Chp. 2 First Draft Nov.10

Submitted by Tom Last on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:32am.
 
VERSION 3
Chapter 2
The Fundamental Drive For Science


Two souls, alas, dwell within my breast,
And each withdraws from and repels its brother.
One, in hearty lovelust,
Clings to the world with clutching organs;
The other strongly lifts itself from dust,
Into the high ancestral spheres.
Goethe, Faust I, 1112

chapter 2 is the Goethean "feeling" science chapter --before clear thinking occurs in chapter 3.


2.0 Seeking An Explanation Of World Phenomena
[1] With these words Goethe characterizes a trait that is deeply founded in human nature. The human being is not uniformly organized. We always demand more than the world offers. Some of the needs that nature has given us are left to our own initiative to satisfy. Our share of Nature's bounty is abundant, but our desires are even more abundant. We seem born to be dissatisfied. Our drive for knowledge is only a special instance of this dissatisfaction. We look at a tree twice. The first time we see its branches at rest, the second time in motion. We are not satisfied with this observation. We ask why the tree appears first motionless, then in motion? Every look at nature evokes a number of questions in us. Every phenomenon we encounter presents a new problem to be solved. Every experience is a riddle. We see a creature emerging from the egg similar to the mother, and we ask the reason for this resemblance. We observe a living thing grow and develop to a certain level of perfection, and we seek the determining factors of this experience. Nowhere are we satisfied with the facts that nature spreads out before our senses. We search everywhere for what we call the explanation of these facts.

[2] We seek something more in things that exceeds what is immediately given to us. This addition splits our whole being into two parts; we become conscious of standing in opposition to the world. We confront the world as independent beings. The universe appears to us as two opposing sides: Self and World.

[we are talking about this: "Thinking connects us with the thought aspect of the world. But at the same time it separates us as the mental process splits the world into two halves: our objective outer perception and our subjective inner thought-world."]

[3] We erect this wall of separation between ourselves and the world as soon as consciousness is first kindled in us. But we never lose the feeling that we belong to the world, that a bond endures that joins us to it, that we are not outside, but within the universe.

In the preface to Riddles of Philosophy Steiner speaks of that book in terms of the intellectual work of mankind.


Hoernle uses Self, Ego (2.2) and brings in "I' (2.10), drops "I" in 2.5. Others used only "I". There is the "I" of psychology as subject (Self?) and the "I" within thinking ("I"). We won't be sure about the use Self and "I" until later in book.

[4] This feeling makes us strive to bridge the differences between ourselves and the world, and ultimately the entire spiritual striving of humanity is nothing but the bridging of these differences. The history of intellectual life is a continuous searching for the unity between ourselves and the world. Religion, Art and Science all pursue this same goal. The religious believer seeks in the revelation granted by God the solution to the world problem that his Self, dissatisfied with the world of mere phenomena, sets before him. The artist seeks to incorporate the ideas of his Self into his material to reconcile what lives within him with the outer world. He, too, feels dissatisfied with the world as it appears and seeks to mold into it that something more that his Self, transcending the world of phenomena, contains. The thinker seeks the laws of phenomena, striving to penetrate with thinking what he experiences through observation. Only when we have made the world-content into our thought-content do we again find the unity from which we have separated ourselves. We will see later that this goal can only be reached if the task of the scientific researcher is understood on a much deeper level than is usually the case.

The whole relationship I have outlined here between the Self and the World confronts us manifesting as historical phenomena in the conflict between the one-world theory, or Monism, and the two-world theory, or Dualism. Dualism pays attention only to the separation between the Self and the World brought about by human consciousness. All its effort is an ineffectual struggle to reconcile these opposites, which it may call Mind and Matter or Subject and Object, or Thought and Phenomenon. The Dualist feels that there must be a bridge between the two worlds, but is incapable of finding it. Monism pays attention only to the unity and tries either to deny or blur the differences actually present. Neither of these two views are satisfactory because they do not do justice to the facts. The Dualist sees Mind (Self) and Matter (World) as two essentially different realities, and for that reason cannot understand how they can interact with each other. How could Mind know what is going on in Matter, if the essential nature of Matter is entirely foreign to Mind? Or, under these conditions, how could Mind have an affect on Matter in such a way that its intentions translate into deeds? The most ingenious and the most absurd hypotheses have been proposed to answer these questions. But, so far, the Monists are not in a much better position. They have tried to solve the problem in three different ways. Either they deny Mind and become Materialists; or they deny Matter in order to seek their salvation as Spiritualists; or they claim that even in the simplest substance in the world, Mind and Matter are indivisibly united so it is not surprising if these two kinds of existence both appear in the human being, seeing that they are never found apart.

"Material" world or "material" process is not used today and may not even be understood, so I used "physical" whenever the German allowed that option.

2.1 Materialism
[5] Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. For every attempt at an explanation must begin with the formation of thoughts about the phenomena of the world. So Materialism starts with the thoughts of Matter or physical processes. But in doing so, it is already dealing with two different sets of facts: the physical world and the thoughts about it. The Materialist tries to understand thoughts by regarding them as purely physical processes. He believes that thinking takes place in the brain very much like digestion takes place in the animal organs. Just as he attributes mechanical, chemical, and organic processes to Matter, so he also credits Matter with the capacity, under certain conditions, to think. But he overlooks that all he has done is shift the problem to another place. The Materialist attributes the power of thinking to Matter instead of to himself. This brings him back to his starting point. How does Matter manage to reflect upon its own nature? Why doesn't it simply go on existing, perfectly content with itself? The Materialist has turned his attention away from the clearly defined subject, his own Self, and instead occupies himself with a vague awareness of a complex configuration: Matter. And here the same problem comes up again. The materialistic view cannot solve the problem; it can only shift it to another place.

(ego that we observe through self-perception as subject can be defined --psychology "I"--, different than "I" lifted into pure thinking)

2.2 Spiritualism
[6] What about Spiritualistic theory? The Spiritualist denies Matter (the World) any independent existence and regards it merely as a product of Mind (the Self). He regards the whole phenomenal world to be nothing more than a fabric woven by Mind out of itself. This conception of the world finds itself in difficulties as soon as it attempts to derive from Mind any single concrete phenomenon. It cannot do so either in knowledge or in action.

2.3 Realism
If one would really know the external world, one must turn one's eye outwards and draw on the fund of experience. Without experience Mind can have no content. Similarly, when it comes to action, we have to translate our purposes into realities with the help of physical substances and forces. We are, therefore, dependent on the external world.

2.4 Idealism
The most extreme Spiritualist, or if you prefer, Idealist, is Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He attempts to derive the whole world structure from the "Ego". What he has actually accomplished is a magnificent thought-picture of the world, but one without any empirical content. As little as it is possible for the Materialist to argue away the Mind, just as little is it possible for the Idealist to do without the outer physical world.

p.130 of Riddles Steiner talks of Fichte moving from ego to experience of "I", essence of ego.

2.5 Materialistic Idealism
[8] The view of Friedrich Albert Lange is a curious variation of Idealism presented in his widely read History of Materialism. He takes the position that the Materialists are right in declaring all phenomena, including our thoughts, to be the product of purely material processes, but, conversely, Matter and its processes are themselves a product of our thinking.

“The senses give us only the effects of things, not true copies, let alone the things themselves. But among these mere effects we must include the senses themselves, along with the brain and molecular vibrations within it."

That means our thinking is produced by the physical processes, and these are produced by our thinking. of the "I".  Lange's philosophy, in other words, is nothing more than the story, translated into concepts, of the brave Baron Münchhausen, who holds himself up freely in the air by his own pigtail.

The thinking of 2.5 would be the unconscious thinking that produces our first appearance of things. (not ego or "I") Hoernle has either removed "I" from here or it was not in the original POF. Too bad we don't have a German language copy of the 1894 original POF to be sure about what was revised in 1918.

2.6 Indivisible Unity
[9] The third form of Monism is the one that finds even in the simplest real thing (the atom), the union of both Matter and Mind. But nothing is gained by this either, for here again the question, which really originates in our consciousness, is shifted to another place. How does the simple substance manifest itself in two different ways, if it is an indivisible unity?

2.7 Contrast Self With World
[10] In regard to all these points of view, we must emphasize the fact that we encounter the fundamental and original mental (helpful word addition likely by Hoernle or original Steiner) opposition first in our own consciousness. It is we who detach ourselves from the mother soil of Nature and contrast ourselves with the World as Self. Goethe has given classic expression to this in his essay Nature. although his manner of expression may at first sight be considered completely unscientific (red added 1918):
"Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers to her.
Ceaselessly she speaks to us, yet tells us none of her secrets."

But Goethe knew the other side too:
"Human beings are all within her and she is within all human beings."

If we want to publish the original POF then we will need to stick to that, rather than be selective between both versions.

2.8 Nature's Influence
[11] It is true that we have estranged ourselves from Nature; but it is just as true that we feel we are within it and belong to it. It can only be Nature's influence that also lives in us.

2.9 Know Nature Within

[12] We must find the way back to it again. A simple reflection can show us the way. It is true we have torn ourselves away from Nature, but we must have retained something of it in our own selves. We must seek out this quality of Nature within us, and then we will discover the connection with it again. Dualism fails to do this. It considers the human Mind as a non-material spirit totally alien to Nature, and then seeks somehow to attach it to Nature. No wonder that it cannot find the connecting link. We can find Nature outside us only when we first know it within us. What corresponds to Nature within us will be our guide. This maps out our path of inquiry. We will not engage in any speculations about the interaction between Mind and Matter. But we will probe into the depths of our own being in order to find those elements that we took with us in our flight from Nature.

2.10 Something More Than “I"

[13] The investigation of our own being must bring us the solution to the problem. We must reach a point where we can say: Here we are no longer merely 'I', here is something that is more than 'I'.

2.11 Experience Of Self Consciousness
[14] I am aware that some who have read this far will not find my remarks in conformity with "the current position of science." I can only reply that, so far, I have not been concerned with scientific results of any kind, but rather with the simple description of what we all experience in our own consciousness. A few sentences about attempts to reconcile Mind with the World have been included only to clarify the actual facts. This is why I attach no value to using single expressions like "Self," "Mind", World," "Nature," in the precise way that is usual in Psychology and Philosophy.

2.12 Facts Without Interpretation
The ordinary consciousness is unaware of the sharp distinctions made by the sciences, and up to this point it has only been a matter of recording the facts of everyday experience. To object that the above discussions have been unscientific would be like quarreling with the reciter of a poem for failing to accompany every line at once with aesthetic criticism. [Steiner removed this line and added the line at 2.7 -in red-] What concerns me (we should use "I" here) is not how science, so far, has interpreted consciousness, but rather how we experience it hour by hour.

END*****************************************************************



VERSION 2
Chapter 2
The Fundamental Drive For Science


Two souls, alas, dwell within my breast,
And each withdraws from and repels its brother.
One, in hearty lovelust,
Clings to the world with clutching organs;
The other strongly lifts itself from dust,
Into the high ancestral spheres.
Goethe, Faust I, 1112

chapter 2 is the Goethean "feeling" science chapter --before clear thinking occurs in chapter 3.

2.0 Transcending The World Of Phenomena
[1] With these words Goethe characterizes a trait deeply based in human nature. The human being is not a fully integrated whole. He always demand more than the world offers. Nature has given us needs, among them are some left to our own initiative to satisfy. Our portion of Nature's bounty is abundant, but our desires are even more abundant. We seem born to be dissatisfied. Our drive for knowledge is only a special instance of this dissatisfaction. We look at a tree twice. The first time we see its branches at rest, the second time in motion. We are not satisfied with this observation. We ask why the tree appears first motionless, then in motion? Every look at nature evokes a number of questions in us. Every phenomenon we encounter presents a new problem to be solved. Every experience is a riddle. We see a creature emerging from the egg similar to the mother, and we ask the reason for this resemblance. We observe a living thing grow and develop to a certain level of perfection, and we seek the determining factors of this experience. Nowhere are we satisfied with the facts that nature spreads out before our senses. We search everywhere for what we call the explanation of these facts.

[2] We seek something more in things that exceeds what is immediately given to us. This addition splits our whole being into two parts; we become conscious of standing in opposition to the world. We confront the world as independent beings. The universe appears to us as two opposing sides: Self and World.

[we are talking about this: "Thinking connects us with the thought aspect of the world. But at the same time it separates us as the mental process splits the world into two halves: our objective outer perception and our subjective inner thought-world."]

[3] We erect this wall of separation between ourselves and the world as soon as consciousness is first kindled in us. But we never lose the feeling that we belong to the world, that a bond endures that joins us to it, that we are not outside, but within the universe.

In the preface to Riddles of Philosophy Steiner speaks of that book in terms of the intellectual work of mankind.

Hoernle uses Self, Ego (2.2) and brings in "I' (2.10), drops "I" in 2.5. Others used only "I". There is the "I" of psychology as subject (Self?) and the "I" within thinking ("I"). We won't be sure about the use Self and "I" until later in book.

[4] This feeling makes us strive to bridge the differences between ourselves and the world, and ultimately the entire spiritual striving of humanity is nothing but the bridging of these differences. The history of intellectual life is a continuous searching for the unity between ourselves and the world. Religion, Art and Science all pursue this same goal. The religious believer seeks in the revelation granted by God the solution to the world problem that his Self, dissatisfied with the world of mere phenomena, sets before him. The artist seeks to incorporate the ideas of his Self into his material to reconcile what lives within him with the outer world. He, too, feels dissatisfied with the world as it appears and seeks to mold into it that something more that his Self, transcending the world of phenomena, contains. The thinker seeks the laws of phenomena, striving to penetrate with thinking what he experiences through observation. Only when we have made the world-content into our thought-content do we again find the unity from which we have separated ourselves. We will see later that this goal can only be reached if the task of the scientific researcher is understood on a much deeper level than is usually the case.

The whole relationship I have outlined here between the Self and the World confronts us manifesting as historical phenomena in the conflict between the one-world theory, or Monism, and the two-world theory, or Dualism. Dualism pays attention only to the separation between the Self and the World brought about by human consciousness. All its effort is an ineffectual struggle to reconcile these opposites, which it may call Mind and Matter or Subject and Object, or Thought and Phenomenon. The Dualist feels that there must be a bridge between the two worlds, but is incapable of finding it. Monism pays attention only to the unity and tries either to deny or blur the differences actually present. Neither of these two views are satisfactory because they do not do justice to the facts. The Dualist sees Mind (Self) and Matter (World) as two essentially different realities, and for that reason cannot understand how they can interact with each other. How could Mind know what is going on in Matter, if the essential nature of Matter is entirely foreign to Mind? Or, under these conditions, how could Mind have an affect on Matter in such a way that its intentions translate into deeds? The most ingenious and the most absurd hypotheses have been proposed to answer these questions. But, so far, the Monists are not in a much better position. They have tried to solve the problem in three different ways. Either they deny Mind and become Materialists; or they deny Matter in order to seek their salvation as Spiritualists; or they claim that even in the simplest substance in the world, Mind and Matter are indivisibly united so it is not surprising if these two kinds of existence both appear in the human being, seeing that they are never found apart.

"Material" world or "material" process is not used today and may not even be understood, so I used "physical" whenever the German allowed that option.

2.1 Materialism
[5] Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. For every attempt at an explanation must begin with the formation of thoughts about the phenomena of the world. So Materialism starts with the thoughts of Matter or physical processes. But in doing so, it is already dealing with two different sets of facts: the physical world and the thoughts about it. The Materialist tries to understand thoughts by regarding them as purely physical processes. He believes that thinking takes place in the brain very much like digestion takes place in the animal organs. Just as he attributes mechanical, chemical, and organic processes to Matter, so he also credits Matter with the capacity, under certain conditions, to think. But he overlooks that all he has done is shift the problem to another place. The Materialist attributes the power of thinking to Matter instead of to himself. This brings him back to his starting point. How does Matter manage to reflect upon its own nature? Why doesn't it simply go on existing, perfectly content with itself? The Materialist has turned his attention away from the clearly defined subject, his own Self, and instead occupies himself with a vague awareness of a complex configuration: Matter. And here the same problem comes up again. The materialistic view cannot solve the problem; it can only shift it to another place.

(ego that we observe through self-perception as subject can be defined --psychology "I"--, different than "I" lifted into pure thinking)

2.2 Spiritualism
[6] What about Spiritualistic theory? The Spiritualist denies Matter (the World) any independent existence and regards it merely as a product of Mind (the Self). He regards the whole phenomenal world to be nothing more than a fabric woven by Mind out of itself. This conception of the world finds itself in difficulties as soon as it attempts to derive from Mind any single concrete phenomenon. It cannot do so either in knowledge or in action.

2.3 Realism
If one would really know the external world, one must turn one's eye outwards and draw on the fund of experience. Without experience Mind can have no content. Similarly, when it comes to action, we have to translate our purposes into realities with the help of physical substances and forces. We are, therefore, dependent on the external world.

2.4 Idealism
The most extreme Spiritualist, or if you prefer, Idealist, is Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He attempts to derive the whole world structure from the "Ego". What he has actually accomplished is a magnificent thought-picture of the world, but one without any empirical content. As little as it is possible for the Materialist to argue away the Mind, just as little is it possible for the Idealist to do without the outer physical world.

p.130 of Riddles Steiner talks of Fichte moving from ego to experience of "I", essence of ego.

2.5 Materialistic Idealism
[8] The view of Friedrich Albert Lange is a curious variation of Idealism presented in his widely read History of Materialism. He takes the position that the Materialists are right in declaring all phenomena, including our thoughts, to be the product of purely material processes, but, conversely, Matter and its processes are themselves a product of our thinking.

“The senses give us only the effects of things, not true copies, let alone the things themselves. But among these mere effects we must include the senses themselves, along with the brain and molecular vibrations within it."

That means our thinking is produced by the physical processes, and these are produced by our thinking.
of the "I".  Lange's philosophy, in other words, is nothing more than the story, translated into concepts, of the brave Baron Münchhausen, who holds himself up freely in the air by his own pigtail.

The thinking of 2.5 would be the unconscious thinking that produces our first appearance of things. (not ego or "I") Hoernle has either removed "I" from here or it was not in the original POF. Too bad we don't have a German language copy of the 1894 original POF to be sure about what was revised in 1918.

2.6 Indivisible Unity
[9] The third form of Monism is the one that finds even in the simplest real thing (the atom), the union of both Matter and Mind. But nothing is gained by this either, for here again the question, which really originates in our consciousness, is shifted to another place. How does the simple substance manifest itself in two different ways, if it is an indivisible unity?

2.7 Contrast Self With World
[10] In regard to all these points of view, we must emphasize the fact that we encounter the fundamental and original mental
(helpful word addition likely by Hoernle or original Steiner) opposition first in our own consciousness. It is we who detach ourselves from the mother soil of Nature and contrast ourselves with the World as Self. Goethe has given classic expression to this in his essay Nature. although his manner of expression may at first sight be considered completely unscientific (red added 1918):
"Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers to her.
Ceaselessly she speaks to us, yet tells us none of her secrets."

But Goethe knew the other side too:
"Human beings are all within her and she is within all human beings."

If we want to publish the original POF then we will need to stick to that, rather than be selective between both versions.

2.8 Nature's Influence
[11] It is true that we have estranged ourselves from Nature; but it is just as true that we feel we are within it and belong to it. It can only be Nature's influence that also lives in us.

2.9 Know Nature Within

[12] We must find the way back to it again. A simple reflection can show us the way. It is true we have torn ourselves away from Nature, but we must have retained something of it in our own selves. We must seek out this quality of Nature within us, and then we will discover the connection with it again. Dualism fails to do this. It considers the human Mind as a non-material spirit totally alien to Nature, and then seeks somehow to attach it to Nature. No wonder that it cannot find the connecting link. We can find Nature outside us only when we first know it within us. What corresponds to Nature within us will be our guide. This maps out our path of inquiry. We will not engage in any speculations about the interaction between Mind and Matter. But we will probe into the depths of our own being in order to find those elements that we took with us in our flight from Nature.

2.10 Something More Than “I"

[13] The investigation of our own being must bring us the solution to the problem. We must reach a point where we can say: Here we are no longer merely 'I', here is something that is more than 'I'.

2.11 Experience Of Self Consciousness
[14] I am aware that some who have read this far will not find my remarks in conformity with "the current position of science." I can only reply that, so far, I have not been concerned with scientific results of any kind, but rather with the simple description of what we all experience in our own consciousness. A few sentences about attempts to reconcile Mind with the World have been included only to clarify the actual facts. This is why I attach no value to using single expressions like "Self," "Mind", World," "Nature," in the precise way that is usual in Psychology and Philosophy.

2.12 Facts Without Interpretation
The ordinary consciousness is unaware of the sharp distinctions made by the sciences, and up to this point it has only been a matter of recording the facts of everyday experience.
To object that the above discussions have been unscientific would be like quarreling with the reciter of a poem for failing to accompany every line at once with aesthetic criticism. [Steiner removed this line and added the line at 2.7 -in red-] What concerns me (we should use "I" here) is not how science, so far, has interpreted consciousness, but rather how we experience it hour by hour.

 VERSION 1

Chapter 2
The Fundamental Desire For Science


Two souls, alas, dwell within my breast,
And each withdraws from and repels its brother.
One, in hearty lovelust,
Clings to the world with clutching organs;
The other strongly lifts itself from dust,
Into the high ancestral spheres.
Goethe, Faust I, 1112

2.0 Transcending The World Of Phenomena
[1] In these words Goethe expresses a characteristic deeply rooted in human nature. A human being is not a self-contained unity. We always demand more than the world, of its own accord, offers us. Nature has given us needs; among these are some left to our own activity to satisfy. Abundant are the gifts we have received, but even more abundant are our desires. We seem born to be dissatisfied. Our desire for knowledge is only a special case of this dissatisfaction. We look twice at a tree. The first time we see its branches at rest, the second time in motion. We are not satisfied with this observation. Why, we ask, does the tree appear to us now at rest, then in motion? Every look at nature produces a number of questions in us. Every phenomenon that comes our way presents a new problem to be solved. Every experience becomes a riddle. We see, emerging from the egg, a creature similar to the mother animal, and we ask the reason for this similarity. We observe a living being grow and develop to a certain level of perfection, and we seek the determining factors of this experience. Nowhere are we satisfied with the facts that nature displays before our senses. We seek everywhere for what we call the explanation of the facts.

[2] This something more which we seek in things, over and above what is given to us immediately, splits our whole being into two parts. We become aware of our contrast to the world. We confront the world as independent beings. The universe appears to us in the polarity: I and World.

[3] We erect this wall of separation between ourselves and the world as soon as consciousness is first kindled within us. But we never lose the feeling that we do belong to the world, that a bond exists that connects us to it, that we are beings whose place is not outside, but rather within the universe.

[4] This feeling makes us strive to bridge the contrast. And, in the final analysis, the entire spiritual striving of humankind consists of nothing but the bridging of this contrast. The history of our spiritual life is a continuous searching for the unity between us and the world. Religion, Art and Science all pursue this goal. The religious believer seeks in the revelation granted by God, the solution to the world problem posed by his “I”, which is dissatisfied with the merely phenomenal world. The artist seeks to incorporate the ideas of his “I” into various materials to reconcile what lives within him with the outer world. He, too, feels dissatisfied with the world as it appears and seeks to mold into it that something more that his “I”, transcending the world of phenomena, contains. The thinker seeks the laws of phenomena, striving to penetrate with thinking what he experiences through observation. Only when we have made the world-content into our thought-content do we again find the unity from which we have detached ourselves. We will see later that this goal can only be reached if the task of scientific research is understand on a much deeper level than is usually the case.

The whole relationship I have presented here between the “I” and the world is found historically in the conflict between the one-world theory, or Monism, and the two-world theory, or Dualism. Dualism directs its view solely to the separation between “I” and World brought about by human consciousness. All its effort is an ineffectual struggle to reconcile these polarities, which it may call Mind and Matter or Subject and Object, or Thought and Phenomenon. The Dualist feels that there must be a bridge between the two worlds, but is not able to find it.

Monism directs its view only upon the unity and tries either to deny or blur the contrasts actually present. Neither of these two points of view satisfy us, for they do not do justice to the facts. The Dualist sees in Mind (I) and Matter (World) two fundamentally different realities, and therefore, cannot understand how they can interact with each other. How should Mind know what goes on in Matter, if the essential nature of Matter is entirely alien to Mind? Or how should Mind under these circumstances influence Matter in such a way that its intentions translate into deeds? The most ingenious and the most absurd hypotheses have been put forward to solve these questions.

But, so far, the Monists are not in a much better position. They have tried to solve the problem in three different ways. Either they deny Mind and become Materialists; or they deny Matter in order to seek their salvation as Spiritualists; or they claim that even in the simplest entities in the world, Mind and Matter are indivisibly united so it is not surprising if these two kinds of existence both appear in the human being, seeing that they are never found apart.

2.1 Materialism (Material World)
[5] Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. For every attempt at an explanation must begin with the formation of thoughts about the phenomena of the world. Materialism, therefore, starts with the thoughts of Matter or material processes. But in doing so, it already has two different sets of facts before it: the material world and the thoughts about it. The Materialist tries to understand thoughts by regarding them as purely material processes. He believes that thinking takes place in the brain in about the same way as digestion takes place in the animal organs. Just as he attributes mechanical and organic effects to Matter, so he also credits Matter with the capability, under certain conditions, to think. But he overlooks that all he has done is shift the problem from one place to another location. The Materialist attributes the power of thinking to Matter instead of to himself. This brings them back to his starting point. How does Matter come to reflect upon its own nature? Why is it not simply satisfied with itself and content to accept its own existence? The Materialist has turned his attention away from the specific subject, his own I, and occupies himself with an unspecific, hazy configuration. And here the old problem comes up again. The materialistic view cannot solve the problem; it can only shift it to another place.

2.2 Spiritualism (World of Mind)
[6] And what of the Spiritualist view? The pure Spiritualist denies Matter (World) any independent existence and regards it merely as a product of Mind (I). He regards the whole phenomenal world to be nothing more than a fabric woven by Mind out of itself. This view of the world finds itself in difficulties as soon as it attempts to deduce from Mind any single concrete phenomenon. It cannot do so either in knowledge or in action.

2.3 Knowledge of the External World (External World)
If one would really know the external world, one must turn one's eye outwards and draw on the fund of experience. Without experience Mind can have no content. Similarly, when it comes to action, we have to translate our intentions into realities with the help of material things and forces. We are, therefore, dependent on the external world.

2.4 Idealism (World of Ideas)
The most extreme Spiritualist, or if you prefer, Idealist, is Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He attempts to derive the whole world structure from the "I". What he actually accomplished is a magnificent thought-picture of the world, but one without any empirical content. As little as it is possible for the Materialist to argue the Mind away, just as little is it possible for the Idealist to do without the external world of Matter.

2.5 Fiction of Senses and Thought
[8] A curious variation of Idealism is the view of Friedrich Albert Lange presented in his widely read History of Materialism. He holds the position that the Materialists are right in declaring all phenomena, including our thoughts, to be the product of purely material processes, but, conversely, Matter and its processes are themselves a product of our thinking.

“The senses give us only the effects of things, not true copies, let alone the things themselves. But among these mere effects we must include the senses themselves, along with the brain and molecular vibrations within it."

That means our thinking is produced by the material processes, and these are produced by the thinking of the "I". Lange's philosophy, in other words, is nothing more than the story, translated into concepts, of the brave Baron Münchhausen, who holds himself up freely in the air by his own pigtail.

2.6 Indivisible Unity
[9] The third form of Monism is the one that sees even in the simplest thing (the atom), the union of both Matter and Mind. But nothing is gained by this either, for here again the question, which really originates in our consciousness, is shifted to another place. How does the simple thing manifest itself in a two-fold way, if it is an indivisible unity?

2.7 Contrast Ourselves
[10] In regard to all these points of view, we must emphasize the fact that it is within our own consciousness that we first encounter the fundamental and original polarity. It is we who free ourselves from the mother ground of Nature and contrast ourselves as "I" with the "World". Goethe has given classic expression to this in his essay Nature, although his manner of expression may at first sight be considered completely unscientific: "Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers to her. Ceaselessly she speaks to us, yet tells us none of her secrets." But Goethe also knows the reverse side: "Human beings are all within her and she is within all human beings."

2.8 Feel We Belong
[11] It is true that we have estranged ourselves from Nature; but it is just as true that we feel we are within her and belong to her. It can only be Nature’s own working that also lives in us.

2.9 Know Nature Within
[12] We must find the way back to her again. A simple reflection can show us the way. We have, it is true, torn ourselves away from Nature, but we must still have taken something over into our own being. This essence of Nature within us we must seek out, and then we will discover the connection with her once again. Dualism misses this. It considers the human Mind as a spiritual entity totally alien to Nature, and then seeks somehow to connect it to Nature. No wonder that it cannot find the connecting link. We can find Nature outside us only if we first know her within us. What is akin to Nature within us will be our guide. With this our path is mapped out for us. We will not engage in any speculations about the interaction between Mind and Matter. We will rather descend into the depths of our own being, to find those elements that we saved in our escape from Nature.

2.10 Something More Than “I"
[13] The exploration of our own being must bring us the solution to the riddle. We must come to a point where we can say to ourselves: Here we are no longer merely 'I', here is something that is more than 'I'.

2.11 Description Of Experience
[14] I am aware that some who have read this far will not find my remarks in conformity with "the current position of science." I can only reply that, so far, I have not been concerned with scientific results of any kind, but rather with the simple description of what every one of us experiences in his own consciousness. A few sentences about attempts to reconcile Mind with the World have been included only to clarify the actual facts. This is why I attach no value to using single expressions like "I," "Mind", World," "Nature," in the precise way that is usual in Psychology and Philosophy.

2.12 Facts Without Interpretation
The ordinary consciousness is unaware of the sharp distinctions made by the sciences, and up to this point it has only been a matter of recording the facts of everyday experience. To object that the above discussions have been unscientific would be like quarreling with the reciter of a poem for failing to accompany every line at once with aesthetic criticism. What concerns me is not how science, so far, has interpreted consciousness, but rather how we experience it hour by hour.