Response to Chapter 2 second draft UPDATE

Submitted by Tom Last on Sat, 03/06/2010 - 1:27pm.
Link to Chapter 2 second draft JR Work-in-Progress 20091130
 
Update March 6, 2010

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

2.0 Seeking An Explanation Of World Phenomena
[1] With these words Goethe characterizes a trait belonging to the deepest foundation of human nature. The human being is not organized as a self-consistent unity. We always demand more than the world offers. Nature has given us needs, but their satisfaction is left to our own activity. However abundant is our share of Nature's bounty, even more abundant are our desires. We seem born to be dissatisfied. Our desire for knowledge is only a special instance of this unsatisfied striving.

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 first at rest, then in motion? Every look at nature evokes a number of questions in us. With every phenomenon we encounter a task is given. Every experience is a riddle. We see a creature emerging from the egg that is similar to the mother, 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 factors determining this experience. Nowhere are we satisfied with what nature spreads out before our senses. We search everywhere for what we call the explanation of the facts.

[2] We seek something more in things that exceeds what is immediately given to us. This addition we seek splits our whole being into two parts; we become conscious of contrasting with the world. We confront the world as independent beings. The universe appears to us as two contrasting 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 barrior between ourselves and the world as soon as consciousness dawns in us. But we never lose the feeling that we belong to the world, connected to it by an enduring bond, that we are not beings 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 humanity consists of nothing but this bridging. The history of spiritual life is a continuing search 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 mysteries of the world that his Self, dissatisfied with the world of mere phenomena, presents him with. The artist seeks to incorporate the ideas of his Self into his material to reconcile what lives within him with the outer world. He also 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 much more deeply than is usually the case.

The whole relationship I have described here between the Self and the World confronts us as historical phenomena in the contrast between the one-world theory of Monism, and the two-world theory of Dualism. Dualism directs its attention only to the separation between the Self and the World brought about by human consciousness. All its efforts are an ineffectual struggle to reconcile these opposing polarities, which it may call Mind and Matter or Subject and Object, or Thought and Phenomenon. The Dualist has a feeling that there must be a bridge between the two worlds, but is incapable of finding it. Monism directs its attention only to the unity and tries either to deny or blur the differences actually present. Neither of these two points of view can satisfy us, because they do not do justice to the facts.

The Dualist sees Mind (Self) and Matter (World) as two essentially different realities, so he cannot understand how they interact with each other. How can Mind know what is going on in Matter, if the essential nature of Matter is entirely foreign to Mind? Given these conditions, how can Mind affect Matter in such a way that its intentions translate into deeds? The most absurd hypotheses have been proposed to answer these questions.

The Monists are not in a much better position. They have tried to solve the problem in three different ways. Some deny Mind and become Materialists; others deny Matter in order to seek their salvation as Spiritualists; yet others claim that Mind and Matter are indivisibly united, even in the simplest substance, so it is not surprising that both kinds of existence appear in the human being because nowhere are they found apart.

2.1 Materialism
[5] Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. This is because every attempt at an explanation must begin by forming thoughts about the phenomena of the world. So Materialism takes its start with the thought 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 a purely physical processes. His belief is that thinking takes place in the brain, 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, under certain conditions, with the capacity 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 is Matter able to reflect upon its own nature? Why does it not simply accept its existence, perfectly content with itself? The Materialist has turned his attention away from the clearly defined subject, his own self, and instead becomes occupied 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.

2.2 Spiritualism
[6] What about Spiritualistic theory? The Spiritualist denies Matter (the World) and regards it as merely a product of Mind (the Self). He imagines the whole phenomenal world to be nothing more than a fabric woven by Mind out of itself. This world view 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 look outwards and draw on the fund of experience. Without experience Mind can have no content. Similarly, when we go into action, we have to translate our intentions into realities with the help of physical things and forces. In other words, we are 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.

2.5 Materialistic Idealism
[7] The view of Friedrich Albert Lange is a curious variation of Idealism presented in his widely read History of Materialism. His view is that the Materialists are right to declare that all phenomena, including our thoughts, are the product of purely material processes, yet 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 movements thought to go on there."

In other words, our thinking is produced by the physical processes, and these are produced by our thinking. Lange's philosophy is nothing but 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
[8] The third form of Monism sees the indivisble unity of Matter and Mind in even the simplest physical atom. But nothing is gained here, for the question that actually originates in our consciousness is once more shifted to another place. How can a simple substance manifest itself in two different ways, if it is indivisible?

2.7 Contrast Ourselves With The World
[9] To all these points of view, we must emphasize the fact that we first encounter the basic and original polarity in our own consciousness. We are the ones 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.

"Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers to her.
She speaks to us ceaselessly, yet tells us none of her secrets."

But Goethe also knew the other side:

"Human beings are all within her and she is within all human beings."

2.8 Nature's Influence
[10] It is true that we have estranged ourselves from Nature; but it is equally true that we feel we are within Nature and belong to her. This can only be due to Nature's influence on us, which also lives in us.

2.9 Knowing Nature Within

[11] We must find the way back to Nature 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 element of Nature within us, and then we will discover our 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 tries to hitch it up to Nature. No wonder that a connecting link cannot be found.

We can only find Nature outside us after 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 speculate about the interaction between Mind and Matter. Instead we will probe the depths of our own being in order to find those elements that we have retained in our flight from Nature.

2.10 Something More Than “I"

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

2.11 Description Of Consciousness
[13] I am aware that some who have read this far will will find that my remarks do not conform to 'the current position of science'. I can only reply that, so far, I have not been concerned with scientific results, but rather with a simple description of what we all experience in our own consciousness. Even those sentences about the attempts to reconcile Mind with the World have only been included to clarify the actual facts. This is why I have attached no value to using terms like 'Self', 'Mind', 'World' or 'Nature' in the precise way that is customary in Psychology and Philosophy.

2.12 Facts Without Interpretation
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 immediately accompany every line with aesthetic criticism. My concern is not how science has interpreted consciousness, but rather how we experience it hour by hour.

---------------------------------------END----------------------------------------------

 -------------START Dec. 15, 2009 revisions---------------


Colour code:
Tom’s comments [John’s comments] unresolved options preferred options
Tom's new comments in red

Chapter 2: The Fundamental Drive for Science


Two souls, alas, live within my breast,
Each wants to separate from the other;
One, in crude lovelust,

Two souls, alas, are in me placed;
They pull apart at every turn.
One clasps with passionate embrace
The world, for which its organs yearn;
The other, from gloom, arises chaste             
To a heritage of high concern.

(Goethe, Faust I, 1112)

2.0 Seeking An Explanation Of World Phenomena
Transcending the World of Phenomena
/ Basic Human Dissatisfaction/Seeking for Determining Factors

[1] With these words Goethe characterizes a trait that is deeply founded in human nature.

that is deeply embedded/that has a profound basis/that is established deep [mix and match!]


The human being is not uniformly organized.
a fully integrated whole/completely self-contained/a self-contained whole/complete in itself.

"uniformly organized" fits context and German without changing or adding extra unnecessary meaning. Goethe's poem says we are not uniform but live within a polarity.
I find the concept "in itself" always very difficult.

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 share of nature's bounty is abundant, but our desires are even more abundant.
our desires are even more plentiful/ we desire more than all this.

emphasis should be on desires rather than things desired. I don't think we are improving over abundant.

We seem born to be dissatisfied.
--more concise-
We seem to be born into dissatisfaction.

Our drive for knowledge is only a specific instance of this dissatisfaction.
drive demand
demand is used previously: verlangt, Drive here matches the chapter title.

We look twice at a tree. The first time we see its branches at rest, the second time in motion.
We see its branches motionless, and then moving.

We are not satisfied with
this observation. We ask why the tree appears first motionless, then in motion?
Why do we encounter the tree once at rest and another time in motion? We want to know why.

Every look at
nature evokes a number of questions in us.
observation of, observation can be over used, this translates into look or glance. 

Every phenomenon we encounter presents a new problem to be solved.
Every experience is a riddle.

Every phenomenon we encounter offers us a task/work to do.
You are right in regards to a literal translation, but it is confusing, what is the work we must do?
Hoernle clarifys both sentences and gives it clear meaning


We see a creature emerging from the egg similar to the mother, and we ask the reason for this similarity.

When we observe an egg from which a creature emerges that is similar to its mother, we want to know the reason why they are similar.


When we observe a living organism grow and develop to a certain degree of perfection, we search for the determining factors of this experience.
When we observe a living organism grow and develop to a certain level of completion, we search for the factors determining this experience.
the phrase determining factors is clearer.

Nowhere are we satisfied with what nature spreads out before our senses.
We search everywhere for what we call an explanation of the facts.

Nowhere are we satisfied with what nature spreads out before our senses. We search everywhere for what we call an explanation of the facts.

He/We always demand/s… What is our policy on gender specific language? This could be: We always demand…
Gender neutral is best but then everything becomes "we" which is very difficult in all cases with a book on individuality. Lipson did a good job but I think we will need to make some exceptions.
Transcending the World of Phenomena [if the first heading becomes different]

[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.
[2] What we seek to add to the immediate presentation of things splits our whole being into two; we become conscious of standing in opposition to/apart from the world. I think this condenses things too much which could result in not understanding. This is a very difficult section because of Steiner trying to describe experience.

We confront the world as independent beings. The universe appears to us as two opposing sides: Self and World.
The universe appears to us as two opposing/exclusive sides: self and world.
When a person becomes independent the experience is more one of opposition than exclusivity.
[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."]
[We seek something more in things that exceeds what is immediately given to us. This addition splits our whole being into two parts;
I am avoiding skewing sentence structure by not splitting first sentence.]

[3] We build up this wall of separation between ourselves and the world as soon as consciousness lights up within us. But we never lose the feeling that we belong to the world, connected to it by an enduring bond, and that we are not outsiders, but within the universe.

[3] We establish this separation/division/boundary wall between ourselves and the world as soon as consciousness dawns in us. But we never lose the certainty of feeling that we belong to the world, connected to it by an enduring bond, and that we are not outsiders but within/inside the universe.

[4] This feeling makes us strive to bridge the difference between ourselves and the world. Ultimately the entire spiritual striving of humanity is nothing but the bridging of these differences. The history of intellectual life is a continuing search for this unity.
[4] This feeling (feeling is the desire) awakens the desire/makes us strive [meaning! distinction of desire and action,
Streben=striving, desire compels the striving] to bridge the difference/distinction/separation between ourselves and the world. 

Chapter 2 is a chapter about desire motivating striving. Just as chapter 13 is.

Ultimately the entire spiritual striving/quest/aspiration [distinction of desire and action again, particularly in reference to the chapter’s title – quest is second best, resonant with questioning, quest sounds like a singular striving for humanity that is diverse] of humanity is the bridging of this separation.

The history of intellectual life is a continuing search for this unity/oneness. [The pertinent editorial addition of between ourselves and the world above means it cannot be repeated here]
I wrote this 2.0 section so that it relates to common experience. Unless a person can find this relationship this section is very difficult.

[4] This feeling makes us strive to bridge the difference between ourselves and the world. Ultimately the entire spiritual striving of humanity is nothing but the bridging of these differences. The history of intellectual life is a continuing search for this unity. between ourselves and the world.

Religion, art and science are similar in their pursuit of/alike pursue this same goal. [don’t want to omit this similarity reference, although other formulations would possibly read better. (I prefer better reading) Steiner’s tautology adds emphasis.] [German text is simplified in the next part regarding Ich – see my note below. Does the essential meaning hold good?]

Religion, Art and Science all pursue this same goal.

Hoernle
didn't impress me at first. It takes awhile to make the transition to get Hoernles approach after working with the other translations. He slowly grew on me as I began to recognize his more contemporary approach.

Gender neutral doesn't seem to work here. his/her usage is distracting.

We can't remove "I" or "Self" in this chapter as this is the theme.


The religious believer seeks within the revelation granted by God the solution to the world problem that his Self, dissatisfied with the world of mere phenomena, presents him with. The artist seeks to incorporate the ideas of his Self into his material to reconcile what lives within him with the outer world. He also 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 what he experiences through observation with thinking .

The religious believer seeks within the revelation from ( zuteil:  granted, bestowed)  God for the solution to the world riddles (today we deal with problems rather than riddles) posed by her/his own experience of dissatisfaction with the world of mere phenomena. The artist seeks to incorporate her/his own ideas into her/his materials to reconcile her/his own inner experience with the outer world. She/He also feels dissatisfied with the world as it appears, and seeks to mould into it /give outer shape to/express what transcends within her/him the world of phenomena. The thinker seeks for the laws of the phenomena,
endeavouring to penetrate her/his own observations with thinking.

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.

Only when we have made the content of the world into our thought content will we rediscover the unity from which we have become separated ourselves [the self has become separated]. We will see later that this goal can only be reached if the scientific researcher’s task is understood on a much deeper level than is usually the case.

We meet all that I have outlined here about the relationship between the Self and the World as historical phenomena in the conflict between the one-world theory of Monism, and the two-world theory of Dualism.

We meet all that I have outlined here as the relationship between self and the world in the historical phenomena/appearance of the conflict between the one-world theory of monism, and the two-world theory of dualism.

Dualism directs its attention only to the separation between the Self and the World brought about by human consciousness. Its entire 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.

Dualism concentrates exclusively on the separation brought about by human consciousness between the self and the world. Its entire effort is poured into an ineffectual struggle to reconcile these polar opposites/opposing 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 incapable of finding it.

Monism directs its attention only to the unity and tries either to deny or blur the differences actually present.

The Monist concentrates exclusively on the unity, and tries to deny or blur/obscure the very real contradictions/differences.

Both points of view are unsatisfactory because neither does justice to the facts. The Dualist sees Mind (Self) and Matter (World) as two essentially different realities, so he cannot understand how they interact with each other.

Both points of view are unsatisfactory because neither justifies/does justice to the facts. Dualism sees mind (self) and matter (world) as two essentially different realities/essentially exclusive, so it cannot understand how they interact with each other.

How can Mind know what is going on in Matter if the essential nature of Matter is entirely foreign to Mind? Or, under these conditions, how can Mind affect Matter in such a way that its intentions translate into deeds?

How can mind know what is going on in matter if the essential nature of matter is entirely foreign/alien to mind? How can mind affect matter in such a way that its intentions translate into/become deeds under these conditions of exclusivity?

The most ingenious and most absurd hypotheses have been proposed to answer these questions.

The most ingenious and highly absurd hypotheses/theories have been proposed to resolve these questions.

Monism has not managed to reach a better position. Monists have tried to solve the problem in three different ways. Some deny Mind and become Materialists; others deny Matter in order to seek their salvation as Spiritualists; yet others claim that mind and matter are indivisibly united in the world, even in the simplest substance, so it is not surprising that both kinds of existence appear in the human being because nowhere are they found apart.

Monism has not managed to reach a better position. Monists have tried to solve the problem in three different ways. Some deny mind and become Materialists; others deny matter and seek for a cure in Spiritualism; yet others claim that mind and matter are indivisibly united in the world, even in the simplest substance, so it is not surprising that both kinds/modes of existence appear in the human being because nowhere are they found apart.

2.1 Materialism
[5] Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. This is because every attempt at an explanation must begin by forming thoughts about the phenomena of the world. So Materialism begins with thoughts about Matter or physical processes.

Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. This is because every attempt to explain must begin by forming thoughts about the phenomena of the world. So Materialism starts with thoughts about 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 thought by regarding it as a purely physical process.

But in doing so it is already dealing with two different sets of facts: the physical world and the thoughts about it. A Materialist tries to understand thought by regarding it as a purely physical process.

Hoernle didn't catch all the revisions in his second version. Chemical remains in Hoernle's revised POF even though it was dropped or accidently left out of the revised German.

His belief is that thinking takes place in the brain 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,
under certain conditions, with the capacity to think. But he overlooks that all he has done is shift the problem to another place.

His belief is that thinking happens in the brain much like digestion takes place in an animal’s organs. Just as mechanical, chemical and organic processes are attributed to it, matter is also credited with the capacity to think under certain conditions. He forgets that all he has done is to shift the problem to another place.

The Materialist attributes the capacity to think
to Matter instead of to himself. This brings him back to his starting point. How is Matter able to reflect upon its own nature? Why does it not simply accept its existence, perfectly content with itself? The Materialist has turned his attention away from the clearly defined subject of his own self, and becomes occupied instead with 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.

Fähigkeit des Denkens: ability, capability of thinking
A Materialist attributes thinking activity to matter, not his own self. This brings him back to the starting point. How is matter able to reflect upon its own nature? Why does it not simply accept its existence with satisfaction? The Materialist has turned his attention away from the clearly defined subject of his own self, and becomes occupied instead with vague and complex shadows. (what shadows? I tried to make sense of this) And the same problem is rediscovered there. The materialistic view cannot solve the problem, only defer it.
2.2 Spiritualism
[6] What about Spiritualist theory? The Spiritualist denies that Matter (the World) has any independent existence and regards it as
merely 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.

[6] What about Spiritualist theory? The pure (pure was added later) Spiritualist denies that matter [the world] has any independent existence and regards it as merely 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. Therefore we are dependent on the 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.] this section untamed, awaiting the arrival of the German text] Similarly, when we go into action, our intentions require the help of physical substances and forces to become realities. Therefore we are 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.

The most extreme Spiritualist, who might rather be called an Idealist, is Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He attempts to derive the whole world structure from the "ego". What he has accomplished is actually a magnificent thought-picture of the world without any empirical content. It is as impossible for Materialists to argue away the mind as for Idealists Spiritualists (this shows Steiner working with the outlook structure, changing idealist to spiritualist later when the outlook sections here were shifted when a new idealism section was inserted.) to do away with the outer physical world.


2.5 Materialistic Idealism

[8] A curious variation of Idealism is presented by Friedrich Albert Lange in his widely read History of Materialism.
His view is that Materialists are right to declare that all phenomena, including our thoughts, are the product of purely material processes, yet conversely, matter and its processes are themselves the product of our thinking.

[8] A curious/remarkable/singular variation of Idealism is presented by Friedrich Albert Lange is in his widely read History of Materialism. His view is that Materialists are right to declare that all phenomena, including our thoughts, are the product of purely material processes, yet conversely, matter and its processes are themselves merely a product of our thinking.

“The senses give us only the effects of things, not true copies, let alone the things themselves.
But these mere effects include the senses themselves, along with the brain and the movement of molecules thought to be in it."

“The senses only present to us… the effects of things, not even true/accurate copies, let alone the things themselves. But these mere effects include the senses themselves, along with the brain and the molecules that are assumed to move/vibrate within it.”

In other words, our thinking is produced by the physical processes that we produce ourselves by thinking. Lange's philosophy is nothing more than a conceptual translation of the tale of the bold Baron Münchhausen, who holds himself up freely in the air by his own pigtail.

In other words, our thinking is produced by the physical processes that we produce ourselves by thinking. Lange's philosophy conveys nothing more than the concepts found in/ is nothing more than a reinterpretation of the tale of bold Baron von Münchhausen, who freely lifts himself up into the air by his own pigtail.
2.6 Indivisible Unity
[9] The third form of Monism is the one that finds even in the simplest real thing (the atom), Matter and Mind already united. But nothing is gained here, for the question that actually originates in our consciousness is once more shifted to another place. How can a simple substance manifest itself in two different ways if it is an indivisible unity?

[9] The third form of Monism sees the union [implies that 2 things have joined together] at some point in creation they could have joined together oneness/indivisible unity of matter and mind in even the simplest physical atom/thing (the atom). But nothing is gained here, for the question that really/actually originates in our consciousness is once more shifted elsewhere. How can a simple substance manifest itself in two different ways if it is indivisible?

2.7 Contrast of Self with the World
[10]
To all these points of view we must emphasize the fact that it is in our own consciousness that we first encounter the original and fundamental mental opposition. We are the ones who detach ourselves from the mother soil of Nature and contrast ourselves as Self with the World. Goethe has given classic expression to this in his essay Nature.

"Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers to her. She speaks to us ceaselessly, yet tells us none of her secrets.”

But Goethe also knew the other side:
“Human beings are all within her and she is within all human beings.”


[10] In regard to all these points of view, we must emphasize the fundamental fact that we first encounter the original mental [helpful word addition likely by Hoernle or original Steiner] opposition/contrast in our own consciousness. We are the ones who detach/separate ourselves from the mother soil of nature and face the world as self. Goethe has expressed this classically in his essay Nature:

“Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers to her. She speaks to us ceaselessly, yet tells us none of her secrets.”

But Goethe also knew the other side:

“Human beings are all within her and she is within all [human beings].” I don't see others adding brackets, it seems a distraction.
If we want to publish the original POF then we will need to stick to that, rather than be selective between both versions.
[This also needs double-checking with the first edition source.] My version here has not been checked yet with the first edition.

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

[11] It is true that we have estranged ourselves from nature, but it is equally true that we feel we are within nature and belong to it. This can only be due to nature's influence/activity that also lives in us.

2.9 Knowing Nature Within
[12] We must find the way back to Nature 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 element of Nature within us, and then we will discover our connection with it again. Dualism fails to do this. Starting with the conviction that the human Mind as an entirely spiritual entity totally alien to Nature, Dualism then tries to somehow hitch it up to Nature. No wonder that it cannot find the connecting link. We can only find Nature outside us after 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 speculate about the interaction between Mind and Matter. Instead we will probe the depths of our own being in order to find those elements that we took with us in our flight from Nature.

[12] We must find the way back to nature again. A simple reflection can show us how. The truth is that we have torn ourselves away from nature, but we must have retained something of it in our own selves/within us. We must seek out this quality of nature within us/inside ourselves, and then we will discover our connection with it again. Dualism fails to do this. Starting from the conviction that the/inner human mind/experience is entirely spiritual and incompatible with nature, Dualism then tries to hitch it up to nature. No wonder that a connecting link cannot be found. We can only find nature outside us after we know it within us. What corresponds/The similarity [it’s that similarity chain again, although corresponds reads much better] to nature within us will be our guide. This maps out our path of inquiry. We will not speculate here about the interaction between mind and matter. Instead we will probe the depths of our own being in order to find those elements that we took with us/have retained in our flight from nature.

2.10 Something More than ‘I’/Self
[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 more than 'I'.

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

2.11 Experience of Self-Consciousness
[14] I am aware that some who have read this far will find that my remarks do not conform to ‘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 a 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 terms like "Self," "Mind", World," or "Nature," in the precise way that is customary in Psychology and Philosophy.

[14] I am aware that some who have read this far will find that my remarks do not conform to ‘the current position of science’. I can only reply that, so far, I have not been concerned with any kind of scientific results, but rather with a simple description of what we all experience in our own consciousness. Even those sentences about the attempts to reconcile mind with the world have only been included to clarify the actual facts. This is why I have attached no value to using terms/expressions like ‘self’, ‘mind’, ‘world’ or ‘nature’ with the precision that is customary 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 immediately accompany every line with aesthetic criticism. My concern is not how science has interpreted consciousness until now, but rather how we experience it hour by hour.

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/criticising the reciter of a poem/recitation of a poem failed for failing to immediately accompany every line with aesthetic criticism/analysis.] awaiting the German source] [Steiner removed this line and added the line at 2.7 -in red-] My concern here is not how far science has managed to interpret consciousness, but rather how we experience it hour by hour.

 
======== end of Chapter 2 =========

 

START WEB VERSION********************************************************

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

2.0 Seeking An Explanation Of World Phenomena
[1] With these words Goethe characterizes a trait belonging to the deepest foundation of human nature. The human being is not a self-contained whole. We always demand more than the world offers. Nature has given us needs, but their satisfaction is left to our own activity. However abundant is our share of Nature's bounty, even more abundant are our desires. We seem born to be dissatisfied. Our drive for knowledge is only a special instance of this unsatisfied striving.

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 first at rest, then in motion? Every look at nature evokes a number of questions in us. With every phenomenon we encounter a task is given. Every experience is a riddle. We see a creature emerging from the egg that is similar to the mother, 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 factors determining this experience. Nowhere are we satisfied with what nature spreads out before our senses. We search everywhere for what we call the explanation of the facts.

[2] We seek something more in things that exceeds what is immediately given to us. This addition we seek splits our whole being into two parts; we become conscious of contrasting with the world. We confront the world as independent beings. The universe appears to us as two contrasting 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 barrior between ourselves and the world as soon as consciousness dawns in us. But we never lose the feeling that we belong to the world, connected to it by an enduring bond, that we are not beings 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 humanity consists of nothing but this bridging. The history of spiritual life is a continuing search 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 mysteries of the world that his Self, dissatisfied with the world of mere phenomena, presents him with. The artist seeks to incorporate the ideas of his Self into his material to reconcile what lives within him with the outer world. He also 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 much more deeply than is usually the case.

The whole relationship I have described here between the Self and the World confronts us as historical phenomena in the contrast between the one-world theory of Monism, and the two-world theory of Dualism. Dualism directs its attention only to the separation between the Self and the World brought about by human consciousness. All its efforts are an ineffectual struggle to reconcile these opposing polarities, which it may call Mind and Matter or Subject and Object, or Thought and Phenomenon. The Dualist has a feeling that there must be a bridge between the two worlds, but is incapable of finding it. Monism directs its attention only to the unity and tries either to deny or blur the differences actually present. Neither of these two points of view can satisfy us, because they do not do justice to the facts.

The Dualist sees Mind (Self) and Matter (World) as two essentially different realities, so he cannot understand how they interact with each other. How can Mind know what is going on in Matter, if the essential nature of Matter is entirely foreign to Mind? Given these conditions, how can Mind affect Matter in such a way that its intentions translate into deeds? The most absurd hypotheses have been proposed to answer these questions.

The Monists are not in a much better position. They have tried to solve the problem in three different ways. Some deny Mind and become Materialists; others deny Matter in order to seek their salvation as Spiritualists; yet others claim that Mind and Matter are indivisibly united, even in the simplest substance, so it is not surprising that both kinds of existence appear in the human being because nowhere are they found apart.

2.1 Materialism
[5] Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. This is because every attempt at an explanation must begin by forming thoughts about the phenomena of the world. So Materialism takes its start 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 a purely physical processes. His belief is that thinking takes place in the brain, 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, under certain conditions, with the capacity 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 is Matter able to reflect upon its own nature? Why does it not simply accept its existence, perfectly content with itself? The Materialist has turned his attention away from the clearly defined subject, his own self, and instead becomes occupied 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.

2.2 Spiritualism
[6] What about Spiritualistic theory? The Spiritualist denies Matter (the World) and regards it as merely a product of Mind (the Self). He imagines the whole phenomenal world to be nothing more than a fabric woven by Mind out of itself. This world view 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 look outwards and draw on the fund of experience. Without experience Mind can have no content. Similarly, when we go into action, we have to translate our intentions into realities with the help of physical things and forces. In other words, we are 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.

2.5 Materialistic Idealism
[7] The view of Friedrich Albert Lange is a curious variation of Idealism presented in his widely read History of Materialism. His view is that the Materialists are right to declare that all phenomena, including our thoughts, are the product of purely material processes, yet 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 movements thought to go on there."

In other words, our thinking is produced by the physical processes, and these are produced by our thinking. Lange's philosophy is nothing but 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
[8] The third form of Monism sees the indivisble unity of Matter and Mind in even the simplest physical atom. But nothing is gained here, for the question that actually originates in our consciousness is once more shifted to another place. How can a simple substance manifest itself in two different ways, if it is indivisible?

2.7 Contrast Self With The World
[9] To all these points of view, we must emphasize the fact that we first encounter the fundamental and primal mental opposition in our own consciousness. We are the ones 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.

"Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers to her.
She speaks to us ceaselessly, yet tells us none of her secrets."

But Goethe also knew the other side:

"Human beings are all within her and she is within all human beings."

2.8 Nature's Influence
[10] It is true that we have estranged ourselves from Nature; but it is equally true that we feel we are within Nature and belong to her. This can only be due to Nature's influence on us, which also lives in us.

2.9 Knowing Nature Within

[11] We must find the way back to Nature 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 element of Nature within us, and then we will discover our 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 tries to hitch it up to Nature. No wonder that a connecting link cannot be found.

We can only find Nature outside us after 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 speculate about the interaction between Mind and Matter. Instead we will probe the depths of our own being in order to find those elements that we have retained in our flight from Nature.
***
2.10 Something More Than “I"

[12] 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 more than 'I'.

2.11 Experience Of Self-Consciousness
[13] I am aware that some who have read this far will will find that my remarks do not conform to 'the current position of science'. I can only reply that, so far, I have not been concerned with scientific results, but rather with a simple description of what we all experience in our own consciousness. Even those sentences about the attempts to reconcile Mind with the World have only been included to clarify the actual facts. This is why I have attached no value to using terms like 'Self', 'Mind', 'World' or 'Nature' in the precise way that is customary in Psychology and Philosophy.

2.12 Facts Without Interpretation
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 immediately accompany every line with aesthetic criticism. My concern is not how science has interpreted consciousness, but rather how we experience it hour by hour.

 

Hoernle by John Ralph
Tom's Study Guide by R.Lundberg
seeing the outlooks by Tom Last