand, people's needs have increased during the machine age and the same is true as before. That is an objection that one hears very often, that simply when the productive power is increased, needs also increase. One hole is closed, another opens. But in reality it is different. It is the case that everything must be taken into account that can lead to rationalization, to the proper design of the production process. Those who only think that the production process must be increased will not get it right – and that is: a proper balance between consumption and production, not the greatest possible increase in production. That does not lead to what must be striven for, that is, to a pricing system that really creates decent living conditions for all people.

What is necessary, in particular, is that in production, the kind of mistakes that have been made, let's say, in Germany, are not made. One of them – and there have been many – is that in the years long before the outbreak of the World War, twice as much coal was used for German industry as would have been necessary. So many resources were wasted, which could have been used for something completely different. What matters most is that we have people in the economic process who are up to the current situation. But we don't have them. People may be able to think very advanced on a large scale, but we don't have any real economic leaders. The economic process is not really organized at all in the way it should be, because people have no idea how important it is not to squander productive forces unnecessarily.

I have often used a grotesque example in these lectures. It is not uncommon today for a young badger to have to write his doctoral thesis after graduating from university. I will give you a concrete example. A young person was given the task by his professor to write his doctoral thesis on the commas in Homer - which, by the way, do not exist. This is, of course, a thesis that does not contribute the slightest thing to the social process. People who are hypnotized by scientific thinking take offense when you say something like that. But this matter must be viewed in an economic light. From an economic point of view, it is taken into account that this young man needs a year and a half for the work. During this time, he must eat, drink and dress. The fact that he can do this means that so-and-so many people have to work to provide him with food and drink, but he squanders his productive power and does nothing for society. Through what people call “free independent science,” he becomes a parasite on social life. This is just one example. But there are many such things in our production process, in our whole social life, where one can be very hardworking but ultimately unproductive. This raises the question: how do we find this out? We cannot find out without placing the spiritual life on its own ground. Is it on its own ground today? Wherever it is attacked, you can feel the unhealthy ground. Where do the numerous people come from who are let loose on the working population and who are supposed to lead or govern those who work?

In my lectures, I have often used the example of a certain government councilor Kolb. This Mr. Kolb did not do as many others do, who retire after a certain time, but went to America and worked there among the workers, first in a bicycle factory, then in a brewery. Then he wrote a book: “As a Worker in America”. In this book you can read the following beautiful sentence: “Earlier, when I saw a person on the street who was not working, I thought: Why isn't this bum working?” Today I see the matter quite differently. Today I know that the uncomfortable things in life look quite comfortable in the study. — Well, you see, this person has made it to the level of a senior government official. He has certainly studied in our present-day intellectual workshops, but he had no idea of life, no idea of work. And today, life is run by people like that! One has no idea how much our living conditions depend on such things! But must not these conditions be unhealthy? Yes, I only ask you to consider that man really depends on his thoughts. What is in the mind is not indifferent, it is contagious, it infects the whole person, especially when it comes to people during the developmental years. And now I want to tell you something: Do today's teaching institutions ensure that people are educated who then understand something about life, on the ground of which the work takes place? No, the circumstances are quite different. And in the minds of those who are released from our teaching institutions today, what kind of thoughts live in them? The thoughts that people absorb through the Greek language, for example, live in them. But a language is the clearest mirror of external life. Grammar, word formation, even intonation and everything else is taken from life. The Greek language, when I immerse myself in it, makes me able to find my way into Greek life. In those days, only those who pursued politics or art or science or perhaps managed agriculture could be free. All the rest were unfree. Everything is geared to this when one takes in Greek. People who come out of the teaching institutions today come out with thoughts that can only be applied to a social order in which only a few people are free and most are unfree. People do not notice what is happening unconsciously, what is flowing into them. That is why intellectual life must be freed, so that we do not have capitalists and their servants as intellectual leaders, but so that intellectual leadership is in line with economic life. Isn't it absurd – we are talking about the 'great reckoning' here – isn't it absurd that our intellectual leaders do not do things the way the Greeks did? The Greeks learned for their lives in their educational institutions. You can criticize that today as you like, but that was life back then. Today, life must not be that! But we do not learn what is necessary for our lives; instead, we let our youth learn what was for ancient Greece.

Yes, you see, people today still do not think about these basics for healthy socialization. But this is necessary, especially when we are talking about the proper organization of production, which is quite complicated today. So today we have to learn to understand, for example, how large a production plant can be. Because, you see, what Mr. Mittwich said applies to a production plant that is too small. Of course it cannot survive because it belongs to an old economic order. But we must not let the production plants become too large for purely economic reasons, and this is why: too small plants - I must express this as an economic law today - too small plants will lead in the future to those who work in them starving to death. Too large plants will cause those who are supposed to buy what is produced in these plants to starve. The production plant must have a very definite size, and this size will only be able to be determined when in the future, through the people who understand something, a right balance between consumption and production is created. The interests of consumption are always such that they want to expand. You will always see that consumption cooperatives have an interest in becoming large. Production cooperatives always want to become smaller. The right balance is created by what production and consumption achieve together. Then such enterprises will come into being that will have a size that is appropriate for the spiritually active person to work for the benefit of the physically working person, and from this will come a natural prosperity that will ensure a dignified existence for the broad masses.

So, as you can see, it is not that simple. It is necessary to realize that it is unhealthy for someone to say that if all production is done by machines – as the gentleman told me at the time – then needs will also increase. It is a question of whether it is a healthy state of affairs if needs are allowed to increase, or whether we should not consider the possibility of relieving people of work so that they can find some rest. This can also contribute to the proper regulation of prices. People often fail to see the simplest things. I would like to give you an example: I once had a friendly argument with someone about scribbling on postcards. I said: I don't like writing postcards, because most of the time they are just a whim and actually unnecessary. And I believe that I can spare all the postmen who have to run up and down stairs from having to run up and down stairs. I want to spare them this work. The other one said: That's not right, because first of all, I'm happy when I can make someone else happy with the card. – Well, that was still tolerable. But then he said: Secondly, the current number of postmen will soon no longer be sufficient, and more will have to be hired. So someone will have bread again because I write a lot of postcards. – To that I said: But think about what you are actually saying now. Do you really believe that you can increase the amount of bread by even a single gram by employing people to carry picture postcards around? Carrying the cards around will not increase the amount of consumer goods needed for the same number of people! You have to distinguish between productive power, which just needs to be transformed into labor, and completely unproductive forces. And this horrible phrase, which is often used, that work must be created so that people can be employed, makes no sense at all when it comes to creating something completely unproductive.

So, it is important that, through sensible socialization, production is not simply increased blindly, but that a proper balance is struck between consumption and production. You see, it is so very necessary that we develop the good will today to educate ourselves about these things. Because if we continue to think in these dreadful terms, with which one thinks out of the capitalist order, then we will not get anywhere. One must always ask oneself: Is something still being thought in a capitalist way, or is it a realistic germinal idea for the future? Therefore, one must say to oneself: Today one must turn around a thought twice to be sure that it is a thought for the new structure and not a thought learned from what is ripe for the dismantling. That is what I wanted to say about the questions.

The following question was asked: Under the present circumstances, we can hardly get a majority for the threefold social order because not even the proletarians are united among themselves. What can be done to bring about this unity?

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, that is one of those questions that always comes down to the fact that although one understands what is right, one imagines that for some reason it cannot be achieved. This question should not really be raised; it really gets you nowhere. The question must become a will question. I cannot express myself on this. You just have to do something. What we have recognized as being right must be carried from person to person. We must not ask ourselves: Will we win over the majority or not? but we must do everything to win that majority. Then we shall have done our duty, not only to ourselves but to all humanity. It must be a matter of will, not a mere theoretical question, such as: How can we get the majority? I say: We must have it! And therefore we must work to get it. It must be a matter of will. There is no other way.

For the purposes of research and reflection in the physical world, it is above all, one might say, a matter close to the human heart to find one's way in the relationships of the physical world - in which one spends one's existence between birth and death - to the higher worlds to which one actually belongs. We are quite clear about the fact that, even if a person's thinking is still very vague, there is still an eminently clear feeling, a distinct sensation, that he must know something about these relationships in some form. No matter how vaguely man may think about the higher worlds, no matter how much despair he may feel for various reasons about the possibility of knowing anything about them, it is natural and appropriate for the human feeling and perception to relate to a higher world.

Of course, it can be objected that, especially in our present materialistic times, there are many people who either deny in some form or other that there is any spiritual world at all, or at least deny that man can know anything about it. But one can also say that one must first learn to have a “negative” attitude towards the spiritual world, so to speak, because it is not “natural” for a person to deny a spiritual, a supersensible world. One must first arrive at this position through all kinds of theories; one must first, one might say, be taught to deny a spiritual world with any degree of seriousness. So that when one speaks of the natural man, one can still speak in a way that is appropriate to his perception, turning the gaze of the soul in some way upwards to the spiritual worlds.

But now, if there is even the slightest possibility that there are people who want nothing whatsoever to do with the spiritual world, there must be something about human nature that makes it difficult to determine our relationship with the spiritual world. And this relationship does indeed seem difficult to grasp. For we see that in the course of history, which we can follow, a great number of all kinds of philosophies and world views have emerged that seemingly contradict each other. But I have often explained that it is only seemingly, because if it were easy for man to determine his relationship to the supersensible world, then the history of world views would not be full of seemingly contradictory world views. From this alone it is clear that it is, to a certain extent, difficult to determine the relationship to the spiritual world. And that is why the question can also be raised as to the origin of this difficulty, what it is that actually exists in the soul of man, that he has a hard time relating to the spiritual world.

Now, if we examine all the attempts that are made outside of a spiritual-scientific world view, say in mere philosophy or in external science, and ask ourselves what these attempts are actually based on, what they are based on, then we have to say: when we look at these attempts, when we see what kind of soul power men chiefly employ to fathom the relation of the physical to the spiritual world, one finds that, again and again, I might say except in isolated cases, men see in thinking above all that soul faculty, that soul activity which, rightly employed, could lead to the discovery of something, to a determination about the relation of man to the supersensible worlds. It is therefore necessary, so to speak, to consider the thinking, the thinking work of the soul, and to ask oneself: What about thinking, about making oneself thoughts, in relation to the human being who lives in the physical world and the spiritual worlds? What about this relationship of thinking to the spiritual worlds?

So the question is: what is the value of thinking for a form of knowledge that satisfies people? — I would like to consider this question today as a preliminary, and then discuss other questions in front of you afterwards. I would like us to prepare ourselves, so to speak, for a worthy discussion by considering the question of the value of thinking for knowledge.

Now, we can, as it were, get behind thinking if we proceed in the following way. In the course of the last lectures we have already indicated that certain peculiarities of thinking, or, even better, of thoughts, are to be considered. I have pointed out how there are many people who see it as a mistake of all scientific thinking when this scientific thinking is not just a mere copy, so to speak, a mental photograph of an external reality. For these people say: if thinking is to have any relationship at all to the real, to reality, then it must not bring anything to this reality from itself; for in the moment when thinking brings something to reality, one is not dealing with a copy, with a photograph of a reality, but with a fantasy, with a fantasy image. And in order to avoid dealing with such a fantasy, one must strictly ensure that no one includes in their thoughts anything that is not a mere photograph of external reality.

Now, with a slight effort of thought, you will immediately come to say to yourself: Yes, for the external physical world, for what we call the physical plane, this seems to be quite right. It seems to correspond to a quite correct perception that one must not add anything to reality through thinking if one does not want to have fantasy images instead of a reflection of reality. For the physical plane, it can truly be said that it is absolutely right to refrain from adding any ingredient of thought to what one receives from outside through perception.

Now I would like to draw your attention to the views of two philosophers regarding the view expressed in what has just been said: Aristotle and Leibniz.

Aristotle, who can be seen as the summarizer of the Greek world view, is a philosopher who was no longer initiated into the secrets of the spiritual world, but who lived in the very first period after, I would say, the “age of initiation”. Whereas before all philosophers were still somehow touched by the initiation when they expressed philosophically what they knew as initiates - P/ato, for example, who was a kind of initiate to the highest degree, but expressed himself philosophically - with Aristotle one must say that he also had no trace of an initiation, but still all kinds of after-effects of an initiation were there. So this is a philosopher who only speaks philosophically, without initiation, without any kind of initiatory impulse, but who, in his philosophy, gives in a rationalized way what the initiates who were before him gave in a spiritualized way. That is Aristotle.

The sentence we now want to consider comes from Aristotle. [It was written on the board:

There is nothing in the mind that is not in the senses.

So let us take note of this sentence: there is nothing in — we can add — 'human' intelligence that is not in the senses.

This sentence of Aristotle's must not be interpreted in any kind of materialistic way, because Aristotle is far removed from any kind of materialistic worldview. This sentence is not to be taken in a worldview sense, but rather epistemologically. That is to say, Aristotle rejects the idea that one can gain knowledge about the world from within, but asserts that one can only gain knowledge by directing one's senses to the outside world, by receiving sensory impressions and then using reason to form concepts from these sensory impressions; but of course he does not deny that one receives spiritual things with the sensory impressions. He thinks of nature as permeated by the spirit; only, he thinks, one cannot arrive at the spiritual if one does not look out into nature.

Here you can see the difference to the materialist. The materialist concludes: there is only material outside, and one only forms concepts of the material. Aristotle thinks that all of nature is permeated by spirit, but the path of the human soul to reach the spirit is such that one must start from the sensory perception and process the sensory impressions into concepts. If Aristotle himself had been touched by an initiatory impulse, he would not have said that; for then he would have known that if one frees oneself from sensory perception in the way we have described, one can attain knowledge of the spiritual world from within. So he did not want to deny the spiritual world, but only to show the path that human knowledge must take.

This sentence then played a major role in the Middle Ages and has been reinterpreted in a materialistic way in the materialistic age. You only need to change a small thing in this sentence of Aristotle's - there is nothing in the world for the intellect that is not in the senses - and we have immediately formed materialism from it. Isn't it true, you just need to make what, in the sense of Aristotle, is the human path of knowledge, the principle of a world view, and then you have materialism.

Leibniz came up with a similar sentence, and we also want to look at this sentence. Leibniz is not that far behind us; in the 17th century. Let us now also take this sentence of Leibniz to heart. So Leibniz says: There is nothing in, we can say again, “human” intelligence - I just add “human” - that is not in the senses, except for intelligence itself, except for the intellect itself.

[It was written on the board]:

There is nothing in human intelligence that is not in the senses, except for intelligence itself, except for intellect itself.

Thus the intellect that man has within him, working, is not in the senses. In these two sentences you can see a real school example of how one can completely agree with the formulation of a sentence, and yet how the sentence can be incomplete.

Now I do not want to dwell on the extent to which this sentence of Leibniz's is also philosophically incomplete. Let us just note for the moment that Leibniz was of the view that the intellect itself is not somehow already grounded in the senses, but that man must bring the work of the intellect to what the senses give him. So that one can say: the intellect itself is an inner activity that has not yet passed through the senses.

If you have followed the last lectures, you know that this inner work is already free of the senses and takes place in the etheric body of the human being. In our language, we can say: There is nothing in the intelligence working in the etheric body that is not in the senses, except for the intelligence itself working in the etheric body; what works in there does not come in from the senses.

But thinking as such is in reality, when it is properly considered in true self-knowledge, this working in the etheric body, and that is what philosophers call the intellect. This thinking is therefore a kind of work, a working, we could say. And because, for our spiritual scientific understanding, Leibniz, even if he is not absolutely right, is still more right than Aristotle, we can say: this thinking - or, better expressed, this thinking activity, this thinking work in man, which is a performance of the etheric body - that is not in the outer reality of the physical plane. For the physical plane is exhausted in what it allows us to perceive through the senses. So, by placing ourselves as human beings in the physical plane, we bring intellect into it, but this intellect itself is not in the physical world.

And here we now come to the difficulty of those philosophers who want to get behind the world riddle through the intellect. People have to say to themselves: Yes, if I think about it properly, the intellect does not belong to the sense world; but I am now in a peculiar situation. I know of no other spiritual world than just the intellect; it is a spiritual world behind sensuality. So what do I get from the intellect? It cannot receive anything, no content, if it does not inform itself through the senses from the external physical world. It only stands there for itself. — But then the philosopher stands before a rather peculiar thing. He must indeed reflect: I have an activity within me, the activity of the intellect. Through this activity of the intellect I want to get to the bottom of the secrets of the sense world. But I can only think about what is out there in the sense world; but these thoughts arise through something that does not itself belong to the sense world. So what do these thoughts have to do with the sense world? Even if I now also know that the intellect is a spiritual thing, I must still despair of being able to approach anything that is reality through the spiritual thing that I have.

Now I will try to approach the matter by way of comparison. In the last lectures we expressed the same thing in a different way. We expressed it by leading ourselves to recognize that in what we achieve through our thinking we have mirror images of reality, that these mirror images actually come in addition to reality and are not realities themselves.

You see, it is the same truth, only expressed differently here in a philosophical way. We had to say: the intellect forms mirror images. These mirror images, as an image of the reality that is being mirrored, are indifferent to reality, because the reality that is being mirrored does not need these mirror images. So that one might come to doubt reality altogether, the whole reality value of thinking, of intelligence, and ask oneself: Does thinking have any real significance? Does it not actually add something to external reality through what it is? Does any single thought have any real value if, in relation to reality, it is nothing more than a mirror image?

Let us now endeavor to properly examine the reality of thought. In other words, we want to answer the question: Is thought really just something imagined that has no real value at all? Or, we can approach the question from a different angle: Where does thought have a reality? — Now, as I said, I will try to illustrate this through a comparison. Here is a watch; I pick up the watch, now I have the watch in my hand. Everything about the watch is outside the muscles and nerves of my hand. My hand and the watch are two different things. But suppose it were dark here, I had never seen the watch and would perceive the watch only through feeling, then I would perceive something of the watch by stretching out my hand and grasping the watch. If you direct your attention to the watch, you will say to yourself, I can learn something about the reality of the watch by holding it in my hand, by grasping it. But if we hypothetically assume for a moment that I only have one hand and not two, I would not be able to grasp the first hand with the second hand as I can actually do now. I could grasp the watch with my one hand, but I could not grasp the hand itself with another hand; at most I could touch it with my nose, but let us not consider that for the moment, shall we? Yet the hand is just as real as the watch. How do I convince myself of the reality of the watch? By taking it in my hand and touching it. How do I convince myself of the reality of the hand? I could not convince myself by touching it if I did not have a second hand; but I do know with inner certainty that I have a hand, that I have what I have on me to grasp the watch just as realistically as I can guarantee the reality of the watch by touching it. Do you notice the difference between the real hand and the real watch? I have to experience the reality of the hand in a different way than the reality of the clock.

You can transfer this comparison entirely to human thinking, to the intellect. You can never grasp that which the intellect comprehends so directly through the intellect itself; just as little as you can grasp the hand itself with a hand. The intellect cannot perceive itself as it perceives the other things; but it is nevertheless convinced of its reality through inner certainty. It is an inner certainty that convinces the intellect of its reality. But then one must understand this intellect, this working of the intellect, as an activity of the human subject; one must realize that the intellect, spiritually speaking, is only a hand that is stretched out to grasp something. All this is figuratively speaking, but they are very real images. And just as, on the one hand, my hand is able to convince me of the reality of the watch – namely, by being able, for example, to feel the weight of the watch, the smoothness of the watch, that is, by being able to experience through the nature of my hand everything that is real about the clock – on the other hand, through the real of the intellect, I am able to experience other things about things than what the senses experience. The intellect is therefore a grasping organ in the spiritual sense, which we must perceive in #»s, not in the outside world.

And you see, here lies the difficulty for philosophers. They believe that if they have thoughts about the world, then these thoughts must come from outside, and then they realize that they do not come from outside at all, but that the intellect produces these thoughts. And since they regard the intellect as alien to external reality, they must actually regard all thoughts as fantasy images. But one must ascribe a subjective reality to the intellect, a reality that is experienced internally. Then one has the realm of reality in which the intellect is perceived. Thus, by examining the actual nature of the intellect, we come to be able to say: Yes, everything that the intellect accomplishes may or need only be a reflection of external reality, but this reflection has been created by the work of real intellect. This is a human activity. Its reality consists in the fact that man works by acquiring knowledge of the reality of the intellect through the intellect. So we can say that man's intellectual activity, which works in man, but it works in such a way that it is quite justified to say that what this intellect works out has no significance for the world in which it works - just as the hand has no significance for the clock; for the clock it is of no importance whether it is grasped by the hand or not – it is something that exists for and in man, that he forms images of things through the intellect. But with regard to the things of the physical plane, everything that this intellect works out is unreal, a mirror image, dead, nothing alive. We can say that the images of the physical world that are worked out in the intellect are lifeless, dead images.

[It was written on the board]:

Intellectual activity - dead images.

Thus, the images that man forms of the physical world are also dead images. One misunderstands the actual nature of this content of the intellect if one ascribes to it something other than the fact that it can be a copy of the physical world.

But the matter becomes quite different when man comes to live with the experiences of his existence in time. When we face the things of the external world and form images of them through the intellect, we get dead concepts; but if we allow these concepts to be present in our soul, then after some time, when the experience of which we have formed an image is long gone, we can, through memory, as we say, bring up the image of that experience from memory. We can say: Yes, now I know nothing of the experience; but when I remember, it comes up. It was not in my consciousness before I remembered, but it is there, somewhere in the depths of my soul, unconsciously, I just have to bring it up from the unconscious.

So the image of a past experience that I have seen in the past is down there in the unconscious. Fine, there it is, I'll bring it up. But down there it is not so meaningless. You just need to take the very ordinary difference between an idea that we receive from an experience in such a way that it gives us joy, lifts us up, and an idea of some experience that has not given us joy. We can now push an idea that has given us joy down into the unconscious, and can push an idea that has not given us joy into the unconscious. Few people reflect on what is to be said about the difference between an idea that gives pleasure and one that causes grief or pain. But there is an enormous difference. And this difference becomes particularly apparent when one tries to ascertain the reality value of such ideas, which have actually already faded from normal memory.

So let us consider an idea that a person may have enjoyed but had no reason to think back to in later life, or an idea that caused him pain and to which he also had little reason to think back. They do not come to his consciousness, but they play a role in the unconscious soul life. If only people would recognize from spiritual science what ideas stored up in the soul mean, even if they are completely forgotten. We are actually always the result of our experiences. The expression on our face, especially in more intimate gestures, is really a reflection of what we have experienced in our present incarnation. You can see this in the faces of people who experienced something sad in their childhood. So what goes on down there, in other words, is involved in the processes of human life. What is repressed into oblivion, into the unconscious, in the form of inhibiting, sad images, consumes us, it cuts off our life force. What we have experienced that is joyful and uplifting revives us. And when you study the fate of our imaginative life in the unconscious, you find how tremendously dependent the present mood, the whole constitution of a person, is on what lies in his subconscious.

Now compare the memories, the images that have already entered the unconscious soul life, with the images that we currently have in our consciousness. Then you will say to yourself: the images that we currently have in our consciousness are dead. Dead images do not participate in our life process. Only when they descend into the unconscious do they begin to participate in the process of life and then become life-promoting or life-inhibiting ideas. So that the ideas, by being pushed down into the deeper layers of the soul, only really begin to live. I have always pointed this out in the lectures I have given in various places on the hidden foundations of the soul's life. Thus, the ideas, which are initially dead ideas, begin to live when they are implanted in our soul life; but they live all the more the more unconscious we become.

If you now follow the process with spiritual scientific knowledge, something very peculiar happens, which I can only describe as [a drawing is begun]:

Let us assume that this is the boundary between the conscious and the unconscious; that this line, this stroke, is the boundary between “conscious”, which is above, and “unconscious”, which is below. And now we have formed all kinds of ideas in our consciousness. I will denote them schematically with all kinds of figures. We have formed these ideas; let us assume that these ideas go down into the unconscious. They go down there [the arrows were drawn].

Yes, you see, when these images that go down there are followed with spiritual-scientific knowledge, then they transform themselves. Outwardly we have recognized that they become life-promoting or life-inhibiting; inwardly it shows through spiritual-scientific knowledge that they become imaginations by sliding down below the surface, as it were. In the unconscious or subconscious, everything that goes down becomes imagination, everything becomes an image. You can have the most abstract ideas in your ordinary day-to-day consciousness: when you go below the threshold of ordinary day-to-day consciousness, everything becomes imagination. That is to say, there is a process in man, a sum of processes, which is always endeavoring — through the dead ideas of the earthly, ordinary, materialistic consciousness passing into the subconscious — to transform all the ideas of consciousness in the subconscious into images, into imaginations, before man comes to imaginative knowledge.

If we want to describe what we have in our unconscious of our imaginative life, if we want to get to know it, then we must actually say: all this consists of unconscious imaginations, and all the ideas that we can in turn raise from the unconscious into the conscious, we must bring them up through an activity that also remains unconscious to us. We must bring them back into consciousness, but we must strip them of their pictorial character, transform them back into abstract, non-pictorial ideas. And when you are in the process of reflecting, “Oh, I experienced something; what was it? and you make an effort – you all know the process – to remember something, then it is the effort that you have to devote to stripping the image that is sitting there of its pictorial character and transforming it back into the imaginative form of consciousness.

From this, however, you will see that the ideas become more spiritual when we push them down into the unconscious. We must therefore say: When we take what the intellect offers us and absorb it into the unconscious, then we must characterize the world of ideas that is there in us and that we have pushed down as a higher, more spiritual world. We must therefore say: the world of possible memories – please note that I say the world of possible memories; not all the images that go down there need to be remembered again, but they are all there below in the unconscious soul life – the world of possible memories actually consists of imaginations, of unconscious imaginations.

[It was written on the board:

World of possible memories – imaginations.

Now, there are times when it is possible for a person's normal consciousness – and perhaps we will be able to talk about other such possibilities in the next few days – to conjure up these images, which would otherwise never pass from the realm of possible memories into the realm of actual memories, into consciousness. Take the experiences sometimes had by people who are drowning! And if you could compare them with the experiences of those who have passed through the gate of death, you would find that even there, some images, where the effort in ordinary physical life is not enough to bring them up again, then arise as if by themselves. But episodes, parts of them, also arise in the ordinary dream world. Even the dream as it presents itself to us is a complicated reality, because what is actually experienced is in many ways hidden behind it. But the ideas that we cover up are taken from memory. So the dream, the experiences of those struggling with death, like drowning people and the like, and experiences that occur immediately after passing through the gate of death, show this world of imagination, which is a more spiritual world than the world of ordinary human intelligence on the physical plane.

But if you take what I have just described, that these ideas, which have passed into the region of memory, work to promote or inhibit life, you will say to yourself: There is some life in it. While the ideas of the ordinary intellect are dead, there is some life in them, but it is not particularly strong. But even here ordinary experience can offer something that can show you that what happens to these images as they descend into the subconscious region can signify an even stronger life.

I have already emphasized the very common fact that people who have to learn something by heart in order to recite it, learn and sleep on it, and that this sleep is necessary to make the memory more capable. This is, however, only a slight hint at something that spiritual science shows much more clearly, indeed completely clearly, namely that our entire world of ideas, as we develop it and push it down into the subconscious, becomes more and more alive in the subconscious, while in consciousness it is dead.

Now, the ideas that come up again are not even those that are most involved in promoting or inhibiting life, but rather those that connect with us much more intimately. Ideas that we often absorb only incidentally, without even paying much attention to them in life, connect with our life-promoting or life-inhibiting powers to a much greater extent. Let us assume that someone is involved in spiritual science. He first takes in this spiritual science as it is worked out by the physical intellect. He has to start from there. We have to tie in with what the physical intellect perceives through the senses. Otherwise I could not speak about the spiritual world at all, because language is for the physical world. But there is a difference in how we, let me say, clothed in life, take in such a world of ideas.

Suppose a person takes the truths of spiritual science seriously and with dignity, so to speak, so that he feels: there is seriousness, deep seriousness. Another person takes in the ideas of spiritual science in such a way that he actually only listens to them theoretically and does not take them very seriously. The one takes them, as it were, in an atmosphere of superficiality, the other in an atmosphere of seriousness. We do not need to be very aware of how we take them in; it has more to do with how we go through life without always thinking about it. Those who are predisposed or accustomed to taking things seriously, and not frivolously or cynically, do not always think about how to take them; they behave seriously and naturally. In the same way, those who are only superficially predisposed take them in superficially; they cannot help it. Thus we accompany our life of imagination with something that we do not imagine, that really is something that goes along with what we are aware of. But what goes along with what we are aware of goes much deeper into the unconscious than what we consciously think. The way we form our ideas goes much deeper into the unconscious than what we consciously think. And when a person is asleep and his astral body and I am out of the physical and etheric body, then this way of forming ideas plays an infinitely important role in the astral body and I. One can say: Anyone who takes on any ideas with the necessary seriousness has these ideas in his astral body and in his I in such a way that they are there like invigorating solar power for the plant. They are truly the most invigorating of forces. And he incorporates into these ideas that which is invigorating, invigorating and going beyond the present incarnation, and creating the preconditions for the next incarnation. It is already evident from the creative soul that you have something in the subconscious that is more spiritual than what can be brought up through the dream.

There we have a world of unconscious mental life, connected with the whole core of the human being. This way of taking life, as it were, penetrates into our spiritual life forces, and it is quite the same as unconscious inspiration.

[It was written on the board]:

World of the unconscious life of imagination – inspirations.

I will then explain to you – today is no longer the time for this – how even ordinary life shows that these unconscious inspirations unconsciously have an effect in the person already in the incarnation in which they are formed, but unconsciously. Then I will show you further that there is still a higher world for the human being. But you can see from what has been presented today that the human soul life has an inner movement, that what is experienced on the physical plane through physical intelligence is experienced further down, that it then ascends into more spiritual regions, into even more spiritual regions at last than we experience on the physical plane. [The arrows were drawn.] So the life of imagination is in inner movement, in ascending movement. And now you remember what I drew for you yesterday: how certain processes in man were shown in a descending movement. So that you can say to yourself: When I have the human being in front of me, there is a descending current and an ascending current in the human being, and they work together. We will discuss tomorrow how they work together.

[Diagram on the board]:

World of unconscious mental life: inspirations
World of memory: imaginations
Intellectual activity: dead images

Yesterday I spoke about a kind of ascending movement that is rooted in human nature. And basically, by contemplating this ascending movement, we have rediscovered everything we already know, namely, at the lowest level, knowledge that is applicable only to the facts of the physical plane, physical knowledge, which is called objective knowledge in “How to Know Higher Worlds”. So today I will call it physical knowledge. We then came to know the next higher stage of knowledge, the so-called imaginative knowledge; but we considered it as archetypally conscious imaginative knowledge; conscious imaginative knowledge can only be present in the human being who tries to work his way up to it in the way described in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds”. The words “physical knowledge”, “unconscious imaginative knowledge”, “conscious imaginative knowledge” were written on the blackboard; see diagram.

But the fact is that the content of imaginative knowledge, that is, imaginations, are in every human being. So that the development of the human soul in this respect is nothing more than an expansion of consciousness to include a realm that is always present in the human soul. We may say, then, that the situation with imaginative knowledge is no different than it would be with objects in a dark room. For in the depths of the human soul all the imaginations that come into question for the human being are present just as the objects of a dark room are. And just as the objects in a dark room are not increased in number when light is brought into the room, but remain as they are, only illuminated, so, after the consciousness for imaginative knowledge has been awakened, there is no different content in the soul than there was before; they are only illuminated by the light of consciousness. So, in a sense, by struggling to the imaginative level of knowledge, we experience nothing other than what has long been present in our soul as a sum of imaginations.

If we look back again at what we were able to understand yesterday, we know that when our perceptions of the objects around us through our physical senses descend into the realm of memory, that is, into the unconscious, , so that we are in a position to be unaware of them for some time, but they have not been lost, but can be brought up again from the soul, then we have to say that we are sinking down into the unconscious that which we have in ordinary physical consciousness. Thus the world of representations that we gain through physical knowledge of the external world is constantly being taken up by our spiritual, by the supersensible; it continually slips into the supersensible. Every moment we gain representations of the external world through physical perceptions, and these representations are handed over to our supersensible nature. It will not be difficult for you to consider this in the light of everything that has been said over the years, because this is the most superficial supersensible process imaginable, a process that takes place continuously: the transition from ordinary perceptions to perceptions that we can remember. So it seems obvious, and this is also true according to spiritual research, that everything that takes place when we perceive the external world is a process of the physical plane. Even when we form ideas about the physical external world, this is still a process of the physical plane. But in the moment when we let the ideas sink down into the unconscious, we are already standing at the entrance to the supersensible world.

This is even a very important point to be taken into account by anyone who, not through all kinds of occult chatter but through serious human soul-searching, wants to gain an understanding of the occult world. For there is a very important fact hidden in the saying I have just applied: When we as human beings face the things of the external world and form ideas, it is a process of the physical plane. At the moment when the idea sinks down into the unconscious and is stored there until it is brought up again by a memory, a supersensible process takes place, a real supersensible process. So that you can say to yourself: If one is able to follow this process, which consists in the fact that a thought that is up in the consciousness sinks down into the subconscious and is present there as an image, one can, in other words, follow an idea as it is down in the subconscious, then one actually begins to glide into the realm of the supersensible. Just think: when you go through the usual process of remembering, the idea must first come up into consciousness, and you perceive it up here in consciousness, never down in the unconscious. You must distinguish between ordinary remembering and pursuing the ideas down into the unconscious. What takes place in remembering can be compared to a swimmer sinking under the water, whom you see until he is completely submerged. Now he is down and you no longer see him. When he comes up again, you see him again! [It was drawn.] It is the same with human perceptions: you have them as long as they are on the physical plane; when they go down, you have forgotten them; when you remember them again, they come up again like the float. But the process I am talking about, which already points to imaginative knowledge, could be compared to you diving under yourself and thereby being able to see the swimmer down in the water, so that he does not disappear when he submerges.

But from this follows nothing less than that the line I drew earlier, the level surface, as it were, below which the imagination sinks into the unconscious, into the realm of memory, is the threshold of the spiritual world itself, the first threshold of the spiritual world. This follows with absolute necessity. It is the first threshold of the spiritual world! Just think how close the human being is to this threshold of the spiritual world. [The words 'threshold of the spiritual world' were written next to the diagram.]

And now take a process by which one can try to really get down there, to submerge. The process would be to try to follow ideas down into the unconscious. This can actually only be done by trial and error. It can be done by doing something like the following. You have formed an idea about the outside world; you try to artificially evoke the process of remembering independently of the outside world. Think of how it is recommended in “How to Know Higher Worlds”, where the very ordinary rule of looking back at the events of the day is given. When one looks back at the experiences of the day, one trains oneself to enter into the paths that the imagination itself takes by descending below the threshold and then ascending again. So the whole process of remembering is designed to follow the images that have sunk below the threshold of consciousness.

But in addition, it is said in “How to Know Higher Worlds” that one does well to trace the ideas one has formed in reverse order, that is, from the end back to the beginning; and if one wants to survey the day, to follow the stream of events backwards from evening to morning. In doing so, one must make a different effort than is made in the way of ordinary recollections. And this different effort of will brings one to grasp, as it were below the threshold of consciousness, what one has had as an experiential image. And in the course of trying, one comes to feel, to experience inwardly, how one runs after the images, runs after them below this threshold of consciousness. It is really a process of inner experiential probing that comes into play here. But it is important to do this review really seriously, not in a way that after a while you lose the seriousness of the matter. But then, if you do this process of looking back for a long time, or in general do the process of bringing up an experience from memory, an experienced world of ideas, so that you imagine the matter in reverse, thus applying a greater force than you when you remember in the usual sequence, then you also experience that you are no longer able to grasp the idea from a certain point on in the same way as you would have grasped it in ordinary life on the physical plane.

On the physical plane, memory expresses itself in such a way – and it is best for memory on the physical plane to express itself in this way – that if one brings up the image that one wants or is supposed to remember, one does so in a way that is true to the context of one's life, one brings it up in the way one has formed it on the physical plane. But if, through the suggested trial, one gradually gets used to chasing the ideas, as it were, under the threshold of consciousness, one does not discover them down there as they are in life. That is the mistake people always make when they believe that they will find a copy of what is in the physical world in the spiritual world. They have to assume that the ideas will look different down there. In reality, they look like this below the threshold of consciousness: they have stripped away everything that is characteristic of the physical plane. Down there they become entirely images; and they become so completely that we feel life in them. We feel life in them. It is very important to keep this sentence in mind: we feel life in them. You can only be convinced that you have really followed an idea down below the threshold of consciousness when you have the feeling that the idea is beginning to live, to stir. When I compared the ascent to imaginative knowledge with sticking one's head into an anthill, I explained it from a different point of view. I said: everything begins to stir, everything becomes active.

Now, for example, let us say you have had an ordinary experience during the day – I will take that – sat at a table and held a book in your hand. Now, at some time in the evening, you vividly imagine what it was like: the table, the book, you sitting there, as if you were outside of yourself. And it is always good to visualize the whole thing pictorially from the outset, not in abstract thoughts, because abstraction, the ability to abstract, has no significance at all for the imaginative world. So you imagine this picture: sitting at a table, with a book in your hand. - With table and book I simply want to say, imagine as vividly as possible some detail from everyday life. Then, if you really let your soul gaze upon this image, if you really imagine it intensely in meditation, then from a certain moment on you will feel differently than usual; yes, I will say comparatively, it is similar to when you would take a living being in your hand.

When you pick up an inanimate object, you have the feeling that the object is still, it does not tingle or crawl in your hand. Even if you have a moving dead object in your hand, you calm down when you feel that this life does not come from the object, but is mechanically assigned to it. It is a different matter if you happen to have a living object, let's say a mouse, in your hand. Let's say, for example, that you reached into a cupboard and thought you were taking some object in your hand and discovered that you had a mouse in your hand. And then, you feel the crawling and tingling of the mouse in your hand! There are people who start screaming at the top of their lungs when they suddenly feel a mouse in their hand. And the screaming is no less when they cannot yet see what is crawling and tingling in their hand. So there is a difference between having a dead or a living object in your hand. You have to get used to the living object first in order to tolerate it to a certain extent. Isn't it true that people are accustomed to touching dogs and cats, but they have to get used to it first. But if you put a living being in someone's hand in the middle of the night, in the dark of night, without their knowing it, they will also be shocked.

You have to realize this difference you feel between touching a dead and a living object. When you touch a dead object, you have a different feeling than when you touch a living one. Now, when you have an idea on the physical plane, you have a feeling that you can compare to touching a dead object. But as soon as you really go below the threshold of consciousness, that changes; so that you get the feeling: the thought has life within, begins to stir. It is the same discovery you have – as a comparison for the feeling of the soul – as when you have grasped a mouse: the thought tingles and crawls.

It is very important that we pay attention to this feeling if we are to get an idea of imaginative knowledge; for we are in the imaginative world at the moment when the thoughts that we bring up from the subconscious begin to tingle and crawl, begin to behave in such a way that we have the feeling: down there, under the threshold, everything is actually swirling and churning. And while it is very quiet up there in the attic and thoughts can be controlled so nicely, just as machines can be controlled, down there one thought follows another, the thoughts tingle and crawl, they churn and roll, down there they suddenly become a very active world. It is important to appropriate this feeling, because at that moment, when you begin to feel the life of the world of thought, you are in the imaginative or elementary world. That is where you are! And one can enter so easily if only one follows the very simplest rules given in “How to Know Higher Worlds”, if only one refrains from trying to enter by the way of all kinds of “practices” hinted at in recent days. One can really enter so easily. Just think that one of the very first things clearly stated in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is that one should try to follow the life of a plant, for example: how it gradually grows and gradually fades away. Yes, if you really follow this, you have to go through the life of the plant in your thoughts. First you have the thought of the very small seed, and if you do not make the thought flexible, you will not be able to follow the plant as it grows. You have to make the thought flexible. And then again, when you think of the plant shedding its leaves, gradually dying, withering, you have to think of shrinking and wrinkling. As soon as you begin to think in terms of living things, you have to make the thought itself mobile. The thought must begin to acquire inner mobility through your own power.

There are two beautiful poems by Goethe. One is called “The Metamorphosis of Plants” and the other “The Metamorphosis of Animals”. These two poems can be read, you can find them beautiful, but you can also do the following. You can try to really think the thoughts in these poems as Goethe thought them, from the first line to the last, and then you will find that if you go through with it, the thought can move inwardly from beginning to end. And anyone who does not follow the thought of these poems in this way has not understood the metamorphosis. But anyone who follows the thought in this way and then lets it sink down into the unconscious, and then, after having done this several times, remembers precisely this thought of the metamorphosis – for this is no different from the thinking that you are supposed to follow in 'How to Know Higher Worlds' Knowledge of Higher Worlds?», will sink into the unconscious, and will then, after he has done this often, remember precisely this thought of the metamorphosis. So he who carries this out, who sinks this thought down and then makes the effort to do it fifty, sixty, a hundred times, and a hundred and one times it will perhaps take, will one day bring it up. But then this thought, which he has practiced in this way, will be a mobile one. You will see that it does not come up like a small machine, but forgive me for using this example again, like a small mouse; you will see how it is an inwardly mobile, living element.

I said that it is so easy to delve into this elemental world if you just tear yourself away from the human tendency towards abstract thought. This tendency to have limited, abstract thoughts instead of inwardly mobile thoughts is so terribly great. Isn't it true that people are so eager to say what this or that is and what is meant by it, and are so satisfied when they can say that this or that is meant by it, because it gives them a thought that does not move like a machine. And people become so terribly impatient in their ordinary lives when you try by all means to convey to them flexible and not such abstract boxed thoughts. Because all outer life of the physical plan and all life of outer science consists of such dead boxed thoughts, of nested thoughts. How often have I had to experience that people asked me about this or that: Yes, what about it? What is that? They wanted a complete, rounded thought that they could write down and then read again, repeating it as often as they liked. But the aim should be to have a thought that is flexible within, a thought that lives on, really lives on.

But you see, there is also a very serious side to the mouse. Why do some people scream when they discover that they have reached into a cupboard and are holding a mouse in their hand? Because they are afraid! And this feeling really does arise at the moment when you realize, really realize: the thought is alive! Then you start to be afraid too! And that is precisely what good preparation for the matter consists of: unlearning to be afraid of the living thought. The materialists do not want to come to such living thoughts, I have emphasized this often. Why? Because they are afraid. Yes, the master of materialism, Ahriman, appears once in the Mystery Drama with the expression “fear”. There you have the passage in the Mysteries where it is indicated how one feels when thoughts begin to become mobile. But now, all the indications in “How to Know Higher Worlds”, if followed, lead to getting rid of this fear of the mobile, of the living thought.

So you see, you enter into a completely different world, a world at whose threshold you must truly discard abstract thinking, which dominates the entire physical plane. The endeavor of people who want to enter the occult world with a certain degree of comfort always consists of wanting to take with them the ordinary thinking of the physical plane. You cannot do that. You cannot take ordinary physical thinking into the occult world. You have to take mobile thinking into it. All thinking must become agile and mobile. If you do not feel this within you – and as I said, you are not doing it right if you do not feel it relatively soon – if you do not pay attention to what I have just said, then it is very easy not to grasp the peculiarity of the spiritual world. And one should grasp it if one wants to deal with the spiritual world at all.

You see, it is so difficult to struggle with human abstractness in this field; because once you have grasped this flexibility of thought, you will also understand that a flexible thought cannot occur in any old way, here or there. You cannot, for example, find a land animal in the water; you cannot accustom a bird, which is suited to the air, to live deep down in the water. If you go to the living, you cannot do otherwise than to accept the idea that one must not take it out of its element. You have to keep that in mind.

I once tried, in a very strict way, initially in a small area – I always try to do it this way, but I will just mention it now as an example – with a very important idea, to show vividly, precisely with an example, how things must be when one takes into account the inner life of the thought. In Copenhagen I gave a small lecture cycle on 'The Spiritual Guidance of the Human Being and of Humanity', which is also available in print. At a certain point in this lecture cycle, I drew attention to the mystery of the two Jesus children. Now take it as it is presented there. We have a lecture cycle that begins in a certain way. It draws attention to how man can already acquire certain insights if he tries to look at the first years of a child's development, tries to look back at these things. The whole thing is designed. Then it continues. The part of the hierarchies in human progress is presented - the book is printed, it is probably in everyone's hands, so I am talking about something very well known - then there is a certain connection, at a very specific point, about the two Jesus children. It is part of the discussion of the two Jesus children that it happens at a certain point. And anyone who says, “Well, why shouldn't we be able to take this discussion of the two Jesus children and present it exoterically, even though it has been taken out of context?” is asking the same question as someone who asks, “Why does the hand have to be on the arm, on this part of the body?” They could even say, “Why isn't the hand on the knee?” It could perhaps be there too. He does not understand the whole organism as a living being, he believes that the hand could also be somewhere else, right? The hand cannot be anywhere other than on the arm! So in this context, the thought of the two Jesus children cannot be in a different place because it is tempting to develop the matter in such a way that the living thought is included in the presentation.

Now someone comes along and writes a piece of writing and takes this thought in a crude way and puts it in context with other thoughts that have nothing to do with it! But that means nothing other than: he puts his hand on his knee! What does someone do who puts his hand on his knee? Yes, you can't do it to an organism, but you could draw it. Paper is patient, you could just draw a human figure, supported here, and the two knees so that hands grow out of them. [This drawing has not been handed down.] Not true, you could draw that, but then you would have drawn an impossible organism; you would have proved that you understand nothing of real life! One could also use the comparison: he has placed the eagle, the bird that is meant for the air, in the depths of the sea or something similar.

What did such a person try to do? Yes, you see, what he tried can be done with all things that relate only to knowledge of the physical plane. One professor can write a book by starting with one, another can start with another, and it does not matter so much there: things can be taken out and so on. But there one is not dealing with living beings, but with thought machines. That is the essential point.

A person who does something like this, who tears something out of context and puts it into an impossible context, has proved that he is completely ignorant of the essence that has been the driving force and inspiration of our entire spiritual scientific movement since its inception, because he is trying to apply the very ordinary materialistic scheme to the spiritual as well. This is very essential. It is very important to face these things squarely, otherwise one does not understand the inner significance of higher knowledge. One cannot say everything at any given point. And it is really true with regard to the exoteric, which borders on the esoteric, that Hegel has already said that a thought belongs in its place in context. I hinted at this recently when I tried to make some suggestions in this direction on Hegel's birthday. In this way, one achieves nothing less than to submerge into life with thinking, whereas otherwise one always lives in the dead; one submerges into life.

But through this, something also reveals itself that could not be recognized at all before and that cannot be examined at all on the physical plane, namely, arising and ceasing. You can also see this from “How to Know Higher Worlds.” On the physical plane, nothing else can be observed than what has come into being. The arising cannot be observed at all; only what has come into being can be observed on the physical plane. The passing away cannot be observed either, because when the object passes into the passing away, it is no longer on the physical plane, or at least it moves away from the physical plane.

So one cannot observe arising and ceasing on the physical plane. The consequence of this is that we can say: we enter into a completely new world element when we discover the movable thought, namely into the world of life and that is the world of arising and ceasing.

Occultly speaking, this could also be expressed in the following way: During the old moon time, man was - albeit only in the dream consciousness - in the world of becoming and passing away. It was not that he saw with his senses what was arising, for he had not yet developed the senses to perceive with, but was still immersed in things. He imagined in a dream-like way, but the images that he imagined in a dream-like way allowed him to really follow the arising and passing away. And that is what he must first strive for again by developing mobile thoughts. So the ascent to imaginative knowledge is at the same time a return, only a return to the level of consciousness. We return to something we have outgrown; we return properly.

So that we can say: This imaginative knowledge is the return to the world of becoming and passing away. We discover becoming and passing away when we return. And we cannot learn anything about becoming and passing away if we do not come to imaginative knowledge. It is quite impossible to discern anything about becoming and passing away without coming to imaginative knowledge.

That is why what Goethe wrote about the metamorphosis of plants and animals is so infinitely meaningful, because Goethe really wrote it from the point of view of imaginative knowledge. And that is why people could not understand what was actually meant when I wrote my comments on “Goethe's Scientific Writings”, which, in the most diverse turns of phrase, repeatedly express that it does not depend on the current scientific but to delve into Goethe's scientific knowledge and to see something tremendously outstanding in it, something quite different from current scientific knowledge. That is why I referred to a sentence that Goethe expressed so beautifully and in which he indicates what is important to him. Goethe made the Italian Journey and followed not only art but also nature with interest. When reading the 'Italian Journey', one can see how he gradually immersed himself in everything that the mineral, plant and so on could offer him. And then, when he had arrived in Sicily, he said that, after what he had observed there, he now wanted to make a journey to India, not to discover anything new, but to look at what had already been discovered by others in his way. In other words, to look at it with flexible concepts! That is what is important: to look at what others have discovered with flexible concepts. That is the tremendously significant fact that Goethe introduced these flexible concepts into scientific life.

Therefore, for those who understand occultism, the following is a fact that is otherwise misunderstood. Ernst Haeckel and other materialistic, or as they are also called, monistic scholars, have spoken very appreciatively about Goethe's Metamorphosis of Plants and Animals. But the fact that they were able to express their appreciation is based on a very strange process, which I will also make clear to you through a comparison.

Imagine you have a plant in a flowerpot in front of you, or even better, outside in the garden, and you want to enjoy this plant. You go out into the garden to enjoy it, to enter into a relationship with it. And now imagine that there is a person who cannot do anything with the plant. And if you ask yourself why, you discover: He is actually disturbed by life! And so he makes a cast of the plant very finely, so that the plant is now like the real one, but in papier-mâché. He puts it in his room and now he enjoys it. Life disturbed him; only now does he enjoy it!

I cannot tell you what torments I suffered as a boy when comparing, which is also characteristic of the attitude of people, I often had to hear as a boy that someone wanted to emphasize the beauty of a rose particularly by saying: Truly, as if made of wax! - It's enough to make you want to tear your hair out! But it does exist. It really does exist that someone emphasizes the excellence of a living thing by saying, in his phrase, that it is like a dead thing. It really does exist. For those who have a sense for the matter, it is something terrible. But if you don't have such feelings, you really can't develop according to reality.

Now, the following happened with Ernst Haeckel. Goethe wrote “The Metamorphosis of Plants” and “The Metamorphosis of Animals”, Haeckel reads them and Ahriman transforms what is alive that Goethe has written into mock-ups, into something that is actually made of papier-mâché, and Haeckel grasps that. He actually likes it. So that in what he praises, he has not praised what Goethe really meant, but Haeckel has only translated it into the mechanistic. Ahriman steps between Goethe and Haeckel, transforming the living into a dead one.

Now, as I said, this conscious upward leap to imaginative knowledge is a return. I said at the beginning of the lecture: the imaginations are actually already within us, they have been within us since the time of the moon, and the development on earth consists in the fact that we have covered them with the ordinary layers of consciousness. Now we are returning through what we have acquired in our ordinary earthly consciousness. It is a real return.

And now one can ask: how can one describe the whole thing? One can now say: it is a descent and a re-ascent. Only now is there any justification for drawing this line at all [the words on the blackboard are connected by a line, see diagram]; there would be no sense in drawing it from the outset. And only now can we say: on the level of ordinary physical cognition, there we are below; here is unconscious imaginative cognition, which now sits below in our nature and has to do with the forces of becoming and passing away; and on the other side, in the ascent, is conscious imaginative cognition. [Both were marked on the blackboard.]

If we take Goethe as an obvious example – I will only look at him as an example – we can say that in Goethe's later works, the point has been reached where the outer development of humanity embraces imaginative knowledge, where it is actually introduced into science.

Now one may ask: Now one can study whether or not very strange things are associated with it? Yes, they are associated with it, because basically the whole of Goethe's way of thinking is quite different from that of other people. And Schiller, who was unable to develop this way of thinking, was only able to understand Goethe with the greatest effort, as you can see from the correspondence between Schiller and Goethe at the point I have often quoted, where Schiller writes to Goethe on August 23, 1794:

”...For a long time now, although from a considerable distance, I have observed the course of your mind and noted the path you have mapped out with ever-renewed admiration. You seek what is necessary in nature, but you seek it by the most difficult route, which any weaker force would do well to avoid. You take all of nature together to get light on the individual; in the totality of its manifestations you seek the explanation for the individual. From the simple organization you ascend, step by step, to the more complicated, to finally build the most complicated of all, the human being, genetically from the materials of the whole of nature. By recreating it, as it were, you seek to penetrate its hidden technology. A great and truly heroic idea, which shows sufficiently how much your mind holds the rich totality of its ideas together in a beautiful unity. You could never have hoped that your life would be enough for such a goal, but even just to embark on such a path is worth more than any other ending, and you have chosen, like Achilles in the Iliad between Phthia and immortality. If you had been born a Greek, or even an Italian, and had been surrounded from your cradle by a refined nature and idealizing art, your path would have been infinitely shortened, perhaps even made superfluous. You would have absorbed the form of the necessary into your first view of things, and the great style would have developed in you with your first experiences. Now that you have been born a German, since your Greek spirit has been thrown into this Nordic creation, you had no choice but to either become a Nordic artist yourself or to replace what reality withheld from your imagination by the help of your thinking power, and thus to give birth to a Greece from within and in a rational way, so to speak. In that period of your life when the soul forms its inner world from the outer world, surrounded by imperfect forms, you had already absorbed a wild and Nordic nature into yourself, when your victorious genius, superior to its material, discovered this defect from within, and from without it was confirmed by your acquaintance with Greek nature. Now you had to correct the old, inferior nature, which had already been forced upon your imagination, according to the better model that your creative mind created for itself, and this could not, of course, be done otherwise than according to guiding concepts. But this logical direction, which the mind is compelled to take in reflection, does not go well with the aesthetic one, through which alone it forms. So you had more work to do, because just as you went from intuition to abstraction, you now had to convert concepts back into intuitions, and transform thoughts into feelings, because only through these can the genius bring forth... “

He considers him to be a Greek transplanted to the Nordic world, and so on. Yes, there you see the whole difficulty Schiller had in understanding Goethe! Some people could learn something from this who believe they can understand Goethe in the twinkling of an eye and thereby elevate themselves above Schiller, even though Schiller was not exactly a fool when it came to those people who believe they can understand Goethe so readily!

But the peculiar thing that can be discovered is that Goethe also has a very peculiar and different view in relation to other areas, for example in relation to the ethical development of the human being, namely in the way of thinking about what the human being deserves or does not deserve as reward or punishment.

It is impossible to understand Goethe's work from the very beginning if you do not consider his, I would say his entire environment's, divergent way of thinking about reward and punishment. Read the poem “Prometheus,” where he even rebels against the gods. Prometheus, that is of course a revolt against the way people think about rewards and punishments. For Goethe there is the possibility of forming very special ideas about rewards and punishments. And in his “Wilhelm Meister” he really did try to present this, I would say, in a wonderfully probing way in the secrets of the world. You don't understand “Wilhelm Meister” if you don't consider that.

But where does that come from? It comes from the fact that in the realm of physical knowledge one cannot form any idea at all of what punishment or reward is to be applied to anything human in relation to the world, because that can only arise in the realm of imagination. That is why the occultists always said: When you ascend to imaginative knowledge, you experience not only the elemental world, but also - as they put it - “the world of wrath and punishment”. So it is not only a return to the world of becoming and passing away, but at the same time a climbing up to the world of wrath and punishment. The words “return to the world of becoming and passing away” and “world of wrath and punishment” were written on the blackboard. ]

Therefore, only spiritual science can truly illuminate the peculiar chain of cause and effect between what a person is worthy and unworthy of in relation to the universe. All other “justifications” in the world are preparatory to this.

We have now reached an important point, and I will continue with this tomorrow.

Yesterday we brought our observations on the characteristics of imaginative knowledge to a certain point of view and emphasized that everything that a person consciously brings into their consciousness through imaginative knowledge is actually already within them. I have used the comparison that in a dark room there are various objects, or for that matter people, which cannot be seen with the physical eyes in a dark room. Then one enters with a light, and everything inside is illuminated; nothing is new in it, everything was already there before. The only difference is that the things are seen and perceived afterwards, and not before. It is the same with what imaginative knowledge presents to us. Everything that imaginative knowledge brings to consciousness is present in man, reigns and works in man down there in the hidden depths of the soul; it belongs to what lives and moves in man. And what is especially important for man on the physical plane is that he is continually increased or diminished in his powers in some way through what he absorbs, experiences and lets sink down from his imaginative life into the depths of consciousness.

I shall have more to say to you on this subject on a later occasion, for the process is very incompletely characterized when one says: Here [it is drawn] is the threshold of consciousness; here is an idea that sinks down into the subconscious and is now down there like a living being. As I said, the process is quite incompletely described. But we want to ascend slowly and gradually to the true facts in this area.

What I want to say today is that we are becoming aware of how these imaginative cognitive facts are, of course, - as you can see from the discussion - thoroughly and deeply connected with all the conditions of human life, even on the physical plane from birth to death. But they belong to the unconscious or subconscious conditions of life. So that from what we have considered, we can also gain the important truth that man, as he lives on earth, is dependent on conditions that do not enter into the bright day-consciousness that we have from birth to death, except when we sleep. So we are dependent on life factors that cannot be known with ordinary normal consciousness.

But from the way I have presented it, these life factors that prevail down there – and we said yesterday, in the etheric body – are still quite close to the person, so close that, because they are related, they connect with what the person continually lets sink down from his world of ideas. For man can, so to speak, when he transforms his thoughts into memories, transform his thoughts himself into the substance that is down there in the subconscious. It is, after all, substantively quite the same as what we think. When what we think is down there, it is just as much a seething, swirling world as what lives and moves down there, which is basically a living thought life. But this is the etheric body, which has come into the etheric body from the cosmos. And because it is related to our conscious thought life, it is still very close to the human being. And just as it lives and moves in us today in our unconscious, so it was basically fully present during the old moon existence. This [moon thinking] was - if you imagine it as a dream, if you think that it is completely immersed in dream life - generally proceeding as when you dream, but perceive the living weaving of thought in the dream. That is the old moon dweller's concept of the imagination. It is only during our life on earth that we have to make an effort to have thoughts, to form thoughts through our own efforts. The old moon dweller did not form thoughts through his own efforts. He lived in dream images, which were not as dead as our thoughts, but were living, weaving images, forming thoughts.

You can see from what I have described to you that when we immerse ourselves in the imaginative world, we gain something and lose something at the same time. We lose the reassurance of the peaceful earthly experience of thoughts; we no longer have that in our power because thoughts themselves are living inner forces. In ordinary life we feel that we are the masters of our thoughts; we do not have them in the imaginative world; but in return we also grasp a life that is just life. The thoughts we have in physical life are dead; what we grasp there lives and moves. And so it was already during the old moon existence for people, only they had it in dreams, and not consciously. Then, in the evolution on earth, there is an ascent to consciousness. And from the conscious realization of that which was a dream during the old moon existence, imaginative knowledge emerges as the first step from which spiritual-scientific knowledge must be taken. This imaginative knowledge is therefore still very much related to the human being.

Now, I said, one gains something and one loses something. People would agree with the first part, gaining something, but they do not agree with the losing. And from this, countless errors arise; very, very many errors arise from this. You see, it is not so easy if you do not make an effort to imagine what this dream-like imaginative imagining was like during the moon phase. When we live here on earth, it is inconvenient, because of the physical developmental period, to always have to form ideas and thoughts only on the basis of earthly facts. That is precisely the inconvenience of studying. One must really weigh the facts, judge the facts, and connect the facts, and one must slowly work one's way through one's own efforts into the worlds of thought and imagination, which one masters as an earthly human being with an earthly will. Some people find it much more comfortable to have the living world of thought simply handed to them, so that they only need to wait for it: when they receive the 'enlightenment' from it, it enters into their soul life, and they no longer need to develop thoughts. That is how they think, but it does not take them any further than they are. One stands much higher as an earth human than as a moon human, because one has developed further. Compared to the dreamy moon-imagination, the earthman, who combines facts and forms concepts from life experiences with his rational judgment, stands much higher than the moonman and than the one who longs for this moonman existence, which is supposed to consist of illuminations that have not been worked out through thought.

One can have peculiar experiences there. Not that a person, when he sinks back to this moon-like realization, has no thoughts. He has thoughts, but they come by themselves, he does not need to do the work of thinking. That seems rather comfortable. One can experience a certain, very important, specific experience over and over again, which must be considered if one wants to understand these things at all.

There are people who develop a certain visionary clairvoyance. This dream-like imagining, this visionary clairvoyance, always involves a regression to a lunar nature. For real clairvoyance that can be desired for the earth must be based on a higher level, on an even greater development through the world of thought than the recognition of the physical plane. The regression is not an elevation, not a development upwards for the person, but a development downwards, a becoming less intelligent than one is as a normal earth person. And then the strange experience occurs, which one can have again and again. There are people who have a certain visionary clairvoyance, but are not really intelligent at all. Yes, their clairvoyance is almost directly related to the fact that they shun intelligence, that they do not want to develop the intelligence that one has to develop as an earthly human being. It is precisely this attenuation of ordinary earthly intelligence that is very often associated with a certain degree of visionary clairvoyance, which is a lunar atavistic one. And then perhaps the following occurs: Such people can then make notes of their images. These notes are not thoughtless, but interwoven with thoughts - the thoughts come with the images and within them are interwoven spiritual, very spiritual images. And then the puzzle can arise: Yes, there is a person who describes in pictures, in very beautiful pictures, Atlantis or other things that come to him in a visionary way, and that is absolutely logically intelligent. But I never perceived such intelligent logic in that person when he was supposed to explain things of the physical plane; then he does not have it. He has not become enough of an earth person. But if he is allowed to fall back into lunar intelligence, then the intelligence comes. But then it is not his intelligence, then he is merely a medium for the lunar intelligence, then the lunar intelligence works in him. One can receive beautiful descriptions of spiritual worlds from people who have sunk a little back into the lunar stage, and who, when they want to apply their earthly acquired intelligence, cannot themselves understand what they have actually produced, and in most cases do not even want to do so.

I said: In the ascent to imaginative knowledge one must gain something and lose something, and that people usually do not want to lose anything. I also pointed out that people who have spirit do not want to lose it. These are not the people who love visionary clairvoyance, for they are quite willing to lose ordinary intelligence, ordinary thinking. But there is another group that does not want to lose this intelligence. They want to maintain this intelligence as it is on the physical plane, they just do not want to develop it further. They do not want to work on this intelligence so that the person comes to use the concepts more freely than they are used in the processes of the physical plane. And then such people come to allegorizing, to symbolizing, which is after all again only an activity of the physical plane, because it does not further the thinking, but leaves it standing, and then puts outer thought-capes on it from all kinds of exquisite occult things. It is very important to bear that in mind.

And you see, that was already in the consciousness of those who slowly and gradually worked or wanted to work their way up to the points of view that we must have in spiritual science today. Today, in spiritual science, we really must bring humanity something of clear thinking, combined with the possibility of knowing something of spiritual worlds, but in clear, completely clear thinking. It has taken a long time for the possibility to arise – and hopefully it has now – to see through these things in this way. And many people have worked their way through to this. People of such great clarity as Goethe, for example, have come very close to complete clarity. But many have worked their way through to this. Just think how Jakob Böhme wrestled with the transition points of the materialistic age, with the chaotically writhing, moving, whirling and tumbling concepts. He had already had them, but to really work through them so that what emerged is what stands with Jakob Böhme as a profound illumination of some secrets of the spiritual world.

Another person has expressed a wonderful sentence – I would say, as if illuminating the field of vision wonderfully, as dawned on modern times – from which one can see, or at least from what he has otherwise achieved, one can see how he was not able to penetrate with a completely clear view to what spiritual science should be today, but he was still able to come so far as to represent the most important nerve. The man I am talking about realized in the 18th century that if you want to know the human being, you have to penetrate through the darkness, through the confusion of external material knowledge. Even if you are at the first stage of imaginative knowledge, this is necessary. Because we have seen what weaves down there in the depths of the soul, you can't reach that with physical knowledge. You have to penetrate through the darkness. But that is not the only thing you have to do. You also have to penetrate through the confusion of ordinary concepts to knowledge, you also have to dispel these confusions. So you also have to get beyond the ordinary thinking that works on the physical plane.

And then this man coined a very beautiful sentence. The first part of this sentence is readily followed, the second part is almost never followed. But it is important to follow it. You see, most people today who want to become or be mystics in some way or other admit that one must strip away the sensual, the material, that one must strip away the confusions of the material in order to penetrate into the spiritual. But that one must also discard the forms of the spiritual that adhere to conceptual thinking, very few people admit; for they would like to take them with them, would like to manage them in the same way as on the physical plane, would like to find the thought down there in the subconscious as a possibility for remembrance in exactly the same form as it has up there.

But it would be a mistake to believe that the clairvoyant, when he looks into the human mind, finds the thoughts there in exactly the same form as the person who has them in his head. That is not true. Down there they are transformed, they are living entities, an elementary world. The world of thoughts that man has here on the physical plane is not found in the spiritual world. That is why that man coined a beautiful sentence that I want to write down for you, because it can really be seen as a kind of trial in one's own mind: how can one possibly get to know something about the worlds that lie outside the earthly world? He said, [it was written on the board]:

Dissipez vos ténèbres matérielles ei vous trouverez l'Homme

With this part of the sentence: To disperse the material darkness and confusion - people who want to be mystics agree. But people today still hardly understand the second part of the sentence. [It was written on the blackboard]:

Dissipez vos ténèbres spirituelles et vous trouverez Dieu

whereby we have to imagine the whole content of spiritual science for “Dieu”, because that is still colored by religious ideas. Not true, he could not yet find the expression that can be found today.

Now you can surely imagine that when someone reads the sentence today: “Dissipez vos ténèbres matétrielles et vous trouverez l'homme”, they think: Yes, fine, that's how I enter the spiritual world, that's what I want. But when he reads, “Dissipez vos ténèbres spirituelles et vous trouverez Dieu,” he says, “Yes, but what will remain for me then? I will have nothing?”

Yes, what remains there? Precisely that remains, which is the content of today's spiritual science. This is necessary: the content of knowledge of the physical plane, which is usually believed to be the only correct one, must be dispelled just as the material darkness is dispelled. Now notice how this is taken into account in our spiritual science... [space in the transcript].

This sentence is a sentence of the so-called “philosophe inconnu”, of Saint-Martin, who saw himself as a disciple of Jakob Böhme. Thus, we already find in Saint-Martin a deep longing for that which is to come to light in spiritual science. But he calls himself “philosophe inconnu”, unknown philosopher, because what he carried within him remained foreign to those who saw him, of course, saw his nose, saw his hands, heard the words he spoke. The actual philosopher Saint-Martin remained unknown to them, quite unknown.

So, after the discussions we had yesterday, the appropriation of imaginative knowledge is a return, a conscious return to the way in which man had his relationship to the world during the lunar time. So that we can say - you remember, we have already presented this from a different side here in lectures: In man, today, still prevail, but supersensibly, as spiritual-supersensibles, the events, which are not actually normal events on earth, but were normal events during the moon time. He has preserved these moon events; he can fall back in a certain sense. Then he produces knowledge in a completely different way than the earth man can produce such knowledge. He can have visionary clairvoyance, have subdued intelligence and pose the very riddle I spoke of earlier, namely that if one were to induce him to work reasonably scientifically, or even to make reasonable conclusions about the most ordinary, everyday events, he cannot do it, that he does not succeed; but when he writes something out of the vision, even about the events that took place at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, he only writes pictures, remains in the moon life, but still writes terribly cleverly. And what he writes does not match what is otherwise known about the person. So, theoretically he can do nothing, but he writes very cleverly in a mediumistic way, so that one can be amazed at the cleverness. But that is not a further development, that is a regression of the human being. Of course, that does not exclude the possibility that truths can come to light through such a person, because he is, after all, in an earthly existence and connected to the earthly existence and, in addition, has this lively moon life in him.

I have tried to depict the different types of people in the Mystery Dramas, and also to draw a character who falls back into the lunar, who is therefore unintelligent on the physical plane and yet can reveal correct things, who is therefore below the level of the normal earthly human being: that is Theodora. Theodora is a figure who is meant to be a regression into lunar consciousness. That is very clear. I would like to say that it is very clearly indicated there, as it is, by saying at the one point where Theodora appears: “Theodora, a seer. In her, the will element is transformed into naive seership.” Naive seership means, of course, naive visionary. It is a naive seership, and that is how the character is developed. And for this reason, it is also that in the last mystery, Theodora herself can no longer appear, but only her soul, because she cannot go through certain things. These Mystery Dramas should be taken very, very literally. Perhaps some of you will one day realize that hardly anything that has happened here in recent days could not already be read in the Mysteries in some form or other. If one had read it as the things were meant to be read, we would not have needed these confusions.

So let us remember: what is experienced as the imaginative world is still relatively close to the human being. What can be experienced as the inspired world, on the other hand, is much less close to the human being. For when one first enters into the inspired world, it encompasses those facts that did not take place during the moon's existence but already during the old sun's existence and that the human being has also retained. So you penetrate into even greater depths of the human soul when you work your way through to the inspired world. And the inspired world that you encounter first has a certain peculiarity.

You see, when a person works his way through to the imaginative world, he encounters facts that took place during the old moon's existence. If you imagine the old moon in the phases when it was separated from the then sun (you can read about this in “Secret Science”), then at certain times, man lived on this moon that was separated from the sun. And what the human being experienced there is what one encounters first when one returns with the old, dream-like, imaginative clairvoyance. But when one enters the inspired world, then one experiences in the return not a being split off from the sun, but a being directly inside the sun; thus the facts that the human being experienced together with the sun. One experiences truly correct solar facts. And these solar facts, you see, are actually no longer related to man. Because the way man is now, during his earthly existence, if he does not look into the depths of his soul, does not look at what is in the deeply hidden reasons of his soul, he is actually, through what he is on earth, really more of a shell. It is not a real human being, it is more of a shell. First of all, there is the physical form itself, which has been created during the earthly existence as it appears to us on the physical plane. But there are forces at work within it that cannot be seen and that are not even sought by current science.

A friend of ours has been encouraged to search in this direction with the biological material at his disposal. The friend is putting a lot of effort into it and perhaps after some time - such things require a great deal of study - will be able to come up with a way to bridge the gap to these hidden parts of human nature. But for this it is necessary to search out those biological facts that are not taken into account by present-day science, that the present-day researcher, who experiments, leaves lying, as it were. So one has to search through the preparations for what does not interest the other researchers at all, what they leave lying. Of course, a lot is still missing, and a lot of new research has to be done. It is quite possible that it will take many years of work before it can be completed. But it would be an eminently important work because it could show us what can still be achieved by physical science of what lives in human nature from the old moon. It will result in a completely new embryology, a new part, a new side to embryology. It is necessary that this be done. But that is really all; more cannot be found by looking at the human being from the outside. For what can be found today in the human being from the outside is actually not older, not even as old as the oldest time of the old moon existence. But from such research, of which I have just spoken, conclusions can be drawn about processes of the old moon existence. These will correspond with what is described in “Occult Science”. But, as I said, we do not get very far back when we look at human beings as they are today; not even to the beginning of the ancient moon existence, let alone to the ancient sun existence.

If you want to go back to the old solar existence, then you have to take much, much less material in the human being than can be taken in the science I just spoke of. Because what it is about is that something actually penetrates into human nature, which man on earth can bring to revelation, but does not have to bring to revelation. He can, but he does not have to, bring it to revelation. When, for example, an artist or poet is truly inspired, then these inspirations come from the spiritual world of the existence of the sun. They really come from the spiritual world of the existence of the sun. It is just that our time is so terribly poor in spirit that what comes from the inspirations of the existence of the sun is rejected, and people actually only ever want to create in a naturalistic way, to stick to the model, that is to say to the earthly, while what can come from the model is only the material for what one should actually create. The arts that protect the individual artist from becoming attached to the model, from falling back on the material, are architecture and music. Architecture cannot reproduce anything; it often does it quite badly. And music cannot reproduce anything either, because it is not real music if you reproduce bird calls and cat meows, as you reproduce models in painting and so on. In music, only the very highest material of sound can be used. But it should be the same in every art. Just as much as the musician takes from music, the painter must take from the model. What the tones are for the musician, the form and color must be for the painter. The model should not give him more than the material. So the artistic cannot be taken from the model, but arises from inspiration, which leads back to the ancient solar existence. Hence the strangeness to the earth of truly great works of art. I said that man can live without artistic inspiration, he can, he can indeed bring it in, but he does not need to bring it in. The Botokude, doesn't he say: Man can also live without art.

But now you can – and those who experience things in a deeper sense will do so sooner or later – you can raise an important, crucial question: Yes, if we have a Saturn existence, a Sun existence, a Moon existence, an Earth existence, all with certain facts, and in imaginative knowledge, to the sun in inspired knowledge, and from this it follows that we return to Saturn in intuitive knowledge; yes, if this is so, that we do not have new facts but return to the old facts, why then does man need further development at all?

Someone might ask this question: Why further development? Why the whole earthly existence, which detaches us from the facts through which we have developed, so that the insights are pushed down into the unconscious, and we must first recognize them again? Why the whole thing?

Yes, you see, it is only through this that we become true human beings, because only through it can we truly perfect our true nature. And this can also be seen outwardly if one really studies those personalities who had something of the flexible concepts, of this conceptual mind, as I have mentioned to you in the examples of Goethe's “Metamorphosis of Plants” and “Metamorphosis of Animals”. Such natures must be studied. And such natures show at the same time that they, when they are completely true to themselves inwardly, stand in a very definite relation to yet another world of the soul. This is especially evident in Goethe. Study “Wilhelm Meister”, study all of Goethe's poetry, and you will find that in his work there is a remarkable way of judging and passing judgment on the world. If you look into these things, you will find that in the same measure as Goethe's idea of metamorphosis develops, so does a truly genuine, magnificent inner soul tolerance. A wonderful tolerance develops in his soul, a remarkable way of relating to the world and to life, a soul tolerance! And this is connected with very deep facts.

You see, if we look at the animal world, this animal world has the most diverse forms. If we compare, for example, the hyena, which has its carrion-craving written all over its face and which carries its nature in its entire posture, with the lion, with the wolf, and if we in turn compare these animals with the eagle and the eagle with the vulture, then these animals in comparison with turtles, snakes, worms, the various insects, if we take all these different animal forms, we must still ask ourselves: How does this relate to the spiritual world?

This can only be studied by studying the old moon existence. Because why? You see, during the old moon existence, man did not yet exist in his present form. The corresponding forms that existed at the human level were the angels. The Angeloi, the angels, had very different judgments and a very different way of thinking [than we have today]. The angels were at the same level back then that people are at today, but they were not in a physical body like the people on earth today. They had a very soft, flexible body, because the spirits of form had not yet been involved in forming a solid body. Now, these angeloi thought in terms that were much more alive compared to our earthly concepts, and this was not during their time on earth but during the time on the moon. These concepts, however, have something very peculiar in addition to their liveliness. They were steeped to a high degree in impulses of feeling. Inspired by the archangels, the archai, the spirits of form, the spirits of movement, and so on upwards, the angels grasped the concepts during the lunar time. But these are living, impulsive concepts; much more impulsive than we find the concepts in today's people, who alternately become either “rapture nickels” or “poison nickels” when they put their emotions into how they judge life. There are such people, and they can be the best of people, but they will alternately be enraptured, enraptured about something, or be quite pronounced “poison nickels”, so that the whole soul is in what they express and the whole goes out in the concepts, doesn't it. Now that was present in a much higher degree - directly creative - in these angels on the moon.

Imagine a moon dweller who thinks in this way! He says to himself: Yes, I must now grasp a concept. Inspiration gives me: Wretched creature, who carries his back rising from behind to the front, who makes a repulsive face out of longing for carrion! - That is how this creature came into being, condemned to be a hyena. The creative concept is there. The forms of the animal kingdom are intimately connected with this creative thinking, which creates according to the principle of good and evil. And the whole animal kingdom in its various forms is such a manifestation of good and evil.

The people [of Earth] were not supposed to learn this. One who did not want to let go of the culture of the moon seduced people into recognizing good and evil in the way he had experienced it during the lunar period. The... [gap in the transcription] judged thus; but people should learn to judge differently. This strong identification of the emotions with the concepts should not go down into deeper psychological levels. That had to be discarded, that had to give way to a more objective, more relaxed form. Therefore man had to progress from lunar to earthly development. And if he continues to progress, he will become even more tolerant. A lunar angel, yes, he hated the hyena in an incredible way because for him it represented evil. He hated the snake, hated everything that was ugly and loved everything that was beautiful. Good and evil belonged to the realm of creative life. Man had to unlearn this. Man could not develop an earth science if he were to classify animals, as the moon angels did, into beautiful and ugly – no, we classify differently, according to objective terms – into decent and indecent animals, into playful, into cunning animals, and so on. The moon angels had all that. But it would not be scientific today, for example, if a learned book were to say: “The weasel - characteristic: cunning.” This may be the case in a satirical poem, but in science today this must be suppressed; it cannot be so today.

So in order to make progress in this field, one must be able to rise to a level at which one regards the animal kingdom without emotion in the same scientific way as one regards the natural world when one has the most intense emotions in one's earthly life. And we can see this in this peculiar distillation of Goethe's mind. For him, human life is to a much greater extent a calm stream, which he observes like natural phenomena. That is precisely the wonderful inner serenity of Goethe's view of life, that for him part of human life also enters into the stream of natural facts. This is how he was able to be so objective.

Now, from this point on, we have to take up the matter again and continue the deliberations tomorrow.

Today we continue our study of F. von Wrangell's booklet 'Science and Theosophy'. Before we do so, I would like to briefly recapitulate some thoughts that could be linked to the various chapters so far.

First of all, I would like to explain why the points of view presented in this brochure may be of importance for our consideration. As I have already said, we are living in times when people who base their thinking on spiritual science may find themselves having to defend it against various attacks. Now, in our time, a defense will be particularly necessary when the attacks come from the side of science, and this is because science, which has developed in a certain form over the past three to four centuries, can justifiably claim to be the basis of a world view and actually makes this claim. A scholar in the humanities can therefore say: Yes, if spiritual science has nothing to say in response to the objections of science, then it proves itself to be poorly founded; for anyone who wants to advocate a worldview today must be able to defend it against the objections of science. Therefore it is especially important to take note when a scientist appears and explains what a scientist has to say about the relationship between genuine scientific thinking and theosophical, or even spiritual teachings.

The previous considerations have shown you that it can be particularly important for the spiritual teachings to be defended from the point of view that is conditioned by an awareness that has gone through astronomical and similar scientific research. I have, of course, pointed out how a representative proponent of the modern worldview, Du Bois-Reymond, invokes the so-called Laplacian mind, the astronomical knowledge of the world; I have shown what modern man imagines under the Laplacian mind, under the astronomical knowledge of the world. Therefore, it is necessary to show how far a comprehensive worldview can be built out of such astronomical conceptions.

Then I said that it was important for this brochure to point out that practical materialism must necessarily follow from theoretical materialism, from the theoretical-materialistic-mechanical conception of the world. I then showed how spiritual science must also stand on this point of view, even if in our present time the objection is still often raised that theoretical adherents of the materialistic-mechanical world view do not deny the validity of ideal, ethical motives, but on the contrary profess them.

We then saw in the brochure a beautiful exposition of the world view that arises for those who want to stand exclusively on the point of view of the mechanistic-materialistic worldview. I have, so to speak, sketched this world picture and particularly emphasized - which is also emphasized in the brochure - that the one who sees the all-encompassing world picture in the mechanical-materialistic world picture cannot view the inner experiences that take place in the consciousness of the human being essentially different from other natural processes, and thus as a by-product of mechanistic-materialistic processes. And if one creates such a mechanistic-materialistic world view, then logically there can no longer be any question of the survival of a soul-core after death.

The brochure then goes on to examine this basic assumption. In particular, it is pointed out what the relationship is between freedom and morality and the mechanistic-materialistic basic ideas; how the concept of freedom and responsibility can no longer be held if one completely embraces the materialistic-mechanistic and how this gives rise to the actual world question or world riddle, namely that it is necessary to gain such a world view within which the ideas of freedom and responsibility can have a place.

Then it is pointed out how the idea of a general law, as it were spread out as a network over all phenomena, has only gradually come about, and also how it is impossible to ever refute freedom of will on the basis of experience , because, as we have seen, freedom of will can never be conceived as being so interwoven into this network of materialistic-mechanical processes as it would have to be if one were to profess this world view alone.

Then, in an epistemological discussion, it is shown how man enters into a relationship with the external world through his senses; how one can visualize the formation of concepts, of ideas, the formation of ideas of space and time. It is pointed out how the principle of causality should be a general principle of the world view, but how it has only gradually entered into the world view because it was originally assumed that similar real motives are present in things as they are in people , so that the development would show that man did not originally start from a mechanical causality, but that he basically worked his way through to the mechanical-materialistic view only from a different view of the connection between phenomena.

Then it is pointed out how, in more recent times, scientific observation has tried to achieve objectivity. The particularly important principle of materialistic-mechanical science, the principle of measurement, is now being discussed, and we will soon see how this principle of measurement also has further consequences for the more complicated parts of contemporary science.

Now I would like to draw your attention very urgently to what the booklet says about measurement. I would really like to ask you to use it as a starting point to really embrace the character of modern science through this examination of measurement. We have seen how the principle of measurement is then applied to the principle underlying clocks and watches. I would now like to make a few comments specifically about the principle of measurement to show you how you could use this chapter of the Wrangell writing “Science and Theosophy” as a kind of leitmotif to tie in with what you can find in the various discussions about modern science, especially with regard to the character that is required in the presence of real science.

We have seen what the essence of measurement is, and we have also found a reference to how measurement introduces a kind of uncertainty in a certain relation, despite all objectivity in the observation to which the measurement applies. We can very simply point out this uncertainty by saying the following: When we have simple measurement, the measurement of lengths or spaces, we use a standard as a basis. When we have to measure a length, we have to do it in such a way that we determine the ratio of the length to a yardstick. The length must be given in the sensory world and our yardstick must also be realized in the sensory world. Now you will find a remark in the scriptures that draws attention to the fact that something is introduced that makes measuring uncertain. Measurement is based on the fact that something is compared with the standard; one compares how often the standard is contained in the thing to be measured.

Now, however, a slight warming, for example, causes the heat to expand the scale. So let us assume that the scale has been heated and has become a little longer as a result. Of course - since we are measuring in a room that is approximately equally warm, otherwise we would have to consider further complications - the thing being measured would be expanded in the same proportion as the scale. But if the measuring stick and the thing being measured are made of materials that do not expand equally, so that the measuring stick expands less or more than the thing being measured, then we are already dealing with inaccuracies in the measurement.

So we can emphasize two things. One is that the observation becomes independent of our subjectivity, of the observer. We compare the thing to be measured with the measuring stick, that is, we compare the objective with the objective. A good deal of modern science is based on this, and basically it is also an ideal of modern science. The other thing is if we were to observe the things around us simply according to our subjectivity. Just imagine the following, for example. Imagine you have a vessel of water in front of you; now bring one hand close to the stove and the other hand into an ice pit; then put both hands into the water. You will have a completely different feeling in each hand, even though the water is the same temperature. The water will seem cold to the heated hand, and not cold at all to the cold hand. Thus, the subjective extends over everything objective. This is just a crude example, but it shows how the subjective always underlies all observation. Measurement detaches the content from the subject, from the observer. Therefore, there is an objective truth, a realization, detached from the subjective. This is important. And because in recent times more and more efforts have been made to become independent of the subjective in relation to the world view, measurement became a kind of ideal.

You see, this measurement becomes so objective because the standard is independent of us, because we eliminate ourselves and insert the standard in our place. Those who remember my lectures in Berlin about the different points of view one can take towards the world will see that something similar underlies spiritual science itself. I said there: As long as one stands on the ground of external reality, one faces the world and makes a picture of the world for oneself. But as soon as one enters the spiritual world, one must, in principle, look at what is to be considered from different points of view – but now the point of view is meant spiritually. I have given twelve points of view, and only when one takes these twelve points of view does one point of view always correct the other. In this way one also becomes independent of subjectivity to a certain extent.

From this you can see how science and spiritual science converge, how what lies as a necessary motive for development in science, objectivity, must also be striven for by the spiritual scientist, although not by asserting all twelve points of view. The twelve different points of view correct each other. Thus, measuring is the detachment from subjectivity. But on the other hand, it is pointed out that even when measuring, accuracy can only be achieved within certain limits, and Wrangell points this out in the next chapter:

Error limits in measurement

When measuring time, as with measuring length, you can also specify the limit of accuracy, or more correctly, the error limit. Within these limits, the fact obtained is objectively correct, but it never reaches flawless accuracy.

In this respect, all facts derived from sensory perception differ from the intuitive truths of thought, such as the formal laws of logic, and all truths of mathematics.

So, by rightly presenting measurement as the means that, when the margin of error is taken into account, gives a certain accuracy in relation to a world view, it is pointed out at the same time how this accuracy, which can be achieved in relation to the external sensual world, can never be a flawless correctness. It can never give the same kind of truth that one has in the so-called intuitive truths of thought, in the formal laws of logic and in the truths of mathematics.

The next chapter is a further elaboration of what I have already said:

Absolute validity of logical and mathematical truths

Logical truth, for example: a part is smaller than the whole,

— that is a mathematical truth. It cannot be said with absolute certainty how many times a part is contained in this line [presumably a line on the blackboard was pointed to]

or: If two things are equal to a third, then they are also equal to each other, without any restriction;

– these are absolute truths; but they are also not gained through external perception, but through thinking.

every person in sound mind recognizes its compelling necessity. This is also the case in mathematics; once certain basic assumptions have been agreed upon, all other mathematical propositions follow with compelling necessity and without any restriction. If, for example, we agree on what we call a straight line, what a right angle is, what parallelism means, then the theorems of geometry follow with absolute certainty.

It is necessary to agree on these things. We must agree on what a right angle is, what a straight line is, what parallelism means. If we have agreed that parallel lines are those lines which are the same distance apart at all points that lie vertically above each other, or if we have agreed that parallel lines are those lines that, however far they are extended, never intersect, then we can use parallel lines to understand further mathematical propositions. I will now link something to it that seems quite far removed.

Let's assume we have a triangle here: We have discussed several times that the three angles of a triangle together are 180 degrees. Now, what is 180 degrees? It is 180 degrees if you imagine a point here and a straight line drawn through this point. 180 degrees is the size of the arc around this point, which is a semicircle. So these three angles a, b, c should be arranged in such a way that, when they are placed together in a fan shape, they form a straight line. This can be easily illustrated by drawing a parallel to the line AB through the point C. Then, if we agree on the value of the angle at point A, we can see that the angle a' must be equal to this angle a, and the angle b' must be equal to b. Now the three angles are next to each other in a fan shape and add up to 180 degrees. I would still have to introduce intermediate links, but you will see that the truth, that the three angles of a triangle together add up to 180 degrees, is based on this. That is, there are certain basic truths of mathematics that arise from self-activating thinking, on which one has to agree, and from which all of mathematics then follows.

A person who has the ability to follow the line of reasoning is as convinced of the eternal validity of the final sentence as he is of his own existence.

No one can ever doubt that the angles of a triangle together add up to 180 degrees. For those of our esteemed friends who know a little about it, I emphasize that we are disregarding a spatial geometry that is based on a different point of view; that would take us too far today.

Spatial science (geometry) establishes certain relationships between surface areas and their linear dimensions, as well as between spatial parts and the corresponding linear sizes.

This is the simplest idea. Because if you draw a rectangle, the area of this rectangle is the one that I shade. If you call the length of the base line a, the length of this line b, you get the area when you multiply a by b; that is, you compose the area from linear size and linear size.

These relationships were discovered by thinkers through intuition, logically linked to already known truths (this is what mathematical proof consists of). The correctness of the proof is not tested by experience, but is immediately recognized by intuition.

It is very important that you get involved in this matter, how mathematical reasoning and mathematical cognition in this respect differs from all cognition that relates to external sense objects. You can never have the latter without approaching the external sense object. So you have to take into account all the inaccuracy that comes into play. But if one wants to prove something, one does not need to draw mathematical structures, they arise in intuitive thinking. Drawing is only an illustration for dull thinking that does not want to work in itself. But one could think to oneself that one does mathematics without any illustration in inner visualization.

This profound and fundamental difference must never be overlooked: facts drawn from experience, which, due to the limitations of our senses, always contain sources of error, and logical or mathematical truths, which have absolute validity for us humans once the basic assumptions have been recognized as correct.

If a conclusion is drawn from any empirical fact by a chain of mathematical or logical propositions, this latter is only correct within the limitations under which that empirical fact was observed; only under these limitations can the final result obtained be accepted as a scientifically proven fact of experience; this is often overlooked.

Such empirical facts, when applied to phenomena of the sensory world, can lead to correct practical and theoretical results, and often they achieve such a high degree of probability that we consider this probability to be equivalent to certainty. However, from an epistemological point of view, it is not.

The further chapter is called:

All natural laws are derived from experience and therefore have only limited validity.

When we speak of natural laws according to which certain phenomena necessarily occur when certain conditions are present – or, to put it another way, certain causes necessarily have certain effects – these laws are derived from experience and can therefore only be proven to be correct within certain limits of accuracy.

We will explain this with a few examples: The astronomer says that the earth revolves around its axis at a uniform speed; what does he mean by that?

— So you can inwardly recognize certain mathematical truths, but you cannot inwardly recognize that the earth revolves around its axis. So what does the astronomer mean by that?

First of all, it means: “We have good reason to assume that the apparent daily rotation of the starry sky is an optical illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth around its axis; we call the duration of such a rotation a ‘sidereal day’. To measure the duration of a sidereal day (i.e. one rotation of the Earth around its axis), we have to compare it with a period of time that we assume to be unchanging. As such a unit of time, we choose the period of oscillation of a pendulum of a certain length attached to a clock. Experience shows us that the better the conditions are met to ensure that a clock runs smoothly, and the more precisely we make the star observations on which the duration of an Earth rotation is determined, the more constant the ratio between the number of pendulum oscillations and the number of Earth rotations proves to be. With the current state of technology, the rotation of the Earth has proven to be uniform within the possible margins of error, which can only reach a small fraction of a second. We cannot claim absolute uniformity, and we have reasons to doubt it.

— We need not go into the last sentence; it can be the subject of a later consideration.

So what is actually available to external observation? On the one hand, the phenomenon that we experience as day and night on Earth, and on the other hand, the comparison with the vibrations of a pendulum clock. And since we know from other premises that the pendulum swings evenly, and that the even swing of the pendulum can be compared with what is perceived in relation to the earth, we must conclude that the earth also rotates evenly around its axis. Another explanation will be given in the next chapter in relation to chemistry.

Chemical Laws

It is similar with chemistry. The whole structure of this science rests upon the proposition: Chemical combinations can only take place in quite definite proportions by weight of their indecomposable components,

- as an example of this is given in a footnote: “For example, one unit of volume (say one liter) of oxygen combines only with two units of volume of hydrogen to form water.” So one atom of oxygen combines with two atoms of hydrogen to form one molecule of water. I have often spoken of this combination of oxygen with hydrogen to form water. Then the footnote continues: “Since an atom of oxygen is 16 times heavier than an atom of hydrogen, we can also say: one unit of weight of hydrogen combines with 8 units of weight of oxygen to form 9 units of weight of water. If there is more oxygen in the mixture than 8 times the amount by weight of hydrogen, the excess remains as 'free, uncombined oxygen; if, on the other hand, there is less oxygen, the excess hydrogen remains uncombined.” Thus, only in this very specific ratio does oxygen combine with hydrogen to form water; in water they are present in this ratio. They cannot combine in any other way.

or in technical terms: the elements form chemical compounds only in whole multiples of their atomic weights.

- This sentence contains the entire hypothesis of the atom. What is stated here is correct for the entire sensory perception, for the observation of quantities of weight and spatial relationships. But if one assumes that oxygen and hydrogen consist of the smallest parts, of atoms that cannot be divided any further, then one must assume that the same certain relationship also takes place between the atoms. And since we cannot divide atoms any further, when oxygen combines with hydrogen, a tiny part of one must combine with two tiny parts of the other, the same weight ratio must exist. If we take the atomic weight of oxygen and the atomic weight of hydrogen, we get a weight ratio, that is, one atom of oxygen combines with two atoms of hydrogen, whereby the oxygen atom is eight times heavier. The whole multiple of the atomic weight goes into the compound. What must one do to arrive at such a thing? One must do a weighing, which is also a measurement. So one goes to the sensual facts, and from the result of the weighing one gets this law, that the individual substances do not combine in any arbitrary way, but in a very definite ratio.

The empirical facts from which this law is derived are never absolutely exact (because all weighing and measuring are subject to errors of observation); if the law nevertheless expresses something absolute, then the following should be said: the more exactly the apparatus used for chemical the more carefully the methods for breaking down compound compounds into indivisible elements are constructed, the better the composition of the substance can be represented by a combination of multiples of the corresponding atomic weights of these elements.

Since the chemist is aware of the possible margins of error in his measurement operations, he knows whether or not the final result of his analysis agrees with the above law within these margins of error. If he finds a major deviation, he is so convinced of the correctness of the law for the time being that he assumes the presence of an as yet unknown element to explain the deviation found, or searches for an unnoticed source of error. Thus, in practice, he regards the law as absolutely correct, although theoretically he is aware of the relativity of this empirical law.

That is to say, if we had found from other empirical facts that two or three elements combine in a certain ratio, and if we had seen yet another relationship in the substances in which these elements are found, we would have to assume that there is something else in them.

The next chapter is called:

Physical Laws

When physics postulates the law of conservation of energy, it means that if we convert a certain amount of kinetic energy into heat and compare the numbers that express the amount of kinetic energy in its units and the amount of heat produced from it in calories (units of heat) , we obtain a ratio, which is called the “mechanical heat equivalent”; the more accurately the measurements are made, the better it is ensured that all the motion is converted into measurable heat, the more accurately the ratio obtained in different experiments agree with each other. This is the actual result of experience.

— Here we have an entire physical doctrine in a single sentence. What leads to this doctrine can be demonstrated by the very simple fact that when we rub a finger over a surface, it becomes warm. You can check this for yourself. This energy, the muscle energy you expend, is not heat at first; but heat occurs and energy is lost. What happened? Your energy has been transformed into heat. If you press here, for example, a certain amount of heat is generated; if you apply a different energy, heat is also generated. You might think that it is generated irregularly, but that is not the case. The question of the relationship between the expenditure of energy and the heat that results from it has been the subject of important research. In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer - who was treated quite badly by his peers at the time, despite the fact that he is now considered a first-rate scientist - was the first to point out that the relationship between energy and the heat that results from it is a constant. And he also tried to determine the ratio. In his essay, written in 1842, it is still stated imprecisely. Later scholars, through their research, then determined and stated the exact number. Helmholtz, who argued about the priority of the discovery, sought to prove that there is such a ratio, a constant relationship between the energy expended and the heat generated from it. The same amount of energy produces the same amount of heat, and the ratio between heat and energy expended is as constant as the ratio of the constants is constant. This is called the “mechanical equivalent of heat.” This is how you get a physical law.

The physicist goes beyond this experience when he replaces the constantly diverging observation results with a simple common formula. He is justified in doing so as long as he is aware of the conditions under which the formula is valid.

— A formula arises from the mere fact that I say: when energy is converted into heat, there is a certain relationship between energy and heat. But however many cases have been investigated, the cases that will be investigated the day after tomorrow have not yet been investigated today. So when the physicist expresses a formula in such a context, he must be aware of the scope of validity that such a formula can have.

Similarly, it can be shown that all natural laws, in their simplified form, go beyond experience.

- So that, basically, one goes beyond experience if one does not stick to the description of the individual case.

Let us now consider the next chapter in terms of its overall tendency; it is called:

Cognition Progresses from the Simple to the Complex.

The phenomena of the sensory world as they present themselves are so complex that, in order to fathom their context, man is first obliged to limit his attention to the simplest and then, step by step, to expand the field of knowledge. The apparent, uniform, circular motion of the stars offered in its simplicity the possibility of applying the absolute truths of mathematics to empirical facts of observation and thereby to predict future events by calculation.

- For future lunar or solar eclipses, as I mentioned last time, it is based on observing the stars, formulizing their movements, and then inserting certain values into these formulas. This makes it possible to predict the day of a solar eclipse in, say, 1950.

This successful activity developed the ability to express large groups of phenomena in a clear, generally valid, mathematical form for vivid presentation. In the geocentric world system, the concept of natural law was magnificently expressed. Around the Earth, resting at the center of the world, the crystal-clear celestial sphere with the countless stars attached to it rotated with unchanging uniformity. Only seven celestial bodies: the sun, moon and the five planets visible to the naked eye, have their own movement, for a vivid representation of which various combinations of circular movements were used. The result was the ingenious but complicated so-called Ptolemaic system with its cycles and epicycles.

- The earlier world system was geocentric, assuming that the Earth was at the center of the world and the other stars somehow revolved around it, and so it was observed how the world gear presented itself. You could also calculate the movements mathematically. It does not matter that one had a world view that is no longer valid among astronomers today.

With increasing accuracy of observation and expansion of knowledge, the difficulties grew to represent the observed facts in this way with computational accuracy, until finally the boldest and most momentous of all scientific hypotheses – the Copernican – solved the difficulties.

- That is how it turned out; today the circumstances are quite different. It was assumed that the Earth was at the center, the starry sky was moving around it, and the planets had their own motion. It was assumed that such a planet moved in an orbit that itself moved in an orbit. This had to be imagined in epicycles. One had to have a very complicated understanding of space, which complicated the whole worldview. Now a principle entered into human thinking that contributed significantly to the acceptance of the Copernican worldview. This was the principle that had never been more frequently cited than at that time: Nature does everything in the simplest way. But that, it was said, it had not done in the simplest way. And so it was Copernicus who simply turned the matter around. He said: Let's try putting the sun in the center and letting the other heavenly bodies move around it. And so a different astronomical world view emerged, the Copernican one. I have already told you that the Church did not allow a Catholic to believe in this system until 1822.

The earth, degraded from its position at the center of the world to a satellite of the sun, orbiting it at breakneck speed, like the other planets, while rotating on its axis like a spindle , is a notion that so completely contradicted the evidence of the senses and the teachings of the Church that the latter's efforts to nip the heretical doctrine in the bud are understandable.

The reasons that led to the acceptance of this hypothesis could initially only be fully appreciated by those who were aware of how much more simply the results of the observations were explained by this hypothesis than if the Earth were assumed to be at rest. Of course, the distances that separate us from the fixed stars had to be thought of as incomprehensibly large.

- Now an important argument follows, but one that we must make the subject of a separate consideration:

Incidentally, full proof of the correctness of the Copernican hypothesis was only provided two and a half centuries later, with the discovery of the so-called “aberration of light”, and even later with the measurement of some stellar parallaxes.

- From what parallaxes of the stars and aberration of light are, you will see that the Copernican worldview was indeed subject to a certain uncertainty until these discoveries.

The mathematical method, which had been strengthened by research into the movements of the stars, was gradually applied to the phenomena of earthly, inanimate nature, which were closer to us and therefore more complicated. Statics, the study of the balance of forces, emerged among the ancients, and then, only with the revival of the exact sciences, dynamics, the mathematical study of motion. Galileo investigated the laws of falling bodies; intuitively he recognized them, expressed them in formulas, tested and proved them through ingenious experiments, which made more precise measurements possible.

— It is pointed out that science is basically a penetration of external phenomena with mathematical ideas. The Ptolemaic world view also proceeded from the idea of extending the mathematical like a net. When you see a star, you must already have grasped the mathematical concept of the circle if you are to say that the star moves in a circle. Thus you connect the mathematical with what you see empirically. This is also done in a large part of the mechanical sciences, for example in statics, which is concerned with investigating the conditions under which equilibrium of forces is achieved, whereas dynamics investigates the conditions under which movements can be regulated, and so on. So we see how sciences are formed by interspersing what is perceived empirically with mathematics.

Finally, Newton applies the earthly laws of gravity to celestial phenomena. He proves mathematically that the same force that drives the apple to the earth - the mutual attraction of two masses of matter - forces the moon to orbit around the earth and the planets, together with the earth, to describe their orbits around the sun, the elliptical shape of which, discovered by Kepler, corresponds to the requirements of mechanics.

- Here we come to the famous apple-and-Newton anecdote, in which Newton was once sitting under an apple tree and saw an apple fall. Now we might ask: Why does the apple fall down there? For the naive person, this is not really a scientific question; but it is precisely here that the scientific person comes into play, in that what is not a question for the naive person becomes a question for the scientific person. The naive person finds it quite natural that the apple falls down. But it could also remain hanging, and it would, if not for a force exerted by the earth; the earth pulls it toward itself. If you now imagine the earth and the moon going around it, you will realize that the moon would have to fly away if another force did not counteract it. Just remember what the boys do; maybe the girls too, but I don't know. Suppose you have an object, tie it to a thread, hold the thread at one end and move it around in circles. Try to cut the thread, then the object will fly away. The moon also goes around like that. But why doesn't it fly away? At every point it is subject to this force. If the earth were not there, the moon would certainly fly away; but because the earth is there, it attracts the moon, and it attracts the moon in such a way that it does not come here to A, but comes here to B, after a certain time.

06

The Earth must always attract him in order to keep him in a circle. This is the same force, Newton said to himself, as that which acts on the apple, which the Earth draws down to itself. It also uses this force to keep the Moon in its orbit. That is the same force with which celestial bodies attract each other and maintain their orbits. We see the force in the sinking apple; the same force, the general force of attraction, gravity, is in the heavenly bodies. The rest about how this gravity works, how it decreases with distance, and so on, are details. With this Newtonian theory of gravitation, a very important chapter of the scientific world view was introduced, a chapter that was basically established until our time; only in our time has it been shaken. I have already pointed out to you how a so-called theory of relativity is shaking it. But we will talk about that another time.

It was only with the discovery of the laws of gravitation that the world view became unified and comprehensive, encompassing the entire cosmos. The lofty idea of a cause (force) that acts everywhere and with necessity, measurable in its effects, and therefore suitable for objective examination, accustoms the human mind to seek such examination everywhere and always to strive to reduce phenomena to as few basic assumptions as possible.

The progress of European science depends essentially on the application of this principle.

Indeed, much revolves around the application of this principle. I have already drawn your attention to the fact that, as a twelve-year-old boy, I was surprised by a treatise in the school program that attempted to explain the phenomena in a way other than by gravity. At the time, this gave me a lot of headaches because I was not yet very familiar with the formulas, with the integral and differential formulas, with which the treatise was interspersed. But I can still tell you what it was about if I leave all that out.

Imagine the earth here, the moon there. (There is a drawing. Drawing p.166). That is, through the empty space, the earth acts on the moon; it therefore has an effect in the distance. Now there was a lot of thinking about whether such an effect can really take place in the distance. Many were of the opinion that a body cannot act where it is not, and others said that a body is where it acts. Schramm [the author of the aforementioned essay] says: The whole of gravitation theory is mysticism, because it assumes that a world body extends into the invisible in order to attract another. Whether it is a world body or a molecule is irrelevant. They are therefore there at a certain distance. Now he claims the following: The world bodies are not alone. Space is filled with bodies. There are many more bodies. But they are not at rest either, but in perpetual motion. If we now imagine that these bodies are all in motion, then they continually collide with this body that we imagine here; bodies also collide here; but bodies also collide from within, so that the body is collided against from all sides. And now he calculates the number and effect of these collisions. You can easily see that there are smaller surfaces here for being pushed, and larger surfaces here. But because fewer pushes can take place here than out there, the bodies are driven together. You have the result of the attractive force here, composed of different pushes, because they take place in different numbers. So there is a drumming there, there is a drumming there; so there must be fewer impacts from the inside out than from the outside in. The bodies therefore tend to come together. They are driven together by the individual impacts.

This man [Schramm] tried to replace the gravitational force with a different kind of approach. He tried to eliminate mysticism from the theory of gravity.

Paul Du Bois-Reymond wrote a paper in which it was mathematically proven that such impacts, which correspond to the phenomenon of gravity, are never possible.

This is how science proceeds in its work; it attempts to arrive at principles from uncertain premises, then to overturn these principles in order to return to the old principles. If Paul Du Bois-Reymond's arguments are correct, then one must return to the older principles. So one returns to what should be rejected. This is an interesting case that can show how science works.

The progress of European science depends essentially on the application of this principle. In this way, it has gradually been possible to unify more and more and larger areas of phenomena within inanimate nature, to reduce the phenomena of mechanics, heat, light, sound, electricity, magnetism and chemical affinity to transformations of a quantitatively indestructible something that we call energy, and whose measurable size is expressed by the product of the moved mass multiplied by the square of the speed.

— That is, it is pointed out here that if you form a world view in this way, you come to the assumption of an energy in space. I have already pointed out what the naturalist Ostwald said, that it is not the slap that matters, but the energy that is applied in the process. And so, hypothetically speaking, you can have a material body here: (Something was obviously being drawn). How can you perceive it? Only by the fact that you can detect a different spatial expansion here than in the surrounding area. But that is also only a recoil, just as you, when you see a body, can perceive nothing but what affects the eyes with a certain force. Thus, matter can be replaced by energy. What we call matter can only be energy everywhere, and so observation and the mathematical law according to which the movements take place provide the basis for expressing the law of energy as the product of the mass moved and the square of the speed. Discussing this, however, would take us too far; it can be done later.

So far, no authenticated fact is known that would contradict the basic assumption of the mechanical view within inanimate nature. On the other hand, countless conclusions derived from it, whether logically or mathematically, have been confirmed by empirical , and the more certain it is that the lawful concatenation of events and the indestructibility of mass and energy are confirmed, the more precise the examination is, and the smaller the possible errors in the measurements.

It is pointed out here that a certain comprehensive physical law can be inferred from the observation. We can most easily arrive at this law by saying: We have a certain energy. We transform this into heat. Heat, in turn, can undergo another transformation - we see this in steam engines and so on - it can be converted into another energy. This transformation takes place in corresponding proportions. That is, we are led to the so-called law of conservation of energy, that is, to the law that is expressed as follows: there is a certain amount of energy in the universe. It transforms. When a certain amount of energy, say from heat, is transformed, energy disappears on the one hand, but on the other hand there is another energy. So there is a transformation of energy. This is a law that plays an important role and that has recently been extended to the entire world view. And that brings us to the next chapter:

Extension of the mechanical idea to the organic

However, this has only been proven in terms of numbers within the inorganic world, as far as we receive impressions from it through our five senses. It is understandable that this idea of the law is also applied to organic, living nature.

But the question is, how far are we entitled to do so?

That means, when we compare these energies and apply the law of energy to everything that is inanimate, inorganic nature, we can then also try to apply the same law to organic nature. That is why the next chapter is called:

Difference between Inanimate and Animated Bodies

What is the difference between an animate and an inanimate body?

We call a body animated when material changes take place in it not only according to physical and chemical laws, but in addition to these forces, which are alone active in inanimate nature, other forces also come into play that are peculiar to each species and each individual, which cause each living individual to grow, reproduce, and die.

— It is the characteristic of living beings that they grow, reproduce and die. We do not find this in the inorganic. But there is a tendency in the mechanistic-materialistic world view to apply the same principles to the living beings, to the organic, as are applied to the inorganic world.

Whether we ascribe these laws to a “life force” or some other hypothetical cause, the fact is that the gulf between the organic and the inorganic has not now been bridged and that the more precise the observations are made, the more certain it turns out that living things can only arise from living things.

Now follows a sentence that is quoted countless times; here it reads:

The opposite assumption: that the living is only a different arrangement of the non-living, is for the time being a hypothesis not confirmed by any fact.

— But I have also put forward another point of view, and it is important that, with regard to this point of view, we also consider the other. One could believe that the validity of a spiritual world view depends on the fact that it is not possible to prove how a living thing can arise from inorganic substances. But there was a long period of time when people believed in the spiritual world view, yet still thought that a homunculus could be created in a laboratory. So the spiritual world view was not always made dependent on the fact that living things cannot be created from inanimate ones. It is our time's task to emphasize that living things can only arise from living things, and that the spiritual world view depends on this. I have often said how Francesco Redi first formulated the sentence only about 200 years ago: “Living things can only come from living things,” and proved that living things can arise from non-living things. It is also important that science points out that there is a gulf between the organic and the inorganic. Ferdinand Cohn emphasized at the naturalists' meeting in Berlin that the laws used to prove the inorganic are insufficient to prove the organic. Bunge from Basel could be cited; and Julius Wiesner, the botanist, says: The further botany advances, the more it shows how a gulf exists between the inorganic and the organic. Wrangell therefore says:

We must therefore, if we wish to remain within the bounds of what is currently scientifically established, distinguish between two essentially different groups of phenomena: the animate and the inanimate.

The next chapter is called:

Consciousness

We humans are confronted by another phenomenon through inner experience: consciousness with its expressions, which are: feeling, thinking, willing.

We have no compelling reason to believe that plants also think and will, and without leaving the realm of experience, we are justified in still making the distinction within the organic realm between unconscious plants and conscious animals.< sup class=“footnote”>1The brochure continues with the footnote: “Those who do not recognize a fundamental difference between plants and animals only retain the distinction for reasons of greater clarity.”

- We have often spoken of the fact that there are people who want to blur the difference between the plant and the animal, who claim that plants attract and devour living beings. You also know of a being that attracts and then devours approaching beings: namely, a mousetrap. And yet one need not assume that a mousetrap has an animal soul in it.

All phenomena that are connected with consciousness we call “spiritual phenomena”.

- We would have to say more precisely “All phenomena that we bring to consciousness,” because in spiritual science we must also call that which is not the astral body and I spiritual. If you are only in the physical body and etheric body, then we are not dealing with consciousness, but with spiritual activity.

Thus the world, as far as we are aware of it through our five senses and our thinking, seems to contain three essentially different principles: matter, unchanging in its mass and properties, life obeying its own laws, and the spiritual.

- I would also like to point out that even philosophers who are outside of spiritual science, such as Eduard von Hartmann and others, have spoken of an unconscious spiritual, so that one... [gap in the transcript]

In science that has the inorganic as its object, the assumption that cause and effect are in a fixed numerical relationship to each other proves to be true, as already stated, that all happenings within this world of the inanimate follow the strict law of necessity.

In accordance with the nature of every science, biological science, which has the study of life phenomena as its object, starts from the same assumption. However, since measurement, and consequently the numerical examination of the lawful course of changes (i.e. of events), is not applicable to many life phenomena, the rule of the necessary, unalterable connection between cause and effect cannot be proven beyond doubt in the field of biology. But there is no reason to doubt it, and the inner probability, as well as the analogy with what is certainly known to us, speaks in favor of it. In any case, this assumption must be taken as the basis of all scientific research, for the task of such research is indeed to discover these laws.

Now, in various lectures, I have pointed out how, in recent times, efforts have been made to trace numerical constancy right up to animal and human phenomena. Rudner, for example, tried to show how much heat energy is contained in the food that a particular animal receives; and then he tried to show how much heat the animal develops in its life phenomena. From the constant number that results, it can be seen that the heat absorbed with the food reappears in the activity. The activity would be converted food.

Another researcher extended this to the soul by testing a number of students. The principle of applying numerical relationships is quite good. This can be applied to all these phenomena. We will talk tomorrow about the extent to which this is entirely correct. But logically, the matter is usually kept very short-sighted, because someone could, according to the same logical laws as Rubner, check how the monetary values or the equivalents for them that are carried into the bank correspond to those that are carried out. They must correspond. If one were to conclude from this that there are no people in the bank who do this, that would certainly be wrong. If one examines the food that is introduced into the organism and the energy that comes out again and finds them corresponding to each other, one should not assume that there is nothing of a spiritual nature involved.

Then there is another chapter:

Spiritual phenomena

If we consider spiritual phenomena, they are, for ordinary sensory observation, linked to certain material conditions, and this could give rise to the materialistic view that spiritual phenomena would not exist at all without the material basis of a living being with its brain, nerves, etc.

— This assumption has become so strong that Du Bois-Reymond said in one of his speeches that if one wants to speak of a world soul, one must prove where the world brain is. So he said: If you want to speak of a soul of the world, you must prove where the brain of the world is. So much has it been reinterpreted in the materialistic sense, because if you observe man in the physical world, you see that everything of a spiritual nature is bound to the brain.

Most people have always had an inner aversion to this view, and the belief in the independent existence of spiritual beings and in their interaction with the sensory world we are familiar with has been expressed in the most diverse forms of religious and spiritualistic ideas.

A great many facts that are supposed to be direct confirmations of such a view are certainly based on deception and delusion.

- We have indeed gone through some of these delusions and this madness here in recent times. It is of great importance that he who stands on the ground of the spiritual scientific world view is free from deception and delusion.

Recently, however, well-documented factual material has been brought together which, in order to explain it, makes the assumption of a spiritual world appear to be the most probable hypothesis. It would now be unscientific to simply dismiss the latter – as happened just a few decades ago.

And now this will be discussed further in the following chapter:

Man's Occult Abilities

If numerous facts that can be perceived with the ordinary senses already suggest, if not demand, a spiritualistic interpretation, then there is the additional fact that many credible people claim to have other organs of perception in addition to the five senses that are not developed in most people, but which allow them to enter into direct contact with the spiritual world.

That the five senses of man do not exhaust all possibilities of perception can be assumed a priori and is confirmed by many phenomena in the animal world. There is therefore no justification for disputing it, but it is a scientific duty to examine the facts carefully and without prejudice, which is indeed now being done by many outstanding representatives of the exact sciences.

For very many people who have occult experiences themselves or hear about them from credible individuals, the existence of spiritual worlds is a proven fact, and the possibility of gaining insight into the mysteries of the world by penetrating into them is beyond doubt.

From time immemorial, teachings have been formed from such supposed or real insights, which are sometimes spread as secret teachings among the chosen few, and sometimes as openly taught religious systems. Of the major world religions, European culture is most closely interwoven with the Christian doctrine.

It is important that we use such a discussion to tie in with how spiritual science views it. Today, when spiritual science takes into account everything that human development has gone through to date, it initially does not so much emphasize that there are already other organs of perception in addition to the five senses of the human being — you know, if you look back on much of what we have covered, that there are other organs — but rather emphasizes that other organs of perception can be formed. In 'How to Know Higher Worlds', it is described what one has to do so that such organs can be formed. It is important that today's spiritual science, in a different sense, but still in a certain sense, claims the same universality as the other science. The other science tries to gain knowledge that applies to all people. Spiritual science seeks to develop such organs of perception that can be developed by all people. Just as the scientist can test what is claimed, so can the one who develops the spiritual organs test what spiritual science claims. Ordinary science relies on those abilities that already exist, while spiritual science relies on those that can be developed.

Now let us consider the principle by which abilities are developed. You will find a detailed description of how these abilities are developed in 'How to Know Higher Worlds'. I will just briefly explain how to understand such abilities.

When a symphony is played, there are actually nothing more than air vibrations in the room. These air vibrations can also be calculated mathematically. And if you did enough calculations, you could mathematically express all the movement that takes place in the instrument and in the air as the sum of the facts of movement. You could abstract completely from the symphony you are listening to and say: I don't care about Beethoven's symphony; I want to be a mathematician and investigate what motion states prevail there. — If you tempt it that way, you would have the symphony canceled and only the motion states. But you will have to admit that the symphony is still there, too. It cannot be denied and is something other than a mere image of the states of motion. What happened there? It was actually only Beethoven who, in a certain way, caused such states of motion to arise. But that does not yet make a real symphony.

If you now imagine that a person applies all those abilities that are otherwise used to recognize the external physical world in order to obtain such laws as the intuitive laws of mathematics and logic, that is, the laws that a person develops by being a thinking person, and if treating himself with these laws in the same way that the composer treats the states of movement of the air, when he does not accept the abilities of mathematics and logic and other abilities as they are, but works on them inwardly, then something arises in him that is something other than the empirical abilities of logic, mathematics and empirical research. If you compare this and the treatment that the composer applies to the air with what one does inwardly, and consider what comes out, then you have the possibility to say: There is a person who has the ability to do empirical research, the ability to form mathematical and logical judgments, that is just like a sum of states of motion that are in the instruments and in the air. But if you treat these in a certain way, a symphony, a musical work of art, arises. The laws by which you treat yourself are just those that are given in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds.” Then something arises that first develops, that is a consequence of human activity. And just as someone who has a musical ear does not just perceive the vibrations of instruments and air, so someone who has developed their inner senses perceives not only the sensual, mathematical and logical world, but also the spiritual world. This education of something new on the basis of what already exists leads to one working one's way into a spiritual world. Thus, the point for spiritual science is to recognize that the abilities that a person already has can be further developed, just as the movements of the instruments and of the air can be further developed. It is on the basis of this further development that a person can develop an understanding of the world that gives him something he would not perceive without this further development. The essential thing about spiritual science is that it points to the possibility of further developing certain abilities; not to the existence of abilities already present, but to the further development of them. And then Wrangell is right when he says that the same thing is pointed out in the various religious systems as in the secret teachings.

The next chapter is called:

The Essence of Jesus' Teachings

If we regard the common feature in all the countless interpretations of Jesus' teachings as the essence of Christianity, then it consists in the “glad tidings” that the Creator and Ruler of the Universe is a Father to man, whom He created in His own image , is a dear Father, that love for God and fellow human beings is the highest moral commandment, that the soul of man is immortal and that a fate is prepared for it after death that corresponds to the moral behavior of man during his life.

- Just as we have developed the essence of Christianity with the instrument of spiritual science, it must be said that what is expressed here is indeed the content of Jesus' teaching, but not the essence of Christianity. The essence of Christianity consists in the fact that a development took place in time, in that a fertilization of the man Jesus with the Godhead took place, that is, that a being that had not been connected with the earth until then connected itself with the earth through the well-known process, whereby time is divided into a pre-Christian and a post-Christian period. This realization of the appearance of the Christ-being on Earth belongs to the essence of Christianity.

The obvious aberrations into which the organized Christian communities, the historical churches, have fallen, have brought their dogmas into opposition to some firmly established scientific achievements, thereby causing the conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and science, which is corroding the spiritual life of European culture.

This situation explains the interest that has turned to other religious systems that claim not only to be in harmony with science, but also to expand it. Among these teachings, Theosophy deserves special attention. Since H.P. Blavatsky drew the attention of European culture to this teaching, which originated in India, it has found various representations.

Whenever the word “theosophy” is mentioned, it is important to draw attention to what spiritual science is and what the theosophical worldview is.

I think I will be able to finish tomorrow. However, I still need to discuss the extent to which Blavatsky's teachings originated in India and the extent to which they did not, and in doing so, I need to address some of the things that separate spiritual science from much of what is called Theosophy. So I will talk about that tomorrow.

In our discussion of the Wrangell brochure, we have reached the chapter beginning on page 37, entitled “Materialism”. I will read this chapter first:

Materialism

As stated earlier, the materialistic view recognizes only that knowledge which can be gained through sense perceptions and logical conclusions based on them, and denies the reality of occult perceptions. The sense perceptions of most people do not provide direct evidence of the reality of spiritual forces and phenomena that are not bound to material bodies. From this the materialist concludes that the assumption of such forces and beings independent of matter is not justified, and declares the conclusions to be drawn from it to be worthless. According to him, world events are the necessary consequence of the forces and conditions present in matter from the very beginning, which only allow development, and according to the law of the dispersion of energy, must ultimately lead to a state of equilibrium, and consequently to eternal death. The intellectual task of man is to investigate the laws according to which the process of this world development takes place, in order to endure the least possible suffering and waste of energy by adapting to these laws.

If one fundamentally rejects the occult evidence for the existence of spiritual entities, then logically nothing can be said against the materialistic view.

We see here, in a few concise sentences, the essence of the materialistic train of thought. But in order to arrive at a clear understanding of the full significance of the materialistic world view in our time, we actually have to take various things into account.

It must be clear that those who have become honest materialists in our time have a hard time coming to a spiritualistic worldview. And when speaking of “honest” opponents of spiritualism, it is actually the theoretical materialists who should be considered first and foremost, because those people who from the outset, I would say “professionally”, believe they have to represent this or that world view, do not always need to be described as “honest” representatives of a world view. But Ludwig Büchner, for example, was an honest representative of materialism in the second half of the 19th century, more honest than many who, from what they consider a religious point of view, feel they have to make themselves opponents of a spiritual world view in the sense of spiritual science.

Now, I said that it is difficult for materialists to arrive at a spiritual conception of the world. For materialism, as it presents itself to us today in those who say: Yes, man has his senses and perceives the world through his senses, he observes the processes that the senses can follow and cannot, on the basis of what the senses present to him to the assumption of a spiritual being that is independent of the sense world – this materialism has emerged with a certain inevitability from the development of modern humanity, because it is based on something that had to emerge in the development of modern humanity.

Anyone who takes the trouble to study the older spiritual life of humanity will find that it reached an end with the 14th, 15th, 16th centuries among the actual civilized peoples. Today, one need only really deal with what the present can give to the consciousness of man and then pick up a book that, in terms of its conception, is still fully immersed in the way the world was viewed scientifically in the 13th, 14th, 15th century , 14th, 15th century, and one will find that the present man, if he takes things seriously and worthily, no longer has and can have a proper understanding of what is really said in the older literature up to the marked turning point.

Of course it does happen, but only with those who are dilettantes, or even those who have not yet become dilettantes, that they repeatedly dig out all kinds of tomes from this older literature that deal with natural science and then come to all kinds of conclusions about what is said in them in a profound way. But anyone who values true relationships with what they acquire will have to find that the modern human being cannot really have true relationships with this older way of looking at nature. It is different with the philosophical view. But today's man cannot really do anything with the view of nature of the older time, because all the concepts that he can form about nature are only a few centuries old, and with these one must approach nature today. Our physical concepts basically all go back to the Galilean world view and nothing earlier. One must already unfold a broad historical-scientific study when engaging with earlier scientific works, because the exact exploration of the material world, the external sense world, in whose current we find ourselves today, has actually only begun in the last few centuries.

Do you remember that we were just talking about measuring in reference to Wrangell's booklet? Weighing is also part of measuring, as we have seen. However, the introduction of weighing as an instrument into the methods of the natural sciences has only been common practice since Lzvozszer, so it is not yet 150 years old, and all the basic ideas of today's chemistry, for example, are based on this weighing.

On the other hand, if we want to form ideas today about the workings of electrical forces, for example, or even just thermal forces, then they must be based on the research from the last half of the 19th century. People today can no longer cope with the older ideas. The same could be said with regard to biological science. However, anyone who needs to know the development of science would also need to get to know the older literature; but we, who want to take spiritual science seriously, must get rid of what we so often encounter in so-called theosophists. I have often spoken of the fact that I got to know a theosophical community in Vienna in the 1880s, for example. There it was almost a kind of custom to pick out all kinds of old tomes and to read in them things that one really did not understand very well, because basically it takes a lot to read a scientific work, for example, from the 14th century. But people formed judgments. These judgments were always pretty much the same. Namely, when someone pretended to have read such a book – although they had only flicked through it – they said “abysmally deep”. These were the judgments that were made. At the end of the 1980s, I heard the word “abysmally deep” – relatively naturally – more often than any other. Of course, I also heard the word “shallows” often.

What must be borne in mind is the great importance of the views, concepts and ideas that have been gained under the influence of the views of recent centuries. When we consider the explanations of the basic concepts of mechanics, the wealth of physical, chemical and biological concepts, and also some of the things that have been brought together to see how the soul expresses itself in the external physical body, we have the result of the last few centuries, and especially of the second half of the last century, an enormously expanded research result before us. And this research result must necessarily be gained, not only because all external, technical, economic, material life is based on it, which humanity had to achieve at some point, but because a large part of our world view is also based on it. And one is actually - even if it does no harm in a certain limited field, but it is true - one is actually in such a field of world view as that of today's science a hay rabbit if one knows nothing of today's physics, biology and so on, as they have developed.

Of course, it must be emphasized again and again that the research results of spiritual science are obtained on the basis of those perceptual abilities that have often been mentioned. They cannot be obtained in the same way, although with the same certainty, as the scientific-materialistic results. And of course - if one surrenders to what was indicated yesterday - this spiritual science is a reality. But for our time today, for our present, much more is needed than just somehow having a spiritual relationship to the spiritual-scientific results, which can be fully grasped by common sense. It is much more necessary than somehow catching scraps of the spiritual world to familiarize oneself with the materialistic world view, at least with a section of it, in order to be able to really represent to the outside world today what spiritual science wants. For one cannot go before the world and truly represent spiritual science if one has no idea of the way in which the scientist researches today, how he must think and how he must handle research alongside clarification. And if one repeatedly refuses to pick up a book on natural science in order to familiarize oneself with modern natural science, then one will never be able to avoid committing gaffes when representing the spiritual-scientific worldview in the face of what is the dregs of the external worldview. Today it is also much less important to listen to the traditional religious systems than to the honestly gained venerable results of materialistic research. One must only be able to relate to these materialistic research results in the right way.

Let us take, just to show what is at stake at the present moment, any field; let us take the field of human anatomy and physiology. If you take any common book today – and I have always recommended such books over the course of the many cycles – you will get a picture of how today's physiologist builds his ideas about the structure of the human body, based on the bone system, the cartilage, tendon, muscle system, the nervous, blood, sensory, main system, and so on. And a picture will emerge of how people today, living in materialistic thought, imagine the interaction, say, of the heart and lungs, and again of the heart with the other vascular systems of the body. And then an answer can present itself to the question: How does a person who has acquired his concepts from materialistic research actually relate to these things? What ideas does he actually have in him? And here one must say: Significant ideas have indeed been gained; ideas that had to be gained in such a way that one really had to turn away from everything spiritual, from carrying spiritual thoughts into research. One had to enter into the material realm as it presents itself to the five senses, as they say in popular terms, and into the context that arises from the five senses. One had to see through the world in this way, and much remains to be done in this area, in all possible fields of scientific research.

But now suppose you have acquired a picture of the structure of the human body such as the anatomist and physiologist have today. Then you will find that the anatomist and physiologist say: Well, the human being is made up of various organs and organ systems, and these work together in a certain way.

You see, when an anatomist or a physiologist speaks today and summarizes his ideas into an overall picture of the human being, then, within this picture, the same thing remains based on sensory observation. From this, very specific ideas arise that can be taken up. But one must relate to them in the right way. Perhaps I can make this clear by means of a comparison. For example, someone might say: I want to get to know Raphael, how do I do that? - I would tell him: If you want to get to know Raphael, then try to immerse yourself in Raphael's paintings; study the Marriage of Joseph and Mary, one of the paintings in Milan, and then the various paintings up to the Sistine Madonna and the Ascension, and get an concept of how Raphael tried to distribute the figures in space, how he tried to distribute light and shadow, to enliven one place in the picture at the expense of the other, to emphasize one and withdraw the other, and so on, then you will know something about Raphael. Then you will have the preparation to get to know Raphael even better, then you will gradually get a picture of the configuration of Raphael's soul, of what he wanted, from which sources of his mind his creations emerged. One could imagine that someone comes and says: Oh, looking at the pictures does not suit me, I am a clairvoyant and look directly into Raphael's soul, see how Raphael created and then talk about Raphael. I can imagine someone coming and saying: I don't need to see anything of Raphael at all, but delve directly into the soul of Raphael. Of course, in Raphael research this would be considered nonsense, but in the field of spiritual science it is practiced a great deal, despite the many admonitions over the years in which we have been doing spiritual science. One could see how few felt compelled to use the literature mentioned in the course of the lecture cycles and to use it in such a way as to obtain images from what materialistic research has produced.

But just as one would err if one were to stop at the image and not want to progress to the soul that is expressed through the image, so the materialist stops. What one could say to the materialist is, for example, this: Yes, you are looking at an image, but you do not notice that you should consider what you are looking at as the outer revelation of a spiritual inner reality. But it is true that materialistic research has brought together an enormous amount of material. If one regards this as the external manifestation of a spiritual reality, then one is on the right path. The materialist only makes the mistake of having the material and not wanting to accept that it is the expression of a spiritual reality. But on the other hand, one must always be in the wrong when one asserts something spiritual and a materialist says things about which one has no idea. Of course one can have an overview of the rich field of research and still have no idea about a great deal; but one must have some idea about the way in which things are acquired. And if our School of Spiritual Science is to serve as a place where a number of people who have studied one field or another interpret the materialistic basic premises that one must have according to the present-day development, then our School of Spiritual Science will achieve a great deal.

We could do it today, saying that what is set out in our cycles of material could suffice; we could conclude with it and use the next time to show our friends the material basis of the conditions that must be there. One will then see, when one looks at today's physics, chemistry and biology in the appropriate way, that what is in our cycles will arise. Then one would have taken the right approach to materialism.

My dear friends, you are quite mistaken when you say that materialism is wrong. What nonsense! To say that materialism is wrong is just as if you wanted to say: the Sistine Madonna is blue here and red there, that's wrong, that's just matter. Materialism is right in its own field; and if you take what it has contributed to human knowledge, it is something tremendous. We do not need to fight materialism, but only to show by its development how materialism, if it understands itself, leads beyond itself, just as I have shown how anatomy and physiology lead beyond themselves and necessarily into the spiritual realm.

One can only ask: Why are there so many people who, instead of accepting materialism as a mere research method, stop at it as a world view? - The right thing would be to say that today it would indeed be something completely complicated and foolish to practice alchemy instead of chemistry; today one must practice chemistry and not alchemy as in the 12th century. That goes without saying. But it is necessary to rise up out of today's research into the spiritual life. If our friends would only take the trouble to study the little book Haeckel and His Opponents, they would find that all the thoughts on which it is based are governed by the biogenetic law. It is significant that we have not yet managed to get a second edition of this little book 'Haeckel and his Opponents'. And yet it is extremely important to be informed, if not about the latest research results - one does not necessarily need to know these in detail - then at least about the way the researcher proceeds and how he or she goes about their research. This is of the utmost importance.

If someone says: I don't need to study the book, why should I, the spiritual world is clear to me from the outset; I don't need to climb the whole ladder – if someone says that, then today he is an egoist who only considers himself and does not pay attention to what the times demand of us. But we must pay attention to this if we want to serve the spirit of the time. It is extremely important that we keep this in mind. Of course, one has the right to say, why do I need a scientific basis, the spiritual world is clear to me. That may be true. But if you want to learn something in the field of the spiritual world – you can of course do it in such a way that you interpret what is there – but if you want to learn something, you have to familiarize yourself with what is available in materialistic science.

On the other hand, one must ask: How is it that there are many anatomists, physiologists, physicists, chemists and so on today as natural scientists, and even those who call themselves experimental psychologists, that they do not want to hold materialism as a research method, but as a worldview? Here one must honestly have the courage to answer: To conduct research in a materialistic way, all that is required is to stare at the world with the five senses and to use external methods. One need only surrender to the world passively, then one stands firm. Plucking any old plant, counting the stamens, taking the microscope, staining a cross-section in order to study the structure, and so on – I could, of course, list many more things – that is what people do. You just have to stand there, be passive and let nature take effect on you. You let yourself be led by nature.

In the very first writings I published, I called this the dogmatism of experience. People hold on to the dogmatism of experience. You can read about it in my book “Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung” (Basic Principles of an Epistemology of the Goethean World View). I also later called it “fact fanaticism”. But to enter the spiritual world, one must work inwardly, and for that one needs inner activity. And that is where people run out of strength. One can see in our time that this strength has been exhausted. If you make comparisons in the field of anatomy, for example, you will find that one can almost point the finger to the point where the strength has been exhausted.

Take the anatomist Ayrt/, who was replaced on his chair by the anatomist Langer. Compare the writings of the two scientifically, and you will see how, in the succession of the two scholars, one is absolutely clear that there is something spiritual behind the external, and the other no longer cares. Why is that? Because, however meritorious materialism is as a research method and however much it has achieved, without which people could not live today, people were too lazy to bring what they had grasped into active life. Laziness, real indolence of mind, has made people persist in materialism. Because materialism became so dominant and presented itself as reality, people did not rise to the spiritual. It is laziness and inertia, and one must have the courage to recognize this reason.

Immerse yourself in the fields of scientific research and you will see that this scientific research is magnificent and admirable. Delve into everything that is fabricated by the monists and other associations as “world views” and you will see that they are based on laziness and inertia, on an ossification of thought. This is what we must clearly face, that we must distinguish - if we stand on the ground of true spiritual science - between the entirely justified materialistic research methods and research results and the so-called materialistic world view.

Most of the time, those who do materialistic research cannot even think, because it is easier to do materialistic research than to think spiritually. I will give you an example to illustrate that materialists simply stumble when they want to move from materialistic research methods to a worldview. So let us assume that I have tried to gain an atomistic world view. I will therefore say: bodies consist of atoms. These must be thought of in motion, so that when you have a material object in front of you, it consists of atoms. There are spaces between the atoms. The atoms are in motion, and according to the materialistic world view, heat is generated by this motion. If one were to say that heat is based on the movement of atoms, then one would be right, then one would only be stating a fact. However, one comes to the realization that it is impossible to speak of atoms as something that actually exists. Atoms are imagined – and they have to be imagined if they are to make sense – but what is perceived should first be brought about by the atoms. So you can't see an atom. You see that the so-called atomistic world view is composed of nothing visible, of nothing that can be perceived by the senses.

Now, however, you can reflect and say: the world consists of atoms and these are in motion. One wants to investigate the kind of movement that underlies heat, light, magnetism, electricity, and so on, and one comes to assume that certain atomic movements are the cause of sensory perception. So one comes to atoms. One divides what is given, and if one divides again and again, one must finally come to the indivisible, and that is the atom. Divisible atoms are meaningless. The last parts, that is, the atoms, must be indivisible. Now, however, people also want to explain movement from the atoms – I can only hint at this, but you can follow it up in the philosophical-scientific literature of recent times – they also want to explain movement from the nature of the atoms. But if you think about how one atom must push the other for motion to arise, which we see in heat, electricity and so on, then you cannot think of atoms as rigid; you have to think of them as elastic. It is necessary to think of them elastically, because rigid atoms would not give the movement that must come out during a collision if heat, electricity or magnetism is to come out.

So these atoms must be elastic. But what does that mean? It means that the atom can be compressed and then springs back to its former state. It must therefore be compressible and spring back again, otherwise one cannot even think of the pushing of the atoms. Now we have gained two things: first, the atom must be indivisible; second, it must be elastic. These two facts confront modern thinking, which pays homage to atomism. The atom must be conceived as indivisible, otherwise it is no longer an atom, and it must be conceived as elastic, because it would be a senseless idea to trace the movement of the atom back to rigid atoms. English thinkers in particular have emphasized these two sentences very sharply: firstly, the atom is indivisible, and secondly, the atom must be conceived as elastic. If I allow a body to be elastic, it is inconceivable that the parts push together and then spring back into the original position to create the elastic body. This is inconceivable without it being divisible and movable. But the atom must be indivisible on the one hand, and on the other hand it must be divisible, because otherwise it cannot be elastic. But what does that mean?

It means that if we want to imagine atoms, we come up with two contradictory basic assumptions. There is no way around this. There is an enormous amount of interesting literature about thinking the world picture together out of non-rigid atoms. But then the atom is no longer an atom, because it has to be thought of as divisible. That is to say, one comes to the conclusion that the idea of the atom is impossible as long as one assumes that the atom is material. In the moment when you do not think of the atom materially, when you think that the atom is not something material but something else, one can think of the atom as indivisible, just as the human ego is also thought of as indivisible. Suppose the atom is force, then you can also think of it as being put together. If you do not think in materialistic terms, you do not need to think that there are spaces in between. The two things are therefore perfectly compatible if we do not think of atoms materially. If we carefully consider what optics, the science of electricity, and so on, offers us, and draw the final consequences as to how the atom must be, then we come to the conclusion that the atom cannot be material. You are bound to touch on spiritual matters. But this step has to be taken. It makes no difference whether the atom is elastic or rigid; we are not concerned with such details. Materialism should not be fought, but understood. The great amount of work and good results should not be despised by spiritual science.

Let us now turn to the next chapter of the Wrangell treatise:

Doubts about the materialistic world view

But many people harbor doubts: could it really be that the whole world is not based on any rational, moral thought, and that the concepts of what is expedient and moral arise only in the human breast, but have no validity outside of it?

We feel within us the striving for good, and the concept of good is inseparable from the concept of freedom, because where absolute necessity reigns, there is no evil and no good. A stone must fall in a certain direction with a certain speed, and it would be senseless to call this fall evil or good.

Should that which we feel in our innermost being to be the true measure of life be only deception and delusion, and is this idea of good, that is, of morality chosen in freedom, not to be found in the whole of the world, of which man is only a tiny fraction? Should the small part, man, endowed with lofty feelings and thoughts, stand in this respect higher than the whole, which proceeds unconsciously, without purpose, like a dead wheelwork, to end in eternal death? Most people's minds resist such a solution and seek another.

It is all right to say that the intellect objects to this, but it is much more important in our time to say that thinking objects to it. If one wishes to stand only on the ground of materialism, then one must go to the atom and grasp it as matter. But one can also call it force, and then one arrives at the fact that where one finds matter, there is the cosmic world of thought. There then the moral world order has its full place in it.

Now, some have found it more convenient to say: Yes, if you rethink the world like that, scruples and doubts arise for sense knowledge everywhere and it is not right to accept this sense knowledge as the only valid knowledge; but man is so constituted that he cannot penetrate deeper. This results in the following situation: there stands the man, who is perhaps a very good researcher in the field of the external sense world and who, as a materialistic researcher, can produce something lasting, beautiful and magnificent, but he is not inclined to go further. And so he says: there must be all sorts of things behind matter; but we are not able to penetrate there with the human capacity for knowledge. He calls himself an agnostic. He does not realize that this talk, that man does not have the ability and so on, is inspired by Ahriman and he does not listen to what good spirits tell him; he does not listen to that. In truth, he is just a slacker. Slacker is what you call it when you say it honestly, agnosticism is what you call it in science.

The next chapter in Wrangell's book is now entitled:

Agnosticism

The answer to the question of the origin and purpose of the universe and the destiny of man, which presents the least difficulties to the mind, but leaves the demands of the heart completely unsatisfied, is the point of view of the agnostic (” “not-knowing"), when he says: these questions transcend the limits of human knowledge, and therefore, by their very nature, must remain unanswered, and it is more reasonable to devote one's time and energy to tasks where there is a prospect of overcoming them.

— One cannot object to saying, I will devote myself to a task that I can accomplish. That is within a person's freedom. But it is not within a person's freedom to say: What I do not know, no one else may know. All philosophizing about what man cannot know is actually, at bottom, a scientific infamy, and, furthermore, it is a scientific megalomania without parallel, because man sets himself up as the arbiter of what may and may not be researched, because he presents what he himself wants to accept as decisive for all other people. What impotence lies in the sentence: “There are limits to knowledge”! What arrogance and conceit lies in it, but should also be made clear. This should not be whispered in the ears, but blared. —

Without denying the existence of spiritual beings, the agnostic maintains that this area is not accessible to everyone, while everything based on sensory experience is within the realm of knowledge of the normal person, and he should be content with that. Those people in whom the intellect, trained to be critical, predominates, can remain at this point of view without being paralyzed in their actions; but for most people, this answer is no answer. If one takes the standpoint of a person without personal occult experiences and without knowledge of other people's reports of such perceptions that appear credible to him, then, logically speaking, he is free to speak out in favor of or against the existence of spiritual worlds. —

But one is not entitled to deny the scientific nature of the opposing view.

The degree of credibility of the reports of others cannot be measured with objective, i.e. universally valid rigor, and the judgment about it is inevitably influenced by subjective motives in each individual case.

- Yes, you can show that.

If the facts can be verified by any normal person, then in most cases there is no need to go to the trouble of verifying them personally, because the current organization of scientific research ensures that an erroneous observation or report is soon discovered, and this compels every observer and reporter, if only for the sake of his reputation, to be as careful and truthful as possible, and in any case an observation error does not remain undetected for long.

— Basically, that doesn't say much more than if someone were to say the following: With the way scientific work is organized today, if you go to Basel and buy a chemistry book, you can believe what's in it, because it contains chemical results, and it wouldn't occur to a chemist to lie. — But that would only legitimize the belief in authority. And if people would only admit this to themselves, they would realize how much they accept on trust today. I have often emphasized that spiritual science, although in its infancy, can be tested. Spiritual science is still young; when it is older, the spiritual scientist will be in the same position as the chemist is today: it will then be clear that one does not lie in spiritual science.

Occult perception, however, is different, and this essential difference has long led the men of exact science, who are accustomed to controllable facts, to treat occult communications not only critically, i.e. with scrutiny, but skeptically, i.e. with outright rejection.

- The real reason is that they are too lazy.

Now, however, this no longer seems possible, because the evidence for the immaterial existence of spiritual beings is so compelling that men of undoubted scientific training consider this question to be proven. It is enough to mention names such as Zöllner, Wallace, du Prel, Crookes, Butlerow, Rochas, Oliver Lodge, Flammarion, Morselli, Schiaparelli, Ochorowicz, James, among others.

— There Mr. von Wrangell relies on those who tie in with atavistic abilities, while we assume that every person can acquire the abilities that make it possible to test the spiritual as one tests the scientific.

These men not only find no contradiction between occult facts and established results of exact sensory research, but their habit of unprejudiced criticism leads them to reject the skepticism of the materialist and to devote themselves to the study of occult phenomena.

— But they do not do it in the right way. They drag everything down to the same field of experimentation as chemistry, even that which can only be attained through the free activity of thought. Instead of constructing inwardly, they go around, as it were, with a yardstick, measuring. —

These authorities may err in their judgment, but their point of view can serve as proof that we are justified in assuming the existence of spiritual entities without exposing ourselves to the accusation of scientific ignorance. Assuming that one has no occult abilities oneself, one is dependent on the reports of others and must examine them for their credibility.

— It would be better to try to engage with what is said in “How to Know Higher Worlds”. It is much easier than many assume. Most people just don't recognize it, but all sorts of complications are recognized. It would actually be relatively easy to experience at least enough of the spiritual world in a few years to recognize it in general. But people say: That is nothing; because they strive for what I have called gut-level clairvoyance. And if it does not come to gut-level clairvoyance, then none of it means anything to them.

The sources of error in occult perceptions lie both in the subject and in the object. Even a superficial knowledge of the perceptual material accumulated by spiritists and other occultists shows us that here, admittedly, the sources of error flow abundantly...

— They really do not. It is no different than saying: nature never lies! But it lies all the time. Take a glass of water and stick a stick in it, it will appear broken to you; but it is not. Take the path of the sun in the sky, compare the size in the morning and the size at noon: nature lies to you all day long. The spiritual world lies just as much and just as little. It is extraordinarily interesting, for example, to visualize the processes in the etheric body of a person when they have an intestinal disorder, or to observe what the etheric body does when the digestive processes take place. It is just as interesting as when one usually studies anatomy or physiology, even more interesting. But it is unjustified to regard what is nothing more than a process in the etheric body during digestion as a magnificent process of the cosmic world. The spiritual world itself does not lie; it must only be interpreted in the right way. There is no need to disdain what happens in our etheric body during digestion. It should not be misunderstood. The senses, too, do not deceive in reality. When you reach into the water, you find with the sense of touch... [gap in the transcription]. In the course of time, natural science has acquired good rules through study, while it is believed in the humanities that the less study one has undergone, the more suitable one is for it.

Thus: “Even a superficial acquaintance with the material of perception accumulated by spiritualists and other occultists shows us that here, admittedly, the sources of error flow abundantly... .”

because they not only lie, as in the material world, in the subject, but also in the object, in that numerous malicious entities are supposed to make it their business to mislead the person doing the research. If one could rightly say of ordinary sensory perceptions: nature never lies, only man sometimes misunderstands them - it is, according to the secret researchers, different in the spiritual world. Therefore, if the reality of spiritual phenomena that are independent of matter is admitted, it is a great and difficult task to separate the wheat from the chaff there. This is the task of spiritual science, which, if one wants to pursue it seriously, requires a person's full time and energy, as is the case with every other branch of knowledge, albeit perhaps to a lesser extent. For the majority of people, however, such study is neither possible nor necessary. Just as one can be a Christian and find consolation and uplift in the teachings of Jesus, and see in his person the realization of the moral ideal, without being a theologian, so one can recognize in the basic teachings of Theosophy an interpretation of the actual meaning and purpose of one's own life without being familiar with the comprehensive structure of esoteric science.

— This is a claim that cannot be readily accepted, for even if people are not chemists or biologists, they can still live today. But man must gradually come to know that which belongs to the world to which the human soul itself belongs. It is a kind of unjustified denial when people say that to be a Theosophist one needs no more familiarity with esoteric science than one needs to be a theologian to be a Christian.

The world view that best furthers a person's actions and feelings is the one that most satisfies both his intellect and his feelings.

The next chapter is entitled:

The Soul's Survival After Death

If we assume that the spiritual principle in man, that which is designated by the word soul, is an entity that continues to exist after the death of the body, then various ideas about its further fate are possible. Of these, we will only consider the Christian view and the doctrine of re-embodiment here, as they are currently in the foreground for us. The teachings of Christ have been a source of comfort and moral strength for millions, and will probably continue to be so in the future. However, it cannot be denied that for the scientifically educated European, the difficulties of an intellectual nature have increased and do not allow the conflict between faith and knowledge based on Christian teachings to be resolved. The existing contradiction demands a sacrifice, either of the intellect or of the mind. In addition to these intellectual difficulties, many people have serious moral reservations about the usual Christian view. All Christian denominations teach that after death, the soul of man endures a fate that is eternal in duration: eternal bliss or eternal damnation. Every person feels that this belief contradicts the demand for justice. The basis of all morality is justice.

- If only one knew a little more! Of course Wrangell is right when he says that one cannot speak of eternal bliss and eternal damnation in this way, since these contradict justice. For “eternal” is an absurdity if one believes that it is something infinite. “Eternal” is only an age, a world age, and actually one should not speak of “eternal” in the Christian sense either, but only of an age, and that roughly corresponds to the time between death and a new birth.

Deep within every human breast lies the unshakable desire for each person to receive what is deserved. The concept of merit may change, as may the value placed on what is experienced and felt. But there can be no doubt that people would be happier, better, more satisfied if they were convinced that the way the world works meets the demand for justice in every detail. In what we experience in the course of our physical life, we do not see justice prevailing in ourselves and others, regardless of whether we consider mental, spiritual or physical suffering and joy as a measure of the value of what we experience. According to the teachings of the Christian churches, this apparent injustice of earthly life is to be compensated for in the hereafter; but it is basically infinitely intensified by the eternal consequences of temporal transgressions or merits.

— It is self-evident that Wrangell only speaks of what the Christian churches say, which arose after Justinian had closed the Greek schools of philosophy. But he overlooks the fact that we have the task of making the blocked wisdom accessible to humanity again. One must look for the right reasons. One could also show that those who teach Christianity today do not teach true Christianity, but rather a form of it that has been adapted.

The next chapter is called:

Reincarnation and Karma

The doctrine of reincarnation and karma, on the other hand, offers us the possibility of resolving the visible injustice of a life's destiny by the fact that it was self-imposed in previous lives, and that there is the possibility of improving it for subsequent reincarnations.

Such a belief, when it has become an inner certainty, gives one the strength to bear one's fate, even the hardest, without inner revolt, and spurs one on to improve it for the future by following the voice we call “conscience”.

The sense of responsibility in our consciousness is strengthened, and the danger that humanity, in a frenzy and selfishness, seeks to exploit the short span of temporal life, would be eliminated. The doctrine of rebirth and karma makes man free, because it puts him on his own.

Of course, the great mystery of the “what for” of it all remains unsolved, but the purpose and task of the individual life are clear and certain.

The next chapter is the conclusion of Lessing's “Education of the Human Race”:

Lessing's view of the doctrine of reincarnation.

“Is this hypothesis (of reincarnation) so ridiculous because it is the oldest? Because the human mind, before it was dispersed and weakened by sophistry and school, immediately fell for it? Why should I not come back as often as I am able to gain new knowledge, new skills? Do I get so much out of it at once that it is not worth the effort to come back?”

According to the doctrine of reincarnation, it is our fate to live on this earth until we have reached our destiny: knowledge of God, which is knowledge of self. Death is not annihilation; our sense of self, our true nature, merely enters into another body. Even the suicide does not escape; he only cuts the thread of life, which, according to inexorable laws, must be reattached.

- So Lessing. These were strong words. But they were also the words of a man who had the education of his time within him and who was necessarily led to this doctrine of reincarnation by what this and Christianity could give him. At this point, one sees the eminent education, one sees the historical critic. But now people say, of course Lessing is a great man; he wrote Nathan and so on, that's good, but when he grew old he devoted himself to such fantastic dreams as the doctrine of reincarnation; you can't go along with that. Well, in that respect the court master has become much cleverer than Lessing was in his old age. Many a person believes that he is much cleverer than Lessing, who is otherwise even recognized as a great man. One should at least recognize the ridiculousness of such an acknowledgment; recognize that one must strive toward what Lessing had finally worked his way to. They should realize how ridiculous it is if they do not want to go along with this, the ripest fruit of Lessing's thinking, not to mention what has followed in the newer intellectual life. These people speak without going into the actual core, which was already at the basis of the new intellectual life, but which for many who interpret it is a closed book. Now Wrangell continues:

That Goethe also believed in reincarnation is known to us from Eckermann and Boisserau's notes. Kant says in his “Lectures on Psychology”: “The beginning of life is birth; but this is not the beginning of the life of the soul, but of the human being. Birth, life and death are therefore only states of the soul... Consequently, the substance remains, even though the body perishes, and so the substance must also have existed when the body came into being.

Now follows the last chapter:

A brief summary of the train of thought

Let us try to briefly summarize the train of thought set out above.

The concept of the law-governed, the necessary chain of cause and effect in events, is not an original insight. On the contrary, direct consciousness gives us the idea of conditional freedom.

The concept of lawfulness, on which all science is based, probably first came to man from observation of the temporally regular course of celestial phenomena. Then this concept was applied with ever-increasing success to the phenomena of the inanimate (physics, chemistry), then to the animate, and finally also to the spiritual. The concept of lawfulness can only be tested and irrevocably proven on the basis of phenomena that can be quantitatively determined, that can be measured. The extension of the idea of the necessity of the material to the spiritual is an assumption that, according to analogy with what happens in the material, can indeed be given a certain probability, but which cannot be proven because the touchstone of measurability is lacking here. Numerous facts, examined by discerning men of science, do not allow any truth-seeking person to deny the existence of spiritual beings without providing proof, which is why he rejects the facts in question and their probative value.

The basic tenets of Theosophy – reincarnation and karma – do not contradict any scientific fact, satisfy the intellect and, better than other teachings, meet the basic requirement of all morality – the demand for justice.

Belief in these basic assumptions must strengthen people to endure unwanted life destinies and promote the striving for good in them.

And so, my dear friends, this brochure stands before us as a document of our time, as the expression of a person who, after thoroughly studying scientific methods, stands firmly within them and wants to bear witness to the fact that one can be a good, fully conscious scientist and precisely because of this, not in spite of it, must arrive at a world view that honors the spirit.

You will have gathered from the last chapters of Mr. von Wrangell's brochure that he has not yet delved very deeply into spiritual science, that he has not approached the difference between what spiritual science wants and amateurish theosophy. And so it is all the more important to see how someone who is scientifically trained longs for what can only be truly given through spiritual science, so that one can say: through such a brochure one has come to know how an unprejudiced scientist can relate to a spiritual-acknowledging view.

We can pull other strings and we will do so occasionally. We will delve further into the matter in order not only to cultivate spiritual science in an egoistic way, but to really see it as a cultural ferment and to work through it on the developmental path of humanity. It is extremely important that we get into the habit of really going along with everything.

Sometimes, our ranks offer a particular experience. Please don't be offended when I talk about this experience, but it really can be had. You see, there are certain members in our ranks who say, “Public lectures aren't important to us,” and they say it in a way that shows they're not really involved. They say that the public lectures are not the most important thing; the branch lectures, yes, those are for us, but we have progressed beyond what the public lectures provide. And yet it is precisely the case that the public lectures are designed for those who have a connection to the outside world. And much more reference is made to contemporary science in the public lectures than in the private lectures, which show how often delicate consideration has to be given to the fact that one does not love to base strictly scientific questions. And this delicate consideration is often interpreted to mean that one says: the public lectures are not so important.

The truth of the matter is somewhat different. There is only one kind of selfishness at the root of these matters. I do not want to break a lance for the public lectures, I just want to challenge the unfounded opinions of many people. It may be easier to miss this or that intermediate link in the branch lectures here or there; but the public lectures must be shaped link by link. This is not popular with many people whose work is not part of the overall cultural process of our time. But it is precisely this process of engaging with the cultural process of the time, this not shutting ourselves off, that is important.

Of course, it is easier to talk about angels, Lucifer and Ahriman than about electrons, ions and so on. But it is true that we must also bring ourselves to the realization that we must pull the strings towards the present culture. But I ask you not to take the matter one-sidedly again, as if I wanted to urge you to buy the entire scientific collection of Göschen tomorrow and sit down to gradually concoct everything, as the students would say. I do not mean that at all. I only mean that where one wants to speak authoritatively about the position of spiritual science in our culture, one must also have an awareness of it and should not fall into the trap of saying: this outer science is a pipe dream. As an individual, one can say that one has no time to deal with it; but the whole institution, the whole enterprise, should be given a certain direction through what I have said. And it should not be surprising that the School of Spiritual Science aims to pursue individual branches of science in such a way that they will gradually lead to spiritual science. We still need the materialistic culture out there. And those anthroposophists are wrong who say: What do I care about materialistic culture, it is none of my business, it is for coarse materialists; I cultivate what one experiences when one dreams, when one is not quite right while being fully conscious; the rest is none of my business, I have the teachings of reincarnation and karma and so on. On the other hand, there is the world out there that says: We have real science, serious and dignified methods, and now the anthroposophists are coming along with their spiritual science; they are the purest fools.

This antagonism cannot remain unresolved, and we cannot expect mediation from the outside. It must come from within. We must understand and not lie back on the sickbed and say: if we first have to climb up into the spiritual world through science, that is far too arduous for us.

I wanted to speak about the significance of materialistic culture and draw your attention to it, because I have often emphasized that materialism comes from Ahriman, but Ahriman must be known, just as Lucifer must be known and reckoned with. And the Trinity, which we were able to see in the model yesterday, is the one with which humanity will have to become familiar.

I would like to repeat once more: try not to annoy the outside world by talking about a new religion. If we were to talk about the group as a “Christ statue,” it would be a big mistake. It is enough to say: there stands the representative of humanity. Everyone can see what is meant there. It is important that we always find the right words, that is, that we consider how we want to place ourselves in the whole cultural world and come to describe the matter with the right words. That is what must be said again and again. We do not want to speak to others: We have only just presented the real Christ. - We may know that and keep it to ourselves. For us it is important to understand the full blessing of materialistic culture, otherwise we make the same mistake as those who do not examine.

Let us ask ourselves whether we are not doing the same with others. We do not need to withhold the true judgment, but we must understand what is going on outside. Then we will also be able to counter what is going on outside in the right words. But, my dear friends, we will have a lot to do in this direction, because the laziness I have spoken of today is very, very widespread and we must find the courage to tell people: You are too lazy to engage in the activity of thinking.

If we understand what is going on outside, then we can also use strong words and take up an energetic fight. But we must familiarize ourselves with it and pull the strings of the outer culture. That is why I wanted to give an example of the very commendable Wrangell brochure, which shows how someone is strong as a scientist, but has not sufficiently studied the spiritual scientific world view, but through the whole direction of his soul tends towards spiritual science.

We have often shown the drawing of threads, mostly in relation to specific personalities, and I advise you, where there are branches, to do the same in collaboration. Of course, this cannot be the work of just one person; it would never be finished. Rather, there must be someone who takes on a brochure about Eucken's world view for my sake, and someone else takes a brochure that deals with the blood, muscle and nervous system and so on, and works through it with the others. This can be branch work. It can be arranged so that on one branch evening, work is done purely in terms of spiritual science, and then the next evening, a subject like this is covered. When one person has done it on one day, another can do it the next time. Everyone can take up something that is somehow close to them. And why should someone who has no scientific education not be able to take up this or that? There are questions of life that can also be linked to such things. It is much more useful to use the time for such studies than to extract all kinds of occult intricacies and material from dreams and tell people about them. This is not meant to be one-sided either. It is not meant to say that one can never speak of occult experiences; but it is a matter of drawing the right line of connection. It is not a matter of despising the science of the senses, but of mastering it. The science of the senses is not to be trampled or destroyed, but mastered.

social order: Dear attendees! I would like to talk today about the threefold social order in such a way that some light can be shed on what has been called the land question in modern times from the point of view of the economic facts that my remarks will deal with. It is a peculiarity of the idea of threefolding that through it we learn to see that certain discussions and agitations in the old style must cease if we are to make any fruitful progress at all — for these discussions and agitations have, after all, developed out of the conditions that led us into decline.

The land question is something that interests broad sections of society because the price, and also the availability and usability of land, is closely related to human destiny and to people's living conditions. Isn't it true that everyone is directly aware of how land prices are factored into what you have to pay for your apartment, and how they are factored into the price of food? One need only reflect a little and one will find that what originates from land has its effects on all other economic conditions. Depending on the land prices one has to pay for one's food, one has to be paid for any occupation one is in, and so on. But it is not only these vital questions, which directly affect people, that are connected with humanity's relationship to land and property, but also many more far-reaching cultural and civilizational conditions. We need only think about how the relationship between the countryside and the city is connected to land and property, and how what then is the difficulty or ease of living conditions in cities is connected to conditions in the countryside. From these, in turn, it will become clear what can develop in the city itself. Depending on how wealth or prosperity is distributed in a city due to a particular relationship between the countryside and the city, what we call our public intellectual life develops in the city — at least under our modern cultural conditions. Of course, you can also become a lonely mystic in the countryside; but in the context of modern science, technical operations, and the art business, you can basically only stand if you have some kind of relationship to city life. This is something that is immediately apparent from even a superficial observation of life. And many other things could be mentioned that would already show how the land question - and with it the question of the relationship between the city and the countryside - cuts deeply into our entire cultural situation. Therefore, the land question must also be connected in some way with what has driven us into the decline of these cultural conditions.

Now, the more recent treatment of the land question is particularly related to the fact that the injustice of the increases in the value or price of land has been noticed by a large number of people. It has simply been noticed how little it has to do with human labor whether one piece of land or another can increase in value over a certain period of time. I know how great an impression a very well-known land reformer repeatedly made when he presented the following to his audience in fundamental lectures: Imagine that someone owns a piece of land that he has bought with the intention of building a factory near it, or that the city will expand towards this piece of land, or that a railroad will be built past it, or something similar. He bought this piece of land with the knowledge that such circumstances would cause its value to increase quite considerably in the next few years. He bought the piece of land at the very moment when he had to live with the foresight that he would spend the next three years in prison. After buying the property, he goes to prison, stays there for three years, and when he comes out, his piece of land is worth five times as much as it was before. The man has done nothing to increase the value of his property by a factor of five except to serve three years in prison. These are things, ladies and gentlemen, which naturally have an extremely strong effect when one wants to make something clear with them. And one cannot even say that these things work unfairly. Here something works that is, quite rightly, easily understood, because it can be exactly so. And then – I would like to say – one can omit many things, then it follows from such insights that, of course, the whole [way of] integrating land value into our economic process is something that cannot continue like this, that it must be subject to reform in some way.

And now the most diverse reforms have been introduced, but they all point in the same direction: Henry George, Adolf Damaschke, and many others in between. What all these reforms have in common is the idea that land, to a greater or lesser extent (the exact form is not so important here), must be something that belongs to the community, so to speak. Not that all land reformers want direct nationalization of land, but they do want a very substantial percentage of the particularly large increases in value to be delivered to the community as a “value increase tax” – a percentage that perhaps almost brings the land back to its former value if it has increased in value without the owner's merit. One can also think of other forms in which the land is, to a certain extent, transferred into a kind of common property. But it is undoubtedly obvious that the person who has harmed his fellow human beings to such an extent that they felt compelled to lock him up in prison can, when he returns after three years, justifiably be required to hand over to the community the increased value of his land.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, Damaschke emphasizes that he is not thinking of extending the same fate that he inflicts on land in this way to any other means of production. He demonstrates how the other means of production increase their value in a completely different way within human property; he proves that increases in the value of the means of production take place in a completely different ratio, which cannot be compared at all with the increases in the value of land, which occur frequently. Now one can say that something like this is certainly plausible and cannot really be treated in any other way than by agreeing in a certain sense.

But, ladies and gentlemen, you have no doubt seen that there are nationalizations today, that is, the transfer of what would otherwise be produced purely by private enterprise and for which the equivalent value is received privately, into the administration of a certain collective. But one cannot say that the experience that humanity has had in such matters in recent years is one that is universally satisfactory. Because I believe – at least some of you will have noticed something about it – that not all people fared as well as they should have done in terms of rationing, that is, in a certain sense of communization, for example, of food and other things. I believe that some people have experienced a certain hoarding during these years, when a great deal was communized.

And the social impulse that is to be given with the threefold order is not at all willing to deceive itself and deceive others, but is willing to give such impulses that do not just remain on paper and serve a certain type of person, while others are able to avoid the things in question, and to do so in abundance. The impulse that is to be given by the threefold social order is meant to be a reality impulse that actually realizes what it intends. Only someone who knows life can truly understand what the impulse for threefolding seriously wants. Anyone who strives to understand life and truly understands life will have no doubt that there can also be hoarding of land value increases if land is communized in the way that land reformers want, who think out of the old ideas. It is quite possible, in both the Leninist and the Damaschkean system, to render ineffective through all kinds of back doors what enters the world as a law. The impulse for the threefolding of the social organism simply cannot, because it wants something real, close itself off from the fundamental insight that social reality truly cannot be made by those laws that arise when the old social and state ways of thinking and imagining are continued. It depends on the people and on that social organization, on that social organism, which alone ensures that people find no means of unfairly or immorally circumventing anything that lies within the scope of that social organism. We must come as close as possible to such a life-affirming approach.

We can look at what we call the threefold social order from a variety of perspectives. We can consider the points that I initially set out in the Key Points, so to speak, to provide a first impetus. One can also characterize the necessity for threefolding from other sides, as I and a few others have been doing for more than a year here in Stuttgart. One can, for example, also assert the following points of view; one can say: In the course of the development of modern humanity, we have come to the point where we simply can no longer bear certain institutions because of the way we think today, and our entire human state of mind demands other institutions. The fact that we have such chaos throughout the world arises precisely from the fact that certain conditions that have arisen from the development of humanity in recent centuries can no longer be tolerated by people of the present. One person feels vaguely that the conditions can no longer be borne; he hears Damaschke speak and hears that an enormous amount of injustice depends on the fact that a convict can quintuple his land ownership in three years without earning anything. Another is presented with Marxist theories and accepts them. A third is told: if we do not protect the old institutions and the old so-called nobility, then the whole world will descend into chaos, so we must protect it.

But basically, the reasons why people are dissatisfied with the current situation lie deep within the human being; and today it is already the case that what is developed as programs are basically only dreams, only illusions that people delude themselves with. They do not even come up with what they actually want. And so one person makes some theory or other out of their previous habits, which he calls logical. It is already the case today that basically it depends only on whether a person lives in the proletariat or was born in a Prussian Junker house, whether he is a Marxist out of the old habits of life or a conservative in the sense of Mr. von Heydebrand and the Lasa. These programs, which are made from left and right, actually have nothing to do with reality today. And one can say: If something like a Reichstag election takes place today, what is said on this occasion is about the same as if an evil world demon were dreaming and these dreams were transferred into the consciousness of people, party members and party leaders, and people were talking about something that basically has nothing to do with what is supposed to happen. Because humanity today is moving towards a very specific goal. It is just unclear about this goal.

First of all, humanity feels that things cannot go on as they have done so far with spiritual matters, with the order of spiritual matters. This is simply because, despite all materialism - which is very, very much in the style that I also discussed in yesterday's public lecture - filtered spirituality is present in the abstractions to which people devote themselves today, the proletariat, for example, most of all. Although this proletariat seems to be most concerned with “realities”, “production conditions” and the like, it surrenders to spiritual abstractions and can never arrive at any institutions that grasp reality. People feel that they must hold on to something spiritual, and the spiritual must also be there to intervene in social life, to form the social structure of the social organism that is, after all, inhabited by people. What, then, has basically been shaping the structure of our social organism to this day? The spirit? No, I think it is not the spirit. If, for example, I inherit a large country estate from my father, it is something other than spirit; it is a natural connection, it is blood. And blood is the thing that, together with all kinds of other circumstances that have become attached to it, can still bring a person into a certain position today. And the spiritual position of the person depends on this position. He can absorb certain educational content purely by being placed in a certain social position as a result of old circumstances, which in turn are largely based on blood ties. Basically, humanity initially feels this as something that can no longer be tolerated in the spiritual life. Instinctively, humanity feels that instead of everything being determined by blood, as it has been since time immemorial, the spirit must have a say in social institutions in the future. True, in order to be a companion of that which has developed [in this way in the past] and which can no longer be tolerated today, the Church has indeed submitted to that council decision, which was made at the eighth ecumenical council in the year 869 in Constantinople, where, as it were, the spirit was abolished, where it was decreed that the human soul may indeed have individual spiritual qualities, but that man consists only of body and soul, not of body, soul and spirit. Under this world view, which spread throughout the civilized world, the demands of the spirit were suppressed, and in the whole activity of spiritual life that which is not determined by the spirit could develop.

And today, from the bottom of their hearts, people want the spirit to have a say in determining the social structure. But this can only happen if the spiritual life no longer remains an appendage of the state that emerged from old blood conquests, but if the spiritual life is placed on its own, if the spiritual life works only according to the impulses that lie within it. Then we can assume that the leading figures in this spiritual life will do what is incumbent upon them — we will talk about some more of what is incumbent upon them in a moment; after all, the “Key Points” mention many things — namely, to guide people into the social structure according to their abilities, their diligence and so on, and that they will do so purely through the knowledge of natural conditions, without laws, purely through the knowledge of natural conditions. And one will have to say: In the field of spiritual life, which will stand on its own and work from its own impulses, it is the knowledge of the actual that will be the determining factor. Let us say, then, briefly: spiritual life, the spiritual part of the social organism, demands as its right knowledge [of the actual forces], but this knowledge must be the knowledge of the power of action.

Let us now turn to the second part of the social organism, the legal or state part. Here we come upon something that is not so subject to the external as is spiritual life. My dear audience, our entire social organism, insofar as the spiritual works in it, is bound to what appears with each new generation, yes, what leads new forces into the social organism from indeterminate depths with each new human being. Take the present moment. Are you in any way allowed, on the basis of the conditions of the present time, to set up any kind of organization that determines the way people live together in a very specific way? No, you are not allowed to do that! For with each individual human being, new forces are born out of unknown depths; we have to educate them, and we have to wait to see what they bring into life. We must not tyrannize what is brought into life through the spiritual gifts by existing laws or an existing organization; we must receive what is brought to us from spiritual worlds with an open mind, we must not tyrannize and dogmatize it with what is already there. Therefore, we need such a link in the social organism that works entirely out of freedom, out of the freedom of human potentialities that are constantly being reborn into humanity.

The second link in the social organism, the state-legal life, is already somewhat less dependent on what comes in from spiritual worlds. For, as we know, it is people who have come of age who are active in the field of the legal life, the life of the state. And, ladies and gentlemen, when we come of age, we have actually already been seized by a great deal of mediocrity. In a sense, the levelling of the philistines has hit us in the neck. And in so far as we are all equal as mature human beings, we are already - and this is not meant in a bad sense - in a sense a little caught up in the schoolbooks of philistinism. We are caught up in that which can be regulated by laws.

But you will say: Yes, we cannot make all intellectual life dependent on children; but there must also be intellectual ability and intellectual diligence beyond the age of majority. Not really, however paradoxical it may sound. For our abilities that go beyond the average, when we have passed our twenties, are based precisely on the fact that we have retained what we had in childhood as a disposition and so on. And the greatest genius is the person who carries the powers of childlikeness the most into their thirties, forties and fifties. One then only exercises these powers of childlikeness with the mature organism, the mature soul and the mature spirituality, but they are the powers of childlikeness. Unfortunately, our culture has the peculiarity of trying to kill these powers of childlikeness through education, so that in the smallest possible number of people, childish peculiarities remain into old age, and people become un-philistine. Because actually, all non-philistinism is based on the fact that the preserved childhood powers precisely un-philistinize, that they break through the later philistinism.

But because something is emerging that does not have to be continually renewed in relation to the present needs of humanity's consciousness, in modern times the conditions of legal and state life can only be regulated by laws on a democratic basis. Laws are not insights. With insights, we must always confront reality, and from reality we must receive the impulse for what we are to do through insights. This applies to education and to everything else, as I have shown in the “Key Points”, that it must proceed from the spiritual member of the social organism. But how is it with laws? Laws are given so that state-political life, legal life, can exist. But one must wait until someone needs to act in the sense of a law, only then must one concern oneself with this law. Or you have to wait to apply the law until someone breaks it. In short, there is always something there, the law, but only in the event of something possibly occurring. The essence of eventuality is always present, the casus eventualis. This is something that must always underlie the law. You have to wait until you can do something with the law. The law can be there; if it does not affect my sphere, then I am not interested in the law. There are many people today who believe that they are interested in the law in general, but it is as I have just indicated – if one is honest, one must admit this. So: the law is something that is there, but that must work towards eventuality. This is what must now underlie the legal, state and political aspects of the threefold organism.

With the economic aspect, we cannot get by with law alone, because it is not enough to merely issue laws about whether this or that should be supplied in a certain way from these or those circumstances. You cannot work for eventualities. A third element comes into play alongside knowledge and the law: it is the contract, the specific contract that is concluded between those who do business – the corporations and associations – which does not work towards the eventuality as the law does, but towards the very specific fulfillment. Just as knowledge must prevail in intellectual life and as the law must prevail in political and legal life, so must the contract prevail in economic life, in all its ramifications. The system of contracts, which is not based on contingency but on commitment, is what must bring about everything you find described in the “Key Points” as the third link in the social organism.

We can therefore say that we have three illustrative points of view from which we can understand what these three elements must be like in essence. Everything in life that is subject to knowledge must be administered in the free domain of the spiritual element. Everything in life that can be harnessed into laws belongs to the state. Everything that is subject to binding contracts must be incorporated into economic life.

Dear attendees, if people believe that what has been explained in the “key points” is a few crazy ideas, they are very much mistaken. What is expressed in the “key points” can be discussed from the most diverse points of view, because it is taken from life. And you can describe life as it is in a tree that you photograph: from one side you have this aspect, from a second side you have a different one, from a third, fourth side there is yet another image and so on. That is the peculiar thing: When something comes from life, when it is not just a complicated utopia or a complicated idea, but really comes from life, then you can always find new aspects, because life is manifoldly rich in its content. [Threefolding takes this diversity of life into account.] Basically, you can never stop learning to see the necessities of the threefolding of the social organism [everywhere in this diversity]. But it is not something vague and nebulous, but something that can be grasped in the sharpest terms, as I showed you today with reference to knowledge, law and contract.

Now the point is to say to oneself: one must work in the direction of threefolding, and one can work from the ordinary real conditions today in the direction that is given by finally breaking down this social organism into three interacting administrative sub-organisms. And we must finally recognize that all the answers we give ourselves, based on old conditions and which actually only lead to a reorganization of the old conditions, are outdated today. Therefore, when the land reformers say that those whose land ownership has increased in value without their merit, without their work, must deliver such and such a large portion to the state as a tax, they are counting on the old form of the state. They do not consider that this state, too, must be reformed. They do not consider that it can only be one link in the social organism. That is the strange thing, that even the most radical reformers of the present time cannot imagine that something must be newly created out of the depths of the social conditions of humanity. And they cannot conceive that everything that must be achieved today cannot be achieved if, on the other hand, what is at stake is forced into the old forms. The state remains, even if it puts into its coffers what it takes from the real estate speculators, and perhaps lets it flow back to them or to other people in ways that are still possible. But examine what follows from the idea of threefolding for the establishment of the social organism: if you seriously take up the idea of threefolding, if you seriously apply what threefolding is based on, then you will find that everything that is in that direction becomes impossible, that you just pour the old nonsense into a different form.

For what actually is land? You see, land is obviously a means of production. We produce with land. But it is a means of production of a different kind from the other means of production. We must first prepare the other means of production through human labor, and land, at least in the main, is there without being prepared by people first. Therefore, one can say: the means of production initially take the path of the commodity; then, when they are finished, when they are handed over for their task, they are no longer a commodity. We have emphasized this repeatedly – I myself have emphasized it from this platform on many occasions –: means of production may only be commodities in the economic circulation process until they are finished and handed over to the national economic life. What are they then afterwards? Then they are something that is subject to political or state life, to democracy, and that with reference to the work that people have to do through these means of production, in that they must get along with each other as responsible human beings. The means of production are something that is subject to state life, in that they pass from one person to another, so that it is always the person who needs the means of production who really has them. But they are also something that is subject to the institutions of spiritual work. For it is not out of old inheritance relationships, but out of the institutions of spiritual life that, through knowledge - as modern consciousness alone can bear it - it must now be determined how, when one no longer works with the means of production, it passes to those who, through their abilities and talents, can continue to use the means of production. Thus we can say: If threefolding underlies life, the means of production are commodities only as long as they are being produced. Then they cease to be commodities and are subject to laws and insights. Through laws and insights they fit into the social structure.

Land cannot be produced; it is therefore not a commodity from the outset. It is therefore never subject to the principle of the commodity, which is the subject of contracts. Land is therefore not at all concerned with what is contracted for. It must be gradually introduced into the social structure in such a way that, first of all, the distribution of land with a view to human cultivation is a democratic matter for the political state, and that the transition from one to the other is a matter for the intellectual link of the social organism. The living relationship in the democratic state decides who works on a piece of land for the benefit of the people. Land is never a commodity. From the very beginning, it is something that cannot be bought and sold.

What we must strive for first is not to buy and sell the land, but to ensure that what transforms the land into the sphere of human activity, legal and spiritual conditions, legal and spiritual impulses. Only someone who does not think clearly about these matters can think there is anything utopian about this. For basically it is only a change in the way something is done today: today we pay for land with money that comes from the sale of goods; that is not the truth, it is a social lie. Money used as an equivalent for land is, in the economic process, something different from money used as an equivalent for a commodity. And you see, that is something that is so difficult to see through in the present social chaos. Suppose you buy cherries, you give money for them. You buy any manor, you also give money for it. Now, when the two people who have received money, one for cherries – a sufficient amount of money, of course, it does not depend on whether it is possible in this direction – and the other for his manor, and when they mix up their money, you cannot distinguish which money was paid for the cherries and which for the manor. But precisely because one cannot distinguish between them, one is led into a pernicious and terrible illusion. Because, you see, if I draw crosses here and then small circles and were to mix them up, I would still be able to distinguish them.

But if I had no sense of the difference between crosses and little rings, then I would no longer be able to distinguish what one is and what the other is. In other words, if I were to make the crosses and little rings in such a way that I turn the crosses into semicircles and the little rings into semicircles and draw both, then it would no longer be possible to distinguish between them. But what about in reality? You see, let's say I get the cherry money and the manor money. If I mix them up, I can no longer distinguish which money comes from the manor and which money comes from the cherries. You might think: money is money. But that is the terrible illusion. It is not true. In the economic process, the little rings that come from the manor house have a different effect on the whole of human life than the little crosses that come from the cherries. It is not the money that really matters, but the after-effect of where the money comes from. And a veil is simply drawn over this; it is no longer there for human observation. And so money is the living abstraction. Everything gets mixed up without differentiation. Man is no longer capable of being with what he belongs to, what he produces with, what he works on. Everything gets mixed up through money, just as everything flows together in the unclear mystics and becomes a few abstract concepts. And just as these abstract concepts [of the mystics] are useless in our process of knowledge, so too is what people imagine about money, because it is also just an abstraction, something beside reality, and thus nothing that can be used in life.

When you think about something like this, you realize the tremendous practical importance of land in people's lives. You realize that it should never depend on whether I am the owner of the land without any interest in it, or whether I only receive my pension from the land, but am indifferent to everything else. Anyone who has a proper grasp of the national economy knows what that means: I live off the land, but basically it makes no difference to me whether I live off the land or off the proceeds, let's say, from a CriCri or poker game; basically it's all the same to me, all that matters to me is acquiring a sum of money. The fact that one is indifferent as to how one acquires a sum of money is not so important when it comes to the fact that one really only earns this sum of money. But when you receive it from something that is connected with the weal and woe, with the fate of human beings, indeed with the whole cultural configuration, as land is, when you think about it, then it is not possible to transform this land into indifferent, abstract money. For it is precisely land that makes it necessary for the person who works it, who has something to do with it and who transfers what depends on the land into the economic process – that is not the money he brings in, but the fruit that thrives on it – that he is [really completely] involved in it.

Dear attendees, land within its territory cannot be administered according to the economic categories that have emerged in modern times. Just try to calculate when someone fertilizes his land with the manure that is produced by his cattle – try to figure out how to arrive at a value statement for this manure, how to determine the market value of the fertilizer, for example, what the fertilizer would be worth if it contaminated any of the markets in the cities. This is just a drastic example. If you follow the train of thought to its conclusion, you will find that there is a huge difference in the way in which what is produced on a property fits into the economic process. Compare the way in which a property functions that is subject to so-called self-management, that is, where the person who, on the property, whether it be a small or large property, actually considers the provision of the property from his abilities , and compare it with the way a community functions and must function that is organized only to maximize its monetary yield, to get as much as it can out of it. But as we stand in public life today, things must even out, that is, the one who is a self-manager cannot help but adapt to the one who leases the estate and only draws the rent from it. Thus, through adaptation, what emerges from the concrete – and in the case of land, how the individual products must relate to each other, how one must support the other; this is the self-management out of very different motives than if the things were only brought to the money market – so little by little what emerges from the concrete, the self-management, becomes dependent on what are quite abstract monetary conditions. This has already happened, which is why we have unnatural conditions today. Land that cannot be a commodity is being commodified; this introduces a real lie into life. It is not only what is said that is false, but also what happens. As soon as land is regarded as a commodity, that is, as soon as it can be bought and sold, one lies by one's actions.

If, however, you have the threefold social order, you cannot buy and sell land. The [legal] circumstances by which land passes from one person to another are subject to state laws, which have nothing to do with the buying and selling of goods. The question of how land is transferred from one person to another is subject to the spiritual aspect of the social organism, which has nothing to do with inheritance and blood relationship, but with such things as I have described in the “Key Points”. So you see, you only need to understand what threefolding is, and if you move in that direction, you are on the way to solving the social question.

What does Damaschke want? He takes the land question, he thinks about it, and the land question is to be solved through reflection. My dear audience, real things are not solved through reflection. I would just like to know how you intend to crush sugar, chop wood or the like, or how you intend to eat, through reflection. Just as you cannot crush sugar or eat out of contemplation, you cannot solve the land question out of contemplation. One can only say: land is today part of certain human circumstances. If we now consider what people do to the best of their ability in the social organism, incorporating the impulses of the threefold social order, then the facts that arise from devoting oneself to this threefold social order solve the land question not only in thought, but [in a practical way] just as the knife breaks the sugar, as the hoe chops the wood. Likewise, the threefold social order solves the land question by the fact that the land will simply be integrated into the threefold organism in such a way that it will no longer be treated as a commodity, as it is today. It will no longer continue in an unjustified way in consanguinity, but will be subject only to what man today feels to be the only tenable thing: that the transfer of land from one person to another occurs out of spiritual knowledge, that is, out of the impulse of the spiritual member of the social organism.

You see, the land question should be solved by threefolding not through programs, not through some abstract or utopian concepts, that is, not in a similar way to how Damaschke deals with the land question, but in such a way that one says: however tricky today's land conditions may be, devote yourselves to threefolding, introduce the facts of threefolding into social life, [take up] the things that lie in the direction of this threefolding; what then happens leads the land into conditions that are beneficial for people — as far as anything on earth can be beneficial at all. Threefolding does not want to solve the burning questions through ideas but through facts. People will place themselves in these facts if they devote themselves to such ideas that depend on themselves, and not to such ideas that continue to work with old traditions. It is one thing to say that one is trying to work in the direction of threefolding, and quite another to say that the state is a good person that can do everything and does everything right. Threefolding solves the land question by divesting the land of the character of a commodity, into which it has been swept; the state does not prevent [the unjust distribution of land], it It is he who appoints the officials who fill the housing vacancies, it is he who determines how much each person is allowed to have, it is he who prevents hoarding – this must no longer be the case!

You might say that it is all right if people think the way Morgenstern [in a poem] has suggested. Someone is run over by a car. He is taken home sick. Palmström – that's the man's name – wraps himself in wet cloths, he is suffering, but he does not give in to his pain because he is a good believer in the state. He consults the law books and finds: There, at the place where I was run over, no car is allowed to drive; so no car could have driven there, because that would contradict the laws, and since it contradicts the laws, I was not run over, because: what cannot be, must not have happened. You see, it is something like this when one wants to reform something rooted in reality by saying: if the value of land increases in an unspecified way, it will be handed over to the state, which will then know how to prevent hoarding – because hoarding does not occur when the state has spoken. It is forbidden, so it does not exist.

Now, dear attendees, from this example you can see how different the whole method is, the whole way of looking at life is, into which the threefold social order brings all social life. It is not a matter of merely thinking that external institutions can be changed by taking the money of those who have too much through an institution and giving it to the state. They find this very difficult, and they have no desire to do so. If you proceed from a sense of reality and from the principles set forth in The Essential Social Questions, you will see that the point is to base the associations everywhere are supported by those who are intimately connected with what they produce or consume – the latter will be less in evidence, but the former will be in evidence.

Now, you see, above all, all circumstances are obscured, veiled, by the fact that we live in the abstraction of the money economy, as I have indicated here today and also last time on such an evening. For example, one does not observe in a proper way what the relationship is between larger goods and smaller goods. Because today one wants to have everything conveniently, one will agitate against large goods or for small goods or vice versa. But everything is led into a certain monism of abstract thinking: either only large goods are good, or only small goods are good for the national economy. But that does not correspond to reality. What is important is that, in certain circumstances, it is precisely the interaction of small and large goods, of large economies with small economies, that is the right thing to do. However, this only comes about through the associative, which is characterized as the essential in economic life in the “key points”. Large economies work together with small ones and thereby achieve the best for the national economy. It is not a matter of treating everything the same, but of ensuring that large and small goods interact according to certain conditions. Do you think it is not in line with certain real conditions that the Prussian manors, with regard to beet alone, produced 54.8% of the total production – that is, over half of the production – while in relation to the small estates they produced less than half, under 50%, of all the other things? All this is based on real conditions. It can only have a fruitful effect on the real economic process if the people who are involved in the management of the goods establish associations based on these real conditions. Then it becomes clear how the one must support the other, because then one does not work from the abstract, but from reality. And then one can determine by contracts how to balance what is now an increase in production on one side with the other, and so on. That is why it was justified for me to say [at the beginning]: I want to speak to you about the conditions in the threefold order in such a way that they can shed light on the land question. I did not want to speak about the land question in the usual way, but rather I wanted to show how any question of social life must be approached when one is grounded in the threefold social order. And you can approach this question very concretely, while you can never approach this question in an orderly way from the old conditions.

You almost have to be like Pastor Planck when you think: social organism, threefold order — these are three triangles next to each other, and nothing goes from one into the other. No, the threefold social organism is really an organism, and one always plays into the other, so that in each of the three members there is something of the other two. In the human organism it is the same: not only the nervous-sensory system is at work in the head, but rhythm and digestion also take place in it. Thus, in economic life, public life also plays a role, it only has its own center of administration, and so in economic life the spiritual also plays a role, precisely in the transition of the means of production from one to the other.

But we see this interplay in much more everyday things. Take, for example, an aspect of public life where three things flow into one: that is, social intercourse. On the one hand, social intercourse is connected with land and property because it needs the street. But because the traffic area, streets and so on, cannot be privately owned, it can also not be a commodity, it can be seen that we have to get out of the commodity, that at least this part of land and soil cannot be considered a commodity. But our whole culture is also connected with the traffic system. Actually, all traffic is subject to three aspects. [We can ask:] What is subject to traffic? Firstly, goods; secondly, people; thirdly, messages. You can place everything that is subject to traffic in any of the three categories: messages, people, goods. You see, because goods are included in traffic, what relates to the movement of goods must be regulated according to contracts, according to the impulses of economic life. What relates to people is regulated by state life, these are the legal relationships. The movement of people must also be regulated according to legal relationships. Communication is subject to spiritual life; it is spiritual life in intercourse. And you will find how the three sides of the threefolded system of intercourse must be administered, something that the old institutions have not achieved. Calculate for yourself what an absurdity it is that in our country goods and messages are still handled in the same way by the same institution, that postal packages and messages are delivered, which do not belong together at all and for which there is no necessity in the external institutions. But the old state institutions were unable to separate the parcel service from the postal service, so that one interferes with the other. If you take a look at the postal rates, you will see what a waste of money it is that the postal service is used for both messages and goods.

Especially where life must begin to be practical, especially where life today has become too narrow for us because it is no longer practical – in every nook and cranny, impracticality sits – there threefolding is called upon to restore the practical. Only one thing belongs to this threefolding: a little courage. However, anyone who does not dare to take away the postal packages from the postal service and hand them over to the ordinary railway service, anyone who always raises objections and does not do the actual math to see what one or the other means, will never understand the threefold social order. For threefolding is based precisely not on holding on to old institutions, not on holding on to ideas of old human vignettes, of old state vignettes and so on, but this idea of threefolding is based precisely on the consideration of real conditions.

For, ladies and gentlemen, one cannot expect the threefold social order impulse to deal with reality and practice in such a way that it now indicates how a Privy Councillor or a government councilor will position himself in the threefold social order organism. Yes, that is more or less the kind of question that is asked. This is just one of the grotesque questions. One cannot say how a privy councillor and a government councillor will fit into it, but it is not necessary to state this. The spiritual, legal and economic relationships between people will be clearly regulated according to knowledge, law and contract, but within these three areas, some things that were previously highly valued will no longer exist. But, my dear audience, must we not admit that in the old regime, people sometimes paid more attention to whether someone was a privy councillor than to what he achieved and what he did for the social organism? But in reality, it is not important whether someone is a privy councillor or not, but what they achieve for the social organism. Therefore, the idea of threefolding must look beyond what still comes from the old days as a vignette, if we do not want to face the complete downfall of the Occident. It must look at what must arise in the new era as the fruit of the work that a person accomplishes in some form in the service of the threefolded, but entire social organism.

After Rudolf Steiner's speech, various personalities asked questions:

Walter Johannes Stein: Land is a finite totality. So there is only a certain amount of land. A certain number of people live on it. Therefore, one can calculate how much land there is for each individual. Now I would like to ask whether such a calculation has any real value, that is, whether it provides a measure that can be used for economic purposes. Or is it just idle statistics?

Hans Kaltenbach: Dr. Steiner has not presented all the findings of the

German land reformers; in his remarks he only mentioned the tax on the increase in the value of land. But this would only account for a small part of the proposed land reform. The introduction of a land rent tax is clear proof that the land reformers do not want laws in the sense of the old state system. What they have in mind is a contractual development that has nothing to do with old lawmaking. It is based on the idea that everyone must pay a land-rent tax for the use of the land, because the rent that he receives from the use of the land should be donated to the community. This procedure does not involve parliamentary laws or laws in the old sense at all, but many individual contracts.

A participant in the discussion: But in the end it is the state that collects the land rent tax.

Another participant in the discussion: No matter how you look at it, without land reform there can be no progress; it must be there as the basis for the further development of our society.

Walter Johannes Stein: Dr. Steiner has often described the threefold social order to us as a functional threefold order and not as a threefold order of areas. However, many people are mistaken; they think of each area separately and with a corporation at the top. This is therefore a misconception. I would like to ask what such a falsely structured social organism would actually look like.

Hermann Heisler: How does one come by a dwelling, and how does an exchange of dwellings take place? How is a house built? The land is a means of production; it is made available by the spiritual organism. When the house is finished, is it no longer a means of production? Most people would like to have a small garden. How is that to be done, since there is not so much land available? What role does the legal sphere play in the administration of land and property?

Rudolf Steiner: Dearly beloved! It is true that land and property are not made of rubber and cannot be expanded at will, and it is therefore also true that there must be a certain connection between a self-contained area of land and the people living on it. Now the thing that plays here as an ideal-real relationship is that, in fact, simply by being born, a person effectively, so to speak, occupies a piece of land – this corresponds to the total available land area, divided by the number of previous inhabitants of the land, plus one. In fact, at birth, each person ideally and actually claims the piece of land that falls to them, and a real relationship is simply formed between the available land area and what the newborn person claims in this way. That is a real relationship. But it is not true, in fact, in this social reality, not everything goes according to plan. The laws – I now mean natural laws, not state laws – are there, but they are only approximations. If, for example, different plants live in a certain area and one type of plant develops particularly strongly, it displaces the other type of plant; it can no longer grow. If it is essentially the case that this one piece of land, which I have been talking about, becomes much too small for a newborn human, then, so to speak, the valve is opened and emigration, colonization and so on occurs of its own accord. When the population increases in a particular area, it is possible to check whether more fruitfulness can be drawn from the soil than in earlier times. This has essentially been the case, for example, with the soil of former Germany.

So there is a relationship between the human being and a certain piece of land, as Dr. Stein indicated. We must be clear, however, that this relationship is an ideal-real one, which, however, when threefolding becomes reality, is always decided by contracts, insofar as goods are produced on the land. The land is administered by people, and the people who administer the land must enter into a relationship with each other simply because they do not all produce the same products. They must conclude contracts, and once they have concluded contracts, there must be something to ensure that they carry them out. So what happens in the mutual dealings of the people who cultivate the soil is subject to the legal, political and state relationships. But what happens when a single area of land passes from one person to another is subject to the spiritual law, which is formed in an independent, emancipated spiritual life and flows into the administration of the land. The legal relationships intervene in the interactions of the people who manage the land; these are relationships that can only be regulated by law. When the threefold social order intervenes in this way, it becomes really apparent whether the land is still sufficient or not, or whether colonization relationships are somehow being created — but not by mere instinct, but by an instinct guided by reason.

On the whole, however, it can be seen that something strange is happening. There is something in the most ordinary, everyday life that regulates itself beautifully, although, of course, only approximately. It regulates itself quite well, although people can do nothing about it through state laws or anything else: namely, the ratio of the number of women to the number of men on earth. It has not yet been possible – and it will not be possible in the way the Schencks dream – to regulate by any state laws or anything else that there are approximately as many men as women on earth. Imagine what it would be like if there were only 1/5 women and 4/5 men or vice versa.

It is better to leave it to the laws, which work together as harmoniously as the laws of nature. Once the threefold social order is really in operation, what arises will also adapt to the circumstances. For example, not all people will pursue scholarly occupations and see this as something special. Circumstances will now develop that will, for example, bring a suitable number of people to a certain area of land, so that the fertility of the area that ideally corresponds to the individual corresponds to the existence of that individual. Even if, in a figurative sense, five or a hundred such areas are managed by a single person who has the special ability to do so, what is cultivated on these areas still benefits the others.

Now, I did not understand the second question from Dr. Stein. It seems to me that he asked what would happen if the three areas of the social organism were wrongly structured.

I have already mentioned that today people take great pleasure in engaging in all kinds of “Traubism”. They accuse anthroposophically oriented spiritual science of borrowing from Gnosticism, of borrowing from Indianism, of borrowing from the Egyptian Isis mysteries. One writer has even discovered that a very old book, said to come from the Atlantic regions, contains what spiritual science copies and so on. This is gradually becoming a technique, so to speak, [to make such claims], although they are actually blatant untruths, and in many cases outright lies. Because it is of course quite simply like this: if I write a mathematics textbook today and it contains the Pythagorean theorem, and I am counting on readers who have not studied it, then I will write what they need to know. But if something is added after the Pythagorean theorem that Pythagoras did not have, the reader must not say that the whole thing is borrowed just because I was obliged to say what was already there. The point is always to tie in with the known and then add the unknown. It is dishonest when the Traubists then come and say that it is borrowed from Gnosticism and so on. One must know what a blatant untruthfulness is being practiced on this very page. You see, if you are an official representative of a modern confession, you are already very, very much inclined not to tell the truth. As a professor, you are also in a strange position in relation to the real truth. But if you are both and then write a book - I will not develop the idea any further.

But you see, the same story will also start with the threefold order. Since I am not claiming that I have discovered the number three, nor that the number three has not already been applied in the most diverse ways to any physical circumstances, for example to the human being, people can also come and say: Yes, in old Arabic books there is also a threefold structure of the human being, there one has already divided the human being into three parts. But what our threefold division is about, you will find in my book 'Von Seelenrätseln' (Soul Mysteries), where I start from functional concepts. I do not say: the human being consists of three tracts. I say: there is a nervous-sensory area, there is an air and blood area, and there is a digestive area. But I say explicitly: digestion is in the whole human being; the three areas are in the whole human being. I distinguish according to the functions; there I speak of a nerve-sense activity, not of some area, and I distinguish from it the function of rhythmic activity and, thirdly, the function of metabolism. That is the human being, structured according to functions. You see how I have strictly characterized all of this as functions in the book “Von Seelenrätseln”.

Now someone discovers in an old book that in Arabia, the human being is divided into three parts, three tracts. He could then also say: There speaks someone of the threefold nature of the human organism; he has borrowed the important thing, the number three, from ancient traditions; that is not original. And furthermore, this old book is also divided according to analogies – this is something that I have just applied to a certain interpretation; read what the 'Key Points' say about analogies – in this book, the external state system is divided according to analogies; a distinction is made between areas, and at the head of each area is a prince. There are three princes at the top, so in this case too there is nothing but the number three. Well, princes – if that should ever come about, then you can take a stand on it yourselves. It does not depend on three princes; but the inner spirit is something quite different in the social threefold order, [there it depends on the functional aspect]. If one does not look at the functional aspect, the error would arise that one could have two or three parliaments side by side, as a Tübingen professor once wrote in the Tribüne. The point of the threefold order is precisely that there will not be three parliaments alongside each other, nor three princes, but only one parliament in the democratic state structure. For in spiritual life there will be no parliamentarization, but an appropriate administration will be active out of the matter, as well as in the economic sphere. So, one can allow people to have their fun looking up the threefold order in old books. But if we are to work fruitfully with the idea of threefolding, then we really must go back to the description in The Core Points.

Now to Pastor Heisler's questions: How do you get a flat? — and so on.

These kinds of questions are just too rigid. I'm not saying they're not important, they're extremely important. There is such a severe housing shortage in the world that people try to get housing in the most grotesque ways. It has even happened that someone has got married in order to find a flat so as not to be on the street. It is extremely important to know how to find a flat, but one should not color one's whole conception of threefolding with something that still thinks too much in the style of what must be overcome.

Imagine the threefold social order realized – one need not think abstractly, for when it is a question of how something should be thought, then one must look to this realization of the threefold order, however far away it may be; not everything can be answered merely in terms of goals. In the threefold organism, the human being will not only have a dwelling to look for, but will also do something else. He will be something or other, a factory director or a carpenter or something else. By being a factory director or a carpenter, one can live; for this one is remunerated. In the threefolded social organism, however, this bringing together of the human being with his work must gradually be transferred to the administration of the spiritual part of the organism: getting a home then belongs to the remuneration; that is combined. So you must not think: I am a human being and must get a place to live, but you must start from the assumption: I am not just a human being, but I also have something to do in a place, and among the things that I receive as remuneration for this — if normal social conditions prevail — is also a place to live. It is not just a matter of asking the abstract question: How do I get a place to live? but one must ask: What happens when the threefold social order is in place? - Then, at some place or other, a person, if they are a person - and that is usually the case unless they are an angel who is everywhere - receives their salary as well as a home, and that is subject to what comes from the organization of spiritual life. Or, if it is a matter of not being transferred to a new area but otherwise working in a different context, then it is subject to the state or the political sphere. But such questions cannot be posed in the abstract.

We will have to wait and see what conditions arise from the threefold order, or we will have to use our imagination to picture how conditions will develop. Then we will really be able to answer the question of how to negotiate when taking up a position somewhere, i.e. doing a job, so that we can also have a small garden and the like. These are really things that do not get to the nerve of threefolding. You can be sure that they will be regulated in such a way that you can truly have your little garden in front of the house, once the conditions are in place that are brought about by threefolding.

Likewise, the question of how houses are built needs to be addressed. What is it? It is connected with the land question. But if the land question is no longer a question of the commodity, but a question of the law and of the spiritual life, then the question of how houses are built is also a question that is connected with the whole cultural development of humanity. It is self-evident that houses are built out of the same impulses that lead a person to enter into their work. So the point is not to ask these questions in the abstract, not to ask them in such a way that the human being is torn out of their whole concreteness as an abstract being. In a living, threefold social organism, it is not the case that one is only confronted with the question of how to get a home, but one is confronted with the question in the whole concreteness of life, and there everything depends on treating these things realistically.

Mr. Kaltenbach has already said something correct [when he pointed out the importance of land rent]. Of course, I have only picked out one example, the capital gains tax. But I would have had to say exactly the same thing with regard to the taxation of land rent. But, ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to know whether the question that was raised has not already been answered? Because for me it was not important whether it was a land rent or an increase in value, but rather that in principle a tax is given to the state; Mr. Kaltenbach clearly said “tax,” and by that he means something that is given to the state. What kind of tax it is that is to be given to the state is not important. But what is important is that the state be restricted to a single link in the social organism, not the structure in which it is today. One cannot say that the land reformers do not want laws in the sense of the old state system. They do want that. They want to build something on the old state that they believe the old state could do. It never can. Of course I know what role it plays when someone has become immersed in an idea; they cannot let go of it. But I think that everything that has been said about the land tax is already answered by the spirit of what was said about capital gains.

One would like so much that the old does not reappear. One would not want just one person to come and say: I do not want the secret government councils to be just like the old secret government councils, but I want the threefold organism to produce new government councils. — [It comes out the same] whether one says this or whether one says: Yes, the land reformers do not want to give anything to the state. — But they do want to give taxes, and taxes can only be paid to the state in their present form. This gets you stuck in the question: Who should you pay tax to? And if we are talking about contracts, then, you see, no state allows itself to be bound by a contract about taxes. The situation between the state and the individual when taxes are to be paid is quite different; it is truly not a matter of contracts.

It is a matter of trying to take in a living way how the idea of the threefold social organism wants us to rethink. But this is precisely what stands in the way – even if one often admits with good will that one should and must rethink – that when one then tries to rethink, one sticks to the word, for example to the word “law”. Yes, I have already been asked the question: How should the state introduce the threefold order? That's it: we have to get out of our habitual ways of thinking and speaking. We have to come to sharply defined thoughts, otherwise the impulse of the threefold order of the social organism will not be understood.

Rudolf Steiner: Dear ladies and gentlemen! It must be emphasized again and again in the present situation – and I mean the very immediate present of today – that it will not be possible to make any progress in the economic, political and spiritual conditions of Central Europe unless the whole way of thinking of those people who take part in public life is changed. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in the broadest circles so far. And that is why they want to forgive me for going a little further today and, so to speak, shedding light on European cultural policy from a few historical points of view, albeit only in the form of aphorisms.

If we want to gain a point of view within the present public conditions, we must first take a close look at the contrast that exists in the state, intellectual and economic relationships between [three areas]: the first area could be called the world of the West, which includes in particular the populations that belong to the Anglo-American element and in whose wake the Romance populations are today. Then, according to the three aspects mentioned, we must sharply distinguish from that Anglo-American area in the West everything that could be called the Central European cultural area. And from this we must distinguish a third area, that is the East, the vast East, which is becoming more and more a unified area – more than one is inclined to assume here according to the very inaccurate news – an area that encompasses European Russia with all that it already dominates and will dominate even more in the future, and also a large part of Asia. It is not always sufficiently clear what considerable differences exist between these three areas and how these differences should also regulate the individual measures of the day according to the three aspects mentioned, if anything in these measures should bear fruit for the future. It is truly deplorable that we are repeatedly forced to witness how, without the awareness that new ideas are necessary for a new structure, even such important negotiations as those in Spa are conducted as if one could really continue to operate today with the same ideas that led to the absurd from 1914 onwards. I will try – as I said, only in aphorisms, and it will look as if it were characterized in a very general way, but the general includes very specific things – I will try to work out the differences between the ways of thinking in the West, the Middle and the East, and it will become clear that fruitful perspectives for the present and the future can be gained from these ideas.

We may assume that my appeal, which appeared in the spring of 1919, was misunderstood in some circles in Germany because it started from the premise that Germany had lost its true purpose since the 1870s, namely to define and gradually consolidate its state borders. One would like to say: This Germany has limited itself to creating a kind of objective framework, but this Germany has not been able to develop supporting ideas, a real substantial content, a cultural content, within this framework. Now, one can be a so-called practical person and denounce the bearers of ideals as idealists; but the world does not get any further with such practical people than to crises, to individual or then to such universal crises, as one such in 1914 has initiated. If you are a practical person in this sense, you can do business, satisfy individual interests, and seemingly also satisfy interests on a large scale; but however well the individual may do and however good his enterprises may seem to the individual, it must repeatedly and inevitably lead to crises under such conditions, and these must finally culminate in a catastrophe such as we have experienced since 1914 as the greatest world catastrophe.

Now, what is it that characterizes the Central European region, especially since the 1970s, more and more? We see that, where it comes to the actual ideological realm, from which a certain cultural content should have emerged, that within Central Europe – including in political and social life – apart from a few laudable measures, basically only a kind of theoretical discussion is being conducted. You will find almost everything that has been spent to cope with the demands of the time, more or less recorded in the negotiations - be it in parliaments or outside of them - that have been practiced between the proletarian party, which has increasingly taken on a social-democratic character, and the various other parties that, based on their interests or traditions, believed they had to fight this proletarian party. Much criticism and anti-criticism has been expressed, much has been said, but what, basically, has come out of all this? What has emerged from this talk as necessary for building a future social order within which people can live? Those of the honored attendees who have heard me speak before will know that I don't like to get involved in theories, but that I want to address the immediate practice of life when it comes to drawing broad lines. And so today, too, I want to back up what I have just hinted at with direct practice.

One of the most interesting contemporary publications is the book “The Economic and Political Problems of the Proletarian Dictatorship” by Professor Varga, in which he describes his own experiences and what he himself has done within a small, but not too small, European economic area. Varga's book is extremely interesting because it is written by a person who describes what he himself has experienced, done and what has happened to him, while he himself had the power – even if it could only last for a short time – to organize a limited area almost in an autocratic manner, to shape it socially. Professor Varga was, after all, the Commissar for Economic Affairs, that is, the Minister for Economic Affairs during the brief glory days of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, and he has described in this recently published book what he and his colleagues tried to do. He was particularly responsible for economic affairs, and he describes how he wanted to straighten out Hungary economically from a Marxist point of view – from a point of view very close to Lenin's – and he describes with a certain sincerity the experiences he had in the process. Above all, he describes in detail how he expropriated the individual businesses according to the special recipe that could be applied in Hungary, how he tried to create a kind of works council from the workforces of the individual businesses , how he then tried to combine these individual businesses into larger economic entities, and how these were then to be headed by a supreme economic council with economic commissars who were to administer economic life from Budapest. He describes in some detail how he did these things. As I said, he is a man who has gained his entire way of thinking – that is, the way of thinking that was to be put into practice immediately, that was able to operate in Europe for a few months – he has gained this way of thinking entirely as a result of everything that has taken place over the last fifty years between the Social Democratic Party and all that this Social Democratic Party has fought from the most diverse points of view. As I said, his views are very close to Leninism; he emphasizes one point in particular. It is clear to a man like Professor Varga, who describes events with a certain bull-like impulsiveness – a bull-like impulsiveness that we are well acquainted with in the party life of Central Europe – . He was firmly convinced that only the strict and rigorous implementation of Marxist principles, as advocated by Lenin with this or that modification, could bring salvation to the social organism. Now, this Professor Varga is a person who, although not very tall, does not think very deeply, but can think nonetheless. He knows – and he describes it – that basically this whole movement is supported by the industrial proletariat. Now, one thing has become clear to him from the particular circumstances, from his experiences in introducing what he wanted to realize in Hungary: although the industrial proletarians are the only people who, like himself, wanted to adhere just as strictly to the demands of Marxism and believed in them, but that the industrial proletariat, like the urban population in general, are the ones who come off worst if one really starts to do something with these principles. His very brief experience showed him that, for the time being, only the rural population actually had a chance of getting better off somehow with these principles. The rural population gets better off because these Marxist principles reduce the whole culture to a certain primitive level. However, this primitive level of culture is not applicable to the structure of urban life, at most to that of rural life in the countryside. And so Professor Varga has to admit to himself, despite being a Marxist – this is about as self-evident to him as the fact that the Pythagorean theorem is correct – he has to admit to himself: we have to prepare ourselves for the industrial proletariat and the urban population to go hungry.

Now comes the conclusion that a man like Professor Varga draws from such premises. He says: Yes, but first of all, the industrial proletariat in the cities will have idealism and will cling to this idealism even when they are starving. Well, it is of course part of the clichés of modern times that when some idea doesn't work out – an idea that one wants to believe is absolutely right – then one disguises this idea as an idealism for which one might also have to starve. The other conclusion that Varga draws is this: Well, initially things will get much, much worse in the cities and for the industrial population; but then, when things have gone bad long enough, things will get better; therefore, the industrial proletarians and the city dwellers must be referred to the future in the first place. So he says: Yes, at first you may have rather gloomy experiences; but in the future things will get better. – And he does not have before him the very tame workers' councils that we find in the West, but the very radical workers' councils that have emerged from the radicalism according to the Leninist form and as they have been introduced in Hungary. Because the people who keep the whole economic apparatus in order are not appointed by any previous governmental system, they are elected from their own ranks. And that is where Professor Varga's experience came in – he was able to experience all of this himself – he said, and this is an interesting confession: Yes, at first it turned out that the people who were selected and who were actually supposed to ensure productivity work, that they occupy themselves with loafing around and arguing, and the others see this, find it more pleasant and would also like to advance to these positions; and so a general endeavor to advance to these positions ensues. This is an interesting confession from a man who not only had the opportunity to develop theories about the reality of Marxism and Leninism, but who also had the opportunity to put things into practice. But something is even more interesting. Varga now shows how such economic commissars – who were to be set up for larger areas, and where, incidentally, a rather bureaucratic approach had to be taken – actually had neither the inclination nor the opportunity to do anything real.

You see, Varga's book about Hungary under the Soviets is extraordinarily interesting from a contemporary cultural-historical point of view, because of the descriptions, which go into great detail and are as interesting in their details as the few things I have mentioned. In the book, however, the most interesting thing was something that was written in about three lines. I would like to say that the most important thing is precisely what Professor Varga says when he talks about the tasks of the economic commissioners and how they were unable to fulfill these tasks. He says: Yes, but these economic commissioners will only gain in importance and significance in the future if the right people are found for their positions. Professor Varga does not seem to realize the powerful confession contained in these three lines, which are among the most interesting in the whole book. We see, quite unnoticed, the confession of a person who, I might say with Leninist strength, has grown out of the ideas of the 20th century and who had the opportunity to turn these ideas into reality; we see the confession [to the contrary] of what has been preached over and over again in almost every Social Democratic meeting: Yes, it is wrong, thoroughly wrong, to believe that history arises from ideas, from the genius of individual personalities; rather, it is true that personalities themselves and all the ideas they can develop arise from economic conditions. It was said again and again by these people how wrong those people were who relied on ideas and personalities, and how one should rely solely on the conditions of production, which, as a superstructure, drive out of themselves the guiding ideas. Now a man comes along and actually introduces [Marxist ideas], and he says: Yes, these ideas are all very well, but they can only be implemented when we have the right personalities for the job. One can hardly imagine that what makes up the essence, the nerve, the innermost impulse of the way of thinking of such a person as Varga, this Central Economic Commissar, this Minister for Economic Affairs in Council-Hungary, could be more ad absurdum. He shows quite clearly that the future-oriented ideas concocted in the Central European regions were bound to fail the moment one set out to build anything positive out of them. One has only to read these descriptions and hear these confessions to see how powerless such a person really is, who has been driven to the surface to take the lead in a country that is, after all, important, and to what conclusions such a person comes in the economic field.

But it is also interesting to see what such a person comes up with in the area of state. You see, here one must already hold Professor Varga's remarks together with the circumstances of the time. Perhaps you remember how, in recent decades, more and more complaints have been raised from a wide variety of sources that all offices are being flooded not with technical or commercial specialists, but with lawyers. Do you remember how much was said about this fact from the workings of the old state? In other matters, too, notably in the nationalization of the railways, the actual specialists were always pushed into the background, while the lawyers were the ones on whom all the emphasis was placed and who held the most important positions. Now, how does Professor Varga talk about the lawyers, to whom he also counts himself, incidentally? How does he talk about other state officials, state leaders, state officials? He talks about them in such a way that he says: No consideration is given to them at all, they are simply abolished, they cease to have any significance; the lawyers of all kinds must join the proletariat, because they are not needed if one wants to socialize economic life. Note how two things collide here: the elitist legal state, which has driven lawyers to the surface, and the socialist state, which declares this entire system of jurisprudence unnecessary. So, in the socialist state, lawyers are simply eliminated, no thought is given to them. They are people who are no longer counted on. They are not taken into account when one wants to create a new social order. And the intellectual life is simply regulated by the economic state on the side. That is, of course, it was not regulated at all in the few months of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Therefore, Varga has no experience there; he presents only his theories. And so we see how this Professor Varga, who has written a remarkable work in the current literature, I might say in a world-historical sense, we see how this man is not rooted in reality at all. At most, he is rooted in reality with the only trivial sentence, with the only matter of course: If you want an office to be properly run, then you have to put the right person in it. Everything else is nonsense, worthless stuff; but this worthless stuff should have become reality in a field that is not narrowly defined after all. Of course, such a person finds all sorts of excuses for the fact that the Hungarian Soviet Republic came to an end so quickly – due to the Romanian invasion and whatever else. But anyone who looks deeper into these things must say to themselves: simply because Hungary is a smaller area, so because all the disintegrating and subversive forces had a shorter way from the center of Budapest to the periphery of the country, therefore what is still to come in the East, in Russia, where the distance from the center of Moscow to the periphery is greater, has already manifested itself in Hungary, where the path is shorter, and will manifest itself even more so, albeit in things that can cause us great concern.

You see, basically we are dealing with only two types of leading personalities, of truly leading personalities. On the one hand, we have those leaders who, like the present Reich Chancellor - one still says “Reich Chancellor” - play an ancient role in international negotiations, still working with the most hackneyed ideas. On the other hand, we have personalities like Professor Varga, who wants to establish something new - something new, but only new in that his ideas lead more quickly to dismantling. The ideas of the others also lead to a reduction, but because they do not proceed so radically, the reduction is more sloppy and slower; when Professor Varga comes with his ideas, it is more thorough, more radical.

Let's take Western ideas for a moment. As I said, there is a lot that can be described, and I could go on until tomorrow, but I would just like to give a few points of view. You see, you can think as you like about these Westerners, especially about Anglo-American cultural policy, from a moral point of view or from the point of view of human sympathy and antipathy. For all I care, you can even call it an uncultured policy; I don't want to argue about matters of taste. I want to talk about world-historical and political necessities, about that which worked as an impetus in English politics during the same decades in which there was so much theoretical discussion in Central Europe that Varga's ideas were the first to emerge. If you look at this English policy, you will find that it is based, above all, on something that is a trait, a basic trait – it does not need to please anyone, but it is a basic trait – through which ideas work, through which ideas flow.

How can one properly characterize the contrast between this Central Europe and these Western, Anglo-American countries – including, of course, the colonial offspring in America? One would like to say: it is extraordinarily characteristic that in this train, which goes mainly through the trade policy, through the industrial policy of the Western countries, something is always clearly noticeable - I do not say understandable, but clearly noticeable - something that also expresses itself as an idea. In 1884, an English historian, Professor Seeley, described the matter in the book “The Expansion of Great Britain”. I will quote to you in his own words, preferably the few sentences that express it clearly and distinctly, what it is all about. Seeley says in his book “The Expansion of England”: “We founded our empire partly, it must be admitted, imbued with the ambition of conquest, partly out of philanthropic intentions, to put an end to enormous evils.” - He means evils in the colonies. That is, it is quite consciously aimed at an expansionist policy - the whole book, of course, contains this idea - an expansion of Britain's sphere of influence over the world. And this expansion is sought because it is believed that this mission, which involves the use of economic expansion forces, has fallen to the British people - much as a certain mission fell to the Hebrew people in ancient times. A historian says: In those people who trade in England - I mean trade, who are industrialists, who are colonizers, who are state administrators, in all these people lives a closed phalanx of world conquest. That is what this historian Seeley says. And the best people in England, who also know from the secret societies what it is all about, explicitly emphasize: Our empire is an island empire, we have sea all around us, and according to the configuration of this our empire, this mission falls to us. Because we are an island people, we must conquer out of ambition on the one hand and try to eliminate the evils that exist in completely uncultivated countries out of philanthropy – real or imagined – on the other. All this is based on popular instinct, but so based on popular instinct that one is always prepared to do one thing and not do another if it comes to that, in order to somehow approach the great goal of extending the British way of life. What do we know about the British character? I beg you, ladies and gentlemen, to consider very carefully what I have just said. What do we know about it? We know that the English think: We are an island people. It is the character of our empire that it is built on an island. We cannot be anything other than a conquering people. If someone has a taste for saying “a robber people,” they may do so, that is not important today, only facts and political tendency matter, because they bring about change; in the area in which we are talking, judgments of taste matter nothing. So they [in England] know how to pursue a policy, especially in the economic sphere, which starts from a clear recognition of what it means to be a people in the part of the world in which they live. That is a sense of reality, that is a spirit of reality.

What is the situation in Central Europe? What is the point of constantly indulging in illusions here? You will never get ahead there. One can only make progress by facing reality. What is the situation in Central Europe at the same time when more and more crystallized the English will in what I have just spoken, which emanates from a clear understanding of the area in which one works - what is the situation in Central Europe at the same time? Well, in Central Europe, we are not dealing with a similar recognition of the tasks that arise from the territories in which one lives – not at all. Take the area from which the disaster in Europe originated, Austria-Hungary; this Austria-Hungary is, so to speak, created by modern history to provide proof of how a modern state should not be.

You see, this Austro-Hungarian Empire comprised – I cannot go into this further today, I just want to give a very brief and superficial characterization – this Austro-Hungarian Empire comprised, first of all, the Germans living in the Alpine countries and in Lower and Upper Austria, who were divided in their views , and further north the Czechs with strong German enclaves in German Bohemia, further east the Polish population, still further east the Ruthenian population, then the various other ethnic groups in the east of Austria-Hungary, mainly the Magyars, and further south the southern Slavic peoples. My dear attendees, is all of this held together by a reality-based idea in a similar way to the English: we are an island people and must therefore conquer? No! What held these thirteen different, state-recognized [language] areas of Austria-Hungary together? Held together – I may say this because I spent half of my life, almost thirty years, in Austria – they were held together solely by Habsburg domestic policy, by this unfortunate Habsburg domestic policy. One would like to say that everything that was done in Austria-Hungary was actually done from the point of view of: How can this Habsburg domestic policy be maintained? This Habsburg dynastic policy is a product of the Middle Ages. So there is nothing [to hold it together] but the selfish interest of a princely house, nothing like what the English historian Seeley expressed in 1884.

And what have we experienced in the rest of Central Europe, for example in Germany? Yes, I must say: it has always cut me to the quick when I read, for example, something like what Herman Grimm often writes, who clearly and distinctly describes what he felt during his own student years, in the days when it was still a crime to call oneself a German. People no longer know this today; one must not forget that one was a Württemberger, one was a Bavarian, a Prussian, a Thuringian, and so on, but one was not German. And to be German, a great German, that was a revolution in those days, one could only confess that in the most intimate of circles, it was a crime against the selfish interests of the princely houses. Until 1848, says Herman Grimm, among the Germans the greatest crime in the political field was what among the French was the greatest honor: to call oneself a Frenchman; to call oneself a German was [among the Germans the greatest crime]. And I believe that today many people read Fichte's “Address to the German Nation” and do not even understand the opening words correctly, because they relate them to something else. Fichte says: I speak for Germans, purely and simply, of Germans, purely and simply. He means that he speaks without taking into account the differences between Austrians, Saxons, Thuringians, Bavarians, and so on, just as Germans. He means this strictly [in the sense of] internal politics; nothing in this sentence contains anything that goes outside. Being German [in the political sense] was something that was not allowed to be, that was forbidden. It may seem almost laughable, but it was forbidden – a bit like the principle that occurs in an anecdote about Emperor Ferdinand, who was called the Benevolent, Ferdinand the Benevolent, because he had no other useful qualities. It is said that Metternich reported to him: People in Prague are beginning to revolutionize – and Emperor Ferdinand said: Are you even allowed to do that? — It was more or less along these lines of “not allowed” that the issue of being German was treated until 1848. And then, of course, this “being German” gave birth to an ideal that was later undermined by power politics; that ideal [of unity] gave birth to something that people still long for today. The best way to see how it took its fateful course is to look at the example of the aesthetician Vischer, the “V-Vischer,” who lived here in Stuttgart; he was filled until the seventies with the Greater German ideal, which is contained in the words of Fichte: “I speak for Germans, pure and simple, of Germans, pure and simple.” But then he submitted to the conditions which Nietzsche at the beginning of the seventies characterized with the words: They were an extirpation of the German spirit in favor of the German Reich. But one sees how grudgingly a man like Vischer metamorphosed the old ideal into the new one, how terribly difficult it is for him to present the new one as a truth to which he has converted. Vischer's autobiography 'Old and New' is extremely interesting in this respect. And in what I have just explained, it is often the case that when world affairs demanded world politics, nothing developed in Central Europe but the worthless discussion of which I have spoken. What really happened in the 1860s and 1870s was factional politics pitted against factional politics; what should have been born of the German ideal had been replaced. Basically, ladies and gentlemen, the Italians, the French, perhaps even the English would be glad to have a historian like Treitschke was for the Germans. You may call him a blusterer – perhaps he was, and you may not find much taste in the way he presents things – but this German did find some very nice words for the Germans, who are so dear to him. You just had to see past the bluster – you had to do that personally too. When I met him in Weimar for the first time – he was already losing his hearing at the time, so everything had to be written down for him, but he spoke very loudly, distinctly, and with emphasis – he asked me: Where are you from, what nationality are you? – I wrote down that I was Austrian. After a few brief sentences, he said to me: Yes, the Austrians, they are either very ingenious or very foolish. Of course, one had the choice of signing up to one of these categories, because there was no third one. He was a man who spoke decidedly. Treitschke is a good source of information on the struggle for power between the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns, which actually determined the fate of the German people, and Treitschke has the words to tell the Hohenzollerns the harshest truths. Now, the strange thing is that when you make policy without knowing your own territorial circumstances, when you make policy in a way that has not been seen in modern times, then unnatural circumstances arise. And when you are in the midst of something so unnatural, you long for it, just as Professor Varga longed for it and still longs for it today: yes, if only you could manage to have the right people in the right places.

But the strange thing is: in the special English circumstances, this developed naturally out of a certain sense of reality. While in Central Europe socialist and anti-socialist theories were being debated, only to be followed by attempts at social reconstruction that could lead nowhere, it was the realistic recognition of their own circumstances that brought men to the fore in the West who, in their positions, really did the right thing for what they wanted to achieve and what Seeley describes. A sense of reality brought the right men to the right place – of course, they were the wrong men for us, but it was not their job to be the right men for us. Take perhaps one of the greatest – there were many others, smaller ones – one of the most typical: Cecil Rhodes. All his activity is actually directed towards practical organization, while in Central Europe people are theorizing. In Central Europe people are theorizing about the state of the future. Cecil Rhodes, who came from a very modest background, worked his way up to become the greatest diamond king. How did he succeed? Because the strange thing is – it seems strange to us – that the Rothschild banking house, still powerful in his day, provided him with the largest world loans; it provided them to a man who had a practical hand, exactly in the direction of doing business, as Seeley describes British world politics from the British ideas that go all the way to the secret societies. For Cecil Rhodes was a man who not only did business, but again and again he went back to England, withdrew into solitude, studied Carlyle and similar people, from whom it became clear to him: Great Britain has a mission, and we put ourselves at the service of this mission. And what results from this? First of all, there is the banking house of Rothschild, [which provides him with loans] – that is, a banking enterprise that is intertwined with the state, but which nevertheless emerged from private circumstances. But then: what is a man like Cecil Rhodes capable of? He is able to regard what might be called the British state entirely as an instrument for the English policy of conquest, and to do so with a great deal of conviction, combined with a belief in Britain's mission. He is able, like many others – only he is one of the greatest – to use the British state as an instrument for this and to reflect what he achieves back onto the ever-increasing British power. All this is possible only because the English population is aware of the special world-historical task of an island people. And nothing could be opposed to this from Central Europe that would have been a match for it. What is happening in the West? An economic policy supported by personalities is growing together with state policy. Why are they growing together? Because English politics has gone completely in the spirit of modern times, and in the spirit of modern times it is only if one is able to understand ideas from the reality in which one lives. Then state politics and economic politics can grow together. But the English state is a state that only exists on paper - it is a conglomeration of private circumstances. It is only a cliché to speak of the British state; one should speak of British economic life and of the old traditions that go into it, of old intellectual traditions and the like. In the sense that France is a state and Germany is striving to become a state, Britain was never a state. But they understood the area in which they lived; they organized their economic life in a way that suited that area. You see, today people think about how England should be something else, how England should not pursue a world policy of conquest, how it should become “well-behaved”. The way many people in our country imagine it today, England could no longer be England; because what it does and has done is based on its very essence as an island kingdom. It can only continue to develop by pursuing the same policy.

What was the situation in Central Europe? There, in Central Europe, there was no development of an understanding of the territories on which one lived; there was no idea of a mission appropriate to one's own reality, this great trait was lacking. While in the British Empire, what is called a state, but is not one, was readily used by the most talented economic politicians as an instrument of English politics, things were different in [Austria-Hungary]; there one could only entertain the illusion that the territory on which one resided could be used for what should be Austro-Hungarian policy. There the things diverged that converged in England. And the study of the Austro-Hungarian situation offers something positively grotesque, because one tried to create an economic territory from a point of view from which it could not be done at all. For Austrian domestic policy would have had to be a kind of [economic domestic policy] from the very beginning. Yes, if the Habsburg domestic policy had been the policy of the Rothschild global house, then an economic domestic policy could have developed; but Austrian domestic policy could not develop into something like the policy on the Orient or the like. That did not work, things went in different directions. The same was true in Germany, although I did not have the opportunity to observe it as clearly as the Austrian situation.

One could also describe the conditions in the East and show how there was no discussion at all. In the West, all discussions had been had; they had actually been over since Cromwell's time, I would say dismissed. Afterwards, the practical developed. In the central area, there were discussions and it was believed that the practical is what arises from a merely abstract-logical necessity. Then in the East they did not even get to [such discussions], but there they simply took what was western, that a tsar, Peter the Great, carried it to the East, or that a Lenin found his way into Western discussions and carried them to the East. It is truly only the mantle that has changed, because basically Lenin is just as much a tsar as the earlier tsars were. I do not know whether he is as successful in actually wearing the mantle as it is said that Mr. Ebert does, for example, according to those who have observed him in Silesia and who claim to have noticed that he has already mastered the correct nodding in imitation of the Wilhelmine manner. I do not know whether this is also the case with Lenin. But no matter how different the mask may be, in reality we still have a tsar before us, only in a different form, who has brought the West into the East. This is the cause of the unnatural clash between the expectant mood of the entire East and the misunderstood ideas from the West. It is indeed strange that things are so for Russia, that 600,000 people control the millions of others very tightly and that these 600,000 are in turn controlled only by a few people's commissars. But this can only be the case because the person who longs for a reorganization of the world as much as the man of the East does, does not really notice how his longing is being satisfied. If someone else had come to Moscow with completely different ideas, he would have been able to exert the same power. Few people today pay attention to this, because most of them are completely immersed in unreality.

What emerges from all that I have just attempted to state in aphoristic form? It follows that in the West it will take a long time for the idea of threefolding to become popular, because of the way in which so-called state interests have grown together with economic interests. And it also follows that the European center is the area where this idea should definitely take root first, because people should realize that the old conditions have driven everything apart here. Basically, everything is already divided; we are only trying to hold it together with the old clamps that no longer apply. The threefold social order is basically already there below the surface; it is only a matter of becoming aware of it and shaping reality in the same way as what is already present below the surface. For this, however, it is necessary to finally realize that nothing can be done with the old personalities and that those who are clear about the fact that what these old personalities have been thinking since 1914 has been reduced to absurdity and that something new must take its place. That is what I tried to make clear during the disastrous World War to those who might have had the opportunity to work for the cause. And herein lie the reasons why, since the world catastrophe of world revolution temporarily ran its course, we have been trying to carry the idea of threefolding into as many minds as possible; for what we need is as many people as possible with the ideas of threefolding. During the world war, people did not understand that the fourteen abstract points of Woodrow Wilson should have been countered with the concrete threefold social order from an authoritative source. The practical people found them impractical because they have no real idea of the connection between idea and practice. Certainly, Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points are as impractical as possible. And it is perhaps the greatest tragedy that could have happened to the German people that even the man whom they counted on in the last days of the catastrophic period, who could still become Chancellor of the Reich from the old regime, was incapable of taking Wilson's Fourteen Points seriously. For the time being, these Fourteen Points have been rendered impossible by the abstract form of the League of Nations; they have shown their impracticality in practice at Versailles and Spa. But despite their abstract form, they have achieved something: they have set armies and ships in motion. And that is also what the points that come into the world through the threefold order should do; if not armies and ships, then they should at least set people in motion, so that a viable social organism could arise again. This can only happen through the threefold order — this has been discussed here from a wide variety of perspectives.

Today I wanted to discuss it from a few points of view of recent history. This recent history must, of course, be viewed from different perspectives than it is usually viewed when only the scholastic aspect of it prevails. Threefolding will lead us out of this scholasticism by freeing spiritual life. And from the liberated spiritual life, those personalities can then be placed in the places of which even a Professor Varga must say today: if we had them, then perhaps history would have turned out well. But one thing is certain: the paths of Professor Varga do not lead to those personalities who will stand in their rightful place.

After Rudolf Steiner's introduction, various personalities express their views and ask questions.

Max Benzinger: If we really want to implement threefolding, then we absolutely must go public with this idea. It is not enough simply to call for interested people to be brought along to study evenings.

Siegfried Dorfner: In the “Key Points” it says that the means of production should only cost something until they are produced. If a factory produces means of production, for example lathes, should the lathe only cost something until it is produced? But then the manufacturing factory would have no cover for it. Should the finished means of production not be paid for?

Rudolf Steiner: If you produce lathes and want to sell them as lathes, they are not yet means of production. They are still commodities and not means of production; they only become means of production when they are used in the social community for production. It is important to see the concept of the means of production in the real social process. Lathes are only means of production when they are used only as means of production; until then they are sold as commodities, and the person who buys them is a consumer.

Another participant in the discussion: We have been talking about commodities. Must we not distinguish between agricultural commodities and industrial commodities? Agricultural commodities usually produce a surplus, while industrial commodities operate at a deficit.

Rudolf Steiner: This matter will, of course, often be misunderstood today because we do not live in such circumstances that a kind of overall balance sheet would result if we were to simply include everything that is produced in this balance sheet of a closed economic area - such a balance sheet cannot be drawn up. You cannot somehow insert our current agriculture into a total balance sheet if you have so and so many [mortgage] encumbrances on the goods, and then compare that with industry. If I say that industry is fundamentally dependent on living from everything that the land produces, then we have to disregard everything that has been mixed into it in our country, which means that only a disguised total balance can be achieved. If that which cannot be a commodity ceases to be a commodity, namely land and human labor, and only that becomes a commodity which, in the sense of the threefold order, can circulate between producers and consumers, then it will be possible to draw up a balance sheet showing that the expenditures necessary for industry must always be covered by the surpluses of agriculture. It is self-evident that this is not the case at present. But we are living in times when a truly production-based total balance of a closed economic area should emerge. What I have presented has long been recognized on the economic side. You will even find Walter Rathenau emphasizing that every industry is a devouring beast, that is, that profits must constantly flow back into industry and that it must be constantly fed. But that has to come from somewhere, and it can only come from the profits of land. But in our current balance sheets, this is not expressed at all.

Mr. Roser: It is a sign of our time that a man like Varga had to realize that there was a lack of the right men. What is needed is the education of the masses. But even here in the threefolding movement, there is a lack of the right men. Such men are absolutely necessary because threefolding must be propagated on a large scale.

Emil Molt: Something really must be done. Everyone should realize that, if only for their own sake.

Another participant in the discussion: I would like to ask Dr. Steiner another question. There was an article in the Frankfurter Zeitung recently that posed the obvious question: How can spiritual life be freed at all, since it has to be financed by economic life? How does Dr. Steiner answer this question, which was not sufficiently answered at the event referred to in the article?

Rudolf Steiner: We have indeed dealt with this question very often here, as it will be with the economic support of spiritual life. And the note in the newspaper must simply be incorrect if it refers to our discussions in the threefold social order movement as a whole.

Interjection

It may well have happened that someone was unable to provide information; but how often have I myself said that the threefold order is not really about a threefold division of people, but about a division [of the social organism] into three life organizations that must necessarily develop alongside each other: spiritual, state and economic life. People will, of course, be involved in all three. And so it is quite natural that what the personalities who are part of the organization of spiritual life have to administer as the spiritual part of the spiritual life, this only forms the one link. But these personalities, who carry the spiritual life, must also live. Therefore, they will also be part of economic organizations. And there will be no difference whether such an organization consists, let us say, of teachers or musicians or of shoemakers or tailors. For the economic organization is not there to look after just one or the other area of economic life, but to support all people economically. And because they are part of the economic sphere of the social organism, they are economically supported.

One can be surprised at how things are misunderstood there. A nice scheme also appeared before our, if I may say so, three-part eyes, which was worked out by a radical social-democratic party in Halle. It is beautifully academic, isn't it, how to make schemes. There are (it is drawn) so beautifully at the top the central places of economic life - at the very top, of course, is only one. Then it is organized further down. If it worked that way, the future socialist state would be something that would correspond to the highest ideal of the bureaucracy. But at the very end, there were three smaller departments dedicated to intellectual life. And some gentlemen were so charmed by these three departments that they said, “The whole idea of threefold social order is contained in this.”

Now, this was based, above all, on the false idea that the social organism would ever be divided in this way. It should not be divided in this way, just as the human organism is not divided into three parts lying next to each other. And yet there are three parts to the human organism: We are, first of all, a head person, a chest person and a metabolic person. But it is not only the head that is a head person; the head extends to the whole human organism. The whole nervous system belongs to the head person. And the heart person is not only found in the heart; the sense of warmth, for example, extends throughout the whole body, so the whole body is also a heart person. And we have rhythm everywhere, even in the head system. The systems permeate each other. I can only explain this in the abstract, but the corporations of spiritual life will simply also be there as economic corporations. Only these spiritual corporations will have their organizations in the economic part of the entire social organism, and what they do there will not be able to interfere with the organization of the spiritual part of the threefold social organism.

Today, however, there are many reasons for having misleading views on these matters; such views have been found time and again, even among university lecturers. These university teachers should at least be part of intellectual life. But when you say to them that it should be self-evident that those who are part of intellectual life form a community with their peers in order to administer intellectual life themselves – Klopstock already spoke of a republic of scholars – you often hear a university teacher says: No, [I don't want that], because then the one who matters would not be a consultant in the Ministry of Culture, but my colleague; no, I prefer the consultant in the Ministry of Culture to be my colleague.

So the point is that we do not think in terms of anything other than the three estates, the teaching, military and nutritional estates, that we do not think in terms of anything at all [in today's social conditions], but that we are clear that people today do not live in three separate groups [in estates]. [We must be clear] that the human being is completely immersed in all three parts of the social organism. Then it will also be possible to understand how everyone who has to be active in the spiritual life or in the life of the state is nevertheless part of the economic life and must be provided for by the economic life. So it is important that people are part of the whole social organism.

The subject I addressed last Monday here in Utrecht was the question of how anthroposophically oriented spiritual science can provide a method, a scientific path for penetrating the spiritual, supersensible world.

I have pointed out how it is only possible to penetrate into this environment if man brings forth from this soul certain abilities and powers that indeed lie dormant in every soul, and if he lifts up what is ordinary knowledge to the level of vision; to a vision that, for example, comes to develop full awareness of what it means to have a soul-spiritual life independent of all corporeality. We know precisely through modern science - and with regard to the everyday life of the soul, this science is absolutely right - that this ordinary life of the soul is bound to the instrument of the body. And only spiritual scientific methods can tear the spiritual-soul life away from the body, can thereby penetrate to the being in the human being that dwells in the spiritual world before it has united with a physical body through conception or birth, that passes through the gate of death, discards the human body and again consciously enters a spiritual world.

And I continued last Monday by saying that anyone who makes such an acquaintance with man's own supersensible being is also able to perceive, behind nature's sensuality and behind everything that can be explored with the ordinary mind, a supersensible environment, an environment of spiritual beings.

What is recognized in this way as the spiritual and soul life in man, what is recognized as the spiritual essence of the world in which we live, is what actually enables us to gain a true knowledge of the human being.

Over the last three to four centuries, we have acquired a complete natural science, but we have not been able to draw any knowledge about human beings from this natural science. In developmental theory, we start from the lowest living creatures. We ascend to the human being; we regard him, so to speak, as the end link in the animal series. We learn what humans have in common with other organisms, but we do not learn what humans actually are in the world as a separate being. We can only learn this through anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. And what asserts itself in this way in knowledge ultimately also asserts itself in the feelings and impulses that modern humanity has developed in social life.

Just think how many people who, through modern technology, have developed as a new class of people, through the whole modern economy - actually under the influence of certain socialist theories - believe that what lives in people as morality, as science, as religion, as art, is not drawn from an original spiritual source, but that it is only drawn from what economic, material processes are. The theory professed by modern social democracy, the theory that has sought to become reality in such a destructive way in Eastern Europe, this theory basically sees the forces that rule history as being outside of the human. And what man brings forth in art, custom, law, religion, that appears only as a kind of smoke. People call it a superstructure that rises up on the substructure. It is like a smoke that comes out of the purely economic-material. There, too, in this placing of the human being in the practical world, the actual human being is extinguished. If we are to characterize what modern education and the modern social consciousness have brought about, we cannot say otherwise than: the human being has been extinguished.

What spiritual science, as it is meant here, is to bring to humanity again is the knowledge of the human being, the appreciation of the human being, the connection of the human being as a supersensible being to the supersensible, universal being of the world.

And only with this do we stand in true reality. Only with this do we stand on ground that leads into a truly practical life. This is what I would like to substantiate today, first in the question of education and teaching. And here, in the way it has emerged from the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach, this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has from the very beginning been conceived not as something unworldly and far removed from the world, but as something thoroughly realistic and practical. And one of the first practical foundations was in the field of education with the Free Waldorf School, which Emil Molt founded in Stuttgart and which I myself have the educational and didactic responsibility for. In this Free Waldorf School, the impulses of a true knowledge of the human being that can flow from anthroposophically oriented spiritual science are developed pedagogically and didactically.

For a long time people have been talking about the fact that education and teaching should not graft this or that into the child's soul, but rather develop what is in the human being out of the human soul. But when it is expressed in this way, it is, of course, initially only an abstract principle. The point, however, is not to have this principle intellectually, to extract something from the human soul, but to be able to truly observe the developing human soul in the child. And for that, one must first develop a sense for it. This sense is only developed by someone who is aware of how the actual individuality of the human being, the actual spiritual-soul entity from a spiritual world in which it has lived for a long time, descends; how from day to day, from week to week, from year to year, in all that develops physically and psychically in the child, a supersensible element lives; how we, as educators, as teachers, have been entrusted with something from a supersensible world that we have to unravel. When we see from day to day how the child's physiognomic traits become clearer and clearer, when we can decipher how a spiritual-soul element, sent down to us from the spiritual world, gradually unravels and reveals itself in these physiognomic traits , it is important to develop, above all, a sense of reverence for the supersensible human being descending from the spiritual worlds as the basis of a pedagogical-didactic art.

Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science makes it possible to observe the child's development from year to year. First of all, I would like to show the main stages of human development.

It is often said that nature or the world does not make any leaps. Such things are constantly repeated without actually looking at what they are supposed to mean. Does not nature constantly make leaps when it develops the green leaf and then, as if with a leap, the sepal and the colored petal and then again the stamens and so on? And so it is with human life. For the person who, unbiased by all the stimuli and impulses that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science can give him, observes this developing human life in the child, he finds, above all, not out of mystical grounds, but out of faithful observation, a leap in development around the seventh year, when the child begins to get the second teeth. Here we see how our knowledge of the soul, as it is currently used in science, has basically become somewhat exaggerated. Unless one has become completely materialistic, one differentiates between body and soul. But one speaks of the relationship between body and soul in an extraordinarily abstract way. One does not get used to observing in this field with the same kind of faithful and unprejudiced observation as one has learned in natural science. In natural science, for example, one learns that when heat appears through some process, and one has not added it, this heat was in some other form in the body. In physics one says “latent”. One says that the latent heat has been released. This attitude, which is provided by natural science, must also be adopted for the science of man, which, however, must then be spiritualized in relation to natural science. Thus, one must observe carefully: What then changes in the human being when he passes the age of changing teeth?

Now, if we really have the necessary impartiality for observation, we can see how the child, when it passes the age of seven, actually only begins to have outlined, contoured ideas, whereas before that it had no such ideas. We can see how it is only with this period that the possibility of thinking in actual thoughts, however childlike they may be, begins. We see how something emerges from the child's soul that was previously hidden in the human organism. Anyone who has acquired a spiritual eye for this matter can see how the child's soul life changes completely when the second dentition begins; how something emerges from the deepest, most hidden part of the soul and comes to the surface. Where did it come from, this thinking that now appears as a definite life of ideas? It was there as a principle of growth in the human being; permeating the organism; living as a spiritual-soul element in the growth that then comes to an end when the teeth are pushed out from within and replace the earlier teeth. When an end is put to this growth, which finds its conclusion in the change of teeth, then, so to speak, only one growth remains, for which less intensive forces are necessary. We see, then, how that which later becomes thinking in the child was once an inward organic growth force, and how this organic growth force is metamorphically transformed and comes to light as soul power.

By adopting this approach, we arrive at a science of the soul that is not clichéd, which, when it comes down to it, is simply transposed into the spiritual and is based on the same methods as those on which natural science is also based. Just as natural science is a faithful observation of a physical nature, so in order to understand the human being, a faithful observation is necessary, but now of the soul and spirit. If one learns to see through the human being in this way, then this way of looking at the human being is transformed into an artistic way of looking. It is indeed the case that today people often say, when someone expresses something like I just did: Yes, one should just look at something scientifically, in terms of knowledge; one should stick to sober logic; one should work through the intellect to arrive at abstractly formulated natural laws. This may be a comfortable human demand. It may appear to man that he would like to grasp everything in the wide-meshed logic of concepts in order to get to the bottom of things. But what if nature does not proceed in this way? What if nature works artistically? Then it is necessary that we follow her on her artistic path with our capacity for knowledge. Anyone who looks into nature and the world in general will perceive that what we bring about in natural laws through sober logic bears the same relation to the whole, full, intense reality as a drawing made with charcoal strokes does to a painting done in full color.

Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science draws from the full physical and spiritual reality. Therefore, it transforms mere logical recognition into artistic comprehension. But this also enables one to turn the teacher, the instructor, the educator into a pedagogical-didactic artist who acquires a fine sense for every single expression of the child's life. And indeed it is the case that every child has their own particular, individual way of expressing themselves. These cannot be registered in an abstract pedagogical science, but they can be grasped if one receives anthroposophically oriented impulses from the fullness of humanity and thereby gains an intuitive view of the spiritual and soul life in the human being, which then has an effect on the physical and bodily life. For what works roughly as the power of thought before the change of teeth in the growth of the child, we see more finely as a spiritual-soul activity in the child. As teachers and educators, we must pursue this from day to day with an artistic sense, then we will be able to be for the child what a real educator, a real teacher should be for the child.

I would like to give a brief description of how the first period of life, from birth to the change of teeth, and the second period of life, from the change of teeth to sexual maturity, now emerges.

In the first period, from the first to the seventh year of life, the human being is primarily an imitative being. But we must understand this in the fullest sense of the word. The human being enters the world and gives himself completely to his surroundings. In particular, he develops what he initially brings to light as his impulses of will and instinct in such a way that he imitates what is around him. Language, too, is initially learned in such a way that it is based on imitation. Between birth and the age of seven, the child is entirely an imitator. This must be taken into account. In such matters, one must be able to draw the right conclusions. If you associate with the world in these matters, people sometimes come to you for advice on one matter or another. For example, a father once told me that he had a complaint about his five-year-old child. “What did the five-year-old child do?” I asked. “He stole,” said the father sadly. “But then you have to first understand what theft actually is.” He told me that the child had not stolen out of ill will. He had taken money from his mother's drawer and bought sweets, but then distributed them to other children on the street. So it was not blind selfishness. What was it then? Well, the child had seen his mother take the money out of the drawer day after day. At the age of five, the child is an imitator. It did not steal, it simply imitated the things that its mother does day after day, because the child instinctively regards what its mother always does as the right thing to do. - This is just one example of all the subtle things one needs to know if one is to understand the art of education in a way that truly corresponds to the human being.

But we also know that children play at imitating. Basically, the play instinct is not something original, but an imitation of what is seen in the environment. If we look with unbiased eyes, we can see that imitation is at the root of play. But every child plays differently. The teacher of a small child before the age of seven must acquire a careful judgment about this, and one necessarily has to have an artistic sense to make such a judgment, because it is different for each child. Basically, each child plays in its own way. And the way a child plays, especially in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year, goes down into the depths of the soul as a force. The child grows older, and at first we do not notice how one or other of the special ways of playing comes to light in the child's later character traits. The child will develop other powers, other soul abilities; what was the special essence of his play slips into the hidden part of the soul. But it comes to light again later, and in a peculiar way, between the ages of twenty-five and thirty, in the period of life when the human being has to find his way into the outer world, into the world of outer experience, of outer destinies. Some people adapt to this world skillfully, others awkwardly. Some people come to terms with the world in such a way that they derive a certain satisfaction from their own actions in relation to the world; others cannot intervene with their actions here or there, and they have a difficult fate.

You have to get to know the life of the whole person, you have to see how, in a mysterious way, the sense of play comes out again in this sense of life in the twenties. Then you will gain an artistically oriented idea of how to direct and guide the play instinct, so that you can give something to the person for a later period of life.

Today's pedagogy often suffers from abstract principles. By contrast, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science aims to give pedagogy an artistic-didactic sense, to work in the earliest youth in such a way that what is formed there is a dowry for the whole life of the human being. For anyone who wants to teach and educate children must get to know the whole of human life. The magnificent scientific development of the last few centuries has not taken this kind of knowledge of human nature into account. Consider the social significance of really being able to give children the kind of education I have described.

When the child has now changed its teeth, or at least has got them, the second epoch of the child's life begins. Then the actual school age sets in, that which one has to study particularly carefully if one wants to pursue pedagogy from the point of view of true human knowledge. While the child up to the age of seven is essentially an imitator, from the age of seven until sexual maturity, that is, from about the age of thirteen to sixteen, there develops (and this varies from individual to individual) what the unbiased observer recognizes as a natural urge to submit to an authority, a human authority, a teacher or educator. Today, it is a sad day when one hears from all sorts of political parties that some kind of democratic spirit should enter the school; that children should, to a certain extent, already practice a kind of self-government. With such things, which arise from all kinds of partisan views, one rebels against what human nature itself demands. Those who truly understand human nature know what it means for one's entire later life if, between the ages of seven and fifteen, one has been able to look up with devoted veneration to one or more human authorities; if one has called true that what these human authorities said was true; if one felt that what these human authorities felt was beautiful; if one found that what such revered personalities presented as good was also good. - Just as one imitates until the age of seven, so one wants to believe in what comes from authority until sexual maturity. This is the time when one must be open to the imponderable influences that can come from a soul, from a personality.

We founded the Free Waldorf School in Stuttgart. Many people say they would like to attend the Waldorf School to get to know something of the method and so on of this Waldorf School. Imagine a copperplate engraving of the Sistine Madonna, and someone cuts a piece out of it to get an idea of the Sistine Madonna. That would be the same as perhaps looking at what happens in the Waldorf School for a fortnight or three weeks. You wouldn't even see anything special. Because what happens in the Waldorf School is a result of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Those who are teachers there have acquired their artistic pedagogy and didactics from the impulses of anthroposophical spiritual science. If you want to get to know the Waldorf school, you have to get to know anthroposophically oriented spiritual science above all. But not in the way one gets to know it from the outside, where people are led to believe that it is some kind of complicated, nebulous mysticism, some kind of sectarianism; no, one has to get to know this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science from the inside, how it draws from the full humanity what the human being really is as a sensual and supersensible being within the world and within time.

These things do, however, lead one to perceive the supersensible nature of the working of such an authoritative personality. Let me give an example. One could imagine a picture – and it is best to speak in pictures to children from seven to fourteen years of age, especially up to the age of ten. Let us take any picture by which we want to teach the child an idea, a feeling, about the immortality of the soul. One can think up this picture. But one can also point out to the child the butterfly pupa, how the butterfly crawls out of the pupa. And one says to the child: the human body is like the pupa. The butterfly flies out of the chrysalis. When a human being dies, the immortal soul leaves the body as the butterfly leaves the chrysalis. It passes over into the spiritual world. There is much to be gained from such a picture. But a real intuitive perception of the immortality of the soul can only be conveyed to a child under very definite conditions. If, for example, a teacher thinks, “I am clever, the child is stupid, it must first become clever” – and the teacher thinks something like this in order to make the child understand something – then the teacher may perhaps achieve something, but what really brings the child to a sense of immortality will certainly not be achieved. For only that which one oneself believes, in which one oneself is completely immersed, has an effect on the child. Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science gives you the opportunity to say: I myself believe in this image; for me, this crawling out of the butterfly from the chrysalis is absolutely the one that I did not think up, but what nature itself presents at a lower level for the same fact that, at a higher level, is the emergence of the immortal soul from the body. If I myself believe in the picture, if I stand within the content of the picture, then my faith has the effect of awakening faith, imagination and feeling in the child. These things are absolutely imponderable.

What happens on the outside is not even as important as what takes place between the feelings of the teacher and those of the pupil. It matters whether I go into the school with noble thoughts or ignoble ones, and whether I believe that simply what I say is what has an effect. I will give what I say a nuance that does not affect the soul if I do not enter the classroom with noble thoughts and, above all, with thoughts that are true to what I am saying. - That, first of all, about the relationship between the pupil and the teacher in the second epoch of life from the seventh to the fifteenth year. There would be much more to say about this, but I will only highlight a few specific points so that you can get to know the whole spirit that inspires the pedagogy and didactics that flow from anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

Then we started at the Waldorf school with really bringing out what the child should learn. We are faced with very significant questions, especially when we take the child into primary school. We have to teach the child to read and write; but when it comes to what lives in the human being, writing, the printed word, has long since become something quite abstract within human civilization, something that has taken on the nature of a sign and is no longer intimately connected with the full, original, elementary soul life of the human being. The external history of civilization does provide some information about such things, although only to a limited extent. If we go back to the various cultures, we find pictographic writing, where, however, what was fixed externally was pictorially recorded, which is what was actually meant. In older cultures, writing had not been developed to the point of the mere sign being as abstract as it is today. In fact, when we teach reading and writing in the usual way, we introduce something to the child that is not initially related to his nature. Therefore, a pedagogy and didactics that is truly based on a full knowledge of the human being will not teach reading and writing as it is usually done. Instead, we start from the child's artistic nature in our method. We do not begin with reading at all, not even with writing in the usual sense of the word, but with a kind of painting-drawing, drawing-painting. We lead the child to learn to form letters not only from the head, but from the whole human being, bringing lines and forms, even in colored drawing, onto paper or some other surface; lines and forms that naturally emerge from the human organism. Then we gradually introduce what has been taken from the artistic into the letter forms, first through writing, and from writing we only then move on to reading. That is our ideal. It may be difficult to implement in the early days, but it is an ideal of a true didactics that follows from a full knowledge of the human being. And as in this case, the essence of human nature is the basis for all education and teaching.

We start, for example, from the child's musical and rhythmic abilities because these flow from human nature and because we know that a child who is properly stimulated in a musical way around the age of seven experiences a particular strengthening and hardening of the will through this musical instruction.

Now, we try to teach the child in pictorial form what is to be taught to the child, so that the child is not introduced too early into an intellectualized life. We also note that there is an important turning point between the ninth and tenth to eleventh year of the child's life. Anyone who can observe childhood in the right way knows that between the ages of nine and eleven, there is a point in a child's development that, depending on how it is recognized by the educator and teacher, can influence the fate, the inner and often also the outer destiny of the person in a favorable or unfavorable sense. Up to this point, the child does not isolate itself much from its surroundings, and it must be borne in mind that a plant described by a child before the age of nine must be described differently than afterwards. Before this time, the child identifies itself with everything around it; then it learns to distinguish; only then does the concept of the self actually arise – before that, it only had a sense of self. We must observe how the child behaves, how it begins to formulate certain questions differently from this point on. We must respond to this important point in time for each individual child, because it is crucial for the whole of the following life.

We must also be aware, for example, that subjects such as physics and the like, which are completely separate from the human being and only attain a certain perfection by excluding everything subjective from the formulation of their laws, may only be introduced to the child from the age of eleven or twelve. On the other hand, we teach our children the usual foreign languages in a practical way right from the beginning of primary school. We see how, by not teaching a foreign language by translation but by letting the child absorb the spirit of the other language, the child's entire soul structure is indeed broadened. This is how an artistic didactics and pedagogy is formed out of this spirit. I could go on talking here for another eight days about the design of such a pedagogy and didactics as art. But you can see how what comes from anthroposophically oriented spiritual science flows directly into the practical side of education.

And how does this apply to the individual teacher? It applies in such a way that he actually gets something different from this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science than can be obtained from the rest of today's scientific education. And here we touch on one of the most significant social issues of the present day.

The social question is said to be the fundamental question of our time, but it is usually understood only as an external economic question, not really grasped in its depth. This depth only comes to mind when one becomes aware of how, in the broad masses of today's proletariat, one word can be heard again and again. That word is ideology. What does the modern proletarian mean when he speaks of ideology, according to his Marxist instruction? He means: When we develop any ideas about custom, law, art, religion, it is not something real in itself, it is only an abstraction, it is only an unreal idea. Everything we have in this way is not reality, it is an ideology. Reality is only the external, material production processes.

From this fact one can sense the radical change that has taken place in human development in terms of world view and state of mind. Consider the basic tenet of ancient Oriental wisdom. Last time I spoke here, I said that we should not long for the past, but there are many things we can take from it for our own orientation. The ancient Oriental spoke of Maja. What did Maja mean in the ancient Orient? It meant everything that man can recognize in the external sense world. For reality was that which lived within him, which sprouted within as custom, religion, art, science. That was reality. What the eyes saw, what the ears heard, what one otherwise perceived, that was Maja. Today, in the Orient, only a decadent form of that which, from a certain point of view, can be characterized as I have just done, is present. Our broad masses of people have come to the opposite through Marxist guidance. One could say that the development of humanity has taken a complete turn. The external, the sensual, is the only reality, and that which is formed within, custom, religion, science, art, is Maya. Only one does not say Maya, but one says ideology. But if one were to translate Maja in a general sense, then one would have to translate it with ideology, and if one wanted to translate into the language of the old world view of the Orient what the modern proletarian means by ideology, then one would have to translate it with Maja, only that the application is the opposite.

I mention this because I want to show what an enormous turn human development has taken, how we in the West have in fact developed the final consequences of a world view that runs directly counter to what is still contained in the Orient in a decadent way. Those who are able to observe the conflicts of humanity from such depths know what potential for conflict exists between East and West today. Things appear differently in the various historical epochs; but however materialistic the striving of today's East may be, in a certain way it is the striving that was also present in ancient Buddhism and the like, which has now become decadent. And our Western culture has undergone a complete turnaround in relation to this. We have now arrived at a point where broad masses of people do not speak of the fact that spiritual reality fills them within, but that everything that fills them within is only Maya, ideology.

This is what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science gives back to humanity: not just thoughts that can be seen as ideology, not just unrealities; but man is again filled with what he was filled with at that time, with the consciousness: Spirit lives in my thoughts. The spirit enters into me; not a dead, ideological spirit, but a living spirit lives in me. To lead people back to the direct experience of the living spirit is what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to give. This is then what is incorporated into anthroposophical pedagogy and didactics. This is what should live in the teacher's dealings with the pupil.

But it is also that which is directly involved in dealing with the social question. Those people who talk about ideology today have gone through our schools. But we need a humanity that actually develops social impulses from the very depths of its being. This humanity must emerge from other schools. What has emerged from the schools we so admire has led to the social chaos we see today. We need a humanity that has been educated in such a way that the education corresponds to a real, comprehensive knowledge of the human being. This is what makes the question of education a universal social question. Either we will have to decide to see the question of education in this sense as a social question, or we will be blind to the great social demands of the present.

But we must sense what is necessary for the teacher, for the educator, in order to practise such an education, in order to allow knowledge of the human being to be transformed into a pedagogical-didactic art. We must sense that this is only possible if the teacher, the educator, does not need to follow any other norm than the norm that is within his or her own inner being. The teacher and educator must be answerable to the spirit that he experiences. This is only possible within the threefold social organism, in a free spiritual life. As long as the spiritual life is dependent on the economic life on the one hand and on the state life on the other, the teacher is in the thrall of the state or of economic life. You will find, when you study the connections, what this thrall consists of.

In truth, one can only establish a surrogate for a free school today. It was possible in Württemberg to establish the Waldorf School as a free school in which only the demands of the pedagogical art prevail, before socialism created the new school law.

If freedom is to prevail, then every teacher must be directly involved in the administration; then the most important part of spiritual life - like all spiritual life, in fact - must have its free self-government. One cannot imagine a spiritual life in which such free schools are common other than in such a way that from the teacher of the lowest elementary school class to the highest teacher, everything falls into corporations that are not subordinate to any state or economic authorities and that do not receive instructions from any side. What happens in the administration must be such that every teacher and instructor needs only so much time to teach or instruct that he still has so much time left to help administer. Not those who have retired or who have left the field of teaching and education, but those who are currently teaching and educating should also be the administrators. Hence the authority of the capable arises as a matter of course. Just try self-administration and you will find that because you need someone who can really achieve something, their authority will naturally assert itself. If the spiritual life administers itself, it will not be necessary to use this authority or the like. Just let this free spiritual life develop and you will see that because people need the capable, they will also find them.

I have only been able to sketch out the issues here, but you will have seen how a truly artistic approach to education requires a free spiritual life. We can see how it is necessary to first separate the free spiritual life from the entire social organism.

Just as Karl Marx or Proudhon or other bourgeois economists base what they want to base, so one does not base things of life experience, things of life practice. What is said in my book “The Key Points of the Social Question” or in other writings on the threefold social organism is based on decades of all-round observation of life, and is spoken and written from practice. Therefore, one cannot grasp it with lightly-draped concepts. I know exactly where one can easily start a logical critique. But what has just been taken from reality is as multifaceted as reality itself. And just as little as reality can be captured in lightly-draped logical concepts, so little can something that is supposed to fit reality be captured in such concepts. But anyone who has ever inwardly felt what it means to be in school, in class, in education, as it is necessary to do so through a true understanding of the developing human being, the child, has, in their feeling, in the whole experience, full proof that the spiritual life must be given its free administration. And all the objections do not apply, so that one simply raises them, but only so that one must eliminate them through reality.

Then people come and say: If spiritual life is to be based on free recognition, people will not send their children to school, so you cannot establish a free spiritual life. — That is not what someone who thinks realistically says. Above all, he feels the full necessity of liberating spiritual life. He says: spiritual life must be freed; it may perhaps have the disadvantage that some people do not want to send their children to school; then one must think of means to prevent this from happening. One must not treat this as an objection, but one must raise such a thing and then think about how it can be remedied. In many things that concern the full reality of life, we will have to learn to think like this.

They sense that a complete turnaround must occur, especially with regard to intellectual life – and public intellectual life is, after all, essentially provided in its most important parts through teaching and education. Those who are accustomed to working in today's intellectual life will not go along with these things. I know that certain teachers at secondary schools, when they were approached with the suggestion of moving towards self-management, said: I would rather be under the minister than manage with colleagues; it's not possible. I am less likely to be with my colleagues from the faculty than with the minister, who is outside.

Perhaps one will not exactly get the necessary impetus in this direction. But just as, with regard to the big questions of life today, it is not the producer but the consumer who is becoming more and more decisive, so one would like the consumers of the educational system to reflect on what is necessary in the teaching and educational system as the most important public part of intellectual life. These are, above all, people who have children. We have seen the impression that parents have gained from the end of the school year, from everything else that children have experienced during the school year at the Waldorf School. We have seen how, when these children come home, their parents have realized that a new social spirit is actually emerging that is of tremendous importance for the next generation — provided, of course, that the Waldorf School does not remain a small school in a corner of Stuttgart, but that this spirit, which prevails there, already becomes the spirit of the widest circles.

But it is not only parents who are interested in what goes on in schools and educational institutions. Basically, every person who is serious about human development has an interest in it. Every human being must care about the next generation. Those who think this way and who have a sense of how we need a spiritual renewal today, as I explained in the last lecture here in Utrecht, should become interested in this new education that can be achieved through the school system from the lowest to the highest levels.

At the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach, we are trying to establish an educational institution in the highest sense of the word, based on this spirit. We still have a hard time of it today. We can give people renewal and inspiration in the individual specialized sciences; we can give them something like our autumn courses were, like our Easter courses will be. We can show them how, for example, medicine, but also all the other sciences of practical life, can receive through anthroposophically oriented spiritual science what is necessary for the present and especially for the near future.

But for the time being we can give nothing but spirit, and that is not yet highly valued today. Today, people still value the testimonies that we cannot yet give. We must fight for what is recognized as a necessity for the development of humanity and for the near future to become official. This can only come about if a mood develops in the widest international circles for what I would call a kind of world school association. Such a world school association need not limit itself to founding lower or higher schools, but should include all impulses that lead to something like what has been attempted in Dornach in a certain special way. Such a world school association would have to embrace all those people who have an interest in the forces of ascent entering into the developmental forces of humanity in the face of the terrible forces of descent that we have in humanity today. For such a world school association would not become a kind of federation from the impulses that are already there; it would not try to shape the world according to the old diplomatic or other methods. Such a union, such a world school association would try to form a world union of humanity out of the deepest human forces, out of the most spiritual human impulses. Such a union would therefore mean something that could really give a renewal of that life, which has shown its fragility so much in the terrible years of the second decade of the 20th century.

The people who are educated there will have the social impulses, and they will be the ones who can develop the right strength in the other areas of social life, in the area of an independent legal or state or political life and in the area of an independent economic life. Just as a free spiritual life can only be built on objectivity and expertise, and not on what comes to the fore through the majority, economic life can only be beneficial for humanity if it is separated from all majority rule, from all those areas in which people judge simply from their humanity, not from their knowledge of the subject or field. In economic life we need associations where people who belong to the sphere of consumption, people who belong to the sphere of production, and people who belong to the sphere of trade, join together. I have shown in my writings that these associations, by their very nature, will have a certain size. Such associations can truly provide that in economic life which I would call a collective judgment, just as it is true [on the other hand] that in spiritual life everything must come from the human personality. For through birth we bring with us our gifts from the spiritual world. Every time a human being is born, a message comes down from the spiritual world into the physical world. We have to take it in, we have to look at the human individuality; the teacher at the human individuality in the child, the whole social institution at the free spiritual life, in which the teacher is so situated that he can fully live out his individuality.

What can turn out to be a blessing for humanity in this free spiritual life would turn out to be a disaster in economic life. Therefore, we should not have any illusions. As much as we have to strive for a comprehensive and harmonious judgment through our individuality in spiritual life, we can do so much less in economic life. There we are only able to form a judgment together with the other people, to form a judgment in associations. One knows, by having worked, in a certain area, but what one knows there is one-sided under all circumstances. A judgment comes about only by not merely dealing theoretically with the others, but by having to supply a certain commodity to the other, to satisfy certain needs for the other, to conclude contracts. When the real interests face each other in contracts, then the real, expert judgments will form.

And what is basically the main thing in economic life is also formed from what works within the associations: the right price level. You can read all this in more detail in my books “The Key Points of the Social Question” and “In the Execution of the Threefold Order”, as well as in the journals. There is even a Dutch magazine about threefolding. There you can read about how a collective judgment must be sought in economic life. Since we have had a world economy instead of the old national economies in economic life, it has become necessary for the organization of economic life to be based on free economic points of view, for economic life to be lived out in associations that deal only with economic matters, but in such a way that majorities are not decisive anywhere, but rather expertise and professional competence are decisive everywhere. The result will be a division of labor. Those who have the necessary experience or other reasons will be in the right place. This will happen naturally in the associations, because we are not dealing with abstract definitions but with the activity of a contract. For example, if an article is being overproduced in a particular area, it must be ensured that people are employed in other ways; because where this is the case, the article becomes too cheap, and the one that is underproduced becomes too expensive. The price can only be set when a sufficient number of people are employed by associations in a particular area. If such a thing is to become real, it requires an intense interest in the entire economic life of humanity. It is a matter of developing, not merely as an empty phrase, what is called human brotherhood, but of bringing about this human fraternization in associations in the economic sphere.

Today I can only sketch out the main lines. The literature on threefolding already discusses the details. But what I want to suggest is only how spiritual science oriented to anthroposophy can practically take hold of life here as well.

And so, in the social organism, we have on the one hand the free spiritual life based on the human individuality; on the other, economic life based on associations that come together to form the global economy as a whole – without taking into account the political state borders, which today contradict economic interests. This may still be uncomfortable for some people to think, but it is what can bring about change from the chaotic conditions.

Between the two, the free spiritual life and the associative economic life, stands the actual political life, the actual state life, where majority decisions have their justification; where everything, including human work, comes up for negotiation, for which every mature person is competent. In the free life of the spirit, not every mature person is competent; here, majority decisions could only spoil everything, as they can in economic life. But there are, for example, the nature and measure of work, of human work; there are areas where every human being, when mature, is competent, where one person stands before another as an equal. This is the actual state-judicial, political area in the threefold social organism. This is what spiritual life is already pointing to most clearly today, but it can also be pursued in the other areas of social existence in accordance with the demands and necessities.

Threefold social organism: a free spiritual life, based on the full and free expression of the individual human personality; a legal or state life that is truly democratic, where people face each other as equals and where majorities decide, because only in this link of the social organism does it come to a decision on which every adult person is competent; an economic life that is built on associations, which in turn decides on the basis of factual and technical knowledge, where the contract applies, not the law.

There are people who say that this would destroy the unity of the social organism. For example, someone objected to me that the social organism is a unified whole and must remain so, otherwise everything would be torn apart. At that time I could only answer the objection: A rural family is also a unit. But if one claims that the state must also manage the economy and administer the schools, then one could also claim that a rural household, which is also a unit with master and mistress and maid and cow, because the whole is a unit, everyone should give milk, not just the cow. The unity would arise precisely from the fact that each one does the right thing in its place. The unity arises precisely from the fact that the three links arise. One should just not rush into a matter that is based on correct observation of those things that are pressing for transformation in contemporary social life, based on a partial or incomplete understanding.

Liberty, equality, fraternity – these are the three great ideals that resound from the 18th century. What human heart would not have felt deeply about the three ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Nevertheless, there were always clever people in the course of the 19th century who constructed a contradiction between freedom and equality: How could one be free if, after all, all people had to develop their abilities to the same extent and how that was also not true of fraternity? — Much clever and concise things have been said in favor of the contradictory nature of these three ideals. Nevertheless, we feel them and feel their justification. What is actually at issue here? Well, people have formed the three ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity out of the intense depths of the soul, and these are truly as justified as anything historical and human can be justified. But for the time being people remained under the suggestion of the unitary state. In the unified state, however, these three ideals contradict each other. Nevertheless, they must be realized. Their realization will lead to the tripartite social organism. If one realizes that this is something that can be started tomorrow, that it is thought out and formed out of practice, that it does not remotely have a utopian character like most social ideas, that it is thoroughly practical, if one realizes how the unity state today, out of itself, creates the necessity to divide itself into three parts: then one will also understand the historical and human significance of the three great ideals that have been resonating in humanity since the 18th century. Then we will say to ourselves: the threefold social organism is what first consolidates these three ideals, it is what gives these three ideals the possibility of life. In conclusion, let me express, as a summary of what I wanted to say today about the practical development of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, how it must come about in humanity: the threefold social organism, Spiritual life administered for itself, economic life administered for itself, and in the middle the state-legal-political life administered for itself. Then, in a genuine, true sense, humanity will be able to realize itself: freedom in spiritual life, equality in democratic state life, brotherhood in associatively shaped economic life.

Answering questions

Question: How can we differentiate in the spiritual-scientific field between human and animal blood? The I expresses itself in human blood, but not in animal blood?

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, the materialistic way of thinking, which had been in preparation since the middle of the 15th century, but which became particularly strong in the 19th century and developed into the 20th, has gradually caused the sense of it to die away, that the external expression [of a thing] is not decisive for the inner structure and for the whole context [in which it stands]. I have to refer to some of this, which of course I cannot explain in detail today. You can find it in the spiritual scientific literature, but I have to say a few words about the question.

We have to distinguish between the physical body, which can be seen with the eyes and which is also considered in ordinary science through anatomy and physiology, for example. We then distinguish the etheric or life body, which we become aware of when we observe something like the release of thinking during the change of teeth; this is how we get to know the life of the etheric body. We must not confuse this with the old, hypothetical life force; it has nothing to do with it. This is the result of direct observation. Then we learn to recognize what part of the soul governs this etheric body, what one can call the soul organism, and the actual I.

These four members, however, express themselves in turn in the physical. For example, the etheric body has a particular effect on the glandular system, the I has a particular effect on the blood system in humans. Now one can raise such a question as the one asked here, but one must first acquire something that I would like to make clear through the following comparison. Imagine someone were to say: a knife is just a knife, it is used to cut meat. You cannot say that. Nor can you say: man has red warm blood, animals have red warm blood – the expression for the I. Suppose someone finds a razor and uses it to cut meat because it is a knife. It is not a matter of how something is outwardly and materially formed, but how it fits into a whole context. For an animal, the red warm blood is the expression of the soul organism; for a human being, the same red blood is the expression of the I, just as the razor is a knife for shaving and the knife on the table is a knife for cutting meat. One should not ask: What is blood as blood? It can be an expression for this in one context and for something else in another context.

Question: Is it also possible in other countries to establish schools like the Waldorf School?

Rudolf Steiner: Whether such schools can be founded in other countries depends on the laws of the country concerned. I have already expressed myself appropriately with regard to the Waldorf School. I said: Before the new democratic, republican school constitution came into being, it was possible to found the Waldorf School. Recent developments have been such that we are gradually forfeiting one freedom after another. And if we in Central Europe were to arrive at Leninism, then the Central Europeans would also get to know what the grave of human freedom means. But it depends everywhere on the laws in question whether you can found schools like the Waldorf School. So it depends entirely on the individual state laws. You can try to go as far as possible. Recently, for example, I was asked to appoint teachers for a kind of initial school in another place, and I said that we would of course have to do a trial first. I initially appointed two very capable teachers for the first class, but they had not taken an exam, so that people could see whether they could implement such teachers. It is certainly not out of the question in a Waldorf school to employ teachers who have not taken the exam. For example, when I was recently asked by a teacher whether it would be possible to employ her even though she had not yet passed her exams, but was on the exam list, I said: That doesn't matter; you will also have the exam one day.

Now, the point is to work towards a real liberation of the spirit and of school life on a large scale. For this, something like a world school association is needed. It must become possible that the question of whether schools like the Waldorf School can be established in different countries will no longer arise, but that this possibility will be created everywhere through the power of conviction of a sufficiently large number of people. We also experienced the same in other areas, as is also beginning today in the area of education. Many people do not agree with conventional medicine, so they turn to those who want to go beyond conventional medicine – not in a quackish way, but in a thoroughly appropriate way. I even met a minister of a Central European state who trumpeted the monopoly of conventional medicine in his parliament with all his might, but then came himself and wanted help in a different way. This is the striving, on the one hand, to leave what the feeling actually wants to overcome, but to leave it and to achieve the other through all possible back doors. We have to get beyond that. We don't have to want to set up private schools, but we have to create the opportunity everywhere to set up a free school in the sense described today. If we do not have the courage to do this, then those who understand these things will not allow themselves to be used to establish private schools or to appoint teachers for them. A great movement should arise in which every person who reflects on the tasks of the time should become a member, so that through the power of such a world federation, what could lead to the creation of such schools everywhere.

But above all, in the case of such a world school association - please allow me to mention this only in passing, in parentheses - a certain idealism in humanity must disappear, I mean the kind that says: Oh, spiritual things, anthroposophy, that's so high, the material must not approach it; it would defile anthroposophy if the material were to approach it. This idealism, which is so idealistic that it uses all kinds of phrases to describe the spiritual and elevates it to heaven, to a cloud-cuckoo-land, while keeping a firm hand on the purse, does not go together with the reasoning of a world school association or the like. Here one must muster an idealism that does not disdain the purse in order to do something for the ideals of humanity. Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science must think its way into practical life, that is, not just into the clouds, but also into the stock market. There are also nooks and crannies there that belong to practical life. —- That is just a characteristic of what a right worldview is.

Question: Are there contradictions between anthroposophical spiritual science and Protestant Christianity?

Rudolf Steiner: There is no need to construct contradictions. Two things must be distinguished: The Mystery of Golgotha is a fact: that a spiritual being from the supermundane worlds descended to earth and united with the man Jesus of Nazareth. This spiritual fact, which alone gives meaning to our earthly development, will be grasped in different ways by each age. Our age needs a new understanding of this fact. We can best grasp this fact if we learn to understand spiritual facts in general. Anyone who believes that some discovery, whether in the physical or spiritual realm, should somehow shake Christianity, thinks little of it. If the official representatives of Christianity, or rather of the traditional denominations, turn so fiercely against anthroposophy today, it only speaks against these official representatives, who do not really have true Christianity in mind, but the rule of their respective church. True Christianity has indeed grasped anthroposophical spiritual science, but only in a supersensible way, through supersensible knowledge. You can read more about this in my book 'Christianity as Mystical Fact' and in other writings.

Question: Does spiritual life have a kind of supremacy over the other two areas in the threefold social organism?

Rudolf Steiner: You can see in my book on “The Core Points of the Social Question” how capital is used in the threefold social organism. It enters into a kind of circulation, like blood in the human organism, and remains with the one who is best qualified to manage it and thus also manages it in the interest of the community. For this, however, spiritual life must constantly interact with the other limbs. This is the peculiar thing about such a natural structure of the social organism as the human organism. The human organism – and this is the result of thirty years of research for me – is tripartite by nature. Firstly, there is the nervous-sensory organism, which is mainly localized in the head; secondly, the rhythmic system, which is localized in the chest as breathing and blood circulation; and thirdly, the metabolic system, which is connected to the limbs. But these three limbs work together in such a way that, in a sense, the head is indeed leading, but in another sense, the other two limbs are leading as well. So one cannot say that something has supremacy, but precisely because of the way the three limbs are structured according to their essence, a harmonious wholeness will arise in the social organism. Question: Should children from seven to fourteen believe what the teacher says, or are they taught freely?

Rudolf Steiner: The nature of the human being demands what I have expressed in the lecture: a certain self-evident authority. This demand for a self-evident authority is based, in turn, on a certain development of human life as a whole. Certainly, no one can develop more feeling for the social rule of human freedom than I, who wrote my “Philosophy of Freedom” in 1892, which is intended to provide the foundations for a liberal, social human life. But still, if a person is to face life freely in the right way, he must develop a sense of authority within himself between the ages of seven and fifteen. If one does not learn to recognize others through this self-evident authority, then the later demand for freedom is something that leads precisely to the impossibility of life, not to true freedom. Just as man only comes to a true brotherhood if he is educated in the appropriate way, by being guided in the right way in his imitation in the childhood years until the seventh year, so the sense of authority is necessary if man is to become free. Everything that is said today about governing school communities in a republican form is only asserted out of party considerations. That would destroy human nature. I say this out of a thorough knowledge of the human being. Such a demand for a healthy, authoritative way of teaching between the ages of seven and fifteen must be made. Only objectivity can be considered. Buzzwords should not be the deciding factor. It is precisely those who stand on the ground of freedom who must demand an authoritative education for this age group.