Zend Avesta 02 English.

Zend - Avesta
or
about the things of heavenand the hereafter
From the point of view of nature

from
Gustav Theodor Fechner
Third edition.
Concerned by Kurd Laßwitz.
Second volume
--------------------
Hamburg and Leipzig.
Publisher by Leopold Voss.
1906.
Table of Contents:
Second volume.
About the things of heaven.
XV. Appendix to the third section
A. Additions about the aesthetic assessment of the shape and color of the earth
B. About the solid structure of the earth
C. About the liquid of the earth
D. About the air
E. About the imponderable potencies
F. About the development of the earth
G. Self-preservation principle in the solar system
XVI. Appendix to the fifth section
Some ideas about the first emergence and the successive creations of the organic
kingdom of the earth
XVII. Appendix to the eighth section
additional considerations about the sensory realm of the earth
XVIII. Appendix to the ninth section
Additions about the step structure of the world
XIX. Appendix to section eleventh
A. Practical argument for the existence of God and a future life
B. Addition about the supreme world law and its relationship to freedom
C. About the question of freedom from a practical point of view
D. Basic view of the relationship between body and mind
a) Presentation
b) Comparison
c) Justification and probation
Addition l. About the more detailed physiological conditions of the
objective physical appearance
Addendum 2. Brief explanation of a new principle of mathematical
psychology
XX. Overview of the Doctrine of the Things of Heaven
About the things of the hereafter.

Preface
XXI. About the meaning of human death and the relationship between the future and
the present life
XXII. Development of the analogy of the future life with a memory life
A. Relationship of the otherworldly spirits to the higher spirit and to each
other
B. Relationship of the otherworldly to this world of spirits
C. About the relationships of the otherworldly spirits to the world of senses
on this side and the higher reality
XXIII. From the physical basis of future life
A. From the otherworldly corporeality as it appears from this point of view
B. From the otherworldly corporeality as it appears from the otherworldly
standpoint
XXIV. Difficulties of various kinds
A. Question how man can take over his inner formation and development into
the hereafter
B. Questions that relate to the destruction of the brain in death, the suffering
and aging of the spirit with the body
C. Question how the existences of the hereafter Can exist undeterred by one
another.
D. Question how far the death of our present body can bring about an
awakening of our future body
XXV. Analogies of death with birth
XXVI. About the common attempts to establish the doctrine of immortality
XXVII. Direct justification of the doctrine of immortality
XXVIII. Practical considerations
XXIX. Comparison
XXX. Points of reference of our teaching to Christian teaching in particular
XXXI. Overview of the doctrine of the things of the hereafter
XXXII. Beliefs
XV. Appendix to the third section.

A. Additions about aesthetic assessment
of the shape and color of the earth.
(See vol. IS 52 ff.)
It is undisputed that it is not without reason that it has repeatedly occurred to
explain the spherical shape to be the most perfect shape, only that it cannot be the
most perfect for the formation of man because he is still a very subordinate being as a
human being, and each shape only according to the measure when it corresponds to
the destiny of the essence, it can be called perfect in its kind. But it also depends on
the type. Only a higher being, which has a more rounded, more harmoniously self-
contained existence, tolerates and demands the spherical shape. Admittedly not a pure
one, which would contradict any individualization; but it suffices that the main
feature be spherical and allow and have its modifications. The main form of man,
which is still rather complex, proves in itself that that its organization is still far from
its independent conclusion and goals of completion; rather it belongs to the members
of the elaboration, the means of perfection, than that it is in itself something
perfected. And shouldn't he be humble enough not to contradict it? But in its shape
there are tendencies towards rounding off, which are most important precisely in the
places that are most important for us. What the earth, but not man as a whole, is able
to achieve, we see him reach in his noblest parts, head and eye, which are mostly
about the dependence not on the earth, but on the lower ground to raise. So we first
have the earth itself, then in it the human head, in it the human eye as approximations
to the sphere; but the head means more than the eye, and the earth more than the
head. From a teleological point of view, however, it can be assumed that man, too, in
his form would have become completely head or eye, and thus would have reflected
the earth even more purely on the earth itself than is the case now if he were only
completely without dependence from the ground could have existed. Even earlier, the
spherical shape of the earth itself was teleologically related to its external
independence and material lack of need (Vol. I. Chapter III, Chapter VI). So what
distinguishes the shape of man from that of the earth can only be understood as an
expression of the lesser independence and perfection of his being. that man, too, in
his form would have become completely head or eye, and thus would have reflected
the earth even more purely on the earth itself than is the case now, if only he could
have existed without being dependent on the soil. Even earlier, the spherical shape of
the earth itself was teleologically related to its external independence and material
lack of need (Vol. I. Chapter III, Chapter VI). So what distinguishes the shape of man
from that of the earth can only be understood as an expression of the lesser
independence and perfection of his being. that man, too, in his form would have
become completely head or eye, and thus would have reflected the earth even more
purely on the earth itself than is the case now, if only he could have existed without
being dependent on the soil. Even earlier, the spherical shape of the earth itself was
theologically related to its external independence and material lack of need (Vol. I.
Chapter III, Chapter VI). So what distinguishes the shape of man from that of the
earth can only be understood as an expression of the lesser independence and
perfection of his being. Even earlier, the spherical shape of the earth itself was
teleologically related to its external independence and material lack of need (Vol. I.
perfection of his being. Even earlier, the spherical shape of the earth itself was
theologically related to its external independence and material lack of need (Vol. I.
perfection of his being.
If the earth is whole what we are only in terms of our most perfect parts, then it is
also much more perfect than they are themselves. Because the spherical main shape
of our head is almost destroyed in the face and only imperfectly preserved in the
cranial vault and eye. On the other hand, the spherical shape of the earth is not both
destroyed and nuanced by the flattening, and the mightiest mountains are unable to
significantly affect the main shape, and the moving play of features on the surface of
the earth, with inexpressibly greater diversity and freedom, leaves the main shape
much more undisturbed than the play of our facial features, while the latter moves in
variations of a comparatively much higher order. This depends essentially on the size
of the earth; for by virtue of this the modifications of their form could, taken in
absolute terms, be greater and more varied than with us, and yet affect the main form
relatively less; the grossest variations of our shape are still among their finest.
In several respects we are reminded of principles in the natural form of the stars,
which also applied to the artistic form of the Greek gods, whereby one may
remember that the Greek gods themselves to a large extent only anthropomorphoses
of the stars. As the Greeks perceived that the more ideal a man's education, the
greater his point of view; So they exaggerated it with their gods and increased the
angle of view even beyond what occurs in humans, up to 100 °, since the usual angle
of view with us is only about 85 °, with negroes only 70 °. And this contributes
significantly to the highly ideal expression of the Greek gods' faces. But of course,
essentially human, the face still had to be kept according to the needs of an art, that
was meant by people for people. Nature is no longer bound to this consideration,
indeed it must no longer be bound to it in the realm of higher beings. And so we see
them what is only strived for in the noblest parts of man, the spherical form in the
higher beings in a higher sense, exaggeratingly fully extending to the whole shape of
the same.
The main feature of the Greek profile is the same for all Greek gods, only slightly
differently curved, and in simplicity it surpasses any other face shape. The shape of
the stars is also in the for all The main features are the same, curved only slightly
differently, and in simplicity surpasses any other form in general. But as much as the
Greek face is much simpler than the bumpy face of a Kalmuck, it is also capable of
much more finely developed expression, and what a more noble, higher difference
lies between the various faces of the Greek gods. Yet the main feature of the face of
the Greek goddesses Venus and Luna is still bumpy compared to that of the celestial
bodies that bear their names, and how much more finely worked the surface of a
celestial body is than that of a Greek statue, and not by chance, but with the greatest
care Preservation of higher considerations of purpose, which cannot deviate from
higher considerations of beauty.
One can grasp us sharply and say that if the spherical shape is the most perfect
shape, the elliptical and more detailed modification of the spherical shape cannot be
the most perfect. One or the other. But here, too, it is with natural beauty as with
artistic beauty. Basically a conflict takes place between the sufficiency for the lower
and the higher sense, the first of which demands only the purest, most regular trait,
the latter a characteristic expression of higher spiritual significance, which cannot be
without a modification of the regular, symmetrical. Now the greatest beauty lies
where the conflict is resolved in such a way that the two are as much as possible
enough in one; something, however, must give way to every demand.
If, from a human point of view, we want to raise the question of a form's beauty
that is valid beyond the human point of view - and do not philosophers usually ask
absolute questions and demands in this regard, although of course they only answer
with absolute words? - I think that we have no safer considerations than the kind of
those developed here, which proceed from the human and lead beyond the same. Or
what would they be? And when figures in nature show themselves as they are worthy
of those contemplations of higher beings, should we want to see empty shells in these
figures, and should we still want to see them when everything unites to show them
filled with life?
We have only considered the plastic side of the beauty of the earth; But let us now
remember that luster and color, shadow and light are essential, yes, more essential for
their beauty and characteristics than for that of man himself (Vol. I, Chapter III); and
if the eye might still miss something in the variety of conditions in the earth with
regard to the main figure, its demands are all the more surpassed with regard to the
manifold change and change of luster and color; but the whole impression of the
phenomenon rests on the cooperation of both sides on which it depends.
B. About the solid framework of the earth.
In a certain sense, the rock structure of the earth could be compared with the
skeleton of the human body, provided that it serves the earth as a solid basis for the
attachment of moving parts, just as the skeleton serves us. From another side,
however, our skeleton itself can be seen as one of the moving parts of the earth's
skeleton, as a member articulated on it, since the voluntary movement of our body in
relation to the earth's body can only take place just by being attached to it, as can
voluntary movement of our limbs in relation to the rest of the body (cf. Vol. I. Chap.
III), to which some other equation points are added. Even with the main body of the
earth, our body is more firmly and securely turned, while at the same time moving
more freely, than any member of our body with the main body. Indeed, gravity keeps
man tied more tightly to the earth and leads him back to it more securely when he
wants to leave it than all elastic ligaments with our bones can do; our soles are also
hollow and the earth rough, so that our feet Hold on to your win and don't slide by
yourself. But man can move freely around the entire globe; however, there is only
very limited mobility in our joints.
As is so often the case, we find here an advantage that the organization of man
only strives for by itself, through the connection of earth and man, or rather the earth
which deals with man as a member, to the most perfect degree. Man, the highest
creature on earth, excels in the ability to twist and turn his limbs in all directions, all
animals that have a skeleton at all; but the earth still surpasses it unspeakably in that
it uses it as a movable member with the other animals itself. The Weber brothers have
made the interesting remark that a person can reach anywhere on his body with his
hands, even the fingers of one hand are sufficient, only that they only partially touch
the arm on which they are located capital;
To be sure, the solid structure of the earth has a completely different preponderance
against our skeletons that move on it than the main trunk of our skeleton has against
its freely moving limbs; and, as everywhere, a thorough comparison cannot be
drawn. But precisely because the solid framework of the earth has that preponderance
of strength and size compared to our skeletons, the basic trunk of our skeleton does
not have it again against its limbs; because our skeleton itself has more flexible limbs
as a whole. The contrast between a fixed base trunk and flexibly structured
approaches is repeated in the earth according to an unparalleled higher proportion
than it occurs in us. All human and animal structures have, so to speak, their common
solid backbone in the basic structure of the earth, And with its immense strength,
imperturbability and inviolability, which lies in its immense preponderance of size
over the parts that move on it, the main trunk of the skeleton in humans and animals
has now been able to maintain a certain inner mobility in its vertebrae in order to
move towards different ones Bending purposes; it does not have the full nature of a
solid framework, rather it is more or less shaken and bent with all movements of our
limbs, but this does not harm, because the earth is firm. The earth owes to this
enormous preponderance of its basic structure over its movable limbs the great
independence with which it can move them. How many people and animals step on
it, no one wobbles when the other kicks;
One sees here once again how the in one respect great similarity between the
relationships of man and the earth fails completely in another. In a certain respect
nothing can be more comparable than the turning of the creatures of the earth into the
solid framework of the earth with the turning of our limbs into the main framework of
our body; nothing different in other respects. But here, as everywhere, we find the
deviation with the earth in the sense of a higher expediency. If we wanted, in order to
be able to compare humans and animals quite accurately with limbs of the earth, that
they were just as big in relation to it as our limbs in relation to our main trunk, then
we also demanded that every step of a person and the beast shook the whole earth
mightily, whereby the other people and animals would have been shaken at the same
time; in order to prevent this, the limbs of the earth have been made tiny in relation to
the whole earth; and in so far, of course, no longer quite comparable with our
limbs. Incidentally, Vol. I. Chap. III made remark about the greater importance of
small modifications here, as often in the following, their application.
The size of the structure of the earth affords the second advantage that it permits
the use of innumerable and innumerable diverse members. While every person and
every animal has only a few individual limbs attached to their basic structure in
limited places with limited freedom of movement, the earth around is occupied by
freely movable limbs or rather whole limb systems (humans and animals) of the most
varied kinds, which the Have freedom of movement around the world. Everyone has
only two similar arms; The earth has 1,000 million similar people who move on it,
and how many other kinds of animals, each of which manipulates it in a different
way. Insofar as all of these move together on their spherical surface, we can say the
basic structure of the earth is set up like a single large joint joint head for the mobile
attachment of all its limbs. In this way it is at the same time a very solid vault in
terms of its thickness to be carried, and in terms of its surface an entirely articulated
head for movement. This perfect union of both functions does not occur in our body,
and the articular surfaces are scattered here and there. On the other hand, some things
in the earth that merge with us are now being dismantled. and the articular surfaces
are also scattered here and there. On the other hand, some things in the earth that
merge with us are now being dismantled. and the articular surfaces are also scattered
here and there. On the other hand, some things in the earth that merge with us are
now being dismantled.
With us, the movement of the limbs on the main trunk occurs through the
mediation of the synovial fluid and, as the Weber brothers have proven, the air
pressure. In the case of the earth, the movement of the solid on the solid is made
possible without the aid of an intermediate liquid; the people and animals run across
the dry land. But now part of the earth is still covered with liquid to make swimming
possible for fish and ships; the air plays its part in the flight of birds, and the air
pressure in particular in the movement of the flies on ceilings and walls, the
advancement of the leeches and some other animals. The earth has thus been able to
dissolve the functions of solid, fluid and airy fused in our joint movement into a
threefold function.
Our skeleton includes certain parts and excludes certain parts, the first evidently
with a predominant purpose of protection against the outside world and of union with
one another like the entrails of the head, chest and pelvic cavities, the latter with the
opposite purpose, them in the to present the most suitable positions and with the most
solid bases for open intercourse with the outside world and with one another, such as,
in particular, the sense organs and organs of voluntary movement; Finally, with the
mutual purpose of closing off the inner and outer parts from one another in such a
way that, without hindering their functional interaction, a disturbance of their
functions is prevented, which would undoubtedly easily occur if the brain and other
viscera were between the external movements. and sense organs hanging around. The
former would then not be able to carry out their inwardly directed functions
undisturbed, the latter their outwardly directed functions. But in order to place both in
relation to one another, the bone walls are pierced with holes through which nerves
and veins act as mediation.
In our skeleton, however, a conflict of these purposes occurs several times, which
hinders their exhaustive fulfillment, whereas in the basic structure of the earth we see
all these purposes fully met in one.
First and foremost, the purpose of protection by surrounding with solid parts in our
pelvic, thoracic and completely abdominal cavity is only very incompletely fulfilled,
most of all in the formation of the skull by enclosing the brain, and yet only an
incomplete one-sided approach to performance of the solid earth structure
achieved. Because this represents a completely closed capsule (except for the small
volcanic herd) around its liquid entrails; and thus combines with the advantages of
the firmest supporting vault and the most perfect joint head also the advantages of the
most perfect skull capsule, which does not mean that what this capsule encloses also
has cerebral significance for the earth; rather, because the fact that our brain is
enclosed in a special small solid capsule, it saved the earth from burying it under the
large capsule, as will soon be examined more closely. But even if the solid shell of
the earth has no brain to protect, it has something else to protect, provided that, like
the wall of a stone jug, which encloses a hot liquid, it contributes very substantially
the inner geothermal heat, which otherwise enters the space much more freely would
emit to hold back. Of this later.
The structure of the earth corresponds more completely than ours, since the convex
spherical shape the carries out the most all-round and most uniform presentation to
the outside world by itself and holds the parts on the surface most skilfully apart with
the ability to put oneself into any different relationship to one another; And since
everything that is supposed to serve the communication with the outside world is
really also completely placed on the convex outer surface of the earth's framework,
while with us much of it, indeed the most important thing, lies either in inner caves
enclosed all around or in deep depressions of the outer surface because the purpose to
grant him an external protection and undisturbed activity, with the purpose of freely
presenting it to the outside world, comes into conflict; therefore communication with
the outside world has to be restored from a certain point of view only through
external entrances and sometimes long middle links. Our brain, which is most
fundamentally involved in all human intercourse, is entirely in an inner cavity, four of
our sense organs are enclosed in deep depressions on the outside, only in the case of
the tactile organ the all-round dissemination of the same replaces, which makes the
injury to a single point appear harmless , the protection. In the case of the earth, on
the other hand, everything that has brain and sensory power is placed entirely on the
outer arch of its main structure, For which, of course, the supplementary protection
for our brain and our main senses had to stand up. The earth is shaped like a skull
which, instead of using its concavities to hide the brain completely, the main senses
half hidden therein, conversely uses its convexity to hold the brain freely out into the
sky with the senses on all sides, and the freest communication to present among
themselves what every person is only like a movable handle. If it was not a question
of protection, it would be best for our brain, too, without a skull capsule, to lie open
to every impression it is supposed to receive and process from the outside; but now
this need for protection is satisfied in our skull, the earth does not repeat, but rather
uses this measure on a large scale, by letting our senses and brains communicate
freely with one another and with heaven. So how foolish it would be to look again for
a brain, or what its meaning would mean, in the depths of the earth, because such a
brain lies in our depths; just so as not to lay the brain in its depths, it put it in ours, but
put us on the surface. If a brain were hidden under the thick cranial capsule of the
earth, embedded in the rest of the matter, it would be worse off than a mole, and all
the long ropes and corridors, led through the earth's crust according to the analogy of
our nerves and vessels, could not have the advantageous arrangement replace, which
now really takes place for the easy and immediate reference of the same to the
influences that it is supposed to absorb and process. From the advantages
Of course, if the outside of the earth carries brain and sensory power at the same
time, if, moreover, the whole vein system of the earth, which is to some extent
comparable with such, has been placed on the outside, the holes could now also be
omitted in the capsule of the earth serve to pass nerves and vessels through the skull
capsule, it could be completely closed and thus become all the more suitable for
preventing all interfering internal and external interference. But that a precaution
against this is not superfluous, becomes easily clear when we remember that the
interior of the earth is a glowing liquid, and as shown earlier (Vol. I. Chapter III),
ebbing and flowing in its way. Now, of course, neither these movements of the inner
gluten sea nor of the outer flood sea, nor the movements of our rivers, The whole of
organic life can still exist outside in such an orderly manner as it would be if the inner
fluid were not cut off from the outer by the solid earth crust; Indeed, how necessary
this closure is, we recognize from the devastation which glowing lava flows can
cause, which despite the same sometimes break out from the interior, but are not
relevant to the whole. But as perfect as this material closure is, it is no more a closure
of the inner development of force against the outside, in that gravity and magnetism
work so freely through the shell from the inside to the outside, as if the shell were not
there. Without having special openings, it is completely continuous for these
effects. if the inner fluid were not cut off from the outer by the solid earth's
crust; Indeed, how necessary this closure is, we recognize from the devastation which
glowing lava flows can cause, which despite the same sometimes break out from the
interior, but are not relevant to the whole. But as perfect as this material closure is, it
is no more a closure of the inner development of force against the outside, in that
gravity and magnetism work so freely through the shell from the inside to the outside,
as if the shell were not there. Without having special openings, it is completely
continuous for these effects. if the inner fluid were not cut off from the outer by the
solid earth's crust; Indeed, how necessary this closure is, we recognize from the
devastation which glowing lava flows can cause, which despite the same sometimes
break out from the interior, but are not relevant to the whole. But as perfect as this
material closure is, it is no more a closure of the inner development of force against
the outside, in that gravity and magnetism work so freely through the shell from the
inside to the outside, as if the shell were not there. Without having special openings,
it is completely continuous for these effects. which, in spite of the same, sometimes
break out from within, but are not relevant to the whole. But as perfect as this
it is completely continuous for these effects. which, in spite of the same, sometimes
break out from within, but are not relevant to the whole. But as perfect as this
it is completely continuous for these effects.
In the same proportion as our skeleton is at a disadvantage compared to the
skeleton of the earth in terms of mass, on the other hand it does not have an
advantage over it in terms of its elaboration and structure, but on top of it, in that it
represents the most finely structured parts of it itself. Even the basic structure of the
earth is not lacking in structure, which geologists can tell us enough about when
counting their formations and strata; it is only natural that, since these are supposed to
form a perfectly solid foundation, they cannot and need not be so artificially and
fragile as the bones of our limbs. They lie more simply, but still more immobile, on
top of one another, like the vertebrae of our spine, but at the same time enclose the
bowels of the earth, like our ribs, only more fully what was necessary because of the
fluidity of this entrails. Also, the structure of the earth's skeleton is more developed
than ours and ours, inasmuch as the various members of the earth's skeleton consist
of layers of different substances, but our bones consistently consist of the same
substance, which is itself different from the substance of the larger masses of the
earth Earth skeletons.
After all, the framework of the earth fulfills the conditions of independence,
stability, free joint movement, the protection of inner parts, the most advantageous
attachment of outer parts and a developed structure without comparison more
completely than ours, which, on the other hand, is dependent, dependent, weak, frail,
awkward, Broken open, full of angular hiding places, of monotonous substance,
appears in any case very imperfect if one tries to attribute the meaning of an
independent framework to it, on the other hand the meaning of a very appropriately
set up mobile articulated apparatus, auxiliary apparatus, additional apparatus,
appendage to the basic structure of the earth wins.
Many lower animals approach the earth as in the shape, so also in the nature of the
solid framework. Many infusoria are almost completely enclosed by a silica shell, but
silica also makes up the main component of the solid earth shell; other lower animals,
such as mussels, snails, and corals, have a shell or an inner framework made of
carbonate of lime, which also makes a very important contribution to the solid earth
shell. But, as always, here too, the extremes are only touched from a certain
angle. For it is easy to see that in the lower creatures the apparently similar
arrangement does not achieve the same variety of purposes at once as is the case with
the earth; and in this respect one can use the saying: duo cum faciunt idem,
non est idem, so change, duo cum habent idem, non est idem . Thus the silica shell of
the infusoria and the shell of the oyster fulfill the purpose of protection from the
outside world, admittedly very perfectly, but not at all the purpose of freely exposing
the parts to external exchange with the outside world. This purpose, on the other
hand, is just as sufficient in the arrangement of the polyp species which are externally
attached to a calcareous framework. Many lower animals also lack a solid framework
completely, because here purposes, with whose existence the solid framework is not
at all compatible, have priority. But in the earth all purposes which a solid framework
can fulfill, at the same time in connection with itself and with the most varied
purposes of other parts, are perfectly satisfied.
The solid shell of the earth can be viewed from many other points of view. It is the
common solid foundation wall of all our apartments; just as our skeletons are only
small, mobile attachments, branches of the same, so our apartments are only small,
fixed ones. It is the communal treasury and the communal cellar for the earth; how
much that would narrow the space above or be quickly devastated lies safely down
there and is only brought up when necessary; Coal, lime, salt, iron, gold and
diamonds. It is also the common well for the earth; we need water everywhere, but if
it were everywhere on the surface, where should we stand and walk; so we have it
under our feet. It is also the common burial place, the common cemetery for the
whole earth; while it is green and blooming on the surface, below it hides the corpses,
the faded. Yes, corpses upon corpses are piled up in her from past creation
epochs; life walks over a general grave which itself consists almost entirely of
corpses; yes, not only walk about it, take root in it, but with this it forces the old
death, always clad its skeleton with new flesh. And because the grave cannot expand
in breadth, and yet every new generation of creation demands a new grave, the grave
grows in depth, and each one is embedded in a new layer above the old one. When
the time comes, the earth will be shoveled up again, the sea leaves its bed and rules
the office of the gravedigger. Yes, corpses upon corpses are piled up in her from past
creation epochs; life walks over a general grave which itself consists almost entirely
of corpses; yes, not only walk about it, take root in it, but with this it forces the old
the office of the gravedigger. Yes, corpses upon corpses are piled up in her from past
creation epochs; life walks over a general grave which itself consists almost entirely
of corpses; yes, not only walk about it, take root in it, but with this it forces the old
the office of the gravedigger. always clad his skeleton with new flesh. And because
the grave cannot expand in breadth, and yet every new generation of creation
demands a new grave, the grave grows in depth, and each one is embedded in a new
layer above the old one. When the time comes, the earth will be shoveled up again,
the sea leaves its bed and rules the office of the gravedigger. always clad his skeleton
with new flesh. And because the grave cannot expand in breadth, and yet every new
generation of creation demands a new grave, the grave grows in depth, and each one
is embedded in a new layer above the old one. When the time comes, the earth will be
shoveled up again, the sea leaves its bed and rules the office of the gravedigger.
which are no bigger than a grain of sand, form whole mountains; a large part of the
mountains of San Casciano in Tuscany consist of chambered shells so small that
Signor Soldani collected 10,454 pieces of an ounce of the rock. Chalk usually
consists entirely of them. The triple, long in use as a polishing agent for metal, owes
its polishing property to the pebble shells or pebbles of infusoria that make it up. But
whole mountain masses are formed from these remains of infinitely different
microscopic creatures, " The triple, long in use as a polishing agent for metal, owes
microscopic creatures, " The triple, long in use as a polishing agent for metal, owes
microscopic creatures, "
(Sommerville,
Kosmos, IS 34.)
"d'Orbigny's research has shown that a large part of the interior of South America
consists of layers of chalk which, like the European and African chalk mountains,
consist through and through of the calcareous shells of microscopic foraminifera, to
which other silicified petrefacts are admixed only in small proportions. If the life of
these foraminifera had not been active in the primeval world, the chalk lands of
Brazil, such as Libya and Egypt, would now be the sea; the chalk cliffs of Rügen,
Denmark, Brittany and the English coasts, which are up to 1,000 feet thick, would not
exist and those Countries are under water, so these countries are creations of the
organic world.
It is quite similar with the layers of shell limestone, the coral limestone, which
consist so thoroughly of the lime casings and lime shells of shellfish that the question
has long been raised as to whether all lime is not of animal origin. The limestone
mountains up to 500 feet high in northern Germany and Poland, the limestone
mountains around Tarnowitz and Krakau, the Harz Mountains, the Thuringian Forest,
the Rüdersdorfer Kalkinsel, the eastern Black Forest, a land area of 360 square miles
in Germany would be under water if the Nautilus -, Ostrea, Pekten, Mytilus,
Terebratula, the Trochus, Buccinum species of the primeval world would not have
lived. "
"Even vertebrates have helped to form geological formations through their bones.
The bone conglomerates, the Parisian bone gypsum, the bone breccias on the coast of
Dalmatia and France, around Nice, Cette, on Corsica and Sardinia, to Gibraltar, the
phosphoric lime in the marls of." According to their essential components,
Mecklenburg and Pomerania are formed from the phosphorus-acid lime of the bones
of fish, amphibians and mammals. "
(Schultz Schultzenstein, the organizing spirit of creation. Berlin
1851. p. 24.)
C. About the liquid earth.

Just as the solid framework of our body can only fulfill its functions depending on
that of the earth by leaning on it, so the system of fluid-carrying vessels (veins) in our
body only depends on that of the earth, insofar as it is its own First has to scoop
liquid out of it and give it back to it, so that it itself can also be regarded as a
supplementary part of it and for this very reason cannot be a simple repetition of it, as
our solid framework is not a repetition of the earth framework with which rather, it
has to complement itself to form a system.
The rivers and streams carry the water downwards; the trees and herbs lift it
up; people and animals carry it on all sides, move it in circles and mix and process it
with materials, which no stream or tree can reach. Rivers and streams are channels
open at the top and pour into wide seas and the sea with an unobstructed view of the
sky in order to give back to the clouds as much as possible and as quickly as
possible; the trees that want to raise the water lead it up from the hiding places in the
ground in closed, huddled sap tubes, wrapped in firm bark so as not to evaporate too
much of it on the way; only at the top, if it does not go higher, they spread out in
branches and leaves and needles to pour it out in vapors as quickly and easily as
possible, like from the shower of a watering can, and to pump up new water from
below; The animals, however, because they are supposed to carry it to far-off places,
are all clumped together in closed containers, and yet not so closed that they cannot
leave a trail of vapor on the way and finally let the water go completely. In this way,
the earth in all places supplies itself with water, drives it around in various ways,
mixes and processes it with substances of all kinds. that they couldn't leave a trail of
mist on the way and finally let the water go completely. In this way, the earth in all
places supplies itself with water, drives it around in various ways, mixes and
processes it with substances of all kinds. that they couldn't leave a trail of mist on the
way and finally let the water go completely. In this way, the earth in all places
supplies itself with water, drives it around in various ways, mixes and processes it
with substances of all kinds.
If we look at the way in which the humidities in us are related to the solid, we will
again find several times a conflict of purposes which is happily avoided or resolved
with the earth on the whole.
Our blood is enclosed in channels, the main directions of which are determined
once and for all, and it is undisputed that it is useful for the proper course of our
processes that the blood vessels keep their particular direction. This end would most
surely and most completely have been achieved if the canals had been immediately
dug into the solid bone mass; but this did not work because the contractility and
elasticity of the veins are essential to drive the blood away and to distribute it
differently as required; In the conflict between the two purposes, the first had to give
way a little, and the veins became soft, elastic and pliable, which partly contributes to
the strength of their position, but mainly makes them easier to tear, where the blood
then runs out. But with the earth on a large scale we see the channels for the liquid
really hollowed out in the solid mass. That conflict does not exist here; for the water
is drawn to the sea by the general pulling force of the earth and then driven upwards
again by the force of steam and distributed as required. What happens in our body
through the power of special artificial pumps and elastic hoses happens in the earth
simply through the complementary immaterial effects of gravity and warmth. The
heaviness pulls the water to the heart of the sea, as it were with the force of veins, and
the warmth drives it back into the air with the force of the arteries. for the water is
drawn to the sea by the general pulling force of the earth and then driven upwards
the warmth drives it back into the air with the force of the arteries. for the water is
drawn to the sea by the general pulling force of the earth and then driven upwards
the warmth drives it back into the air with the force of the arteries.Cum grano salis to
understand.
While the solid skeleton in us is unsuitable for supplying the blood with its
channels, it is nevertheless penetrated and soaked by the veins; but this has made a
substantial contribution to its strength. Here, too, there is a conflict of purposes. For
its strength it would have been better in and of itself if it could have consisted of a
very compact rock mass, like the framework of our earth; but the greatest possible
strength that it could have achieved in this way, using earthly matter, would not have
been sufficient to protect it from breakage and other injuries, since it is a small,
subordinate part of the Earth had to face great dangers in this regard. And how could
it have healed and regenerated when no veins penetrate the bones to supply and
remove substances? In order to make this possible, it was rather exposed to the
danger of breakage, in order to be able to heal the break, which cannot be completely
avoided, all the more safely.
But the solid framework of the earth, due to its size and mass, is relieved of the
danger of breakage and injury to the extent that new epochs of development do not
require such a thing, and when new mountain masses break through it, they
themselves also form the healing callus at the same time. A passage of water veins
would have had no functional meaning here, only reduced the strength and the
closure, therefore the water penetrates into the ground only to such a depth that there
is still use for the surface.
From this one again sees how little reason one has to see something contrary to the
organic in the very compact nature of the solid earth's crust, since it is rather in the
sense of organic expediency; After all, even in us very compact, hard bone mass
without penetrating vessels occurs in the enamel of the teeth, because everything here
came down to having something very hard. Of course, the enamel of the teeth cannot
be replaced once it is gone; but it would be even worse if it were so loosened by the
penetrating vessels that with constant use of the teeth it would always be in a half-
worn and half-renewing state. Instead we preferred to have our whole mouth full of
teeth; so that if a tooth is damaged, others are there to help. Such a thin layer of
enamel would not have been sufficient for the earth, so it was given a thick mountain
crust.
D. Over the air.
The windpipes and lungs of all people and animals, indeed the breathing
instruments of all earthly creatures in general, can be viewed from a point of view
connected with the foregoing as the finest branching branches of a single great
breathing instrument that connects them all, the atmosphere, provided that the
atmosphere is the same Air enters and exits them all and in it goes back and forth
between all of them in order to supply the plants with the nourishing breath of the
animals, and the animals with the breath of the plants purified by the plants (cf.
Nanna, p. 207 ff.). The winds blow in all directions; The organic creatures also help
to do this themselves; the animals, as they roam through the woods and fields
between the plants, take a seat on them, look for food on them, and the leaves, by
letting themselves be shaken freely by the wind. The fact that the carbonic acid
exhaled by the animals, as a particularly heavy type of air, does not rise so easily, and
therefore presents itself to the plants all the easier, has a positive effect. Of course one
cannot try to find these large proportions in our small respiratory organs in the same
way, which is just a small one-sided branch of it. But if one likes analogies, then one
can find the contrast between the invaginated and the everted respiratory organs
(lungs and gills), which is already found within the animal kingdom, between the
animal kingdom and the plant kingdom, since the leafy leaves, as it were, gill-like
protuberances are ours are opposite to the inverted trachea and lungs, and can say:
In order to bring out the greatest possible resemblance between the earth and an
animal, some have tried to depict the earth's breathing as if the earth itself alternately
sucked in and breathed out air, depending on the changing air pressure. But apart
from the fact that the occurrence of such a process is in any considerable degree an
empty assumption, one cannot expect such crude similarities between us and the
earth, even after previous discussions. The breathing instrument of the earth does not
repeat ours, but complements, connects, concerns and feeds our breathing organs as a
superordinate one; therefore, like these and with them, lies on the surface of the earth,
not in the depths, just as a brain of the earth does not lie in the depths. Like us
everywhere if we want to make comparisons between our organs and those of the
earth, which can never quite be correct, we do not have to look for the corresponding
inside of the earth as we do, because we ourselves lie entirely on its surface, and
therefore that too what connects human and animal organs of a given kind to form a
high overall organ, is to be sought on the surface of the earth. It is undisputed,
however, that such a connecting organ, such as the atmosphere for the lungs, the solid
earth framework for our skeletons, can still best be ascribed an analogous meaning
for the earth as the organs concerned do for us, without a complete correspondence of
the circumstances to be allowed to see. with the earth we do not have to look for the
corresponding inside as we do with us, because we ourselves lie entirely on its
surface, and consequently also that which connects human and animal organs of a
given kind to form a high overall organ on the surface of the earth will be looking
for. It is undisputed, however, that such a connecting organ, such as the atmosphere
for the lungs, the solid earth framework for our skeletons, can still best be ascribed an
analogous meaning for the earth as the organs concerned do for us, without a
complete agreement of the circumstances to be allowed to see. with the earth we do
not have to look for the corresponding inside as we do with us, because we ourselves
lie entirely on its surface, and consequently also that which connects human and
animal organs of a given kind to form a high overall organ on the surface of the earth
will be looking for. It is undisputed, however, that such a connecting organ, such as
the atmosphere for the lungs, the solid earth framework for our skeletons, can still
best be ascribed an analogous meaning for the earth as the organs concerned do for
us, without a complete agreement of the circumstances to be allowed to see. to be
found on the surface of the earth. It is undisputed, however, that such a connecting
organ, such as the atmosphere for the lungs, the solid earth framework for our
skeletons, can still best be ascribed an analogous meaning for the earth as the organs
concerned do for us, without a complete agreement of the circumstances to be
allowed to see. to be found on the surface of the earth. It is undisputed, however, that
such a connecting organ, such as the atmosphere for the lungs, the solid earth
framework for our skeletons, can still best be ascribed an analogous meaning for the
earth as the organs concerned do for us, without a complete agreement of the
circumstances to be allowed to see.
Our breathing tools are relatively as small branches of the breathing tools of the
earth as our skeletons are from the great skeleton of the earth, like our fluid-carrying
vessels from the great sea, for analogous reasons. If the atmosphere were not such an
enormous reservoir of breath, our breathing tools would not find the guarantee for the
constant satisfaction of the need for breathing that they are now finding. There would
be a lack of the right quantity of air here and the right quality there. Now, no matter
how many people and animals breathe and thereby consume oxygen and form
carbonic acid, the air always remains breathable for them, because for the enormous
air mass this change takes only a little even in a long time, and before it can become
significant, through the opposite respiration process of the plants,
The atmosphere shows particularly beautifully what we see everywhere in our
organism, that in an organically linked whole the same part reveals functional
relationships not only in one but in all directions.
As a breathing tool, it is also the most general tuning tool. Not only is all the song
of the birds, all the screaming of the beasts, all the conversation of men, all the sound
of our musical instruments carried into the distance by them, it is also part of the
sound production itself; directly involved; all throats only sound through the breath
drawn from them, all trees rustle with their attack.
The atmosphere is also the most general instrument of flight, which not only
swings the fittig itself over the whole earth, but also enables all the wings of living
creatures to fly and, for this purpose, combines those of the dead bat with the
functions of the living wing by moving the dust over them the earth turns.
The atmosphere is also the most general suction and pressure mechanism, the
stamp of which not only moves gently up and down by itself, as the falling and rising
barometer level proves, but also from which all our water pumps, all our air pumps,
all our barometers, yes all of them drink-sipping creatures are only the mutually
dependent parts. In this way the blood is held back in our body and the leg in the
thigh socket, the fly is pressed against the wall, and the leech is enabled to
progress. The whole human being and all animals are compressed by this press and
can only survive under this pressure.
The air weighs on the surface of man with a pressure of about 21,000 pounds. 1) If
one wants to know what this means, imagine the surface of the human body spread
out on a plane, with a column of mercury 28 inches high, or a column of water 32
feet high, resting upon it by its weight. The human body experiences this
pressure. Now it is evident that if the body does not feel this burden after all, it must
be prepared to withstand this burden; so that its device is set off in one with the
pressure of the air.
1) The surface of the human body is about 1 square meter, and the pressure of
the air on the surface of the sea is 760 millimeters. Level of mercury, which
weighs 10325 kilograms. is equivalent to. (Pouillet's Phys. IS 118).
One can find some kind of miracle in how the atmosphere apparently combines so
completely opposite properties; it is the easiest and easiest to move and mediates the
easiest movements, and yet at the same time the most persistent and most uniform
and constant oppressive thing on our earth, wing and press in one. What can seem
more different than these functions, and the atmosphere unites them perfectly and, as
we shall soon see, much more. What we have already seen in the solid framework of
the earth can also be seen here. And just as the earth has a lot in it that we have to
look for outside of us, so it also has an organ in the atmosphere for many
achievements, for which we first have to obtain external tools.
The atmosphere is also the most common bucket and watering can, scooping up
the water in vapors, carrying it over the land in winds, collecting it in the sponges of
the clouds, and expressing it over the land.
But it is also the most general desiccant, it dries the laundry on the line, the malt on
the kiln, the manure on the paths.
It is also the greatest coolant at the same time and the most general heating blower,
since it blows everywhere from the cool places to the hot and from the hot to the cool
and stokes the fire itself everywhere.
It is also the largest window and the largest light screen for the whole earth. What
we see we only see through it, all the stars shine through it into the house of the earth,
which becomes like a glass house all around. 2) But while it serves the purpose of
clarity, it serves at the same time to mitigate and uniformly distribute the otherwise
too glaring brightness for individual places and times and to gently mediate it with
the darkness in a very similar way as the screens around our lamps do, only that they
do , unlike our umbrellas, not around the luminous bodies, the stars, but the
illuminated ones, the earth is attached and has the advantage of the most beautiful
color ahead. If there were no atmosphere, there would be no alternation between the
bright blue daytime sky and the black, starry night sky; Instead, we would see the
stars as brightly during the day as we would at night with the sun and the moon at the
same time in an eternally pitch-black sky. The brightness and blueness of the sky are
due to that the atmosphere diffuses the sunlight like a blue colored translucent screen
of opaque glass. The shadows on the earth would also be completely black, glaring
against the light floor, and one would sit in the shadow of a house as if in a dark
night; since now those shadows are still being illuminated by the light reflected from
the atmosphere. Every morning when the sun rises it would be as if someone were
suddenly stepping into a very dark room with a light, and in the evening as if he were
going out with the light. Day and night would change so brightly. The transition
between dawn and dusk and of course the dawn and dusk fell away. and one would sit
in the shade of a house as in a dark night; since now those shadows are still being
illuminated by the light reflected from the atmosphere. Every morning when the sun
rises it would be as if someone were suddenly stepping into a very dark room with a
light, and in the evening as if he were going out with the light. Day and night would
change so brightly. The transition between dawn and dusk and of course the dawn
and dusk fell away. and one would sit in the shade of a house as in a dark night; since
now those shadows are still being illuminated by the light reflected from the
atmosphere. Every morning when the sun rises it would be as if someone were
suddenly stepping into a very dark room with a light, and in the evening as if he were
going out with the light. Day and night would change so brightly. The transition
between dawn and dusk and of course the dawn and dusk fell away.
2) Humboldt (Kosmos III. 144) emphasizes the teleological point of view of
this arrangement of the atmosphere, which seems so natural to us and yet is not
at all self-evident, with the following words: "If one thinks of the multiple
processes that lead to the separation of the solid and the fluid in the primeval
world and of the gaseous around the earth's crust, one cannot help thinking
how close mankind has been to the danger of being surrounded by a more
opaque atmosphere, which in some groups of vegetation does little to obstruct
but veils the entire starry cover Knowledge of the structure of the world would
then have remained withdrawn from the spirit of research. "
The atmosphere also provides a similar benefit to the windows of our greenhouses
in that it lets the luminous heat of the sun through more easily than that which has
darkened by absorption by the earth's surface, so that the heat is trapped, as it
were. This is namely the property of transparent bodies in general.
One has reason to suspect that the atmosphere used to be of a different nature than
it is now, namely that it was much more humid, warmer, more oppressive, more
saturated with carbonic acid. It must have been more humid and warmer, and
accordingly more oppressive, than now, since the earth itself was still warmer on the
surface and covered with water over a larger part of the surface, and consequently
also steamed much more intensely and extensively than now. It must have been so
impregnated with carbonic acid if we consider that all the carbon in the immense coal
deposits, which are now under the earth, used to be contained in the air as carbonic
acid; yes, even the carbonic acid of the lime deposits may have been partially
(initially completely) contained in the atmosphere. But others had to attach
themselves to these circumstances. Since the vapors developed much more
abundantly than now from below were subject to the same reasons of cooling as now,
the cloud cover, which now only partially and locally withdraws the sight of the sun
and the stars from the earth, was like over an ever-smoking pot, indisputably general
and permanent, and creatures may have existed in the water-cover of the earth for
long periods before they felt that there is a sun and that there are stars above their
heads; and like the first tearing of the cloud cover, the first sight of the sun and the
blue sky by day and the starry sky by night, the first separation of light and shadow
on the ground, The first reflection of the sun and stars in the sea was celebrated as a
great event by new organic creations from the earth or gave occasion for such, since
with it completely new conditions came about. Certainly only now did creatures with
eyelids come into being. The fish have none yet. With this tearing of the cloud cover,
the earth was first born, so to speak, free into heaven; since she had only brooded in
herself up to now. You can compare it to the first glance of the chicken that has burst
the eggshell, or to the first break of a flower that has hitherto been dormant as a bud
towards the light. With this tearing of the cloud cover, the earth was first born, so to
speak, free into heaven; since she had only brooded in herself so far. You can
compare it to the first glance of the chicken that has burst the eggshell, or to the first
break of a flower that has hitherto been dormant as a bud towards the light. With this
tearing of the cloud cover, the earth was first born, so to speak, free into
heaven; since she had only brooded in herself up to now. You can compare it to the
first glance of the chicken that has burst the eggshell, or to the first break of a flower
that has hitherto been dormant as a bud towards the light.
It is very possible that the first tearing of the cloud cover above was connected
with the first (at least the first considerable) tearing of the sea below, when scorching
mountainous masses poured out over the island, sending strong currents of hot, dry
air upwards so that the cloud cover overhead dissolved and the blue sky looked out
over the new-born land. This would have the interesting connection that the first
appearance of the light-giving body, the sun, coincided with the first appearance of
the shadow-giving body, since no shadow-giving body existed on earth before the
first mountains raised above the sea.
Even now the Sahara is preventing the formation of clouds with its rising hot, dry
air currents. And so can also be resolved by such clouds.
If we want to picture the process still further, although it will of course always
remain a kind of natural history novel, we may believe that the tearing of the cloud
cover above was initiated by a tremendous thunderstorm, just as volcanic eruptions
are still accompanied by thunderstorms, so that that great point in time was celebrated
with fiery apparitions from above and below at the same time.
"The most abusive example of the Courant ascendant thunderstorm is the one that
regularly arises above the column of fire when a volcano erupts In the volcanic
eruption of Lancerotte in 1731, where almost no thunderstorms were known, it
appeared immediately with the first eruption. "
(Dove, Meteorol.
Unters. P. 65.)
It is undisputed that the formation of a thunderstorm in these cases is due to the
fact that the water vapors added to the volcanic eruptions condense very quickly at
the top. Of course, the breakthrough of glowing masses through the sea must develop
such water vapors to an even greater extent; therefore the sky above only had to
darken more at first, until the land that had emerged became dry and now sent
streams of dry air upwards, which dissolved the cloud cover.
On the slopes of the elevated mountains, especially near the sea, where cooling
soon set in, the new organic creations of land animals and land plants might appear
immediately.
The great carbonic acid content of the atmosphere, as food for the plants, worked
together with the great moisture and warmth to condition the lush vegetation, of
which the remains are still with us in the coal formation; but the same carbonic acid
content made the air unsuitable for the breathing of the higher classes of animals and
humans. With reference to this, we see the earth at first eagerly busy removing this
superfluous carbon dioxide, but in such a way that this removal also served purposes
of the present at that time. The most luxuriant growth and the frequent renewal and
rejuvenation of the vegetation took place at the expense of this carbonic acid and at
the same time served as preparation for the development of the higher animal
organization. When a plant growth had swallowed enough carbonic acid from the
atmosphere and was no longer able to extract anything from it, but rather began to
give back as much carbonic acid through decaying parts of the air as it drew from it
as it continued to grow, then it was buried under the ground, and new vegetation grew
over him, which continued the business of air purification. 50, 60, even up to 120
coal deposits have been found on top of each other, each of which was able to obtain
its carbon only by swallowing and decomposing the carbonic acid. Since earlier there
were no such means of destruction of the plant world by the animal and human world
on a large scale as now, because cattle and sheep have not yet grazed the land, people
have not burned or consumed the wood of the forests,
But not only the land, but also the sea with its creatures helped for the same
purpose, although in a completely different way. The sea initially swallowed some of
its carbonic acid; But in order to keep it always thirsty for it, the carbonic acid was
again and again withdrawn from the sea by the formation of the calcareous shells of
the lower creatures, which essentially consisted of carbonate of lime, and these were
also always buried anew, so that they are now chalk deposits up to form 500 feet in
thickness.
But now, if it had always gone on like this, the plants and animals would finally
have swallowed all the carbonic acid in the atmosphere and there would have been
nothing left for the further nourishment of the first and for the new shell formation of
the last. So the earth had to finally begin to stop wasting its carbon dioxide and start a
new economy in order to produce carbon dioxide with the same abundance of life
with less effort. Accordingly, it no longer buried the plants as it did before, but left
them to be gradually destroyed on the surface, as a result of which their carbon is
returned to the air. Secondly, it increased the number of higher animal species for the
number of sea creatures, which naturally decrease with the decrease in carbon dioxide
and which need carbonate of lime for their solid framework, the structure of which
consists of phosphoric acid lime; Thirdly, through the nature of their food and their
breathing, it instructed the newly created creatures more than the earlier ones to
convert the carbon of the plants they had eaten back into carbonic acid and to return it
to the atmosphere3) ; fourthly, after all, it finally created the man who, by burning the
wood, digging up and burning the coal, and burning the lime for the construction of
his dwellings, becomes the most effective promoter of the return of carbonic acid to
the atmosphere, and through the latter two circumstances probably compensates for
what is still consumed by carbon dioxide for the formation of corals and shellfish in
the sea; The sea was pushed back gradually, much of it was destroyed again by these
shots.
3) Remains of lizard-like animals can already be found in the coal period; but
their breathing process, although they have lungs, is very limited, as is the case
with cold-blooded animals in general. Only with the warm-blooded animals,
that is, birds and mammals, does a vigorous breathing process begin.
E. About the imponderable powers.

Man has an enigmatic agent in his nerves, at least one suspects that, in addition to
the proteinaceous matter of which it consists, it also contains a subtle, imponderable
medium of unknown nature. If it is the case, it can only be the earthly highly
organized development or flowering of the same fine medium which, as the general
basis of the imponderable powers, permeates and surrounds heaven and earth, but is
bound and moved in special ways in the earthly region. Or how did it come about in
humans? It is best not to make any further hypotheses about this agent, even if it is
only hypothetical, but to be satisfied with this general point of view. Otherwise the
unpredictable still occurs in some modifications on and in the earth, the origin and
context of which we partly know,
"What is invisible the living weapon of the electric eels; what is awakened by the
touch of damp and dissimilar parts, what moves in all organs of animals and plants;
what thunders the wide sky, what binds iron to iron and guides the quiet, returning
course of the guiding needle ; everything, like the color of the split beam of light,
flows from one source; everything melts together into an eternal, all-spreading force.
"
(Humboldt's answer IS 34.)
The earth in particular receives warmth partly from the sun, partly it has peculiar
heat sources in humans and warm-blooded animals, partly it is a vessel of primal
warmth. Let us first consider the first source.
If in factories and larger institutions it is of particular advantage that the heating
and furnace systems are laid out on a large scale and in such places where they do not
hinder the running of the business, we see this purpose as an admirable one for the
earth Grade fulfilled. A single enormous main hearth supplies the earth's surface with
light and warmth at the same time and is hung high above it, so that it does not take
up any space on it, is nowhere in the way; at the same time such arrangements are
made in the shape and movement of the earth that from the uniform action of that
source of light and heat the most varied services arise for it, as we have already
considered.
The heat of the sun can only penetrate shallow depths, in conflict with the loss the
earth continues to suffer through radiation, but now we see another great event for the
warming of the earth itself met. In addition to the large but very fine herd from above,
there is a smaller, but more fulfilling, herd from below. Originally completely a
glowing liquid sphere, the earth is still inside and has only gradually covered itself
with the crust that we now have as solid ground below us by cooling and solidifying
from the outside. But the more this crust has grown in thickness through increasing
cooling, the more it has protected the earth from further cooling, so that now, after it
is only a few miles thick, a further increase in cooling is not absolutely prevented, but
is not noticeable for millennia. It was already noted earlier that the size of the earth
also contributes to this slowness of cooling. One sees in such a way that the solid
crust connects with the meaning of a skeleton at the same time that of a protective
covering for the earth, which it grew to measure when it began to get cooler, and at
the poles, where the cause for cooling is greatest, it is undisputed that it is also the
thickest. In animals, the fur, in humans, clothing, in liquids that are to be kept warm,
the vessel wall does the same. These are subsequent aids that the earth has created
locally on its outside,
"The loss of the original heat of the earth has been far greater on the surface than in
its interior, and it is currently cooled down so far on the surface, that its temperature
here probably not 1 / 30 exceeds degrees C. the heat that their due to the other two
causes (warming by the sun and warmth of the sky) will remain constant ..... At first
the temperature of the earth decreased very quickly, but now this decrease is almost
imperceptible for a very long time with depth will not always remain the same, but it
will be thousands of years (30,000 years after the calculation for a decrease of 1 / 30 °
C.) pass before it has descended from the half of the present one. "
(Fourier in Biot's
Lehrb. Der Phys. VS
386.)
"v. Beaumont has concluded by means of Fourier theory, and from the observations
of Arago, that the amount of central heat that reaches the Earth's surface, a 1 in the
course of a year 1 / 4 would melt inch thick Eisrinde the earth."
"After quite matching experiences in artesian wells, the heat this increase takes in
the upper crust of the earth, on average, with a vertical depth of 92 par. Foot by 1 ° C.
To. Followed an arithmetic ratio, so therefore would be at a depth of 5 2 / 10 geogr.
Miles of granite melted. " (Humboldt's cosmos.)
"According to the calculations of the most credible naturalist the whole thickness
of the solid crust of the earth is not more than 50 000 feet or 2 1 / 2 geographic &
miles of which about 34 000 feet come to the crystalline mass rocks;.. 10, 000 to the
transitional formations, 5000 to the secondary layers and 1000 on the tertiary
youngest locations. "
(Burmeister's creation story, 3rd
ed. P. 174.)
"Pouillet finds (by a calculation that is not entirely reliable) that if the amount of
heat which the sun sends to the earth in the course of a year were evenly distributed
over the earth and used to melt the ice without loss, then it would be able to produce
one the earth enveloping layer of ice of 31 meters (95 1 / 2 to melt par distance.)
thickness; and further that would be when the sun is completely surrounded by ice,
and all would be used by their outgoing heat exclusively to melt this ice, then a layer
12 meters thick would be melted away in 1 minute. "
(Pouillet, Lehrb. Der
Phys. II. P. 496.)
One can ask what is the use of internal geothermal energy and its protection? The
same obstacle that the solid earth crust opposes to the escape of heat from the earth
also means that the warmth of the interior is no longer noticeable on the surface, the
warmth of which now depends noticeably only on the external influence of the
sun. So it would seem useless to hold back the warmth inside, perhaps
inappropriately, since it is only through this holding back that the warmth becomes
useless for the surface. If one thinks how laboriously we often get the warmth on the
surface, and what immense quantity of warmth is contained within, one can indeed
regret that this warmth is so idly locked up. In the past, the heat reached noticeably to
the surface of the earth or was renewed on it again by hot mountain masses gushing
out, and the most luxuriant vegetation, extending even over the polar regions, the
remains of which we still have in the immense coal flats, was the result of this; the
whole earth was like a greenhouse heated from below; that has now ceased since the
heat from below has been blocked off from above as well. However, since nature on
the whole does not work improperly, or, if we want to admit inexpediencies in it,
nevertheless shows a tendency to eliminate them more and more, this careful
arrangement, which we have to seal off the warmth in the depths from the surface
made and seen more and more effectively, precisely serving as an argument that the
earth depends on something more than the supply of people and animals on the
surface; yes that it is for her after she has let go of the excess heat, under whose
influence their first development took place, but it is more useful to hold back the
remaining warmth as firmly as possible in the depths than to allow their people and
animals to use them on the surface, for whom they prefer to use peculiar remedies,
partly in internal heat sources, partly in external protective means. The warmth of the
interior, even if it is idle for us, will be as little idle for the earth as our own warmth is
idle for us, even if from other points of view and perhaps not entirely fathomable for
us. to whom she instead gave peculiar remedies, partly in internal heat sources and
partly in external protective means. The warmth of the interior, even if it is idle for
us, will be as little idle for the earth as our own warmth is idle for us, even if from
other points of view and perhaps not entirely fathomable for us. to whom she instead
gave peculiar remedies, partly in internal heat sources and partly in external
protective means. The warmth of the interior, even if it is idle for us, will be as little
idle for the earth as our own warmth is idle for us, even if from other points of view
and perhaps not entirely fathomable for us.
We can find ourselves all the more compelled to believe this as two kinds of
protection for the preservation of warmth coincide, that through the covering of the
earth and that through the size of the earth, and the former protection through the
same cooling, that it is intended to limit, has first been created, and grows all the
more, the further the cooling progresses. This is in full analogy with the purposeful
self-restraints that we perceive in our own organism with so many effects. Repeated
or persistent painful pressure on the finger, e.g. B. when playing an instrument, or on
the foot when walking on bare ground produces a horny skin, whereby the effect of
the pressure is limited the longer the more; any habituation to initially annoying
stimuli takes place by that the stimuli produce facilities in our body which limit their
effect. Yes, we have a case which reveals a certain special analogy with the present
one. The fur that grows on the animals in the north and in the harsh winter becomes
thicker the more the cold rises. The stronger cooling which the animals experience
stimulates their organism to produce a stronger protection against the cooling, as is
the case with the earth, only that with the latter the mediation is much simpler, but
also undoubtedly all the more direct to the purpose of the Self-restraint is
directed. Because in animals the cold only works through extensive, at least for our
consideration extensive, and not yet clearly recognized mediations, which
undoubtedly only incidentally produce this success. Yes, we have a case which
reveals a certain special analogy with the present one. The fur that grows on the
animals in the north and in the harsh winter becomes thicker the more the cold
rises. The stronger cooling which the animals experience stimulates their organism to
produce a stronger protection against the cooling, as is the case with the earth, only
that with the latter the mediation is much simpler, but also undoubtedly all the more
direct to the purpose of the Self-restraint is directed. Because in animals the cold only
works through extensive, at least for our consideration extensive, and not yet clearly
recognized mediations, which undoubtedly only incidentally produce this
success. Yes, we have a case which reveals a certain special analogy with the present
one. The fur that grows on the animals in the north and in the harsh winter becomes
thicker the more the cold rises. The stronger cooling which the animals experience
stimulates their organism to produce a stronger protection against the cooling, as is
the case with the earth, only that with the latter the mediation is much simpler, but
also undoubtedly all the more direct to the purpose of the Self-restraint is
undoubtedly only incidentally produce this success. The fur that grows on the animals
in the north and in the harsh winter becomes thicker the more the cold rises. The
stronger cooling which the animals experience stimulates their organism to produce a
stronger protection against the cooling, as is the case with the earth, only that with the
latter the mediation is much simpler, but also undoubtedly all the more direct to the
purpose of the Self-restraint is directed. Because in animals the cold only works
through extensive, at least for our consideration extensive, and not yet clearly
recognized mediations, which undoubtedly only incidentally produce this
success. The fur that grows on the animals in the north and in the harsh winter
becomes thicker the more the cold rises. The stronger cooling which the animals
experience stimulates their organism to produce a stronger protection against the
cooling, as is the case with the earth, only that with the latter the mediation is much
simpler, but also undoubtedly all the more direct to the purpose of the Self-restraint is
undoubtedly only incidentally produce this success. as is the case with the earth, only
that with the latter the mediation is much simpler, but also undoubtedly all the more
directly directed towards the purpose of self-restraint. Because in animals the cold
only works through extensive, at least for our consideration extensive, and not yet
clearly recognized mediations, which undoubtedly only incidentally produce this
success. as is the case with the earth, only that with the latter the mediation is much
simpler, but also undoubtedly all the more directly directed towards the purpose of
self-restraint. Because in animals the cold only works through extensive, at least for
our consideration extensive, and not yet clearly recognized mediations, which
undoubtedly only incidentally produce this success.
One cannot object to this that the solid crust was created in order to give people
and animals solid ground and to cut them off from the hot interior, i.e. not at all to
refer to the protection of the inner warmth, which is rather accidental and to which
nothing matters. Such purposeless accidents are not in the sense of purposeful
nature; on the other hand, it is in the sense of purposeful nature that it seeks to attain
several ends at the same time by one and the same means. Just as little can one want
to say that the warmth inside is merely a remnant of the primordial warmth which
was necessary for the first development of the earth, but has now been put aside as
useless. The purposeful working nature also does not tolerate such idle
residues. What becomes superfluous in one sense, will soon be appropriately used in
a different sense. The purpose of protecting the heat within does not in fact exclude
the purpose of providing a solid foundation for the creatures by heart and separating
them from the inside, but vice versa, if the purpose of protecting the internal heat no
longer applies Solid shell merely reveals a purpose to the outside, not to the inside,
whereas otherwise we always have to look for the main meaning of solid shells in
their relation to the inside. The purpose of the solid ground and the protection of the
creatures against the inner heat would have been achieved even more completely if
the whole earth had been made solid and cold, instead of merely having a solid shell
around the hot interior; Earthquakes and lava flows would then have become
impossible. Obviously, however, both purposes were balanced, the preservation of the
warmest possible liquid inside and the achievement of the highest possible strength of
the soil on the outside against each other in such a way that both were still
sufficiently sufficient in connection. The existence of humans and animals could very
well have existed with a little less protection against the heat of the ground from
below, yes, as far as we can judge, more easily and effortlessly than is the case
now. But it apparently seemed more important to secure the rest of the geothermal
heat as completely as possible through a sufficiently thick crust than to allow it to
benefit people and animals, which is always associated with loss of them. The
existence of humans and animals could very well have existed with a little less
protection against the heat of the ground from below, yes, as far as we can judge,
more easily and effortlessly than is the case now. But it apparently seemed more
important to secure the rest of the geothermal heat as completely as possible through
a sufficiently thick crust than to allow it to benefit people and animals, which is
always associated with loss of them. The existence of humans and animals could very
well have existed with a little less protection against the heat of the ground from
below, yes, as far as we can judge, more easily and effortlessly than is the case
now. But it apparently seemed more important to secure the rest of the geothermal
heat as completely as possible through a sufficiently thick crust than to allow it to
benefit people and animals, which is always associated with loss of them.
Without being able to measure us now, to be able to fully explain the teleological
riddle of the retention of geothermal heat inside, some things can be pointed out:
First and foremost on the fact that the crust of the earth, although thick enough for
the common understanding and the slow development of earthly conditions, not to
allow any folding or breakthrough, and noticeably to exclude the material
communication between internal and external, nevertheless according to geological
facts different Times earlier experienced uplifts and breakthroughs, whereby new
mountains were created, and with which in a way unknown to us the development of
new organizational relationships came into relation. We cannot know whether such
catastrophes are not yet to come, which would then undoubtedly also lead to new
developments. (Compare the appendix to the fifth section.) But then it would also
seem understandable that the earth secured a sufficient reservoir of hot liquid mass
below for this purpose, and that the complete cooling down (mathematically only
possible in infinite time) would only be imminent when the earth had completely
ended the development phases determined for it. This is a hypothesis that has its
potential, although it has not been proven.
Furthermore, the closure of the internal heat from outside is not so complete that
local additions of heat from the inside to the outside which have their purpose did not
take place in deep cellars and mines, in the hot springs, artesian wells and probably
also in the Gulf Stream; and of course the sustained flow of these useful sources of
heat depends on the heat not being rapidly dissipated from all sides of the earth.
The constant temperature in the basements of the Paris Observatory is 11.82 ° C at
a depth of 27.6 meters (84 par. Feet), while the mean temperature at the surface is
10.8 ° C. (Pouillet's Phys. 11, pp. 453 and 470.) This temperature excess of the depth
over the surface depends only on the internal geothermal energy.
The artesian well of Grenelle near Paris, the water of which was drilled at a depth
of 1,800 feet, has a temperature of 22 ° R, in addition to the mean local temperature
of 8 ° R, the Aachen springs are 46 °, the Karlovy Vary spring 59 °, the spring of the
Geiser even 80 ° R.
The Gulf Stream, the water of which in the Mexican Gulf is heated up to 31 ° C.,
makes a significant contribution in its turn towards Europe to mitigate the European
climate. Under the influence of this current, northern Europe is separated from the
belt of polar ice by an ice-free sea; even in the coldest time, the polar ice border does
not reach the European coasts. (Cf. Pouillet's Phys. II. 467. Dove, Meteorol. Unters.
P. 20.)
Furthermore, although in a way unknown to us, the heat and fluidity of the interior
and their changes and movements are connected with the earth's magnetism, which in
fact, according to the greater temporal and spatial changes that it experiences, has its
origin only in a moving or moving cause can owe, and besides the use it has for our
shipping and field measurement, it may have an even more general meaning for the
earth, over which there is of course as much darkness as there is over the actual
reason for its origin.
The changes in the geomagnetism according to the time of day and the season are
indisputably related to the course of the sun, whereas one can hardly look for the
reason for the secular changes in any other way than in the interior of the earth.
Looking for the cause of terrestrial magnetism itself in a magnetic iron core, as it
usually happens, is partly prevented by this internal variability, which is difficult to
trace back to mere temperature changes of a solid core, partly by the fact that iron
noticeably shows magnetism in the glow loses. But the iron inside, as far as we must
believe, could only be present in a glowing liquid state.
It is undisputed that the earth used to be, since it was still completely glowing
liquid, also self-luminous, as it is still self-warm now. But this self-glow, than only
taking place on the surface in very high heat, extinguished earlier than the self-
warmth that has found refuge inside, and with few exceptions the creatures do not
glow themselves, on the other hand, many have their own warmth. The light on the
surface of the earth now depends, like the warmth, mainly on the sun, but in the moon
it has an auxiliary apparatus for illuminating the nights, without a corresponding
auxiliary apparatus for warming the nights, since the moonlight, although not, as one
usually thought it had a cold, but only had an imperceptible warming effect. This can
be interpreted theologically. With the departure of the sun the light disappears almost
immediately, but not so the warmth of the day, which rather diminishes only
relatively little during the night, so it was more necessary to install a lamp than a
stove to help out at night. One can notice that the full moon rises when the sun goes
down and goes down when it rises, so it is shorter in summer and longer in winter
over the horizon. The earth created this temporary help itself, since, as one suspects at
least, the moon used to be a part of the earth, which it hurled away from itself into the
sky. The moon also goes around the earth in such a way that, since it is not possible
to have the help of light through it always and everywhere at the same time to the
same extent,
As long as the earth was still considerably warm on the surface due to its own
warmth, only plants and cold-blooded animals, worms, fish, lizards etc. existed on it,
which always take on the temperature of the environment and thrive everywhere on
the warm earth. Warm-blooded birds, mammals, and humans did not yet exist; Why
do events take place in them to generate their own heat, since the earth effortlessly
provided heat everywhere from outside? The whole earth was then covered much
more uniformly with similar animals and plants than now, because the warmth was
then much more uniform all over the earth. But when the temperature of the earth's
surface fell more and more as a result of cooling, the abundant life of the previous
flora and fauna could no longer continue in the same way. Most of it died out be it
gradually, be it with larger earth revolutions, and not replaced in the same proportion
by new things of the same kind. The life of the plant and lower animal world, which
is cold in itself and is no longer so cherished by external warmth, thus withered to
certain limits. But in order not to let organic life as a whole wither away, the earth
compensated for the warmth, which it was now less able to supply its creatures
externally, by making some of its creatures herds of its own warmth. For this,
however, the organization of these beings had to be arranged more skillfully than that
of the earlier beings. They should now do by themselves what the earth had
previously done them externally. So, since the organization of beings can only
increase in context, the organization of these new beings is more highly developed
than that of the earlier ones. Of course, this is just one of the aspects that explain the
progress of the organization.
As the warm-blooded animals and humans generate their own warmth, it might
seem that this would have made them more independent from the rest of the
earth; but the opposite is true. Because they can only generate their internal warmth
from externally absorbed earthly substances, and while lizards, snakes, frogs, and fish
can starve for a long time and breathe little, they have to take in much and often food
and air in order to nourish their warmth because in In fact, their own heat is only
created by chemical processing of the food ingested with the air.
The cooling of the earth on the surface has not only succeeded in bringing about a
higher, but also a more varied development of organic life, because the differences in
climates and local differences in temperature, with which the differences in organic
life are connected, were only fully developed with this.
The exact fit of man and earth with regard to the warmth, and the ingenious
arrangements by means of which a uniform temperature was assured, still offer the
opportunity for special considerations of teleological interest.
Man's own warmth does not relieve him of the requirement of an appropriate
degree of external warmth; it can only exist under certain limits of external
temperature; but they are precisely those that he actually finds on earth, and indeed
completely exhausted in spatial and temporal changes and combined in the most
diverse ways with the other earthly conditions, so that the richest development of
various conditions of existence for him emerges from them. The shape and movement
of the earth, the distribution of the liquid and the solid work together to change the
relationships in this regard as much as possible. But then, as everywhere in such
cases, it can also be turned around and said: Man was arranged in the way that he
could best survive under these circumstances.
But as advantageous as the variety of temperatures on earth is, partly to stimulate
man in various ways, partly to produce a variety of products for his service, it would
have been just as little advantageous for him if his body had also been able to cope
with the changing temperature of his surroundings always have to follow exactly. Its
organic processes would then necessarily take on a very irregular course, like a steam
engine works faster or faster, depending on whether it is more or less heated. We
really see in cold-blooded animals, which always assume the temperature of their
surroundings very closely, that the liveliness and liveliness are very essentially
related to the external temperature; in the warmth they are lively, in the cold they
become sluggish or freeze. The human machine should, however, always be ready to
serve his will, and should be able to continue working, as independently as possible
from the accidental alternation of external influences, even in extreme cold and
warmth; and so it was necessary, instead of mainly referring to the uneven external
heating, to heat it internally, and to heat it as steadily and uniformly as possible, and
to take care that it counteracted the non-lacking warming and cold influence the
external temperature was able to maintain a uniform degree of warmth. We see these
tasks met in man through the most ingenious mediations. should be able to continue
working as independently as possible of the random alternation of external
influences, even in extreme cold and warmth; and so it was necessary, instead of
mainly referring to the uneven external heating, to heat it internally, and to heat it as
steadily and uniformly as possible, and to take care that it counteracted the non-
lacking warming and cold influence the external temperature was able to maintain a
uniform degree of warmth. We see these tasks met in man through the most ingenious
mediations. should be able to continue working as independently as possible of the
random alternation of external influences, even in extreme cold and warmth; and so it
was necessary, instead of mainly referring to the uneven external heating, to heat it
internally, and to heat it as steadily and uniformly as possible, and to take care that it
counteracted the non-lacking warming and cold influence the external temperature
was able to maintain a uniform degree of warmth. We see these tasks met in man
through the most ingenious mediations. that it was able to maintain a uniform degree
of warmth against the not lacking warming and cold influence of the external
temperature. We see these tasks met in man through the most ingenious
mediations. that it was able to maintain a uniform degree of warmth against the not
lacking warming and cold influence of the external temperature. We see these tasks
met in man through the most ingenious mediations.
First and foremost, the success itself proves that it is the case, since man always
keeps his warmth, which is about 30 ° R inside, constant under the greatest change in
the external temperature. Now one thinks that the title of the organic is enough to
keep people always warm. But it is not like that. Rather, the most intricate measures
are called for to achieve the simple result that is at stake. We ourselves would not find
it at all easy to keep a stove at the same warmth for 70 years, as man is for a lifetime,
and nature has no other advantage in saving resources when achieving a result than
that wise combination and exhaustive use of the means lies. And the uniform
preservation of warmth in man is the most beautiful example of this.
A person's whole body can be regarded as a heating apparatus, let's call it an oven
after all, which only has a much more perfect arrangement than our ovens. While our
ordinary stoves, as smaller boxes, only serve to heat the larger boxes, our rooms, the
room in our body heats itself directly as an oven box. But there are important
advantages here. Our ovens must be much hotter than our rooms; now a great deal of
heat remains unused near the stove and in the stove itself, and the distance often
doesn't have enough of it; It is too hot right next to the stove, far from there it is often
too cool, the room as a whole has a very uneven temperature. One is always confused
about where to put the stove; it is in the way everywhere and disturbs the symmetry
of the room. We have avoided all of these inconveniences by the simple fact that the
heatable room coincides with the boiler room itself. As a result of this, it was
generally possible to get by with a very moderate temperature in the boiler room,
since it did not need to be increased anywhere higher than is useful for the room to be
heated, and systems became possible which ensure the most uniform distribution of
this heat; so that none of it had to be surrendered to loss in one place in order to do
enough in other places. The stove is nowhere in the way either, since it cannot get in
its own way. since it did not need to be increased anywhere higher than would be
useful for the room to be heated, and systems became possible which ensure the most
uniform distribution of this heat; so that none of it had to be surrendered to loss in
one place in order to do enough in other places. The stove is nowhere in the way
either, since it cannot get in its own way. since it did not need to be increased
anywhere higher than would be useful for the room to be heated, and systems became
possible which ensure the most uniform distribution of this heat; so that none of it
had to be surrendered to loss in one place in order to do enough in other places. The
stove is nowhere in the way either, since it cannot get in its own way.
It is very remarkable and a beautiful case of the touching of the extremes, that in
such a form in the internal heating of our body by exactly opposite means the same is
achieved what is achieved in the external heating of the earth. In the case of the latter,
it is the immense distance of the heating apparatus from the body to be heated, in
connection with the immense preponderance of the former in size and heat over the
latter, which makes it mild and, insofar as it is not modified by the shape of the earth
itself, perfect uniform heating of the earth is achieved and the inconvenience caused
by the position of the heater in the room to be heated is avoided; while with us the
direct coincidence of the heating apparatus with the body to be heated does the
appropriate thing in terms of location, size and warmth. There an empty, but as
uniformly as possible, space filled with the thinnest ether between the heating and the
heated body was the cheapest possible; here the most complex organizational
conditions were set in motion to achieve the result in question.
The fuel for the furnace of our body is not wood, but, as already noted, food; for it
is known that it is mainly the carbon (and partly hydrogen) of the food that, like the
carbon of the wood in our ovens, unites with the oxygen in our bodies, the chemist
calls it burning, and thereby generates the warmth of our body except that this
combustion does not take place with a bright flame, but very gradually and in a
highly regulated manner, so that the combustion power of the material is completely
exhausted and the most uniform penetration of heat through the body is
achieved. The whole body is a furnace that is set up through and through in such a
way that the smallest parts of the fuel come into contact with the oxygen in the air in
the smallest parts,4)
4) The physiologists are not yet completely clear as to the exact circumstances
of this.
In the lungs the furnace of our body has a bellows that never rest, which draws in
usable air with every inhalation and expels useless air with every exhalation; but he
has no food; because it is spared it by its perfect arrangement. In our ovens, the forge
serves partly to create a draft and partly to dissipate the smoke; but if someone were
always with a bellows at hand, the forge would not need it in the first instance, and if
the fuel were so completely consumed that no smoke would arise, it would not need it
in the second respect; But the bellows of the lungs is always at hand and in motion in
our body, and the fuel is really so completely consumed that no smoke is emitted; but
if the air that has become unusable requires a drain, she finds it through the tube of
the bellows itself. There are also devices that replace the ashtray. The bellows in our
lungs are also set up in such a way that they regulate their activity precisely according
to need. When we rise to high mountains or in a balloon, where the air becomes
thinner and there is a risk that the stove is no longer properly supplied with air, the
breaths involuntarily become faster, whereas in compressed air they become slower
(Junod).
Because of hunger, the furnace of our body informs itself when it becomes
necessary to add new material; he has tongs in his hands to get it himself; he also has
feet that are not fixed like those of our stoves, but run after the fuel; He also has tools
in his teeth to make the material smaller in preparation, since, as with our wood, the
burning power increases through more complete reduction in size. But even if the
stove lacks material to add on for a while, it doesn't do any harm immediately,
because it has accumulated a reserve; the fat begins to be consumed; starving people
lose weight; and finally even the essential substance of the body is attacked. The
furnace of the body, when there is nothing left to burn, begins to burn yourself; it is
so well equipped for its function.
In the meantime, if this internal combustion process was maintained as uniformly
as possible, the temperature of the body would not remain the same; instead,
depending on the prevailing external warmth or cold, there would always be an
addition or a subtraction, unless special aids were used to compensate.
First and foremost, man generally eats more heavily in the cold (the arctic peoples
in particular enjoy very carbon-rich food), inhales more vigorously, and the air they
breathe in is denser than in the warm, and they feel more inclined to move, which
increases the number and depth of the Breaths are increased (the muscle movement
itself causes an insignificant heat development), which all leads to a stronger heating.
"According to the most careful experiments by Vierordt, the increasing air warmth
actually causes a significant decrease in the number and depth of breathing
movements, as well as in the carbonic acid content of the exhaled air. At a
temperature of 8.47 ° C Vierordt breathed in the minute 12, 16 times, at 19.40 ° C
only 11.57 times; at 8.47 ° C he expired 299.33 cc carbonic acid, at 19.40 ° C only
257.81 cc "(Wagner, Physiol. Wortb. Art. Digestion. P. 667.)
Edwards has shown by numerous comparative experiments on small birds,
sparrows, goldhamers, and siskins that, even at an artificially equalized temperature,
they breathe less in summer and produce less warmth than in winter; which can only
depend on the fact that the physical constitution changes accordingly from summer to
winter. One can conclude from a number of circumstances that the same is true of
man. (Edwards, De l'infl. Etc. p. 163, 200, 487.)
In addition, however, the following aids make a very important contribution to
maintaining the uniformity of the temperature:
1) In the warmth the evaporation increases; however, through evaporation, heat is
bound or cooling is generated; in the cold the evaporation and therefore the cooling
decrease.
2) In the warmth the blood goes more towards the skin, as the swelling of the veins
proves, in the cold it goes more inwards; In the first case, the cooling by the outer
atmosphere is given more credit (because even very warm air is generally still colder
than 30 ° R) in the last, it is more withdrawn from it.
3) As the skin cools down as a result of external cold, the temperature difference
between the skin and the air is reduced and thus the heat radiation, which is
dependent on the size of this temperature difference, is reduced.
4) The layers of fat under the skin are very poor conductors of heat.
Through the totality of these means it comes to the point that the human being
keeps his temperature in the interior always almost unchangeable, while on the skin it
changes very considerably with the external temperature (just as the same applies to
the whole earth).
In the meantime, the effectiveness of these agents has its limits. If the cold is too
great, a person freezes to death, and if the heat is too great, he still burns. But these
aids are sufficient for the average conditions occurring on the habitable part of the
earth; and now the earth still offers a great variety of external aids, which allow
people to compensate for even unusual influences and to expand the limits of the
habitability of the earth. But one can notice that the earth offers much more or
stronger external aids against the cold than heat, which is connected with the fact that
the heat on the earth does not actually rise above the degree that can be tolerated, or
not easily, but the cold does (partly towards the Poles, partly on high
mountains, partly in winter). To protect against strong heat, for example, only shade,
ventilation, cool apartments and cool drinks are offered; to protect against cold,
however, not only the previous appropriate means in shielded and quiet locations,
warm apartments, hot and heating drinks, but also very diverse and powerful in firing
materials, warm clothes and beds, against which the protection, the artificially stored
ice or Ice granted by mountains against warmth is not very important, as it is little to
be had.
There are still some special teleological remarks to be made. Just as nature keeps a
supply of cooling in the ice and snow on the heights, so it has kept a supply of fuel in
the depths in the coal. Some means that are used for cooling in summer can also be
used for warming in other ways, such as deep cellars, houses with thick walls. Forests
provide shade in summer and firewood in winter, etc.
It is interesting how the organic furnace changes depending on how it is intended
to work under changed conditions. We have already considered the influence of the
size of the body in this regard (Vol. I. Chapter III). If the stove is to be surrounded by
water, as in the case of seals and whales, the unfavorable circumstance must be
overcome that the dense water draws more heat than the thin air at the same time
without comparison; and that requires precaution again. Accordingly, such animals
are padded with very thick layers of fat under the skin; and the breathing process is
exceptionally well developed, at least in the seals (EH Weber). This is not the case
with whales; but their enormous size helps keep them warm. In general, the process
of generating and maintaining heat is conditioned by the interaction of many
circumstances that can more or less represent one another. Since the organism has
many other purposes to fulfill than to produce and maintain heat, a means can
sometimes oppose a certain purpose to be fulfilled by the organism; then nature
adheres to another.
With regard to the warmth which the earth receives through the intermediary of the
sun, we are easily inclined to ascribe to the earth a role that is too passive, as if the
warmth were so to speak ready flowing over onto it. Basically, however, the warming
of the earth in the sunshine is an act of its own, stimulated only by this surface act,
such as the twitching of a muscle, of course, requires the external stimulus to develop
and, depending on its attachment and strength, turns out to be different and different
in strength, but always is the muscle's own business. It's easy to prove. The higher
someone rises in the balloon or on a high mountain, the more he freezes, although the
rays of the sun reach him more unabridged than below. Why? The opaque earth's
surface is one of the things that draw heat away from the sun's rays. This then rises
with the air or the water, which heats up on the ground, and thus also gets more or
less upwards; but in themselves neither the water nor the air, as transparent bodies,
are able to warm up in the sunbeam, or they are only able to do so in so far as they
lack something of perfect transparency. If one brings water into the focus of a burning
mirror in which the most highly liquid metals melt, it does not even boil, ether does
not ignite in it, on the other hand every opaque body warms up under the influence of
the sun, and each under the same influence of the sun in a different way, depending
on it itself is of a different nature, black bodies stronger than white ones, rough ones
stronger than smooth ones. upwards and thus also more or less upwards; but in
themselves neither the water nor the air, as transparent bodies, are able to warm up in
the sunbeam, or they are only able to do so in so far as they lack something of perfect
transparency. If one brings water into the focus of a burning mirror in which the most
highly liquid metals melt, it does not even boil, ether does not ignite in it, on the other
hand every opaque body warms up under the influence of the sun, and each under the
same influence of the sun in a different way, depending on it itself is of a different
nature, black bodies stronger than white ones, rough ones stronger than smooth
ones. upwards and thus also more or less upwards; but in themselves neither the
water nor the air, as transparent bodies, are able to warm up in the sunbeam, or they
are only able to do so in so far as they lack something of perfect transparency. If one
brings water into the focus of a burning mirror in which the most highly liquid metals
melt, it does not even boil, ether does not ignite in it, on the other hand every opaque
body warms up under the influence of the sun, and each under the same influence of
the sun in a different way, depending on it itself is of a different nature, black bodies
stronger than white ones, rough ones stronger than smooth ones. when they lack
something in perfect transparency. If one brings water into the focus of a burning
mirror in which the most highly liquid metals melt, it does not even boil, ether does
not ignite in it, on the other hand every opaque body warms up under the influence of
the sun, and each under the same influence of the sun in a different way, depending
on it itself is of a different nature, black bodies stronger than white ones, rough ones
stronger than smooth ones. when they lack something in perfect transparency. If one
brings water into the focus of a burning mirror in which the most highly liquid metals
melt, it does not even boil, ether does not ignite in it, on the other hand every opaque
body warms up under the influence of the sun, and each under the same influence of
the sun in a different way, depending on it itself is of a different nature, black bodies
stronger than white ones, rough ones stronger than smooth ones.
It is no different from warming with enlightenment and coloring. The earth must
cooperate automatically for this; the rays of the sun bring only the stimulus. A body
only appears to be illuminated when it throws light back through its own forces, and,
depending on how it does it differently, it appears black, white or colored. The
sunlight does not paint the bodies like we paint something with the brush, which
brings the specific color ready for each stain, but the bodies have to paint themselves
with the color they like from the general color pot of the sunlight. The whole colorful
landscape with which the earth is covered is in fact from a certain side of the earth its
own, although of course not the sole work. Even the blue of the sky is only an earthly
blue from this side.
F. On the evolution of the earth.
Our and every animal and vegetable organism develops out of a relatively uniform
mass and out of a monotony of relationships in such a way that the longer it is
divided and subdivided and develops ever more varied relationships both internally
and externally. It is not without interest to follow the analogous development of the
earth, although here only hypotheses are available, some of which, however, have a
high probability.
According to all that we can infer, the earth behaves like a sphere that has grown
cold from a very high temperature. If we follow this cooling process backwards as far
as possible with probability inferences, there was a time when even the heaviest
earthly bodies still melted and further back a time when even the most fire-resistant
bodies had evaporated, in a word, when the whole earth was nothing but an enormous
one A sphere of glowing, dense vapor, in which there could not yet be any question of
a definite separation of the substances, since vapors mix uniformly. Gradually,
however, this ball cooled down, and part of it, containing the less volatile substances,
condensed into a large, dripping liquid, but still glowing ball, which, because of its
greater density, occupied the center and was surrounded by a very hot gas or vapor
envelope. The liquid sphere mainly contained the metallic and earthy substances in a
molten state, the gas and vapor envelope, however, apart from the atmospheric air,
contained all water that is now on earth, since the hot surface of the compressed
sphere has not yet allowed the water vapors to precipitate in the form of drops , plus
all carbonic acid and other acids, which can only exist in gaseous or vaporous form in
strong heat. One mass was divided into two: a dripable central mass and a gaseous or
vaporous shell. The liquid sphere mainly contained the metallic and earthy substances
in a molten state, the gas and vapor envelope, however, apart from the atmospheric
air, contained all water that is now on earth, since the hot surface of the compressed
vaporous shell. The liquid sphere mainly contained the metallic and earthy substances
in a molten state, the gas and vapor envelope, however, apart from the atmospheric
air, contained all water that is now on earth, since the hot surface of the compressed
vaporous shell. which can only exist in gaseous or vaporous form in intense heat. One
mass was divided into two: a dripable central mass and a gaseous or vaporous
shell. which can only exist in gaseous or vaporous form in intense heat. One mass
was divided into two: a dripable central mass and a gaseous or vaporous shell.
One can, of course, represent the beginning of the development somewhat
differently, which however has no essential influence on the later progress, namely
that the earth was not, as previously assumed, the hottest from the beginning, and
because of this heat it was in a vaporous state, but that from the beginning it consisted
of scattered parts without any peculiar warmth (incomparable to any aggregate state
now known), which by virtue of the general attraction of masses gradually
approached one another, and that only through increasing compression and chemical
compounds did a warmth finally rise to embers began to develop because heat is
generated everywhere through the compression of matter and chemical
compounds. Whether something like this could really occur under the influence of the
primordial attracting forces, has admittedly not yet been decided by any
calculation. Even so, however, one can come to an epoch when the earth consisted of
a central sphere in a fiery flow and a hot atmosphere around it.
As the temperature continued to cool, the liquid ball began to solidify on the
surface 5) , and after the solidified crust of the earth had become cold enough to
allow water to precipitate, the water from the atmosphere condensed, as water vapors
condensed when cooled. 6)There was a long rainy season in which the sea rained
down on the solid crust. This rainy season lasted perhaps millennia; for as the cooling
progressed slowly, the precipitation had to go away, until finally the sea was down
and the atmosphere was so exhausted by water vapors that instead of constant rain
everywhere, depending on the time of the year, the time of day and the location, the
fall of the rain with it began to change with the rise of the vapors, which in fact could
not begin before the air began to lose its degree of saturation with moisture for the
existing temperature in terms of time and place. 7)The air couldn't clear immediately
now. The intermediate link between the serenity of the air and the precipitation of the
water is given everywhere by the formation of fog and cloud; and so it is undisputed
that at the time of this alternating rise and fall of the water there was still a dense,
high-reaching fog everywhere over the still warm sea, like a bread over a pot full of
warm water that has been placed in the cold air. In fact, the earth placed in the cold
space of the sky, covered with even warmer water, behaved in a similar
way. Depending on the night and day and the height of the poles, this fog might be
thicker or thinner, but it is present everywhere and is clear only in the highest
altitudes of the air; because with distance from the ground the vapors expand more
and more, and consequently have to dilute and dissolve all the more easily, as we see
the same thing with steam over the pot. Of course, the cold also increases upwards,
and this must have promoted the formation of fog upstairs; but at greater heights
there was finally a lack of material necessary for this. Thus a new layer, the fog layer,
had appeared on top of the previous layers. We now have the solid earth wall around
the liquid entrails, water around or above it, mist above it, clear air above it, and
finally pure ether above it.
5)The confluence of the initially solidified parts towards the equator due to the
swelling of the equatorial zone associated with the formation of the flattening
seems very doubtful to me, as assumed by Burmeister (Creation Story, 3rd
AufI. P. 139, since when the solidification begins, the flattening has long been
complete had to be educated. On the other hand, another circumstance deserves
consideration. The parts that cool on the surface had to lower themselves
before they could solidify because of their increased density and this would
delay the time of the beginning solidification very much, but at the same time
the cooling was communicated to the deeper layers, to the depth where the
( the density of the earth, which increased towards the interior, no longer
allowed any further sinking of the cooling layers. Accordingly, solidification
could only begin at a time when the temperature of the atmosphere in contact
with the surface had long since sunk below the solidification point. Lyell even
thinks that the whole earth first had to feel up to the point of freezing before it
could start to freeze. But it does not take into account the increase in tightness
towards the inside.
6) For this it was not necessary that the crust of the earth had already cooled
down to 80 ° R, since under the stronger pressure that the dense atmosphere
expressed earlier, the compression of the vapors had to take place at a higher
temperature.
7) The warmer the air, the more water vapors it can contain in dissolved
form; what exceeds the saturation level is reflected.
According to the measure, however, when the sea decreased in heat and
consequently began to develop less abundant vapors, the space above the sea also had
to begin to clear and only at greater heights did a cloudy condensation begin again,
where the cold remained sufficient, the condensation of the vapors to effect. The fog
gradually rose (higher under the equator than under the poles because of the greater
heat there than under the poles) and in the higher regions formed a cloud cover
around the earth, which at first encompassed the whole earth, and only one, as before
the layer of fog may experience temporal and spatial changes in thickness and
density, depending on whether it was reduced by rain or supplemented by
evaporation. Now there was a solid layer between two liquid, one lower denser
hotter, consisting mainly of molten metals and ores, and an upper thinner colder one
consisting of water; and a layer of cloud between two layers of air, a lower, denser,
warmer, more humid one, and an upper, thinner, colder, drier one.
The so articulated earth now also had its articulated movements; the liquid matter
inside, the sea outside, the atmosphere all around had their circling tide
movements; the rain flowed downwards, the steams, alternating with them, upwards,
the acid-laden sea ate the earth and let what had been dissolved fall again according
to the cold. Back then everything was still monotonous, uniform and regular. The
land still had no mountains, the sea still covered the whole earth all around, the cloud
cover still covered the whole sky, the temperature was still relatively uniform
everywhere, since it depended less on the sun than on the heat of the ground and its
differences depending on the various positions of the sun have now become blunted
by the covering with the sea and the cloud cover.
But now the contrast between land and sea began to take place. Islands, countries,
mountains rose up over the sea, while the crust of the earth was lifted and torn by
forces pressing in from below, and hot masses, which later solidified, allowed to flow
out. 8th) The sea was thereby set into tremendous fluctuations, the otherwise still air
excited to storms by the great local temperature changes; gradually everything
calmed down again, the sea deposited what it had swallowed away; but the uplifts
and breakthroughs were renewed, rose higher and higher, the greater the force
required to lift and blast the ever-thickening earth's crust; Sales followed sales, in that
in the meantime such revolutions the weathering of the rock types increased the
material for them; the climate now began to change according to circumstances other
than geographical latitude, to the cycle of water in ebb and flow and the rising and
falling of water in sea vapors and rain, the rivers and the vaporizing plants of the land
came into being. The cloud cover also tore the clouds scattered and gathered here and
there for a thousand reasons of irregularity, which nevertheless always coincide in a
general legality; in short, the change kept growing. Of course, one only has to look
for a very approximate picture in all of this.9)
8) On the contrary, some imagine that instead of bursting by forces pressing
from below, the earth's crust tore because the extensive hot interior could not
follow the contraction of the cold crust. Prevost in particular takes the latter
view. Cf. Comptes rendus 1850, séance da 23 Sept. and 7 Oct.
9) For more information see Burmeister's story of creation, the presentation of
which has been left here in some points.
We do not know how the emergence of organic beings was interwoven in this
course of education; We only know that (cf. Vol. I, Chapter III), that it took place in a
far-reaching connection with it, in addition according to a plan which completely
corresponds to the educational plan of the whole earth itself. Indeed, even with the
formation of organic beings, great monotony at the beginning, uniformity over the
whole earth, simple conditions of organization, and the more diversity and structure
of the whole organic kingdom and of the individual organisms themselves, the further
the course of education progressed. It is interesting, but it would be a long time to go
into this in detail.
But what can still be said about the origin of organic beings from a general point of
view, partly with certainty and partly as a presumption, will be considered in the
appendix to the fifth section.
G. Self-preservation principle in the solar system.
Like our body, there is a self-preservation principle inherent in the earthly and, in a
higher sense, the solar system, which, however, protects these higher systems from
destruction much more effectively than we can say of our body. In fact, all the basic
conditions of the earth and the solar system have partly fixed themselves firmly,
partly they only move in periodic fluctuations, whereby they are either oscillating or
circularly returned to the previous state. The position of the poles on the surface of
the earth, the stability of the sea, the mean distance of each planet from the sun and
the sidereal period of revolution around the sun are to be regarded as fixed for all
time, the eccentricities, the inclinations and the node lengths of the planets all of them
changeable, but, like the movements of a pendulum, enclosed within certain mostly
very narrow limits. The major axes of the orbits (apses) continue to turn in the same
direction, but because of this they always come back to their old position. The living
force of the whole solar system oscillates between a maximum and a minimum, and
so on
Calculation and observation have combined to prove this stability of the solar
system. 10)Only in the case when the ether in the heavenly space, the acceptance of
which is dictated by the phenomena of light, should oppose a resistance, however
small, to the cosmic bodies, would they have to gradually approach the sun with
increasing shortening of their orbital time and finally in plunge the sun. It is not yet
possible to decide with certainty whether this is the case. The constitution of the ether
is not sufficiently known for this. It is certain that up to now no planet has shown a
trace of such an approach, but with the extremely thin aether in relation to the density
of the planets and the brevity of our observations so far, this could be interpreted in
such a way that it has only not yet been noticeable . In sink's Comet (3 1 / 2Year
orbital time) one has really noticed a gradual approach to the sun and shortening of
the orbital time, and this derived all the more from a resistance of the ether, as the
effect of a resistance on a thin comet must be incomparably more easily felt than on a
dense planet ; but Bessel has drawn attention to the fact that the phenomenon also
allows another explanation.
10) Cf. on this, inter alia, Littrow in Gehler's vocabulary. Article Weltall, p.
1485 ff.
This cause must also produce an acceleration of the movement. So far we do not
know which of the two causes is actually present, or whether both are present at the
same time; we can even less know how strongly these causes affect the comet. "
XVI. Appendix to the fifth section.

Some ideas about the first emergence and the successive creations of
the organic kingdom of the earth.
We cannot explain the first emergence of organic beings, that is, we cannot make
them dependent on the principles of processes now known; but in the field of
indeterminate conjectures that opens up here, we can nevertheless gain a reliable
starting point and starting point for consideration and save the principle of
explicability itself by adhering to the principle that, as with any other reason,
different consequences belong, so also for different consequences always different
reasons. 1)If, however, we are only concerned with the material side of the organic
creations, this sentence can be drawn even more closely together for our purpose so
that different material consequences always belong to different material reasons,
which does not exclude the material side of the consequences as reasons belong to a
spiritual one. But enough of that has been said elsewhere, and reference is made to it
here only in passing.
1) See Vol. IS 210.212.
According to the above sentence there can be no question that the first origin of the
so peculiar organic arrangements and movements, as we are now observing them on
earth, through previous just as peculiar arrangements and movements, and so on
backwards to the first arrangement of the earthly system , was already
conditional; Yes, if we take a moment's attention to the creative activity of the mind,
then in order to create such peculiar body products, such peculiar physical activities
had to be carried out with it (cf. Vol. I. Chapter XI. N).
Really, nothing prevents the in itself indeterminable original state of the earthly
system from accepting as present all arbitrary arrangements and movements, as they
may have been required by the existence of their current consequences. May we
always, in order to have a rough clue for the idea, think of the first state of the earth
as chaotic, liquid, or even gaseous; But in any case we must not think of it entirely by
analogy with any of the states of inorganic mixtures, liquids, and gases that are now
available to us, because the present organic arrangements could not have arisen from
such states according to any justified analogy, although the substances in the earliest
states were so diverse could be mixed as in any mixture, and the free mobility of the
particles could be the same as in the liquid or gas state. But it is undisputed that at the
beginning there were peculiar combinations of substances and peculiar movements
through interactions of the parts, as we no longer find them in the inorganic today,
and which do not yet represent organisms in their present form, but with the gradual
formation, structure of the Earth were able to give such. In accordance with the
stipulation, namely, when the individual inorganic regions of the earth separated from
the total mass (Vol. II. Chapter XV. F), the preparation for the elimination and finally
real elimination of the organisms or their germs began, always with reservation, that
this is not an actual elimination after all, since everything in the whole of the earthly
system remained connected.
In any case, one must not think of it as if the germs of organic beings were only
scattered without reference in the primordial sphere of the earth and that each had
developed in its own way without communal and mutual relationships of
dependence. Then the thoroughly purposeful relation of the organisms to one another
and to the whole area of the earthly, which we have discussed earlier, could not take
place. Rather, the whole primordial ball must be viewed as a single, coherent system
of movement, the rotation of which is itself in a causal nexus with the movement and
processes of the organisms, because it is teleological. 2)At least this ball might seem
to ferment disorderly at first; but in this respect it was not really disorderly, as the
context of these movements, which we can no longer judge, included the tendency
and disposition to deal with each other in the appropriate way, to articulate without
somehow disintegrating, as we now see it.
2) This can also be found in Vol. I. Chap. III developed theory about the origin
of the rotation of the earth well understand.
So when we ask why people and animals no longer arise out of the inorganic, the
answer is that they never arose from it, but the inorganic and the organic have both
developed in a connection from something that was neither in its original state is
purely comparable with the organic or the inorganic (what we understand by this to
be the opposite), as has already been discussed earlier (Vol. I. Chap. II) in a
picture; And when we ask why humans and animals cannot be artificially made out of
the constituent parts of the same, which are everywhere present, by bringing them
together in appropriate proportions, the answer is that we can hereby imitate neither
the uranium arrangements nor the primordial movements , which were necessary for
the emergence of organic beings. Indeed, through the uniform or raw mixture of
substances, which we can only ever achieve, we are not able at the same time to
reproduce the arrangement of the substances in their smallest parts, as is essential for
the constitution of an organism, e.g. B. from flour or its components no seed with its
peculiar internal structure knead together again. And just as little are we able to
reproduce the undoubtedly very complex and theologically connected movements
that work with the entire movements in the primordial mass of the earth, under whose
influence the organisms, themselves essentially systems of movement, arose and
could only arise, and whose further development is today's organic movements are
still. Of course, if we were really able to artificially put inorganic substances into the
same arrangements or movements which they now have in their organic combinations
or which they once had in their preliminary arrangement, then organic life would also
be generated with this; but we just can't do it.
As general and not exhaustive as these considerations are, they ought to have their
usefulness in that they exclude many inadequate ideas about our subject and prescribe
a direction and limits for us in which and within which we must keep ourselves when
we are in connection with otherwise valid ones want to remain exact and teleological
observations of nature.
But how will we have to imagine the emergence of successive organic
creations? The earlier ones have gradually perished and always new ones, in the end
or in the midst of the last man, have taken their place.
Some natural scientists allow the later organisms to arise through further
development of the earlier ones, others through new primordial creation like the
first. Let us put the reasons for both views side by side.
Reasons for the first view. Everywhere the perfect develops only gradually from
the imperfect; should such a perfect creature as man have arisen through a leap out of
raw nature? It is much easier to think that the successive development of animals has
finally led to humans. How much, even under our eyes, have some animals, such as
dogs and horses, changed and refined themselves through climate, way of life, and
breeding in the course of several generations; in particular, a gradual change in
circumstances can achieve much in this respect; but in the course of many millennia
the climate and other external conditions of life may have changed much more and
much more gradually than falls into our historical observation. Also, as long as the
earth had not yet fixed its inorganic relationships in such a way,
Reasons for the other view. What boldness to fish people from infusoria, polyps,
first of all 3) trained to think? All analogy breaks off here. The constitution of the
animals can be changed up to certain limits by changing the external circumstances,
but if you go beyond these limits, they wither, die out, quickly or slowly, depending
on whether you try to do it quickly or slowly; and there is no fact to suggest that even
the slowest change in conditions can widen the limit of changes in organisms into the
indefinite. In addition, the emergence of the new beings does not seem to have been
related to both slow and rapid upheavals, which together brought about the decline of
the old and the conditions for the emergence of the new. One can have doubts about
it; but it remains the most likely. Much more plausible and less difficult than the
assumption of a direct emergence of the higher creatures from the lower is the
assumption of a further development of the creative activity of the earth itself. Thus
the leap is only avoided in another way. Our spinning machine, too, did not emerge
from earlier spinning wheels, our English grand pianos from earlier pianos, in such a
way that the earlier instruments themselves have been converted into them; rather,
these have been put back and the new instruments freshly made from new materials,
just so that, of course, existence who led earlier instruments to their construction, in
that the builder increased his inventive talent on the basis of the earlier invention
even beyond it. So it will have been with the inventions of the earth. If it was a
question of further training of the earlier organisms, then man would have to have
evolved from the apes, and this is also what the Tibetans, Prof. Schelver and,
necessarily, all those who are devoted to the theory of further training think. But it
should at least appear more graceful to be allowed to regard oneself as the son of the
earth than as the son of an orangutang and grandson of a lizard; but also more
sensible. The human reason grips over the whole earth and rules it; the monkey can
see no further over the earth than he can see down from the tree, and only cares about
the nuts of this tree; there are no real intermediate stages between apes and
humans; because the negro is still human. It now seems easier to think that the earth,
through a new tension in its whole being, produced man in connection with a number
of other beings than had produced him through gradual reworking of monkeys. It
would be about the same as if a poet gradually developed the main hero of his poem
out of a harlequin; He can probably initiate his appearance by such a strange
person; but he certainly creates the hero himself fresh from his head.
3) It seems that the fish appeared in the earliest ages; although this does not
want to be quite decided yet.
Having put these reasons together, the second view seems to me to be much more
agreeable, although it too has its difficulty. For the creation of the first creatures, of
course, it was easy to provoke arrangements and movements in the earthly system
which were allowed to be very different, indeed had to be different, from those we
now see around us; the hypothesis was completely free. But when the mammoths and
the cave bears were alive, we have to believe that the surface of the earth had already
taken on a shape very similar to the present one. And yet people came into being
afterwards. Should we nevertheless be pushed back to the first view; nevertheless
originated from the monkey and later from the lizard and fish? I mean, Before we
decide on this desperate and yet always desperately improbable view, let us first look
around a little to see if we can somehow meet the difficulty of the second view. Or
does someone know a third point of view?
If I now stop at what is on the surface, then of course I do not even know what to
think of anything that could pull us out of our embarrassment. But shouldn't there be
something in the depths? Basically we do not know how, by what kind of forces man
is actually still produced today; at least not through forces that prove to be effective
on the surface of the human being, but only in the depths. Indeed, should it not be
permitted to look for what is hidden in the greatest hiding place on earth that cannot
be found anywhere else, and what must be somewhere? The principle of excluding
other possibilities seems to point here; but also some positive things.
In fact, if I try, in the absence of a firm hold, to spin a few thoughts into the blue of
the possibilities and to stick to the smallest of all improbabilities, I would still like to
think most likely that there is under the crust of the earth Urranfang on a motherstock
with peculiar arrangements and movements, which has just been blocked by the
solidification of the bark from the kind of development which could occur outside the
bark in contact with water, air and light and organic life as we know it , who,
however, has kept on and on the ability to flourish to such a development. If all
arrangement and movement containing the germ of the organic should really be
limited from the beginning to the circumference of the earth, not something inside
have also been preserved? It does not seem likely at that time that the primal warmth
was also preserved inside, and it would be difficult to find a teleological reason for its
preservation and closure inside, if not the hidden one, that it served to maintain
organic fermentation inside and to continue.4)
4)If, as it is probable, the earth's magnetism and its secular changes have their
basis in the depths of the earth, we would at least have a general suggestion
that something must be going on in the depths of the earth that cannot be
explained by processes outside; Or rather the other way round, the earth's
magnetism with its secular changes cannot be explained by processes outside
so far that we probably have to find it really based on the inside. One might
think of comparing it with the nerve principle of the inner motherstock of
organic arrangements and movements. Indeed, one could boldly find in
terrestrial magnetism at the same time the mother stick of our moving nerve
principle and even the moving nerve principle of our mother stick. But it has to
be confessed
The inner mother-hive could be given the ability to attain real organic development
through the breakthroughs of the bark that take place from time to time, by coming
into contact with the sea, air and light. Even grasped in a peculiar state of
arrangement and movement, it could also determine the elements outside for
connection in a new arrangement and movement, as the organisms that have already
formed are still able to do today. Indeed, in the interaction between the internal and
the external, the new organic creatures or at least their germs (eggs, seeds) could be
formed and the inorganic elements in which they have to live could be appropriately
modified for their development and existence.
There is nothing to prevent the assumption that just as the earth cultivates itself to a
certain extent by heart, so also, and indeed in a theologically reasonable connection
with it, that the motherstock of organic arrangements and movements develops
inwardly, so that every new breakthrough gives rise to organizations. which on one
side betray progress against the earlier ones, and on the other side a plan connected
with it. The connection in which the members of every organic creation stand among
themselves could also be explained by the fact that the motherstock inside is
undisputedly a theologically and effectively coherent system.
One can go back still further and say that the whole earthly system develops not
only in itself according to a coherent plan, but in connection with the conditions of
the whole world; which is the only way to explain how the arrangement of organic
creatures can be so expedient in relation to day and night and to general cosmic
conditions in general. Now it is not necessary that the sun and moon themselves act
directly on the production of organic creatures in order to fit their arrangement with
them; Rather, their arrangement and that of organic creatures have been purposefully
carried out in connection with each other from the beginning and will continue to
develop in this way. The conscious principle under the influence of which man arises
must then also be thought of as linked to this general connection; What the earth
achieves for itself can at least possibly be understood as something unconscious in
itself, according to the way in which the unconscious enters into the conscious (Vol. I,
Chapter VII). What is a conscious creation or procreation for God can be an
unconscious one for the earth. But we don't want to decide anything about this.
If the main components of the interior of the earth are types of earth (silica, lime,
talc earth, etc.) and metals, especially iron, and the organisms generally have a
skeleton made of earthy substance or an earthy (calcareous or pebbly) shell and some
iron in contain a combination that we cannot produce, one could assume that these
are the constituents which the interior provides for the formation of organisms, i.e.
primarily the constituents of the solid basis of the organisms. In addition, the
organisms contain only the constituents of water and air in a peculiar
arrangement; and these could accordingly also be derived from the outer water and
the outer air. The solid earthy components also return to the solid earth in death; yes
are buried by us in the depths from which only deeper, may have come originally,
while the soft and fluid in turn decompose into water and types of air. Each goes to
where its first germ came from.
Of course, if we now solidify molten earths and metals on the surface of the earth
in contact with water and air, they only solidify inorganically, without having any
particularly noticeable effect on the environment; but it is natural that a liquid state,
which itself only emerged from inorganic separation and solidification, can only
supply such again; on the other hand, it could be different with a state which, under
the influence of the primal heat, has retained something of the original movements
and chemical dispositions; in so far it could not be compared at all with the fluid
states known to us, and we could no longer look for an analogous state on the surface,
because here the conditions for its disappearance are given. But a
calculation Whether such a state of matter in the interior, alien to the surface, is
possible is itself not possible; for since we cannot calculate the possibility of the
organic state of matter outside, we can in any case neither calculate the possibility nor
the impossibility of a state that is able to transform itself into an organic inside. The
possibility of calculating material arrangements and movements exceeds our powers
at all, we can only calculate some things on the basis of experience in what is once
given, but only what is given on the surface is available to experience. in any case,
we cannot calculate inside either the possibility or the impossibility of a state that can
transform itself into an organic state. The possibility of calculating material
arrangements and movements exceeds our powers at all, we can only calculate some
things on the basis of experience in what is once given, but only what is given on the
surface is available to experience. in any case, we cannot calculate inside either the
possibility or the impossibility of a state that can transform itself into an organic
state. The possibility of calculating material arrangements and movements exceeds
our powers at all, we can only calculate some things on the basis of experience in
what is once given, but only what is given on the surface is available to experience.
Obviously unfavorable, of course, who would like to misunderstand it, is the fact
that small breakthroughs in the crust of the earth with expectoration and outflow of
internal masses in volcanic eruptions also take place in our times without a trace, be it
of peculiar arrangements and movements the emerging masses or a new formation of
organic creatures. In the meantime one cannot find any binding counter-evidence in
those facts either. For in the open or superficial foci of inner activity, continuing
unrest and only partial communication with the outside world could long since
destroy dispositions and movements that have survived deeper and would require a
tremendous breakthrough in order to emerge; meanwhile, the volcanic eruptions
always empty something of the superficial. It remains true that the previous views
can only be based on the need to explain facts, not on positive facts themselves; we
also only share them as irrelevant, which should deserve attention when choosing
between different possibilities.
To the principle that other consequences require other reasons belongs, as an
opposing side, the principle that other reasons have other consequences. Here, too,
general conclusions can be drawn for our subject. The first human being or the first
human couple emerged for different reasons than those who were born after; So it
was certainly made different than this one; he was a direct child of God and the earth
(see Vol. I, Chapter VI), the later born only children of man. It was the original
original, we are just the copies that cannot match the spirit of the original; it was the
durable copper plate, we are the ephemeral prints. Certain merits of the first humans
before us, e. B. the old age of the forefathers must in fact no longer alienate us
afterwards; it is undisputed that her constitution had a very different durability than
ours; and it was only when the multitude of people made this durability of the
individual superfluous that it was gradually lost. The teleological objection to the
original unity of the human race, that its preservation in a primordial couple was not
secured enough, is so raised, especially when considering that the first human couple
undoubtedly arose even under the most favorable external circumstances for its
preservation. We ask how could the first humans, naked and bare, keep themselves in
a nature that they could not yet master, not use, against the dangers of which they did
not know how to defend themselves? Yes, of course, if the first humans had been
born like the present children and had been placed in the woods or on a meadow in
the cold under wild animals, as a human mother does when she forgets her motherly
duties, it would have looked uncomfortable for them. But in general the mother cares
for the child and the child knows how to find the breast. So the earth will also have
taken care of its child, the first human being, directly because it had not yet produced
a mother to care for the grandchildren; it will have placed them in the most favorable
place, and man will have had his instincts that let him find what is necessary on earth,
just as the child now has his instincts to find what is necessary in the human
mother. But these primal instincts were lost the more the generations descended and
multiplied, partly because the human origin, which was sinking more and more into
the human, brought with it different consequences than the first divine one, partly
because these instincts became less and less necessary, according to the measure
when people themselves gained help from other people and they developed their
reason more. The first golden age of mankind was gradually disappearing. So the
meeting of the causal and the teleological, which we notice everywhere else, also
applies here. The first golden age of mankind was gradually disappearing. So the
applies here. The first golden age of mankind was gradually disappearing. So the
applies here.
As is well known, the Bible allows the first people to be in a more perfect
condition at the beginning and a more intimate relationship with God than those born
later; and in the myths of most peoples the first man himself is held to be divine in
nature.
Tacitus says (Mor. Germ. C. 2) of the old Germans: "Celebrant carminibus
antiquis, quod unum apud illos memoriae et annalium genus est, Thuistonem deum,
terra editum, et filium Mannum, originem gentis, conditoresque."
the sun and the moon. . . Among the Karaibs, Logno is the first person who
descended from his heavenly dwelling and created the earth and then returned to
heaven. With them, Sawaka is the person who first caused lightning and torrential
rain and is still causing them now. He turned into a bird and then into a star. In both
cases, therefore, the Creator is also conceived as an omnipotent human being. Some
Greenlanders also attribute the origin of all things to the first man, Kaliak. " He
turned into a bird and then into a star. In both cases, therefore, the Creator is also
conceived as an omnipotent human being. Some Greenlanders also attribute the
origin of all things to the first man, Kaliak. " He turned into a bird and then into a
star. In both cases, therefore, the Creator is also conceived as an omnipotent human
being. Some Greenlanders also attribute the origin of all things to the first man,
Kaliak. "
"The whole relationship of the great spirit to the first man, as it is expressed in
these Indian ideas, is strongly reminiscent of Gnostic views. The Ophites also named
the forefather almost as the first man. Also some of the Valentinians, the followers of
Ptolemy, gave the name of man to the forefather of the universe, and so did Valentin
himself. For the Kabbalists, Kadmon is the primordial man, the unity of the forces
emanating from God. "
(Müller, in the "Theologian. Stud. U. Critique."
1849. H. 4. S. 864.)
The Talmudists were particularly pleased (according to an arbitrary interpretation,
not at all regarding biblical passages) adorning Adam with wonderful qualities; about
which one finds a lot in Eisenmenger's "Neu entd. Judenth." IS 364 and Bartolocci,
Bibliothèque rabbinique I. 61.
One can raise the question of whether the current form of organic creation with
man at the top will remain the last, or whether new creations or transformations of the
previous creation are to be expected. Let us also venture into the field of this question
with a few assumptions, since of course nothing more than such can be discussed
here.
If we consider that the earth still has an existence of indefinite duration ahead of it,
after it has already passed through so many earlier organizational periods, then a
conclusion with the current one should not seem likely to us. Especially if our
conjecture were valid that the interior of the earth still harbors a motherstock of
arrangements and movements which, by breaking through the bark, are able to enter
into the appropriate conditions for the development of organisms, and that the
warmth of the earth itself is used to maintain this disposition contributes. This
motherstock and this warmth will gradually want to be exhausted in products. Quite
apart from this hypothesis, however, we have reason to relate the emergence of new
creations to great earth revolutions, regardless of the relationship. And there is no
reason to consider those by which the mammoths and cave bears were exterminated,
and by means of or after which man arose, to be the last. Only the fact that the human
race itself has not encountered a great revolution of this kind can apparently make us
secure against it, and of course such a revolution will not be able to meet men more
than twice at all; on the one hand by creating them, on the other hand by destroying
them. But it is no different with this assurance than with the assurance of those who
cultivate themselves on a volcano. If it spewed only in the time of the forefathers, one
forgets in the end that it could spit; and one should be reminded by the never quite
silent raging inside that it could break loose again at any moment, as he has often
done after long lapses. But we all really live on such a volcano that is still raging
inside, that betrays it through its small volcanoes itself that it does not sleep inside,
only that the eruptions of the large volcano occur in much longer intermediate periods
than those of the smaller ones, and if we live safely in the midst of such a great
interim period, our offspring will not be safe. With the earth's crust, which is
thickening ever more, the difficulty of the breakthroughs may become greater and
greater, and thus the periods in between become longer and longer; but the danger of
their occurrence remains. only that the eruptions of the great volcano take place in
much longer interim periods than those of the smaller ones, and if we live safely in
the midst of such a great interim period, our descendants will not be safe. With the
earth's crust, which is thickening ever more, the difficulty of the breakthroughs may
become greater and greater, and thus the periods in between become longer and
longer; but the danger of their occurrence remains. only that the eruptions of the great
volcano take place in much longer interim periods than those of the smaller ones, and
if we live safely in the midst of such a great interim period, our descendants will not
be safe. With the earth's crust, which is thickening ever more, the difficulty of the
breakthroughs may become greater and greater, and thus the periods in between
become longer and longer; but the danger of their occurrence remains.
v. Humboldt said: "Nothing can give us certainty that those Plutonic powers will
not add new ones to the mountain systems of different ages and directions listed by
Elie de Beaumont in the course of the next centuries. Why should the crust of the
earth lose its ability to fold? The mountain systems of the Alps and the Andes range
that emerged almost recently have raised colossi in Montblanc and Monte Rosa,
Sorata, Illimani and Chimborazo, which do not indicate a decrease in the intensity of
the underground forces. All geognostic phenomena point to periodic changes of
activity and rest. The rest that we enjoy is only an apparent one.
So from this side every possibility would still be free. But, one can ask, has not the
peak of what can be achieved on earthly side been reached in man? Do we not
already have the king of the earth in man? Can a king arise above the king?
Now, of course, we are so used to seeing the peak of perfection in the most perfect
human being that we ourselves anthropomorphize God accordingly and form our
angels accordingly; but while we have to acknowledge that it is fundamentally
untrustworthy to only want to find human nature in a higher nature above us, we will
probably also have to acknowledge that it is untrustworthy to restrict a higher further
development of the earthly realm with human nature put.
In fact, it seems as if man first betrayed a striving for some advantages that should
adorn the right king of the earth than it already showed, as it were, first represented
the crawling larva or caterpillar of a butterfly that once flew over the earth will.
What is it that makes us inclined to see in man the king of the earth above all
animals, even outwardly very similar animals? The survey, mastery, connection,
centering of all earthly relations that is given in him and through him. But let us take
a closer look, because with the present arrangement of man it seems rather initiated,
initiated, than properly achieved and attainable, in any case comes about through
extremely laborious means external to man, always remains extremely sketchy and
incomplete. Every mountain, every river, every sea poses an obstacle that man only
gradually learned to overcome and even now only overcomes with an expenditure of
time and strength. But when people come up with better and better methods
themselves that can help them in these relationships, without being able to completely
overcome the inadequacy of its nature, should not nature, which seems to invent very
much like man, one day be able to overcome those inadequacies even more directly
by means of a perfection of its previous human invention? Especially since the
remedy for this is very close. Should it not, when the connection and relationship of
earthly relations is one day completed and increased by man as far as it is possible
according to his nature, should it not bring about a more recent higher progress by
increasing his nature itself, or a higher nature above his spawns? Because according
to his nature, man cannot bring it beyond a certain limit. Even man, when he has
devised more perfect methods of connection and relationship, drops the old ones; but
of course the old ones had to have worked first in order to lead him to the new ones
himself.
I confess that one circumstance in particular has always struck me as precarious
against seeing in man the ultimate conclusion of earthly organic developments. Man
thinks he is the highest creature, and the bird flies over him. It seems to me that this is
not a satisfactory conclusion, either from an aesthetic or teleological point of view. It
is true that man has far greater advantages for the wings of the bird; but they would
become even more important if he had the bird's wings too. Only the wing of the bird
would provide it with an adequate material tool for its reason, which seeks to survey
everything from above, to fly over and to connect it, which would enable it to fulfill
the highest tasks practically; he would see the whole world sensually from above, to
let fly over all obstacles easily, allow the easiest and quickest communication with
the whole earth and its peers; his hands, with which he rules the earth, would
lengthen, so to speak, so much as the wings carry him further. The bird certainly has
wings, but since it has neither the reason nor the hands of man, none of these
advantages are of much use to it. It is only for a rational being that the wing can
develop its greatest possible power and at the same time reason can only use the wing
to exercise its greatest possible power. Should nature not know how to combine
advantages in a new increase in organization, which it has only now separated and
therefore only half achieved, in that they can only gain their highest effect and
significance through their union? Even now we see them combine many advantages
in humans that other animals only have sporadically, but up to now they have not
been able to combine the wings and flight of the bird with them; that seems to be
reserved for a later task. And when we notice that the reason of the individual human
being, and even more so the reason of humanity, is only gradually rising to the height
and oversight that it is able to achieve with the current means of human beings, then
we can also find it understandable, that only after this inner flight tool has matured in
the creatures to the required height, the outer one arises in a new transformation of
the creatures, whereby the inner perfection is undisputed,
Certainly, man owes, not the disposition, but the high development of his reason in
part to the difficulties which he would be spared overcoming by wings, and to the
external need that he must seek to remedy; would certainly not have been able to
develop so high without that. But now we see him because he has learned to
overcome the difficulties more and more and therefore does not become more
unreasonable, but he turns to tasks of greater importance and difficulty. Just as he has
made an invention that allows him to easily overcome a difficulty that has hitherto
only been overcome with great difficulty, his reason is active in the use of it, he
immediately multiplies it, combines their achievements among themselves and with
the achievements of other tools and is thus led to higher inventions in which he now
suddenly easily achieves what he had to learn and gather with many tools. So we can
now also assume that, when nature has come to the point of inventing future higher
creatures, it will easily overcome some of the difficulties that have been difficult to
overcome by means of previous creatures with man at the top, so that their rationality
will not be lost will lose weight at all, but will only be driven to higher
performance; but insofar as human reason itself is only an offshoot or outflow of
natural reason, with which it needs its inventions, elaborates, recombines, it can also
be assumed, that in the higher creatures after man the effluent or offspring of the now
more highly developed reason will operate itself in a higher way. But in order to
attain this higher development, of course, the activity in human reason itself first had
to have preceded it.
Other considerations can be added. The means of communication between people
are now multiplying more and more; Steam engines and railways are the chief means
of conveying them. But as they multiply, they also threaten to exhaust their
resources. They can only reproduce and keep going as long as the coal lasts; and
there is no telling where a replacement will come from. But should the gain once
gained in the connection of earthly conditions be lost again? I think that when all the
resources stored up by the earth have exhausted themselves or are close to
exhaustion, which can satisfy the ever increasing need of human communication,
nature with its immanent rationality through the need itself, not to go backwards
again, to be driven to create creatures according to a new plan, which from now on
makes these means dispensable. Then at least higher mountains may appear than
now, and every new earth revolution seems to raise higher mountains; the new beings
will no longer exceed them, but will fly over them.
It cannot be doubted that higher, winged creatures will one day still emerge above
man, when we have already seen nature rise several times above the lower creatures,
which are tied to the ground, higher on their fins and wings. As long as all or most of
the land was covered with sea, the fish rose with their fins over the stuck polyps and
mussels; then in the air the winged beetles, bees, butterflies over the creeping worms,
yes creeping worms are themselves still the predecessors or larvae of these higher
creatures; then the birds over the crawling snakes and lizards, linked to them by the
transitional link of the pre-worldly pterodactyls. Each time the winged beings arose
according to a completely new educational plan; so that it is also conceivable
Indeed, one can say that in man there is already a striving to free him from the
ground; only that, in order not to give up advantages which were even more
important for now and which could not yet be combined with real flight in the present
plan of creation, he did not come to a complete detachment from the ground.
In fact, if we compare man with the other mammals, we see how really the two
forelegs have already been detached from the ground in him; he aligned himself as if
he wanted to leave the earth, but he still stuck to it with two feet. The next advance
seems to have to be that the lifting off from the ground is complete. It is not without
interest to note that nature has already pushed this detachment a little further with
man's closest relatives than with man himself, only that for this the other higher
advantages that mankind has had to recede. So we see the four feet of the monkeys
transformed into four climbing hands, whereby they can easily get off the ground and
swing from one tree to another, but, of course, all the less well being able to stand
upright on the ground and walk; and in the case of bats even flying membranes
stretched out between all four extremities; which of course makes them all the more
unsuitable for all manipulation. Monkeys like bats, however, have really special
kinship relationships with humans, represent a kind of caricature of the same. For
however little similar a bat may appear to humans, it has significant similarities in the
structure of the teeth and position of the breasts with humans and unite monkeys in a
special order and put them at the head of the other animals, as Linnaeus did. And
since there were prehistoric monkeys and bats, you can see them as a kind of prelude
to humans. and in the case of bats even flying membranes stretched out between all
four extremities; which of course makes them all the more unsuitable for all
manipulation. Monkeys like bats, however, have really special kinship relationships
with humans, represent a kind of caricature of the same. For however little similar a
bat may appear to humans, it has significant similarities in the structure of the teeth
and position of the breasts with humans and unite monkeys in a special order and put
them at the head of the other animals, as Linnaeus did. And since there were
prehistoric monkeys and bats, you can see them as a kind of prelude to humans. and
in the case of bats even flying membranes stretched out between all four
extremities; which of course makes them all the more unsuitable for all
manipulation. Monkeys like bats, however, have really special kinship relationships
with humans, represent a kind of caricature of the same. For however little similar a
bat may appear to humans, it has significant similarities in the structure of the teeth
and position of the breasts with humans and unite monkeys in a special order and put
prehistoric monkeys and bats, you can see them as a kind of prelude to
humans. Monkeys like bats, however, have really special kinship relationships with
humans, represent a kind of caricature of the same. For however little similar a bat
may appear to humans, it has significant similarities in the structure of the teeth and
position of the breasts with humans and unite monkeys in a special order and put
prehistoric monkeys and bats, you can see them as a kind of prelude to
humans. Monkeys like bats, however, have really special kinship relationships with
humans, represent a kind of caricature of the same. For however little similar a bat
may appear to humans, it has significant similarities in the structure of the teeth and
position of the breasts with humans and unite monkeys in a special order and put
prehistoric monkeys and bats, you can see them as a kind of prelude to humans. unite
with humans and monkeys in a special order and put them at the head of the other
animals, as Linnaeus did. And since there were prehistoric monkeys and bats, you
can see them as a kind of prelude to humans. unite with humans and monkeys in a
special order and put them at the head of the other animals, as Linnaeus did. And
since there were prehistoric monkeys and bats, you can see them as a kind of prelude
to humans.
These animals have already made it higher with the elevation above the ground
than humans and seem to indicate with this that nature, when it came into the vicinity
of humans in the course of education, really had to do with initiating an even more
complete elevation. In the meantime, in the case of the monkey and the bat, with the
freer elevation above the ground, the control of the same could not be achieved,
which man is assured by the connection of his hands and his upright position with the
assistance of reason; Accordingly, nature preferred to give up some of that advantage
of free elevation in man, and first of all applied all diligence to the development of
the brain and the training of the hand and foot, in order to provide a secure base
through the latter in the upright position. The monkey,
But man owes the most important part of the advantages that distinguish him from
other animals to his reason and, in connection with it, his half physical elevation
above the ground and the transformation of two extremities into hands that this made
possible; and there is no doubt that with a still more complete elevation (provided
that the possession and use of reason and hands were not atrophied for him) they
would have to grow still more. But the wings are required for this complete elevation
above the ground.
The erection enables the person to see the earth from above into the distance, and
the position on two instead of four feet enables them to turn more easily in all
directions, so also to be able to look around better. The transformation of two feet on
the ground into two hands attached to the top, but still under the view of the eyes,
enables him not only to walk through the scene, which is overlooked from above and
in a circle, but also to work on it practically, to control it, sometimes directly, partly
by means of hand-made tools. With the same facilities, however, there is also the
possibility of better communication with one another; to look each other in the eye
better, to show mutual help, sometimes directly with your hands, expressions of love
and friendship, partly to create tools for traffic, roads, wagons, books, letters, etc.,
with them; yes, even in this there is an advantage that, because of the reduced base of
the feet, people can gather more numerous and closer together than the quadrupeds.
Basically, man also recognizes the privilege that the possession of wings would
grant by painting the otherwise completely humanized angels with wings. Only, of
course, something is not made as easy as painted. Should man really get wings, they
could not be attached to him as simply as the painter does; the whole organizational
plan would have to change; and when we consider the course of education in nature,
there is an obvious conflict in the task of attaching strong legs, hands and wings at the
same time. In the bird, the wings are not added to four feet, or two hands and two
feet, but the two front extremities transform themselves into wings, and this just
deprives the bird of the advantages of the hands. The insects have wings with several
pairs of legs at the same time, but the caterpillar has more legs than the butterfly, so
here too the wings seem to have arisen at the expense of the legs; also the legs of the
butterfly are weak and thin and cannot replace the hands; the actual tools for handling
are here attached more to the head and only of a light kind. And it is easy to
understand why wings cannot easily exist in connection with strong arms and
legs. Wings need strong muscles and nerves to move; strong arms and legs too; that
takes the place, not only externally but also internally. Our painted angels are an
anatomical and physiological impossibility; you should actually paint them hump-
backed in order to add the muscle masses to the wings attached to the back, that are
necessary for the movement of the wings to be attached; because our muscle mass is
only sufficient for the arms; but it is undisputed that the internal devices for moving
the wings and arms would get in the way of each other even more than the external
tools themselves. Hence in the bird it is rather the replacement of the front extremities
by the wings; hence giving up the wings in humans in order to gain hands.
In the meantime, what could not be achieved in the way of the organizational plan
that has been followed up to now could be achieved by changing it; and it is quite
obvious that there are creatures with four feet (most mammals), those with four hands
(monkeys), those with two feet and two wings (birds), those with two feet and two
hands (humans) think of creatures with two hands and two wings. Indeed, one can
still miss such a creature in the chain of beings; but can also easily still await it, since
it only came to hand in the youngest generations. To be sure, effective use of the
hands also requires a firm footing on the earth; but it would be easy to set up the
lower part of the body to do so. The hands could also barely represent the feet, and
more than one makeshift substitution would not be necessary if the wings were the
chief means of locomotion. I make this suggestion to nature and gladly leave it to her
whether she wants to turn the hind or fore limbs into wings or hands; as well as
overcoming any other difficulties she may encounter in the process.
Gaining the wings would also save people some of the handwork, because a very
important part of that work is creating and handling tools for communication that
would now be superfluous. And if man has already managed to unload a part of his
work on lower creatures, draft and pack animals, this could be the case in the future
to an even greater extent. The higher being could perhaps have more beings under it,
who would spare it the lower work. With every new creation, not only higher
creatures are created at all, but also new creatures of lower levels; and among them
there could be those who would be more suitable than the present for the service of
the higher being; for once the principle of the use of lower creatures has been applied
by the higher, nature will hardly leave it again in the ascent, but will develop it
further; it will allow a greater part and perhaps even more highly developed parts of
the animal world to be tamed by the highest creature. So the whole organization of
the highest earthly creature could simplify itself with regard to the satisfaction of
gross physical needs through physical performance and become all the more suitable
for higher spiritual activities. Already now the human being, held against the animals,
appears as the most naked, most unarmed, most helpless creature, only the hands,
which are bared even from sharp nails and claws, betray an external advantage; but
he tames and tames the whole animal world by means of his more highly developed
reason and these his articulated tools. It is undisputed that this will increase in the
future when he rises above the animal world with even greater advantages, no longer
has to mount the horse from below, but like the eagle from above looks down on the
whole animal world as its prey. So it would be possible for the hands to recede more
in later generations.
I would also like to suspect from the figure of man that with him the peak of
earthly development has not only not yet been reached, but that he is far from it. I
mean, the highest earthly being will try to come closer to the earth itself in form than
man does, who does it in his noblest parts, but little on the whole. Let go of what
attaches people to the coarse earth partly directly, partly in a coarse material relation
to it, I think to myself, there will one day, although only after some interim creations,
still beings emerge that like beautiful eyes or heads, more than now dependent on a
life in light and fragrance and air, swimming or flying through the air, without legs
that they no longer need, without arms, Bear head.
One must not count it as an imperfection of nature if it only develops such higher
creatures at a later time. Its perfection does not lie in a once-for-all summit, but in
such eternal progress that everything fits together expediently enough at every
moment to satisfy present needs, only with such a side of dissatisfaction as itself
drives further progress. So that every earlier time is just as self-sufficient on certain
sides, just as every later time on another side is just as lagging behind an even later
one, as the earlier time is against it. Also the development of the higher creatures can
only take place in connection with a further development of the whole earthly
kingdom. This must first be ripe to carry higher creatures;
XVII. Appendix to section eight.

Additional considerations about the sensory realm of the earth.
Let us try, from the point of view that a unified soul belongs to the earth, to give
some more detailed determinations about its sensory area, as they seem to lie in the
consistency of the basic considerations, but with the admission that here in many
cases uncertainty and doubt remain.
Our eyes are the eyes of the earth; when we see with it, she sees with it; and all the
views that we gain from it are linked in their soul, their consciousness. Our views
now partly complement each other, partly they coincide; Each of us has a different
field of observation in that we are differently opposed to things, but we also see some
of the same objects. This complementing on the one hand and interlocking on the
other hand can appear very expedient; but also difficult to imagine how the soul of
the earth behaves in this regard. When many eyes look at the same thing, optically
speaking there are just as many images of it; now does the earth see with the many
eyes of its creatures, if they turn against the same thing, this one just as often?
Our own two eyes show that this is not necessary. In each of these there falls an
optical image of the same object, but we simply see it. The insect eyes prove it even
more strikingly. One has convinced oneself through direct experiments that an object
gives as many images in the eye of the fly as there are facets in it; it is like looking at
an object through an artificially faceted glass; but nobody will believe that the fly
really sees the object so many times. We have here on a small scale what may take
place on a large scale on earth. Since each facet is set differently against the objects
than the other, each also has a somewhat different field of vision, and the images are
not entirely identical; they are certainly composed of a picture for the soul of the
fly, in which the different complement each other, the same thing coincides. Through
what physical institutions this is mediated in us and in the flies, for it is certainly not
physically abrupt, we do not know, or there are only very inadequate or unproven
hypotheses about it; but in short, you can see that nature knew how to do it. So there
is no obstacle to believing that she knew how to do something similar with the earth,
although we can of course just as little say how. It is undisputed that one cannot want
the same facilities here as with a human being or an insect, since the whole situation
is essentially different; it may be based on a very general principle. The soul
simplifies what is physically composed in general and everywhere in the sensation,
pulls it together so to speak; very many vibrations z. B. in a simple tone. Basically it
is just as wonderful as that she sees many pictures as just one; but we do not know
under what more detailed conditions and in what limits this principle is valid.
I think after everything in order to think something sensible, which, although not
proven by the previous considerations, is permissible, that if we all see one and the
same thing, the spirit of the earth also sees only one and the same thing with us, that
is to say, if we do it, move them into the same space and the same time, and only if
there are discrepancies in our views can they also be felt by the spirit of the
earth. Everything can also be turned around and said, as long as the higher spirit
clearly shifts a thing into the same space, the same time, we do it. And that this is the
case is shown in the practical, the final touchstone of all theoretical, by the fact that
we all find our way in relation to it and understand about it. If it weren't the case
The higher spirit can at the same time see a thing all around by means of our all-
round opposing eyes, what we individually cannot. His field of vision has, so to
speak, one dimension more than ours, which basically only represents one surface at
a time. But at least in memory we can combine into a whole picture what we have
gradually seen around an object. This combination is already open to the earth in the
perception. She is just a higher being than we are.
In general, in recognition of their height above us, we have to forego from the
outset that we can have some things like the earth. It is enough if the intellect tells us
that and in which direction it must be different from us. In the highest sense we have
to recognize such a relationship between ourselves and God. The infinity of the world
in time and space goes beyond our immediate comprehension and, in the attempt to
explain it conceptually, leads to insoluble antinomies. That will not be the case with
God. We still have to statute infinity. In relation to every higher being, however, such
relationships may arise. I mention this here because in the attempt to further discuss
the general sensory relationships of the earth, some things could possibly still be
presented that cannot exactly occur in us,
The differences which the perception of the higher being has from ours are
connected with differences which affect the whole of the higher psychic life and
which in some cases have already been asserted from other points of view.
Even our most abstract, most general, highest concepts need to be symbolized in
order to be thought of in isolation. As the power of symbolization increases, so too
does the power of such concepts. What a greater development of language achieves
in relation to spiritual communication to others is achieved through the more
developed capacity of this inner symbolization for inner spiritual intercourse in the
thinking subject itself; it is able to express and control larger, more extensive, more
comprehensive, deeper conceptual relationships.
Furthermore, just as the views of many people in the higher spirit are linked in a
general view, in a certain respect they can even coincide, provided that he sees the
same object as one with many eyes, so link and partially coincide or identify all the
concepts and ideas that make up these beliefs have grown up, or take them under
themselves. In other words, that the same spirit can have the same concept in many
people at the same time and thereby itself can link them, as was already considered
earlier. But the views of the different creatures with regard to the same object only
partially coincide, and so this will also apply to the various concepts and ideas which
have developed on the basis of the life of perception.
Let us add a few more special ones to these general considerations about the earth's
sensory life; where it will be important to keep moderation so that the sheet does not
become a book; especially since the considerations become more uncertain the more
they get involved in the particular. Indeed, some will simply call fantasies, which will
also be presented here. Maybe they really are. But it may well be permitted to a
young point of view and prospect to enjoy themselves a little with fantasies, as long
as it is still so small and incomprehensible to what it must one day be; is just mind in
the plant and basically. And who can say how serious there is in what perhaps only
seems so fantastic because it appears so new?
Let us first make a few preliminary considerations.
A large statue can look roughly the same in the distance as a small one in the
vicinity, but if one were to insert a piece of the large statue into the small one, the
impression would be completely destroyed. What fits into the big doesn't fit into the
small. Only the smallest particles can be replaced by one another without interference
in both. The impression of the statue depends on the whole, and as something
changes in it, everything must change, if the impression is to remain the same on the
whole. Unevenness of the surface of a certain size, which would be very annoying
with the small statue, does not damage the large one, and the large statue also
requires a different material than the small one to be durable.
Further: A thick string or a rope can give exactly the same sound as a short thin
string; just a stronger one; but for a greater distance it will sound just as weak. But it
takes quite a different force to make a taut rope sound than a string; and when the
string finds that the same fiddle bow that makes it sound itself does nothing with the
rope, it can easily believe that it cannot sound at all. But the only thing missing is the
right strength. The string would be broken by the force which is only sufficient to
make the rope sound. So both canNot communicating about the means by which they
are stimulated to sound. Again, it would not work to replace part of the rope in the
string, should it still retain its ability to sound.
Unevenness in the rope that does not affect its ability to sound would be
unbearably disadvantageous for the string if it were the same size. And since a heavy
rope is difficult to stretch and keep taut, it will be preferable to use a heavy staff or
bell to obtain the strong tone that is required. This is quite different from a string; and
one can even less want to substitute a piece of bell than a piece of rope in the string,
but it gives the same tone if it sounds as a whole. But only if it sounds as a whole. It
all depends on the connection as a whole, and if something changes in the whole
connection, everything has to change if the same tone is to emerge again. We see
similar points of view recurring in very different cases.
Shouldn't they also come back in other cases? Especially in very analog?
It is undisputed that our sensory organs or, respectively, the nerves in them act only
through the connection in the whole and with the whole, like the strings, which are
connected in themselves and with the instrument, and are only able to give their tone
in this and through this connection. If you cut off a nerve, or cut it crosswise, it feels
as little as the sound of the cut or cross-cut string. Perhaps just as the string of the
instrument owes its ability to sound in a special way to a certain tension in its
ponderable parts, so the sensory nerves owes their ability to perceive in a certain way
to a certain tension in the unpredictable nerve ether contained in them. That is
hypothesis; for the whole nerve ether in its relation to the soul is a hypothesis;
So if a being, as big as the earth, has not only small sense organs in us, but also
large ones outside or beyond us, we do not have to assume, according to the above
examples, that a piece of these sense organs inserted in us does the same for our
sensation would do what it does for the earth in its full and natural connection in the
earth; and that the same weak means, which can stimulate the small senses of man,
would be sufficient for the great senses of the earth, and the same strong means,
which is necessary for the great senses of the earth, would not be too strong for our
little ones, and that irregularities, which would be very disturbing for our small
senses, should also be disturbing for the great senses of the earth; that, finally, the
same material and the same arrangement could serve as purposefully for theirs as for
our sense organs. Rather, we must absolutely assume the opposite of all of
this. Everything must change in the transition from the small to the large, so that the
performance as a whole remains corresponding. Even with the larger sense organs of
the earth, there are different ones, it would perhaps only be a matter of generating a
certain tension in the ether, which according to the most exact physics permeates the
whole earth as well as our nerves, in order to play with this tension To have play of
sensations; but this tension and this play can only be created through the whole
arrangement, not a part of the arrangement. Everything must change in the transition
from the small to the large, so that the performance as a whole remains
corresponding. Even with the larger sense organs of the earth, there are different
ones, it would perhaps only be a matter of generating a certain tension in the ether,
which according to the most exact physics permeates the whole earth as well as our
nerves, in order to play with this tension To have play of sensations; but this tension
and this play can only be created through the whole arrangement, not a part of the
arrangement. Everything must change in the transition from the small to the large, so
that the performance as a whole remains corresponding. Even with the larger sense
organs of the earth, there are different ones, it would perhaps only be a matter of
generating a certain tension in the ether, which according to the most exact physics
permeates the whole earth as well as our nerves, in order to play with this tension To
have play of sensations; but this tension and this play can only be created through the
whole arrangement, not a part of the arrangement. which, according to the most
exacting physics, penetrates the whole earth as well as our nerves, in order to have a
game of sensations with the play of this tension; but this tension and this play can
only be created through the whole arrangement, not a part of the arrangement. which,
according to the most exacting physics, penetrates the whole earth as well as our
nerves, in order to have a game of sensations with the play of this tension; but this
tension and this play can only be created through the whole arrangement, not a part of
the arrangement.
Let us add the following: The most varied of sensory perceptions, seeing, hearing,
smelling, tasting, and feeling in us take place by means of seemingly very similarly
arranged nerves. Now one does not see why the reverse should be less possible, the
same sensation by means of apparently very differently arranged
apparatuses. Because this is logically related. According to that fact, it cannot be the
outwardly appearing arrangement of the nerves that comes into consideration, but
something in the nerves that we do not know; even if we suspect or can hold it
possible that tension and movements of a fine medium come into play.
In short, from a general point of view there is no obstacle to the existence in the
earth of material institutions on a large scale for the service of sensations, the parts of
which, substituted in us, are by no means able to do the same for us. We cannot infer
anything for the earth from the fact that they cannot afford this to us. If we want to
conclude in this relation, we can only either safely from real knowledge of the
fundamental material conditions of feeling and feeling, which we however do not
have, or uncertainly, but with the hope of approaching the truth, according to points
of view of a higher analogy and Teleology, as which merely goes from next to
next. Uncertainty will always remain here as long as the effective causes are not
recognized as belonging to the ultimate causes and the analogy has become
induction; but at least it will be possible in such a way to find something not only
more probable but also more edifying than lies in the bare and yet completely
unjustified denial that something can be found here because nothing can be seen.
Having said that, let us dare to try.
Like humans, the earth can on the one hand look at itself, on the other hand it can
look into an outside world around it, which for it is heaven. What the earth has to do
with this are first of all our eyes and those of other earthly beings; whether more will
have to be considered; but first and foremost this one. The wealth and the
development of their facial means is, even if we think of nothing else, unspeakably
greater than with us. It has its special eyes for the most special viewpoints, far and
near views, all around, distributed back and forth on its entire surface and freely
movable back and forth on it, in order to always look for the most suitable
viewpoints. The insects crawl into the smallest of corners; everything should be seen.
It is undisputed that taken together this is a great deal, but it does not seem enough
to me. Much is viewed from our individual earthly standpoints, but it seems to me
inadequate from the heavenly unified standpoint of the earth itself. Indeed, the small
and many eyes of the creatures correspond excellently to the multiplicity and change
of earthly standpoints and objects, but not exactly to the simplicity, unity, and
sublimity of the heavenly standpoint and heavenly objects. The question arises:
Should the earth, the great, one, heavenly being, not also have a great, some, have an
eternal eye for contemplation of the eternally one heaven and heavenly objects? Isn't
the fragmentation of our eyes just as pointless for this as it is useful for looking at
earthly objects? It is true that the earth can also look at the sky with our eyes; but that
their creature eyes are really only intended to look at earthly things is proven by the
fact that they (with few exceptions in the case of lower creatures) are all only turned
downwards and forwards. We have to head that they (with few exceptions in the case
of lower creatures) are all turned only downwards and forwards. We have to head that
they (with few exceptions in the case of lower creatures) are all turned only
downwards and forwards. We have to headfirst give a forced position to look
upwards. Shouldn't the earth, the being above us, also have an eye that is naturally
directed upwards towards the sky, with which it can freely look around the sky? The
creature eyes are furthermore only shortsighted, only suitable to overlook and
examine limited circles on earth, but are all the less suitable to penetrate the celestial
distances and to recognize what is going on on other stars. Shouldn't the earth be
better able to see her heavenly neighbors face to face?
Indeed, what we can see with our eyes in heaven remains only something most
imperfect. All celestial bodies appear to our eyes only as evenly clear disks, in which
nothing can be distinguished individually. The high heavenly beings, angels, go
before us, the subordinate earthly beings, in nebulae of light. But should they walk
along so veiled before each other, their whole beauty in color, luster and change of
luster and color - and how beautiful that is, we saw earlier - be lost to them as much
as we do? The sun does not appear to us larger than a plate, the fixed stars only like
points that cannot be magnified by a telescope; should a heavenly being, an
angel, Don't see the great sun bigger than a plate and see the distant suns only as
points? Yes, we cannot actually look at the sun with our eyes; and should there be no
eye to enjoy its splendor? The flowers, of course, open safely to the light of the
sun; but do they also have eyes to receive a picture of it?
After these considerations, before I still know how the earth can see the sky
differently than with our eyes, I believe that it can still see the sky differently, and I
am now looking for what.
Assuming now that I did not know that and with what a person or an animal can
see, from what would I most surely infer it? Is it from the existence of his
retina? Certainly not. How did this betray the ability to see? It is true, "once you
know that someone is blind, you think you can look at him from behind", and so,
once you know that the retina is used to see, you probably think that it lets itself off
view behind. Any sensible researcher, however, who did not yet know anything about
it, would cheaply ask what principle the existence of this soft, moist, fibrous, mushy
skin could mean by facial sensation; and to consider it just as fantastic to ascribe
them to it simply on the basis of its construction as if we were to ascribe such to any
part of the earth on the basis of its nature. What could finally determine it, indeed
what alone can determine us to believe that it really does serve to see? If anything,
the appearance of an image of the objects on it, and the careful arrangement to
produce that image on it. So let's not reverse the conclusion. Let us not look for the
retina, which in itself does not prove anything and cannot be expected on a large scale
in the same way as on a small scale, in order to find the image and thus the faculty of
seeing in the earth, but rather look for the image and that of its own Creation
calculated device to find the faculty of seeing and what the retina represents in the
earth, since we cannot see for ourselves once and for all. that it really does serve to
see? If anything, the appearance of an image of the objects on it, and the careful
arrangement to produce that image on it. So let's not reverse the conclusion. Let us
not look for the retina, which in itself does not prove anything and cannot be
expected on a large scale in the same way as on a small scale, in order to find the
image and thus the faculty of seeing in the earth, but rather look for the image and
that of its own Creation calculated device to find the faculty of seeing and what the
retina represents in the earth, since we cannot see for ourselves once and for all. that
it really does serve to see? If anything, the appearance of an image of the objects on
it, and the careful arrangement to produce that image on it. So let's not reverse the
conclusion. Let us not look for the retina, which in itself does not prove anything and
cannot be expected on a large scale in the same way as on a small scale, in order to
find the image and thus the faculty of seeing in the earth, but rather look for the
image and that of its own Creation calculated device to find the faculty of seeing and
what the retina represents in the earth, since we cannot see for ourselves once and for
all. So let's not reverse the conclusion. Let us not look for the retina, which in itself
does not prove anything and cannot be expected on a large scale in the same way as
on a small scale, in order to find the image and thus the faculty of seeing in the earth,
but rather look for the image and that of its own Creation calculated facility to find
the faculty of seeing and what the retina represents in the earth, since we cannot see
for ourselves once and for all. So let's not reverse the conclusion. Let us not look for
the retina, which in itself does not prove anything and cannot be expected on a large
scale in the same way as on a small scale, in order to find the image and thus the
faculty of seeing in the earth, but rather look for the image and that of its own
Creation calculated facility to find the faculty of seeing and what the retina represents
in the earth, since we cannot see for ourselves once and for all.
While I now look around me and at first I am embarrassed when I can find what I
am looking for, the large, clear image of the sun and stars and the optical device for
its creation in the earth; and I am already beginning to believe that it is nothing with
those lofty demands that I have made, I am suddenly amazed that everything I am
looking for is actually there in the most perfect measure, only a retina like ours is not
there for that, and I can myself at the beginning do not break free from the habit of
demanding such a thing to see, indeed do not completely break away from it until I
see more and more and finally so much agreeing to make the whole earth itself
appear as a heavenly eye that contemplation, a retina similar to ours cannot be
expected again in the great heavenly eye,
In fact, as an optical apparatus of the earth to generate an image of the celestial
objects, the compound confronts me of a huge mirror with a powerful lens, and I see
by means of the same a solar image of approximately 4 miles in diameter,
12 1 / 2 generated Qum surface. I ask myself, should this picture be completely in
vain, the optical apparatus there for it completely in vain? This picture cannot be
determined for me, because it blinds me as well as if I were looking into the sun
itself; I can look at it as little directly as this, and in addition it only appears to me as
small and faded as the sun itself, but for the earth it is different; it bears it clearly in
the indicated size, and what cannot be distinguishable in such a large picture?
The optical apparatus I am talking about is the connection of the convex sea level
with the air lens (atmosphere) at the same time the simplest and greatest combination
of a catoptric with a dioptric apparatus and in so far, despite all its simplicity, more
complete than the optical apparatus of our eye, in which merely dioptric means are
used. Real is the sea (since the rays penetrating into it soon extinguish in its color)
only as a mirror, but the atmosphere, which has a curved shape like the sea, is to be
considered as a lens. In the middle of the convex sea level the image of the sun arises
in the specified size 1) according to similar laws, such as the image of the sun in a
dewdrop or on a glass thermometer sphere or through a convex mirror in general,
only in such a way that the lens of the atmosphere is still helpful, like the image; what
a convex mirror gives on a small scale can be perfected by adding a suitable lens. Of
course we do not see the image of the sun in the ocean as large as it is, but only for
the same reasons why we do not see the sun itself as large as it is; due to the
distance. That tremendous image of the sun with a diameter of 4 miles is located
virtually (since the rays in it are so little unified as with our plane and convex
mirrors) at a depth of half the radius of the earth from the earth's surface, that is, it
appears optically and is in to be seen in every way as if it were there just as the image
appears in our ordinary flat mirrors behind them and optically behaves as if it were
really behind them, even if there is a wall immediately behind the mirror. All ponds,
all lakes, however separate they are from the sea, work together with the sea
according to optical laws to deliver one and the same image of the sun; because its
curvature complements itself around the earth to a mirror, and a continuity is not
necessary for it. Wherever we look into the water, there is always only one and the
same image of the sun that we see, just as there is only one and the same sun that we
see directly in the sky; the picture certainly seems to go with us; but not otherwise
than the sun or the moon (apart from their daily course) seem to go with us
everywhere;
1) Its size is only calculated above.
Now I think that if the earth feels not only in detail, but also as a whole, and that is
our basic prerequisite, but a feeling being is able to grasp many scattered things in
one, it can also feel, like the totality of that of a point of light The rays of light that
have come here, by virtue of being thrown back by their sea level, again as if
diverging from a point, they themselves produce this divergence, and can hereby
perceive the image of this point. But the image of the whole object itself is composed
of the images of all points of an object. In this case, of course, we do not have to
demand that, with the aid of a piece of sea level in our eye, we can also see. The
surface of the sea and sea matter do not fit into our little ethereal tension apparatus,
or,
In itself there can be nothing improbable that the virtual coincidence of many rays
at one point 2)just as much as the real gives the sensation of a visible point, since the
soul generally has the property of drawing together a multiplicity of material effects
in sensation, just as, as we have already mentioned, with every simple sound and light
sensation, many physical vibrations are psychologically integrated into one. In the
case of our objective optical apparatus, too, it makes no difference to the appearance
of the image whether the coincidence of the rays in it is virtual or real; And so one
can well imagine that the double possibility of an objective creation of an image,
which depends on this, corresponds to an equally double possibility of subjective
creation. Otherwise nature is used to exploiting the diversity of its physical principles
in organisms.
2) The meeting of the rays is called virtual, provided that the rays do not really
meet, but only thought to extend backwards behind the mirror, as is the case
with our flat mirrors. Concave mirrors can give pictures where the rays really
meet.
In the middle of our retina, of course, it would not be possible to perceive the
virtual, but only the real meeting of the rays in one point as an image. But our retina
is not a mirror either, but a surface that diffuses the light, and in general in a
completely different relationship to the optical apparatus than the surface of the sea,
which allows no pure comparison with it. If, by the way, we cannot actually say with
ourselves that the retina feels, because without the connection with the whole it does
not feel anything, then we will of course be all the less able to say that the surface of
the sea feels; it only serves, in a different way of combining than our retina, the
sensation of a being that feels as a whole. But the apparently violent aspect of the
view that the surface of the sea contributes to the sensation,
In doing so, I do not want to reduce the difficulties that lie in the fact that we are
still completely in the dark about the material conditions which the sensation
demands as a basis; As long as they are not resolved, an exact science cannot enter
into the view presented here, which is based on points of view other than those which
fall within its field; but just as little can say anything to refute it before she herself has
resolved this obscurity. For them there is still a field of indeterminate and so far
indefinable possibilities. Anyone who rashly denies in the opposite sense only proves
that he does not know what is essential in this question.
Recognizing this uncertainty, which from an exact point of view still clings to our
view, I confess that for me there is something subjectively overcoming in the
convergence of the two considerations: once, the earth should, so completely pointed
to life in the light of the sun, no Have an eye to contemplate the source of this light
safely? Second, should the immense image of the sun that is really created in the sea,
which it is made to form as a mirror, be in vain? Because it is certainly not there to
blind us to its small reflection in the water.
The weight of this combined consideration is reinforced by a further entry into the
teleological detail of the optical apparatus of the earth.
Due to the large radius of curvature and the size of the convex mirror that the sea
presents, two advantages are achieved at the same time, which we also achieve by
enlarging the mirrors or lenses in our telescopes, once making the image itself larger
so that more particularities can be distinguished in it Second, to make it more
luminous so that they can be seen more clearly. It is undisputed that this enables the
earth to recognize the surface of the sun and its neighboring planets with
comparatively just as much clarity as we do the face of a person standing opposite
us; although not so clearly as she can see her own surface through her earthly
eyes; the fixed stars, which for us only appear as dots at the highest
magnification, may expand into discs of light for the earth as the sun appears for
us; but without permitting a conception of their particularities, for which the level of
the earth is not yet high enough.
Even the finer arrangements of our optical apparatus are repeated in the earth and
probably with increased perfection; or rather the other way round, in our eyes the
finer arrangements of the earth's optical apparatus repeat themselves. The density of
the lens in our eyes increases from the outside in, and so does the lens of the
atmosphere. The curved means in our eye deviate somewhat from the spherical
shape, into the elliptical (and parabolic) in order to reduce the indistinctness which
depends on the spherical deviation; just like that, the sea and the atmosphere deviate
somewhat from the spherical to the elliptical, with different elliptical curvatures. It
would be of interest to calculate the optical effect of these circumstances more
precisely. Although the atmosphere and the sea have to serve other than optical
purposes, it cannot be said that everything is calculated precisely and specifically for
the optical purpose, but rather that it is possible that in the conflict of purposes the
optical has something here and there have to give in. But otherwise we have found so
diverse that the earth through its institutions on the whole knows how to fulfill the
most varied purposes at the same time and equally perfectly and how to solve
conflicts in the happiest way that exist with our small institutions that we would find
it improbable. if only there remains a considerable conflict between different
purposes here. that in the conflict of purposes the optical one here and there had to
give way a little. But otherwise we have found so diverse that the earth through its
institutions on the whole knows how to fulfill the most varied purposes at the same
time and equally perfectly and how to solve conflicts in the happiest way that exist
with our small institutions that we would find it improbable. if only there remains a
considerable conflict between different purposes here. that in the conflict of purposes
the optical one here and there had to give way a little. But otherwise we have found
so diverse that the earth through its institutions on the whole knows how to fulfill the
most varied purposes at the same time and equally perfectly and how to solve
conflicts in the happiest way that exist with our small institutions that we would find
it improbable. if only there remains a considerable conflict between different
purposes.
It is not a matter of indifference that the atmosphere gradually becomes
thin. Because if the atmosphere were confined with a dense layer, its reflective effect
would create and perceive an image based on the same principle as through the
surface of the sea, and one image would interfere with the other. The fact that the sea
beats waves and is therefore not smooth like a mirror has nothing to do with its
size . The small irregularities of our most perfect mirrors are indisputably very
considerable compared to those which arise on the surface of the sea by the waves.
Our eyes are connected to a brain, and each fiber of the retina is related to a brain
fiber. This enables us not only to look, but also to consider what we have seen. Where
then is it considered what is seen of the earth in the large images of the stars? Nothing
seems to be there for it, because we ourselves see the image of the sun in the water as
small and washed out as we see the sun directly, or rather we can just look at it just as
little straight. So nothing can be counted on in this respect. But we have already
found a reason to compare the entire upper space of the earth with a brain, which,
reaching beyond the human brain, serves to link the human brain by simultaneously
engaging it; this is where the rays go back, which the sea reflects, and will intervene
in the general life and weaving that rules in air and ether, and serves as the basis for a
higher spiritual life than we can grasp in this world. When we speak of the hereafter,
it will show how we too can hope to intervene in it one day, and so lifted to a higher
level than now, to take part in the more highly conscious life and heavenly
intercourse on earth. Of course, it is obvious that such considerations can only be
indications that have a meaning for the context of our views. I also do not fail to
recognize that in this field much remains obscure. just as we can hope to intervene in
it one day, and so lifted to a higher level than now, to take part in the more highly
conscious life and heavenly intercourse on earth. Of course, it is obvious that such
considerations can only be indications that have a meaning for the context of our
views. I also do not fail to recognize that in this field much remains obscure. just as
we can hope to intervene in it one day, and so lifted to a higher level than now, to take
part in the more highly conscious life and heavenly intercourse on earth. Of course, it
is obvious that such considerations can only be indications that have a meaning for
the context of our views. I also do not fail to recognize that in this field much remains
obscure.
Apart from the essential optical apparatus of the earth, which is given in the sea
and atmosphere, we must be struck by the similarity that the whole earth has with one
eye; and if the earth is a heavenly creature, destined to live entirely in the light, why
should it not have a body shaped accordingly, which is whole, what our body is only
in part, full, what is only imperfectly?
Indeed, one can say: The earth is more eye than our eye itself. Just as our skeleton
is only half and imperfect, what the skeleton of the earth is completely, so is our eye
and the earth as an eye. It would be a miracle if she could not see, since everything is
so wonderfully arranged for her for the service of seeing. Also, our eyes only need to
be half of what the earth is whole, because the whole earth itself still has the same
support as our skeleton does that of the earth. But it would be insignificant to see just
this support, this help for our eyes in the earth, to keep their optical devices only
intended to supplement our eyes, since our eyes are rather different in every
respectbehave only as a supplement for them according to earthly special
relationships, only being able to perform earthly, not heavenly services.
Our eye is actually only an eye from the front, it is blind to the rear. Should there
just be such half-blind eyes? The earth, on the other hand, is freely immersed all
around in the light ether, freely swimming in it, floating, not attached to anything, so
that the light flows freely everywhere; and should it pour everywhere in vain? It is
true that our eyes are set all around the earth, make them see all around; but just don't
look to the sky from which the light comes, in which it walks.
Our eyes are round, but the rounding of our eyes still leaves something half and
broken; it is made up of two unequal round parts. Should there just be such broken
eyes? The earth is round in one and out of the whole.
Our eyes are beautifully adorned with luster and color, nay, of all parts of our body,
most adorned with luster and color; the earth is even more beautifully adorned with
luster and color; it is adorned all around with gloss and color.
Our eyes are endowed with a rolling movement in order to always present
themselves appropriately to earthly objects; the earth is endowed with an even more
perfect rolling motion, in order to always present itself appropriately to the heavenly
objects, and is thus able to achieve even more perfect things. In fact, our eye with its
rolling movement is not entirely sufficient for itself, the rotation of our head, our
body, and finally the gait of our feet must still come to the rescue in order to bring
about the required position against earthly things everywhere. But the earth with its
rolling movement is completely sufficient to always win the right position against
heavenly things. But since the heavenly external conditions are simpler and more
regulated than our earthly,
Our eyes sleep half the time and wake up half the time; here, too, are only half of
what the earth is whole, which at the same time sleeps from one side and watches
from the other.
When we want to sleep, we pull the eyelids forward and lie on our side or on our
back; she prefers herself to sleep as an eyelid, by folding herself so that the light side
comes before the night side.
We have the iris to restrict the entry of light, even when we are awake, so that it
does not shine too brightly into the eye; the earth also has an iris, which deserves the
name even more properly, these are the clouds; only that it can attract them here and
there where need; while our iris can only simply expand and narrow its opening as a
whole.
Our eye has a bony hold because it is fixed in the eye socket, the earth eye also has
a bony hold, only that it has it inside, with much greater advantage, as we have
considered earlier.
If one really grasps the earth in its entirety as an eye, one sees that this eye
basically has two sections, one of which is primarily intended to serve the view of the
sky, the other the view of the earth; the former the large but simple area of the sea, the
latter the land area with the innumerable but small eyes of the land creatures, over
both of which the atmosphere is stretched together; but it should not be forgotten that
there is no exclusive determination on one side or the other. Because clouds and ships
and objects on the shore are also reflected in the sea; and live fish with eyes below
the surface; and on the other hand, the land creatures sometimes direct their gaze to
the sky, yes, of their own accord, they direct their gaze toward the horizon; and the
sea ' n and ponds of the land contribute to the image of the sky, what the sea level
gives. In our organism, too, we see many parts intervening in addition to their main
purpose in the purposes of other parts.
I shall now make another bold hypothesis. It cannot be proven; but, if one accepts
it, it opens up beautiful glimpses of nature and makes one think of a kind of language
of the stars. In doing so, the sentence put forward earlier (Vol. I. Chapter VI. A) takes
into account that the stars, while on one side they face each other more individually
than we, enter into more direct communication from the other. What was shown
externally in this respect will now also show up in psychic intercourse after the
following considerations.
I mean, the rays that emanate from the sun are still the sun, are continuations of it,
long fingers of light, filaments that it stretches out. Wherever they stir the earth, they
stimulate activities, changes, which the earth feels; but they also suffer changes (in
reflection, refraction, dispersion, etc.), which the sun feels. So the sun and earth
interact with one another in the most direct way, in that the sun cannot do anything to
the earth without feeling what you are doing again. The rays that fall on the sea level
from a point of the sun are, as has been discussed, deflected by the sea level as if they
diverged again from a point below the surface of the sea. The earth now feels the
point of this divergence as an image of the point. But as the earth feels the point of
divergence which creates them, the sun also feels the point of divergence that is
created in its rays by being deflected. So, while the earth sees the image of the sun
(which is composed of the images of the individual points) directly through its own
eye, the sun sees its reflection in the opposite eye of the earth. Not only do people
have mirrors, angels too, but their mirrors are the eyes of other angels. After all, even
the human being is reflected in the eye of the other person. And the images that the
angels see of themselves in the opposite eye only appear to them to be small in
relation to their own size. But why, one asks, do they even appear? Don't they have
special little eyes to see yourself up close and personal? It is true, but they should also
see how they appear to others. With us, the mirror image that we see of ourselves in
the other's eye is separate from the retinal image with which the other sees us, and the
two are not the same. But in the angel's eye the mirror image with which he gives his
image back to the other is the same that he feels himself. So every angel knows
exactly how he appears to the other.
While the land gives way to the sea after a relationship in the heavenly traffic of
light, it surpasses the same after another relationship. The land must leave the great
images of the stars to the sea; on the other hand, however, the sea leaves something to
the land, which may be even more significant for the interactions between the earth
and the stars than these images.
The land is covered with vegetation, and where the sun is most powerful, so is
vegetation. The life process of the plant depends essentially on the light and warmth
of the sun; conversely, the sun's ray has the most beautiful and richest field of activity
of its forces in the action on the plant world. If the plant were not moved by the rays
of the sun, what would color its leaves, what would break its flower, what would
brew its scent, what would show the butterfly or the bee the way to it? Their fabrics
remained dead and cold on the earth; she is already languishing when there is not
enough sun; but the ray of the sun, going into the void, would remain idle, colorless,
powerless. In the sea the sun only sees its cold reflection, deserts and poles offer it an
eternally colorless monotony,
Just as the sun and earth both presumably feel the same mirror image that they give
together, the earth only as something that it receives from the other, the sun as
something that it receives back from the other, so it will also be with the other what
the sun and earth give in the interplay of rays and plants. What neither can do for
itself, what only arises in their intercourse, will also be felt by both together and in
one, so that each feels determined by the other. Every plant senses in a special way, it
is a special being, how it participates in this intercourse, but the earth, which has all
created out of a context and is still connected, will also feel what everyone encounters
together, and not only feel the sum of it, but also feel the connection between it. No
less will the sun feel the connection between the effects it expresses here. So each
plant can be viewed as a kind of colorful letter and the whole of the plant world
above the earth as a script with one sense around which the sun and earth understand
each other. But it is not the arrangement of the plants alone that matters; they only
form the main mass, but not the nouns of the scriptures; as such, people and animals
walk in it, although they do not grow through sunlight, but move and move under its
guidance. And that's even more important after higher salaries. around which sun and
earth understand each other. But it is not the arrangement of the plants alone that
matters; they only form the main mass, but not the nouns of the scriptures; as such,
people and animals walk in it, although they do not grow through sunlight, but move
and move under its guidance. And that's even more important after higher
salaries. around which sun and earth understand each other. But it is not the
arrangement of the plants alone that matters; they only form the main mass, but not
the nouns of the scriptures; as such, people and animals walk in it, although they do
not grow through sunlight, but move and move under its guidance. And that's even
more important after higher salaries.
In the whole living arrangement of the plant, animal and human world and its
changes through culture and intercourse, a lofty meaning is revealed as a whole, of
which only no single earthly creature is quite capable, but the heavenly creatures like
it by adopting this arrangement , to guide this rain and movement down from above
and to justify it from below, therefore being able to communicate in light traffic. It
will be like our language. We do not express everything in language; much remains
hidden inside. And so the celestial bodies cannot outwardly see everything that goes
on inside them. Something of it always comes to the surface, which is nevertheless
meaningfully related to the interior, so that it can be regarded as a temporary external
expression of it.
If we compare such an intercourse with writing or language, it is of course only a
comparison which, like all such comparisons, is partly true and partly not. It is an
intercourse that is not based on the representation of the spiritual that is to be
communicated, but takes place by means of a related combination of external sensual
signs that convey mutual understanding. In so far this intercourse is the same as that
through writing and language. Otherwise the conditions are very different.
It is undisputed that what the creatures think inwardly on each celestial body is
communicated far more incompletely through the analogue of language between the
celestial bodies than through the language between the creatures on each celestial
body itself; how the intellectual intercourse through language between the creatures
on each celestial body is again more imperfect than the intercourse between the own
thoughts of a creature, but there may be a more direct understanding of more general
and higher interrelationships between the celestial bodies than between us. But all
conjectures on this subject are too uncertain for it to be no better to forego further
elaboration. It was just a matter of indicating possibilities here.
Since the earth has heavenly eyes to earthly eyes, or represents such a thing as a
whole, it should not also have or be heavenly to earthly ears; there is nothing for the
earth to hear in heaven as there is so much for her to see? Of course, there is no air
between the bodies of the world that could transmit sound from one to the
other. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that the earth not only stands the other
stars walking, but also hears their footsteps, be it also that this hearing is not entirely
comparable with ours. We just don't have to want the same facility on a large scale as
on a small one to listen to. In any case, if we find large oscillations on earth, caused
by the course of the stars. But oscillations are what are essentially audible; now it
doesn't matter
We know that the oscillations of the sea in ebb and flow are caused by the course
of the stars. Of course, if the earth were a smooth sphere, the tidal wave would only
go around it smoothly, but now the land has risen and the sea hits the land twice
during one day and retreats twice from it. This oscillation can be heard on the
earth. The oscillations are of course very slow; but nothing prevents the earth from
hearing much deeper tones than we do. We call it hearing without claiming that the
sensation is exactly the same as our hearing.
One can observe that while in one part of the earth it is ebb, in another it is also
high tide; all phases of an oscillation occur on earth at the same time. It must be left
to the question whether the earth is not able to perceive the same magnitude of the
period all around according to the analogy of the pitch, or whether only a noise arises
for it. In any case, the type of impression is likely to change somehow according to
the size of the period. Insofar as the whole oscillation of the ebb and flow of the tide
is composed of the particular oscillations which are caused by the celestial bodies
considered individually (whereby the strength caused by the moon predominates) the
earth may also be able to distinguish the course of the individual celestial bodies.
We need air in between so that we can hear something from another. In the case of
the heavenly bodies, however, this is not necessary. Gravitation replaces the tension
in the air (if ebb and flow depend on it), only differentiated from it in that it
represents a material relation of force instead of from one air atom to another, from
one world atom to another. As you can see through light, hearing is propagated
through space through gravity, wherever only the appropriate organ can be
found. Because in itself, of course, the gravity is as little audible as the tension in the
air, and like the light is visible. The body that it pulls must bump in order to arouse
hearing sensation, just as light must bump in order to awaken facial sensation. Now it
is time to make arrangements that this impetus takes place in an orderly manner that
is dependent on the movement of the stars. So now the land is there that the sea
should bump into it.
Among the various oscillations in which the sea is set by the stars, the one
dependent on the moon has by far the preponderance over all others, soon the one
caused by the sun, then those caused by the other planets; they are imperceptible due
to the fixed stars. So the earth hears most of the world body, which is connected to it
in the same system; yes, in a certain way it can still be counted as part of it; soon
mostly from the sun, then from the other planets; she hears nothing of the other fixed
stars because they belong to a higher sphere.
If one does not shy away from a somewhat sought-after comparison, the earth can
be compared to an extent with an ear even in the formal of the arrangement, only not
with that of the most developed, but the simplest creatures, as well as the similarity of
the earth with an eye, preferably with the simpler forms of the eye takes place. But
the simplest facilities are used in the most splendid ways on earth. Neither do the two
comparisons contradict each other, because the earth is generally able to represent the
most diverse in itself.
Let's take the hearing organ of a mussel animal. It consists of a simple, nerve-rich
sac or vesicle full of liquid, with a round stone (otolith) in it. The stone is constantly
in a dancing movement, which depends on the effect of delicate eyelashes that sit on
the inner wall of the vesicle and, unknown by what force, are in constant flickering
motion, whipping the liquid in which the stone is floating . In all lower animals the
organ of hearing is similar, but in many animals, such as snails, there are several
pebbles instead of a single one, and they often take on a crystalline nature.
Now we see in the earth an outwardly similar arrangement, so to speak. The round
or crystalline otolith is the round solid earth body with its jagged land, the liquid is
the sea, the nerve-rich shell is the atmosphere interspersed with light and
warmth. The cilia do not need to move the otolith and the liquid. The otolith rotates
and the sea rotates against it in the flow of the tide. On a small scale, the sea is
whipped by the winds.
It would be easy to expand these considerations even further, and even to make
conjectures as to the other senses. However, given the uncertainty of the object, the
above is enough, and probably more than enough, to arouse an idea of what it might
be like in the higher sphere of sensuality. We repeat, these considerations are not
intended to be authoritative; but they are intended to indicate the approximate
direction in which the point of view should be raised and expanded when it comes to
ascending from the relationships that apply to our sensory life to the relationships of
the superior beings. In any case, an increase and expansion is necessary here; a
mistake, however, is also easily possible for us subordinate beings; we like to humble
ourselves.
XVIII. Appendix to the ninth section.

Additions about the level structure of the world.
If there are many degrees of the creatures in the neighborly sense from the higher
to the lower, then one can also well think that there are many degrees in that other
from the upper to the lower. 1) With God's and the world's greatness one has nothing
to be frightened of. The division of the divine universe is certainly not only broad, but
also deep from top to bottom.
1) In this appendix I always use the expressions higher and lower, upper and
lower in the sense of the distinction between vol. I. chap. X.
Now our solar system easily presents itself as the next level above our earth.
Perhaps, viewed above, it appears on the one hand less bound in itself, on the other
hand more fused with the world as a whole than our body or the earth. On closer
inspection, however, we find it different.
As for the first, all the movements of the planets are intimately connected with
each other and with the sun through a determinate change; all purpose relationships
no less. And the earth would rather let go of a stone by, say, a volcano hurling it out
of its sphere of attraction than the solar system would like a planet. The bond that
binds all of the same body together cannot be broken. Only that, although more
firmly than the connection of the hardest stone, at the same time it allows a greater
freedom of inner movements than the loosest ligaments of our body.
Concerning the other, then in a broader sense all movements and functional
relationships of our solar system are connected with those of the whole world,
because in a broader sense everything in the world is connected in activities and
purposes; But if people are farther apart than the limbs of every person, then the solar
systems are again unspeakably farther apart than the planets, indeed so far that the
distances between the planets are, on the other hand, vanishingly small. All effects of
one system on the other take place noticeably only as if from one point to the other,
while in every solar system the individual bodies also express individually traceable
effects on one another. All bodies of our solar system go in a common direction
around the same center, which is unchangeable in relation to all of them, around
which even the sun itself, only in the narrowest circle, rolls around; but the centers of
the various solar systems revolve around a higher center. All planets of the same solar
system are like siblings to each other, but only to be regarded as cousins to the
planets of another solar system, and only the whole solar systems again like siblings
in an upper sphere to each other.
In fact, according to the most probable cosmogonic ideas, all planets of our system
are only valid for spawns of the same great ball of matter, of which the sun still
remained in the midst as a mother stick, and are still bound to this mother stick by the
bond of forces. The great solar body is, so to speak, related to the planets born from it
and encircling it in a similar relationship as the earth is to the people and animals
born from it and only encircling it more closely. It is true that the sun is not so
directly related to the planets by continuity as the earth is to its creatures, but the
material connection is less important than the connection in purposes, forces and
movement; we ourselves are basically only connected to the earth through the force
of gravity. If the force of gravity were gone, centrifugal force would throw us away
from the earth as well as the planets from the sun. And the further up the ladder a
being stands, the freer and looser its constituent parts and limbs become. The earth
already stands above us in this respect, since we and the animals are more loosely
attached to it than our limbs are to us; the solar system then again over the earth,
since the planets are more loosely attached to the sun than we are to the earth; but
such being more loose does not mean being more loose; since, on the contrary, a
member can more easily separate itself from our body than we can from the
earth; and in the same circumstances it would be even more difficult for a planet to
detach itself from our solar system. Rather, the higher the sphere, the tighter the bond
of forces. centrifugal force would throw us away from the earth as well as the planets
from the sun. And the further up the ladder a being stands, the freer and looser its
constituent parts and limbs become. The earth already stands above us in this respect,
since we and the animals are more loosely attached to it than our limbs are to us; the
solar system then again over the earth, since the planets are more loosely attached to
the sun than we are to the earth; but such being more loose does not mean being more
loose; since, on the contrary, a member can more easily separate itself from our body
than we can from the earth; and in the same circumstances it would be even more
difficult for a planet to detach itself from our solar system. Rather, the higher the
sphere, the tighter the bond of forces. centrifugal force would throw us away from the
earth as well as the planets from the sun. And the further up the ladder a being stands,
the freer and looser its constituent parts and limbs become. The earth already stands
above us in this respect, since we and the animals are more loosely attached to it than
our limbs are to us; the solar system then again over the earth, since the planets are
more loosely attached to the sun than we are to the earth; but such being more loose
does not mean being more loose; since, on the contrary, a member can more easily
separate itself from our body than we can from the earth; and in the same
circumstances it would be even more difficult for a planet to detach itself from our
solar system. Rather, the higher the sphere, the tighter the bond of forces. the freer
and looser the constituent parts and links of it become. The earth already stands
solar system. Rather, the higher the sphere, the tighter the bond of forces. the freer
and looser the constituent parts and links of it become. The earth already stands
solar system. Rather, the higher the sphere, the tighter the bond of forces. the solar
system then again over the earth, since the planets are more loosely attached to the
sun than we are to the earth; but such being more loose does not mean being more
loose; since, on the contrary, a member can more easily separate itself from our body
than we can from the earth; and in the same circumstances it would be even more
difficult for a planet to detach itself from our solar system. Rather, the higher the
sphere, the tighter the bond of forces. the solar system then again over the earth, since
the planets are more loosely attached to the sun than we are to the earth; but such
being more loose does not mean being more loose; since, on the contrary, a member
can more easily separate itself from our body than we can from the earth; and in the
same circumstances it would be even more difficult for a planet to detach itself from
our solar system. Rather, the higher the sphere, the tighter the bond of forces.
One sees that we have a twofold comparison in that we can compare the planets on
the sun, now with members on the trunk of our body, now with animals on earth. In a
certain sense it is only one and the same comparison, because we can also compare
the animals on the earth itself with members of the trunk of a body, only that none of
these comparisons can, of course, be entirely wrong, because the superordinate order
of the solar system over the earthly system brings such new relationships with it as
the superordinate order of the earthly system over our bodily system, which cannot be
found again in the subordinate systems. But such comparisons can always remain
explanatory from a certain point of view.
In the sense of the first comparison we can say: The sun moves the planets as its
limbs in wide circles around itself, or more correctly, the solar system does it, since
the moving force belongs to the totality of the system, in which the sun is only the
main stem in the middle occupies, just as the moving force of our body actually has
to be attached to its totality, not just to its main stem. But it is much more true of the
solar system than of our earthly system and than of us that it has the means to satisfy
its ends; the movements of his limbs therefore do not serve to lengthen outwardly, but
in the modified positions of these limbs there are even the means of satisfying
internal ends. This is an important point where the comparison with our limbs no
longer holds up. Another is that the motions of the planets are not subject to such
random instability. From these points of view the cycle of the planets would appear
more like the inner cycles to which our most important life phenomena are
linked; but even this comparison would not hold back from another side. Similarities
can only be carried out within certain limits.
From the point of view of the other comparison, the planets appear like creatures of
different ways of life, which, as inhabitants of the solar system, strive to satisfy their
own purposes through their external movements around a central main mass in a
similar way as humans and animals as inhabitants and parts of the earthly system,
although for a more solid legality than the creatures of our earth.
At first sight it may seem strange that while the earthly system bears such an
innumerable number of animals and plants as special creatures, the so much larger
solar system includes only so few individual creatures, especially since one aspect of
enhancement seems to fail here which we see clearly expressed in the relationship of
the earthly system to our own bodily system. For how many more individual limbs
does the earth have in its people, animals and plants than we do in our limbs.
But the existence of the planets does not exclude the possibility that, in addition to
these giant limbs of the sun's trunk stretched far into the sky, these large birds, which
fly around the sun ball in wide circles, closer, individual corporeal beings generated
from it also orbit it, is committed, overgrown like plants, which we cannot distinguish
individually because of their small size, their greater crowding, and their immersion
in the shine of the sun; it would be rather strange if it were not so. To these closer sun
creatures the planets would then only have to be considered in relation to distant
firstborn siblings or neighbors, which did not prevent them from being
extraordinarily different from them. just as the creatures of our earthly system are
themselves very different from one another, some much more firmly, some much
more loosely connected to the central mass of the earth's body, some much larger,
some much smaller, some much more rounded, some much more irregular in shape,
some with much higher and richer, some of much less and more poor talent, some
following much more necessary instincts, some enjoying much more a higher
freedom. All freedom of external communication, which we miss between the
planets, although it reappears in every planet itself, can exist between those closer sun
creatures as well as between the creatures more closely connected with our earth, as
well as the freedom of movement in our body distributed differently to the various
members. some much more tightly, some much more loosely connected to the central
mass of the earth, some much larger, some much smaller, some much more rounded,
some much more irregular in shape, some much higher and richer, some much less
and more poor talent, some much following more imperative instincts, some enjoying
much more of a higher freedom. All freedom of external communication, which we
miss between the planets, although it reappears in every planet itself, can exist
between those closer sun creatures as well as between the creatures more closely
connected with our earth, as well as the freedom of movement in our body distributed
differently to the various members. some much more tightly, some much more
loosely connected to the central mass of the earth, some much larger, some much
smaller, some much more rounded, some much more irregular in shape, some much
higher and richer, some much less and more poor talent, some much following more
imperative instincts, some enjoying much more of a higher freedom. All freedom of
external communication, which we miss between the planets, although it reappears in
every planet itself, can exist between those closer sun creatures as well as between
the creatures more closely connected with our earth, as well as the freedom of
movement in our body distributed differently to the various members. some much
smaller, some much more rounded, some much more irregular in shape, some of
much higher and richer, some of much lesser and more poor talent, some following
much more necessary instincts, some much more enjoying a higher freedom. All
freedom of external communication, which we miss between the planets, although it
reappears in every planet itself, can exist between those closer sun creatures as well
as between the creatures more closely connected with our earth, as well as the
freedom of movement in our body distributed differently to the various
members. some much smaller, some much more rounded, some much more irregular
in shape, some of much higher and richer, some of much lesser and more poor talent,
some following much more necessary instincts, some much more enjoying a higher
freedom. All freedom of external communication, which we miss between the
planets, although it reappears in every planet itself, can exist between those closer sun
creatures as well as between the creatures more closely connected with our earth, as
well as the freedom of movement in our body distributed differently to the various
members. some following much more necessary instincts, some much more enjoying
a higher freedom. All freedom of external communication, which we miss between
the planets, although it reappears in every planet itself, can exist between those closer
sun creatures as well as between the creatures more closely connected with our earth,
as well as the freedom of movement in our body distributed differently to the various
members. some following much more necessary instincts, some much more enjoying
a higher freedom. All freedom of external communication, which we miss between
the planets, although it reappears in every planet itself, can exist between those closer
sun creatures as well as between the creatures more closely connected with our earth,
as well as the freedom of movement in our body distributed differently to the various
members.
The closer sun creatures may in some ways be ahead of the planets, in some ways
be behind them. It may be comparatively less richly developed beings, as is evident
in their smallness, they will hardly be divided again into such special creatures as the
planets; rather, be more like the creatures of these planets themselves; whereas the
planets each for themselves, especially since those themselves have satellites, are
more similar to the entire solar system, the larger parts of which they form. The
closer sun creatures, on the other hand, may enjoy certain advantages and advantages
through their closeness to one another and to the central body; they live in closer and
more diverse social relationships on the same, yes, the sun is like a beehive of the
same, while the planets live more lonely because everyone has a society within
himself, but in which no individual can bring it up as high as a sun creature can bring
it; only one planet as a whole brings it higher in a certain respect than a single solar
creature, which seeks to compensate for the relative inner poverty with an outer
richness of life. In the end, however, the closer sun creatures always remain brothers
and sisters of the planets, whose creatures we, on the other hand, are only.
Perhaps the light process of the sun is related to the life process of the beings on its
surface; one considers it probable that the central body of the sun is inherently
dark. Perhaps they are self-luminous as we are self-warm; there are individual self-
luminaries even on earth. Then the light traffic of the sun with the planets would only
be a traffic of the smaller, closer solar beings with the larger, more distant solar
beings; just as the beings on the sun themselves will undoubtedly use their light to
communicate with one another. But these are just thoughts.
In any case, according to the above considerations, the sun cannot actually be
compared to our earth as a single creature of the same rank, but either only as a
collection of creatures of the same rank including their mother-stock, or even more
convincingly as a creature of a higher rank, in such a way that the earth and to
include the other planets themselves as members. The sun, conceived as a body
without the planets, would be like a mutilated body from which the greatest moving
and feeling limbs have been cut off.
Consistent with these considerations, the moon would relate to the earth as the
planets relate to the sun. The moon is just born out of the earthly system and still
orbits the earth, but by allowing the rotation around its own axis to break up in the
rotation around the earth, the upper center, always facing the same side, while the
earth as a creature does At the upper level, it keeps its rotation around its own axis
independently of the movement around the sun, but keeps the moon, its limb, always
attached to itself with the same side, as in us a limb always adheres to the body with
the same side. One can also, in the sense of the other comparison, look at it in such a
way that, just as man and every animal, when it comes to the earth, always turns the
same sole surface against the earth and never turns upside down, this also applies to
the moon , the, how high he goes above the earth, but still takes place in the row of
earthly creatures, in some respects higher, in others probably lower than us. Its
highest creature, if it still carries special creatures, will be lower than the highest
creature on the surface of the earth, but basically can no longer have any real
independence in the sense of our earthly creatures (as the moon seems to be
uninhabited) on the whole he is in a certain sense a higher being than we are.
Some things can still be guessed. But it is better not to pursue this matter any
further. Let us at least admit that difficulties arise here which are in some ways
analogous to those which we find when we consider the lowest creatures. Shall we
consider a polyp stem with many polyp flowers as one animal, or as a collection of
many animals? Probably it is one and the other, like the solar system. But it becomes
difficult to get a good idea of such conditions that differ so completely from those of
our own body and soul. Despite this difficulty, no one doubts that polyps are living
beings with a soul. And so the same difficulty may recur in the realm of the upper
beings only in a much higher sense; but how can we err with the upper ones that we
do not err with the lower? The touch of extremes can also be applied here?
Only the general foresight is permitted: that, if one now assumes that our solar
system itself belongs to a larger star system which deals with the entire Milky Way,
the system closest to our solar system would have to be sought here; one wanted to
try to go further.
differently in both; which more general law characterizes a more general material
formative power, of which the organic and inorganic are only special cases.
In this way all the partitions fall that one is so fond of placing between different
forces, without the distinctions falling between them, which one can rather go further
than one is used to doing.
The just as confusing as confused dispute about the extent to which the laws of the
inorganic can be transferred to the organic, the organic may be considered according
to the laws of the inorganic, is hereby clarified and settled from something that is
only very general, but still sufficiently authoritative for exact research Viewpoints.
It is only valid in so far as other laws for organic than inorganic happenings, than
the circumstances, the institutions on which the happening depends, are both
different. Now it can be argued whether the differences between the organic and
inorganic arrangements are based on an essential difference between the two, or to
what ultimate reasons they can be traced back at all. But the exact researcher,
however much he may care about this dispute in the philosophical interest, can, in the
light of our law, completely dispense with it in the course of his research. In any case,
he may consider and treat the organic according to the rules found to be valid in the
inorganic, insofar as he finds in it corresponding or according to rules that have
proven themselves in the sense of our law, circumstances traceable to it, as the
(above) examples show themselves; He has to look for new rules for new, not so
reducible circumstances, just as well as if he encounters new, non-traceable
circumstances in the inorganic itself, and then has to look for the new rules with the
old as much as possible under more general rules to unite; no different from what he
was used to doing for himself in the realm of the inorganic.
The distinction between the organic and the inorganic, the arrogance, if you will, of
the former over the latter, therefore means nothing before the instance of our most
general law, which itself still encroaches on this distinction and rises above this
arrogance. The character of the organic can only condition special successes if it also
has special circumstances or means to condition them; and of course he does this
many times and is part of his own concept. But it does not do it in every respect, and
if it does not do so, it cannot bring about any new successes against the
inorganic. But the other side of the matter is just as certain; in so far as it is the case,
it must also cause new consequences; and the research into the new laws for these
new circumstances is not cut off, but required. It is only important to really relate
these new laws to the new circumstances, not, as is so often the case, to consider the
question of this relationship to have been eliminated by the general concept of the
organic.
One tries perhaps to atrophy this guiding principle for the natural scientist by the
following objection: It is possible to observe the equality of material circumstances
between the organic and the inorganic; But in the organic there is also an ideal
principle, if one calls it soul, life principle, purpose principle, which does not fall into
the observation of the natural scientist and yet participates in the successes; the
circumstances could therefore appear to be the same externally in the organic and the
inorganic, but not really be the same with regard to the ideal factor involved. With
this, the transfer of rules from the inorganic into the organic is in any case
inadmissible after the apparent equality of circumstances has been observed. But
experiences of the above kind show that, just as it is with the difference of the ideal
between the two areas, as long as the material circumstances are the same in both,
and the material successes remain the same in both, so that that presumed difference
of the ideal between the two areas cannot change the conclusions in any way that may
be drawn from the equality or inequality of material circumstances in relation to
material successes. The reason for this is easy to find in our general views on the
relationship of mind and body. which, for material successes, may be drawn from the
equality or inequality of material circumstances. The reason for this is easy to find in
our general views on the relationship of mind and body. which, for material
successes, may be drawn from the equality or inequality of material
circumstances. The reason for this is easy to find in our general views on the
relationship of mind and body.
4) The conclusions of experience, induction and analogy, gain a generalization and
principled determinateness and certainty, with recognition of our law, in which they
are usually not grasped.
Induction is generally believed to require the footing of repeated
experience. According to our law, however, a single experience is entirely sufficient
in itself to guarantee the return of success under the same circumstances for all time
and to base a certain law on it, and the repetition of the experience is only necessary,
partly for the uncertainty and absent-mindedness of our sensual ones View of
granting remedial action, partly to abstract from the individual cases more general
laws for the general or elementary, which several cases have in common. Taking the
analogy, one usually concludes indefinitely: Similar reasons will give similar
successes; but the question is in how far similar? According to our law, one will
conclude with absolute certainty: In so far as the reasons are alike, the successes will
be alike; In so far as the reasons are not alike, the successes will not be alike either. In
this way the unequal of the cases is made just as serviceable to the conclusion as the
like. Most of the fallacies of experience are based on a lack of consequent separation
and retention of this double point of view, and the frequency of such fallacies has
been the reason why one usually only attaches precarious security to empirical
conclusions in relation to the so-called rational conclusions, which rest on the
principle of contradiction. In the meantime, the conclusions of experience have in
principle a certainty which is equal to that of our supreme law itself, which has an
analogous meaning for the real domain as the principle of contradiction for the
conceptual; in so far as the real area as little as the area of reason tolerates a
contradiction with what has once been established; only that, of course, our law, as a
law for experience, can in principle seek its most general validation only in the most
general experience. Errors in the application of empirical conclusions can of course
no more be attributed to the principle of the same than logical errors to that of
reasoning.
Let us now note that conclusions of reason without the use of conclusions from
experience, instead of having some kind of validity for reality, cannot mean anything
for it at all. Because I can conclude: All people are mortal, Cajus is a person,
therefore Cajus is mortal; but that all men are mortal is itself a matter of induction
and analogy, without which the whole conclusion would be empty. According to this
it can be asserted that every certainty of inference in the realm of the real depends on
the certainty and safe application of our most general law.
The main difficulty of making valid conclusions from experience lies in the fact
that, in the case of complex processes, and all processes are more or less complicated,
it is not immediately clear what is specifically related to one another as cause and
consequence. If new, complicated experiences occur which do not completely
coincide with the previous ones, and later experiences never completely coincide
with earlier ones, they will always have something like and unlike with them, the
consequence which belonged to the first complex of reasons cannot to be transferred
entirely to the second; but at first it remains indeterminate what kind of consequences
depend on the same, what kind of consequences depend on the unequal. In this
respect, however, a single experience can never be decisive for the assessment of the
following experiences. But at the same time you can see how the principle of exact
research depends on this, to determine the laws for the general and elementary of
phenomena from repeated experiences under changed circumstances and with the
greatest possible isolation of special circumstances. Our supreme law cannot spare
anything from this work, but can only provide the most general point of view for it.
5) As long as our law applies, we can assume a completely inviolable legality
ruling through the whole world of nature and spirits, just as it is in the interest of our
theoretical research, as in the correctly understood practical interest, but regardless of
this, freedom does not thereby abolish. Because as vol. IS chap. XI.B has been
shown, our law nevertheless leaves that it is binding for all space and all time, for all
matter and all spirit, but according to its essence still leaves an indetermination,
indeed the greatest one that can be imagined. For it does say that insofar as the same
circumstances recur, the same success must recur, if not, not; but there is nothing in
its expression that suggests the nature of the first success even in any place for any
circumstances, nor in any way determined the manner in which the first
circumstances occurred. In this respect everything was free from the beginning
according to the law; and everything is still free now, insofar as old circumstances are
not repeated, which they never do completely.
If we apply this in particular to human freedom, it can be said:
Every human being, viewed as one from the spiritual and physical side, represents
a special combination of circumstances adjusted to the general combination of
circumstances in a special way, which from a certain point of view comes back here
and there, but nowhere fully, and thinks and acts accordingly also according to his
own world position, which is dependent on his inner being and his inseparable from
it, in a legality that links bondage and freedom in a way that is nowhere quite so
recurring, which makes up his individual character, that is, that he is bound to think in
the same way and to act like others, when he shares the same previous circumstances
of his inner being and his position in the world with them, which can and will be the
case from a thousand different sides;with his freedom, however, always reaches
beyond it from other sides, so that even the particular cannot turn out exactly the
same between him and others.
Since every new human being has the entire history of human development behind
him, he is of course also subject to all of its already developed legality; but he can
always freely contribute new moments to the further development of the same, which
will be decisive for the future. From a general point of view it can also be seen as the
determination of the individual, not both to dissolve what has already been won by
mankind and to develop it further.
With the manifold expressions which the concept of freedom can take (see
Addition 1 below), one cannot expect that freedom, as it appears depending on our
principle, will correspond to all expressions of this concept in the same way, which is
rather impossible . If one statutes z. B. a free will of the kind that it arises, so to
speak, for no reason, out of nothing; so the concept of freedom, which is dependent
on our principle, does not correspond to this idea. Everything free, including the
freest will there is, has its reasons according to which it grows out of the earlier and is
related to the earlier; only which direction it will take as a result of these reasons
remains indeterminate and indeterminate as far as it is free. If one looks for freedom
in general only in the will, so this narrow formulation also does not correspond to the
concept of freedom, which is dependent on our principle; at least there is nothing in
our concept of freedom by which it would be restricted to the will, although it can be
applied to it. In the meantime, our concept of freedom is at least one that does not
exceed the fluctuating area of the current concepts of freedom; and our view of
freedom is indeterministic insofar as not everything appears necessarily
predetermined from the start, as it did under determinism, although it differs
somewhat from the indeterministic views that are now prevailing. In the meantime,
our concept of freedom is at least one that does not exceed the fluctuating area of the
current concepts of freedom; and our view of freedom is indeterministic insofar as
not everything appears necessarily predetermined from the start, as it did under
determinism, although it differs somewhat from the indeterministic views that are
now prevailing. In the meantime, our concept of freedom is at least one that does not
somewhat from the indeterministic views that are now prevailing.
Addition l. About the manifold uses of the concept of freedom. According to
some, doing for internal reasons, for self-determination, without external coercion, is
generally considered to be free doing; where then, of course, the planetary system,
which determines its movements purely by itself, would also have to be called free in
the exercise of these movements. From this point of view one even identifies freedom
with inner necessity; in so far as one regards self-determination as lying in the nature
of the free subject and necessarily expressing itself according to the nature of the
subject. Elsewhere one demands the absence of everyone for freedom, be it internal
or external, coercion, yes, in extreme views, the absence of reasons in general. Other
times it is just the absence of internal or external obstacles to doing what one
demands for the freedom of doing, whereby, however, it would not in itself be ruled
out that this doing was caused by internal or external necessary reasons. Soon it is an
indefinable possibility of different modes of action that is counted as freedom; But
this indeterminable possibility can relate partly to each individual case in particular,
partly to the whole area of action in context, partly an objective one that takes place
in itself, provided there are no reasons for the decision, partly a subjective one,
insofar as these are not related let us judge what makes different turns of the concept
of freedom possible and real. In a narrower sense, one draws the category of the
spiritual to freedom, only calls spiritual beings free, although self-determination,
question of the necessity of the event, Lack of obstacle, indeterminable possibility
can equally be applied to the physical area, i.e. in those general definitions of
freedom with which some are content, there is no reason in themselves for restriction
to the spiritual, and one also speaks of free movements of the body. The above
fluctuations in the general definition of freedom are now also carried over to the
freedom of spiritual beings or beings endowed with soul, and new ones are added. In
a broader sense, one ascribes freedom of action not only to humans but also to
animals and means here to have a distinguishing feature of the same from the plants
assumed as inanimate: In a narrower sense, however, freedom is only attributed to
creatures who have a will or a conscious choice have, but it remains
questionable where will and choice actually begins. The existence of the will as well
as the ability to choose leaves the question of whether the will or the decision arises
in the choice with or without necessary determination; what constitutes the main
point of contention between the determinists and indeterminists. Depending on
whether one considers the will as such, regardless of the way in which it originated,
or an indeterministically formulated will to freedom, the application of the concept of
freedom can turn out to be very different. Furthermore, in addition to the will, one
can also demand the ability to carry out the will for freedom. One also calls someone
with all will unfree if he is unable to withstand his desires, free only someone who
subordinates his will to the will of God or to a general moral maxim. A distinction is
also made between higher, lower, external, internal, absolute, relative, physical,
moral, legal freedom, etc. In ordinary life there is great confusion between these
different versions of the concept of freedom; and it can be said that it is increased
rather than decreased by the scientific treatment of them.
Here, too, it is not the intention to clarify this subject, much less to set up a certain
definition of the concept of freedom as the only adequate and universally adherent
one, since one would try in vain to do violence to the freedom of use of language by
restricting it in any way whatsoever. We only grasp freedom in relation to our basic
law in a certain way, as it has become apparent through the explanation of this law, in
order not to discuss the word, the concept of freedom, which one may use differently
in different contexts, but rather to make factual considerations about the
predeterminability or non-predeterminability of the event.
Addition 2.About the opposition of the deterministic and indeterministic view. In
general, the deterministic view affirms a universal necessity of everything that
happens, without it being any different in the spiritual, moral, volitional, and thinking
than in the physical, the object of natural research; the laws may be different, more
difficult to grasp and follow; but the necessity is the same. Everywhere, for the
reasons given, what is happening necessarily follows, and everywhere only one mode
of success is possible, which is determined by the nature of the reasons just
present; these reasons are again predetermined by their backward reasons, and thus
indefinitely. Is the nature of his interior and exterior given to a person, and are the
external circumstances given for him, so everything is given for him in eternity, since
according to these reasons all consequences necessarily develop into the indefinite. If
a person believes he is acting freely, he is just not aware of the necessary reasons.
The indeterministic view, as opposed to the deterministic one, denies this universal
necessity without being able or willing to deny that there is an area or a side of
necessity in the world. Its essence lies in the fact that it does not necessarily keep
everything determined in all directions, like the deterministic one. It can, however,
take on a different form, depending on whether it seeks freedom as the absence or the
opposite of necessity, here or there, in a wider or narrower sphere, and as it
determines itself more closely in one way or the other. According to the views now
prevailing, freedom in the narrower sense is not only limited to the spiritual area, but
also in this area in particular to the area of the will, or at least the most excellent
manifestation of freedom is found in the will. 2) In the will there is a principle which
breaks through the barriers of necessity, is elevated above them and, through its rule,
changes what would otherwise be subject to necessity. The will is not determined by
any internal or external necessary reasons to take the direction we see it take; but his
decision in this or that direction, especially in moral terms, for good or bad, comes
about purely from himself, indeterminable through everything else. He brings the
reasons for the decision with him from himself. Neither the preceding nor the
accompanying has an influence on the nature of the same. It is not disposition and
upbringing that make people good or bad, but despite disposition and upbringing,
one's own will makes people good or bad, a will, which is not itself predetermined by
disposition and upbringing. What disposition and upbringing can mainly have an
effect is only to determine the area and the form in which the determinations of the
will, good or bad, will develop. It is true that external motives can stimulate the will
to make a decision, but the type of decision remains up to him, without being bound
by anything to decide one way or another. However, according to the more recent
version, indeterminism generally admits that the freedom of the human will is subject
to self-restraint, insofar as it is determined more and more towards a persistent
direction through earlier decisions. The more often he has already decided in a certain
direction, the more the inclination increases to decide further in the same
direction; this is how man's character and inclination arise. It is only a result of earlier
free self-determination of the will that constitutes the dominant interest of man; hence
faulty tendencies also blame man. But this determination is never complete
either. Some, in order to explain the innate tendency, speak of volitional decisions
even before birth in a being of which we have no knowledge.
2) Without asserting that the following presentation exactly meets the meaning
of all indeterministic views, it should nevertheless emphasize the most
essential of most, and in particular agrees with the view put forward by Müller
in his doctrine of sin, Th. II.
It is well known that the determinist declares the freedom of the indeterminist to be
apparent. His objections can also be turned against our conception of freedom, only
in a different form than against the usual indeterministic conception. I consider the
decision of the issue to be difficult in general; Yes, I used to be dedicated to pure
determinism, but it seems to me that the retention of an indeterministic moment of
freedom in the sense we have just discussed can not only be justified, but also be
combined in an advantageous manner with the advantages of a justified
determinism. A few things should now be said about this from a theoretical point of
view, in order to take up the subject again afterwards (C.) from a practical point of
view.
According to our presentation, something is predetermined and predeterminable
only insofar as it arises from a repetition of earlier circumstances; insofar as new
circumstances arise, the success cannot be determined. Success can come in one way
or another, only that it does not agree with what has already happened in a certain
way elsewhere or earlier for other reasons. Otherwise he is free. Insofar as the
indeterminacy of success, insofar as it takes place, lies in the nature of things, that is,
of the supreme law that governs all things and all events, one can say that the mode
of success is not necessarily this or this. For all new reasons, circumstances, insofar
as they are really new, something follows for which there is no principle of
determination that it must occur in this way in the world. We would know a different
meaning for the expression that something is not necessarily determined, not to be
subordinated at all. In the course of the evolution of the world, however,
circumstances continually arise which, if not new in all respects, have a side of the
new, and this is where our area of freedom lies, which nevertheless never exists apart
from the area of necessity.
Now, however, the determinist can believe that he has found the appearance and
deny that anything new occurs in the world at all. He can point out that in any case
much of what we are simply inclined to call new circumstances or new in
circumstances is only a combination or modification of old circumstances in such a
way that the new successes, as special cases, come under old rules that have already
been established ; the success of an innovation can often be calculated according to a
proportionality or composition covered by old laws or, more generally, as a function
of what was previously there. And the possibility of this lies in the generality of our
law itself.
Thus, with regard to the arrangement of its masses, our planetary system never
completely returns to the state it was in at any given moment; but in spite of this, all
its movement in eternity is completely determined according to rules which are based
entirely on what has already been there. In the end, all the circumstances that are
important for success are reduced to sizes of masses, distances, speeds, directions, to
the compositions and proportions of all this; and how the causes are composed, the
consequences are composed; Experience itself has shown that it is the case, and has at
the same time taught us the rules for calculating the composition of the consequences
according to the composition of the causes.
In the sense of the determinist it will now lie to generalize what we notice about
the planetary system, to say: Everything we call new circumstances or new to the
circumstances are those compositions and changes that can be calculated according to
rules which, if not already found from what has been there, but can be found from
it. From the beginning, all the basic conditions that matter are given and given in such
a way that no new determination can arise in the course of time.
Sham has chosen this point of view, but only to the extent that it is an example as
the starting point of the consideration and is asked to generalize it, which certainly
belongs to an area of necessity that cannot be denied, but the justification of its
generalization is not by itself carries.
It is a fact that for the determinist the tracing of the new back to old circumstances
according to the rules of proportion and composition or in general as a function of the
simple has by far not succeeded, and there is just as little prospect of it ever
succeeding completely. As far as the spiritual realm is concerned, the simplest laws,
which are valid for the simplest conditions, nowhere suffice to cover by composition
and proportion or in any use what belongs to the complexion of these conditions as a
whole. What spiritual relationships and developments will arise from the coming
together of three people is so little completely calculable from what comes from the
coming together of two people, like the impression of a chord, a melody cannot be
found from its individual intervals either. There is something in the whole
compilation that becomes unpredictably different with every other compilation.
But as it is in the spiritual, it is also in the material basis of the spiritual. The
principles with which one is sufficient in gravitation are not sufficient everywhere in
the body world. In the past, of course, naturalists were more inclined to assume that
everything in nature, as in the case of the action of gravity, can be traced back to the
composition of the effects of elementary forces between one and another particle, and
to the laws of these forces and their composition Their effects are given the principle
of calculating everything that happens in nature. But it has been shown that this is not
the case. In the organic it is almost obvious that this principle is insufficient. Nor is
there any need for the basic effects to depend only on the relationship between two
particles. Why can't there also be those where three, where four, where all parts of a
system contribute to the basic effect? So it really seems to be the case with organic
molecular actions. That such an assumption does not take place in the void is shown
by the fact that in the realm of the unpredictable, which also intervenes everywhere in
the ponderable and plays a major role in the organic itself, such effects certainly
occur. It has been shown here (in the field of electrical, galvanic, magnetic
movement) that not only the particular success, but also the general law of success in
the action of two particles by the cooperation of other particles, is changed in a way
for which none has been modified up to now Principle of certain calculation is
given. The connection to the whole has an influence which cannot be determined
from the composition of any particulars. We do not yet quite know how far such
effects reach and what their basic nature is; therefore cannot yet expect more detailed
information on this from science; The only thing that remains certain is that such
effects exist. In the realm of the chemical, the molecular in general, effects appear
which also seem to belong here; whereby one can question whether they do not, just
like those in the organic, depend on the intervention of the imponderable into the
weighable. Then it is also important that through the imponderable ether in the
celestial space, which is not only contained between all world bodies, but also
permeates everything that can be weighed and interacts with it, the whole world is
linked into a whole,
Compare a passage in W. Weber's "Electrodynamic Measure Determinations"
(Treatise of the Jablonowskische Gesellschaft 1846, p. 376). He says: "According to
this, this force (which two electrical particles exert on one another) depends on the
size of the masses, on their distance, on their relative speed, and, finally, on the
relative acceleration which is due to them partly as a result of the continuation of the
movement already present in them, partly as a result of the forces acting on them
from other bodies.
It seems to follow from this that the direct interaction of two electrical masses does
not depend exclusively on these masses themselves and their relationships to one
another, but also on the presence of third bodies. It is now known that Berzelius
already suspected such a dependence of the direct interaction between two bodies on
the presence of a third, and called the resulting forces the name of catalytic. If we use
this name, it can be said from this that the electrical phenomena also result in part
from catalytic forces.
However, this proof of catalytic powers for electricity is not a strict consequence of
the basic electrical law that has been found. It would only be it if one had to
necessarily combine with this fundamental law the idea that only such forces would
be determined which electrical masses directly exerted on one another from a
distance. But it can also be thought that the forces included in the foundational law
are in part also those forces which two electrical masses exert indirectly on one
another, and which therefore come first from the mediating medium, and furthermore
from all bodies which act on this medium act, have to depend. It can easily happen
that such indirectly exerted forces, when the mediating medium eludes our
consideration, appear as catalytic forces. although they are not. . . . The idea of the
existence of such a mediating medium can already be found in the idea of the
ubiquitous electrical neutral fluid. "
In addition, Weber says it is not improbable that the neutral electrical medium,
which is spread everywhere, "coincides with the ether spreading everywhere, which
makes and propagates the vibrations of light".
If we are based on the presupposition of such a connection that extends through the
whole world, even if it is only mediated by the imponderable, to which each
individual organism must then also be classified, it can easily be overlooked how
considerations that relate to persistence, impact, Severe dependent phenomena are
applicable, become inapplicable to everything that depends on this connection, and
just as the necessity that takes place in the field of those phenomena is inapplicable to
the field of what depends on this connection.
Indeed, in the case of persistence, impact and gravity, only the behavior of a body
for itself or the effect that two body particles or bodies express on one another comes
into consideration as the basis of the calculation; the relationships of a single body or
two bodies to one another repeat themselves everywhere in space and time, and so the
rule that applies to it is repeated and generalized and can be based on it in the
calculation. Even cases in which the basic effect depends on the combination of three
or more bodies or body parts could be repeated, and it is in principle possible to
generalize from one case to other cases and therefore to anticipate the success of
these other identical cases. But is there a general link between effects where the
combination of all (even if it is only all imponderable, but retroactive to the
weighable) parts comes into consideration, such a combination can neither quite so
recur in other space and other time, since the whole world has nothing outside of
itself and always in Further development is understood, and according to the
assumption itself, a calculation of the total effect from the individual effects and
comparison with earlier conditions is then in principle possible; and consequently
something remains here that is on the whole indeterminable. This indeterminable
whole then naturally also affects the individual, which is included therein, and indeed
each individual differently according to its different position to the whole, so that, if it
itself has the character of an individuality,
Thus our freedom does not appear to be singled out from the connection with the
whole as one so likes to imagine it; but really only justified by and in this context, is
to be seen as part of general freedom and as a contribution to it, just as the necessity
to which we are subject is only part of the general necessity and a contribution to it.
The working of persistence, shock and gravity itself has a background of freedom,
is again the basis of free working and is essentially related to it, insofar as it is called
free originated at all, its origin cannot be deduced as necessary according to any
laws. Neither the first arrangement nor the first movements in the world can be
deduced as necessary from the laws of persistence, shock and gravity or any laws, not
even these laws themselves; But what can then be deduced as necessary first needs
what is given without calculation and is, even if we take into account the most precise
astronomical calculations, in the last instance only an approximation, which must
finally become irrelevant, because basically every body is influenced by the sum of
all bodies; but we can only take into account the effect of a limited body world. Now
it is just as difficult to think of a limited as an unlimited world, but the rule of
calculating the effects of gravity could in principle only have complete success for
the former; Otherwise, and if it were only after ten million by ten million years,
raised to the centillion by the centillionth power, the deviation of the calculation, no
matter how far carried it, from the incalculable in itself must be felt not only
factually, but in principle at last. And how necessary the celestial bodies may move
due to gravity and persistence in the celestial space, it is nevertheless an area of
freedom that moves within them. According to the movements of the heavenly bodies
and the effects of gravity, the life and structure of free creatures also change, and the
whole heavy structure of the celestial bodies, indeed of the whole world, is only the
substructure of this free life, originally emerged with it from a connection of action,
consists and thus still works in an inseparable connection, as we have explained so
many times. The free creatures, on the other hand, are not free in all respects.
However much freedom there is in the world, this does not prevent us from
calculating everything that is individual in it according to the side that is necessary in
it, in that what is indeterminable through freedom, be it as indeterminate (by means
of indeterminate coefficients , Limbs, etc.) or as to be given by experience in the
calculation; no different from the way we have long dealt with everything that is
indeterminable due to our ignorance of the reasons or the laws according to which
they operate.
Compare my treatise "On the mathematical determinability of organic shapes and
processes" in the reports of the Leipz. Soc., Math. phys. dept., f. 1849. p. 50.
It cannot be overlooked that these considerations about the physical conditions
which may underlie freedom leave much to be desired, insofar as our inadequate
knowledge of these conditions does not allow for a safe contemplation; possible that
they are still subject to objections; Yes, the doctrine of freedom would be in a bad
position if it could only be based on it; But it was also only the intention to show that
even with the assumption of a firm connection of the spiritual to the material, natural
research has no right to transfer the necessity, which it abstracts from certain areas, to
the whole of the physical and thus justified psychic events while, on the other hand,
no view of freedom can deny that there is also a side of necessity in the world.
In addition to the objective impossibility of calculating everything that has
happened in advance, there is also a subjective one. In fact, it is factual and
understandable that as conditions become more complicated or rise to a higher order,
as is the case with the advancing development of the world as a whole, the
calculation of the success of these more complicated conditions becomes more and
more difficult, an ever higher degree of development of the spirit presupposes that it
is always possible in itself. And it is undisputed that no being can calculate successes
that arise from reasons which are more complicated or of a higher order than the
inner relationships of the being itself, but only lower ones, may we also refer to the
spiritual or physical, whatever goes with one another, since a more highly developed
spiritual is always related to a more highly developed corporeal. A worm will never
be able to foresee how a monkey, a monkey never, like a person, a person never, how
God will behave, except for relationships according to which they are adequate to the
higher itself; for insofar as the insight of every being is related to its stage of
development, it cannot open up something beyond its ability that only has space in a
higher stage of development.
So a person who is still on a lower level of education will never be able to calculate
how he will behave when he has reached a higher level, except after relationships in
which he already agrees with the higher level; The reverse is more likely that a
person, having reached a higher level of education, overlooks the motives for his
behavior on the earlier, lower level, although this too is never completely. Insofar as
the world is in fact in the process of advancing development, we must confess that for
this reason too there is an impossibility in the nature of things to calculate all the
successes of the world in advance, insofar as the calculation of what will later lead to
higher levels Development will fall, would already presuppose a being of a higher
degree of development, which contradicts itself.
It can be said that, even if the knowledge of the future in this way always includes
an indetermination, on the other hand it will be possible for the higher level of
knowledge achieved to calculate the necessity of the earlier course of education more
and more backwards. But if we take a closer look, it seems to be more accurate to put
it this way: the higher the level of education, we become more and more capable of
calculating what is necessary in higher education, at least after experience we will
not be able to say anything else .
C. On the question of freedom from a practical point of view.
How it has its difficulty, from a theoretical point of view, between the deterministic
and indeterministic view of freedom 3)It is also the case in practical terms to make a
pure decision, while the decision is, of course, very easy if, as usual, one looks at one
from the most advantageous and the other from the most disadvantageous point of
view. Finally, I declare myself for an indeterministic view, but with little
preponderance of the reasons, and in such a way that the deterministic moment,
which every indeterminism has to absorb (since everyone has to recognize an area of
necessity,) receives a greater leeway than without comparison according to the usual
indeterministic views; on the other hand, however, the indeterministic moment is not
restricted to the domain of the will.
3) Cf. on the conceptual aspects of these views in B of this chapter.
Let us first let pure determinism develop under its most advantageous form; Which
will be all the less superfluous as it will continue to be shown that ultimately we will
not have to give up anything of this deterministic view, but only have to acknowledge
that it covers only one side of the whole instead of the whole.
The disadvantages, which one ascribes to determinism in its usual form, in fact
disappear if one sets it up under the more detailed definition and carries it out from
the point of view that the necessary world order is at the same time a necessarily
good one in the way that everything individual in it, whether at times and as an
individual, it does not appear good now and here, but considered in the whole of time
and space, finally necessarily conforms to the good and even the evil is necessarily
finally determined to the good by the consequences of the evil here or there.
Our determinism, however, not only postulates such a world order, but can appeal
to the factual manifestation of the same, insofar as counter-effects against the good
and backlashes against it appear innumerable in detail, but on the whole always
manage a tendency towards the good. This tendency emerges more clearly as we rise
from the individual to the whole (cf. Vol. I, Chapter XI.G); so that we can conclude
what seems to be lacking in their full realization is only lacking insofar as we are
unable to survey the whole of time and space, but from this we can draw confidence
about this whole . Our life down here, however short it may be, is enough to overlook
the meaning and course of the world order to such an extent that we can be sure on
the whole it leads to good and just ends. Individuals err and sin in many ways, and
often the wicked receives the reward that the good has earned; but the laws and rules
which bind mankind or larger fractions of it are, if not removed from the danger of
error, on the whole predominantly directed towards what is good, right and just; and
there is an inner necessity which drives mankind to perfect it more and more in this
direction. The individual himself, who sins and errs now, is driven by the
consequences of his error and his sins that hit him back sooner or later to finally
come to knowledge and to the good, as the one who knows and does what is right is
driven by the inner and external wages, which the good and the true with and finally
after them, are strengthened and fixed in it. Already in the present life we see a good
and bad conscience, divine and human punishments, threats and promises,
admonitions and warnings, praise and blame, honor and shame, all of which are
related to good and bad, and also in the direction of good urge and drive away from
that of evil, see the good consequences of good and the evil consequences of evil
increase the more and the more surely and vigorously strike back on the author, the
longer they have time to grow and develop; but the present life is often not enough to
just consummation; and we should not be surprised if the world order encompasses
not only the narrow limits of our here but of our eternal existence. But everything that
is not yet fulfilled and completed by this in the present life, we can rightly look for in
the following life; in which we can only assume a further development of the same
plan that we already see expressed in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we
here clearly shine a plan, a tendency out of the whole and as a whole, and yet not see
the details completed and developed, gives us the most definite hope of a future,
leaves us with the present life as a moment or fragment of a greater one Wholes
appear which progress towards this perfection. And it is undisputed that the
deterministic view is not made worse by the fact that it not only includes, but
demands, the view of a future life. we can rightly look for it in the following life; in
which we can only assume a further development of the same plan that we already
see expressed in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a
plan, a tendency out of the whole and as a whole, and yet not see the details
completed and developed, gives us the most definite hope of a future, leaves us with
the present life as a moment or fragment of a greater one Wholes appear which
progress towards this perfection. And it is undisputed that the deterministic view is
not made worse by the fact that it not only includes, but demands, the view of a future
life. we can rightly look for it in the following life; in which we can only assume a
further development of the same plan that we already see expressed in the present
life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a plan, a tendency out of the
whole and as a whole, and yet not see the details completed and developed, gives us
the most definite hope of a future, leaves us with the present life as a moment or
fragment of a greater one Wholes appear which progress towards this perfection. And
it is undisputed that the deterministic view is not made worse by the fact that it not
only includes the view of a future life, but demands it. which we already see
pronounced in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a plan,
a tendency out of the whole and as a whole, and yet not see the details completed and
developed, gives us the most definite hope of a future, leaves us with the present life
as a moment or fragment of a greater one Wholes appear which progress towards this
perfection. And it is undisputed that the deterministic view is not made worse by the
fact that it not only includes, but demands, the view of a future life. which we already
see pronounced in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a
life. lets the present life appear to us as a moment or fragment of a larger whole
which is advancing towards this perfection. And it is undisputed that the deterministic
view is not made worse by the fact that it not only includes the view of a future life,
but demands it. lets the present life appear to us as a moment or fragment of a larger
whole which is advancing towards this perfection. And it is undisputed that the
demands, the view of a future life.
Let us think accordingly to the law that, the longer, the more surely the good or bad
consequences of action strike back on the originator and finally, the more often they
strike back, the more and longer the action has expressed itself in the same direction,
reaching beyond this life, yes death itself as a great means to achieve and complete
under new conditions what could not be achieved in this respect under the conditions
of now life, so even the good will surely finally find his reward, perhaps here still
reduced, so so more plentiful, the longer it was curtailed; for the evil one, however
persistent stubbornness, there will finally have to come a time when the consequences
of his evil will become too powerful for him, he will be forced to redirect by them,
and according to the measure when he redirects,
And so we can with this version of determinism, which allows man to be
necessarily determined everywhere, but allows man to be determined in such a way
that the consequences of his actions themselves become necessary determinants of
the same for his salvation, first and foremost and with all temporal crosses and
suffering, all present Error and misery, generally the consolation that everything must
turn out once more for the best, the good must find his reward once more, the evil
must find his punishment, and through continued punishments the evil finally forced
to repent and thus finally to his own salvation because this is so grounded in the
general necessity, its eternal and immutable laws. According to this view, the fact that
someone becomes quite obstinate comes in a certain sense all the closer to the change
to the better, because the consequences of hardening grow the more it grows
itself; and after the necessary course of the world order they eventually
overgrowth. So whoever becomes obstinate may indeed become more and more evil
for a while, the habit of sinning itself has an effect, but in the end comes with the
same necessity, only in a harder way, to the good than that which does not become
obstinate, there the punishing and redeeming Makes the betting order greater than the
stubbornness of every single person.
Do we see e.g. B. the immoderate. He eats, drinks, and lets himself be good, but as
he goes above and beyond what is right, the consequences of his excessiveness also
begin to prepare, or even now to mingle with his pleasures, with the tendency to spoil
his iniquity. Overloading is followed by discomfort, and after repeated repetition,
disruption of health, and certainly of property, disregard for others. Many have
already been converted to temperance by these consequences, others have been kept
from intemperance by contemplating them beforehand. But many don't. Well, after
the establishment of the world order, about the ultimate reasons of which
determinism and indeterminism are equally ignorant, it is not possible, that under the
conditions of this life this or that immoderate will be turned back; what drives him to
sin is too mighty in him; sufferings would have to arise under which his life cannot
exist in order to force him to improve. Well, they really do occur if he persists in his
excessiveness; he dies, takes his immoderate meaning into the other world, and now
comes under new conditions, but these will presumably be those which do not
prevent the proliferation of the unfortunate consequences of his fault, but rather allow
a greater increase in them than hitherto. Finally man can no longer stand it, there is a
point where hell gets too hot for everyone; where he no longer knows how to help
himself other than to get better, and by getting better, he herewith also creates
conditions,
Another example:
Someone is an egoist who relates everything to himself. As a result, he gradually
alienates all people. It is met with a dismissal; one no longer wants to have anything
to do with him; love and respect are denied to him; you don't help him because he
doesn't help others. He can get into such hardship, such misery, he can ultimately feel
so lonely that he goes into himself and is finally determined to change his way of
acting and thinking. Maybe not. Because all of that necessarily has a certain effect,
but it does not therefore necessarily translate into good success. Now then he will
again take his egoism over into the other world; the consequences of his mistake will
grow again in the other world; loneliness, or whatever else hell has for him, will be so
terrible for him, that his mind is finally forced to take another direction. So in all
cases.
If man leads this course of the world order as a necessary right to mind, he will
find a powerful drive in it himself, which partly turns him away from evil, partly
leads him back to the right path. And so the determinism so conceived by no means,
as it is accused of, does not allow us to idly look towards the good final goals or to go
limp towards it, but rather helps to determine activity and virtue ourselves. Let the
wicked answer the admonition to do better: What can I do for my doing this? I act
like this because I have to, what can I do against the necessity that drives me, and if
everything has to be all right one day, I don't have to worry about it. But the answer is
ready: well, you act like this because it is so necessary; but it is just as necessary that
if you continue to be excessive, you get sick if you continue to be lazy, you become
poor, if you continue to be loveless, you are abandoned and hated, and above all, that
all the consequences of your evil deeds will one day still haunt you in the
hereafter. No matter how much a person apologizes to himself and others with his
necessary certainty, if he only believes in the necessity of these consequences at the
same time, the consideration of them will necessarily co-determine him so that he
tries to evade them. But that belief in this necessity is awakened in him lies in the
necessity of the world order. If I don't tell him the like, others will tell him, if others
don't tell him, he will see the consequences in others for himself, and if all this saying
and seeing is not fruitful, the impetus for the future consequences is insufficient, to
enforce the improvement, the consequences that once really occurred will themselves
suffice at last. The torment can and will always rise so high in the end that it forces
people first of all to do everything, to get rid of it, and then to avoid everything that
could bring it back. The stronger the conviction in any of these ways that the
consequences of evil will inevitably strike back upon the evil one himself and force
him to change, the more your consideration will compel him to change himself
now. The fact that someone believes he is necessarily determined cannot cancel out
the effects of the necessary determinations themselves, and yet one always seems to
presuppose this when one reproaches determinism from the practical side. There are
necessary provisions for good in the world order, and they are of the kind that even
the consideration of this coercion contributes to coercion. The deterministic belief,
properly and thoroughly understood, is thus itself one of the most effective means of
coercion for the good.
) as long as this coercion is only supposed to be a result of one's own human will,
but no determinability of the will for good and evil is recognized by the educational
means of the world order. It should only be possible to give suggestions to decide on
good or bad, but the decision itself should not be influenced by it; this always comes
only directly from the freedom of the will, which can be determined by nothing but
itself, or is pre-determined by earlier free decisions of the will. He who has once
fallen into sin so undoubtedly falls into eternal hell; for the more often he has sinned,
the more the freedom to redirect decreases, while according to the previously
established deterministic view the power of habituation is recognized as a factor that
determines evil,
All internal and external means of the world order, by which people are in fact
directed towards good, held back by evil, lose their meaning in this version of
indeterminism (as it is put forward by Muller, Baader, Fischer and others). When a
wicked person is admonished to improve himself, the consequence of this view is that
his free will struggles and replies that only I determine myself by myself; Whatever
you may say, there is no purpose in it for me to take a motive for good rather than bad
from it, and if the most terrible thing you threaten happened it would run off like
water from the impenetrability of my freedom. It is true that the will never asserts this
consequence; but this is just proof that its principle does not in fact exist in this way.
The most urgent admonitions, punishments, sufferings often seem to pass the
person by without a trace; he remains obstinate; at other times a word, a small
occasion, can bring about a total change in a person. And it is to such cases that those
who hold this view tend to refer. But, if we look closer, it is only the same case,
which is why we can often put many pounds in a weighing pan without the balance
turning to this side, and another time a hundred part of a grain is enough; it depends
on whether there is a lot on the opposite scale or not, whether the balance is already
fairly well established or not. But who will say that the many pounds did
nothing? They certainly help to promote the final swing to their side, when it has to
be to their side. Punishment and pangs of conscience are supposed to be justified by
that view, but afterwards they appear glaringly in the light of the superfluous. The
consequence of a volitional decision to do evil should always only be that in order to
make the easier decision in the future in the same direction. The retreating force of a
sense of guilt and punishment finds no possible place here. The evil will only has
consequences here that worsen it more and more, none that could improve it. Now
consider what one says that all the bitter cross and suffering that God imposes on
people as a result of his sins should also be completely in vain, to turn people for the
better. Of course, you don't say it. One hides the conclusion. According to our version
of determinism above, punishment and a sense of guilt can still be of use to improve
people; According to us, they are the bad consequences of previous bad reasons that
will necessarily occur sooner or later, but which now also bring with them a
necessary success or necessary contribution to the success of the future cancellation
of these bad reasons. According to that view, however, it is true that the necessary
consequences of bad reasons are just as important, because this necessity is not
denied, but which do not lead to the necessary success to improve these bad reasons,
because free will remains indeterminable through everything that is not itself and that
is neither guilt nor punishment. Both should be able to do nothing more than an
opportunity to consider the consequences of evil; but if in this consideration they
could also promote a change in the direction of the good, then that which precedes
the will and which is still outside the will would be declared as determining for the
will itself, man depended on past things not in his will Moments, because punishment
and a sense of guilt do not depend on his will, and it would only be a matter of
intensifying the punishments properly in order to intensify this determination
properly; but this would be quite deterministic; or at least so far deterministic that one
obviously sees that there is nothing left to do with the remains that one wants to
save. According to that indeterministic view, it is the weak child who is burdened
with the chief and heaviest responsibility for his whole future life, indeed for his
eternity. After all, the child's first self-decisions are the most important, because they
become binding for those who come later. Upbringing is not an essential part of
this. The child is supposed to create its later character for itself. If this view were to
admit that education had an influence on people becoming good and bad, it would
thereby cancel itself out. In fact, the tendency of this view is to portray the influence
of upbringing in a very low way.4) According to this, the best upbringing can only
change relatively external things in people and cannot wrest those who are
determined by the chance of their will to go to hell. It is always entirely up to the
freedom of the will whether he wants to accept even the best suggestions, motives for
the good that are presented to him. But if it is so why choose the best anyway? So this
view of itself shows that it is practically unsuitable, since no consequence can be
given in its practicality. And yet it remains a hard task to carry out the assertion that,
as far as the moral direction of man is concerned, at a later age it matters not how
man was guided by others as a child, whether he has been accustomed to obey good
commands, his desires to tame, to submit to the order of human society, whether he
was taught religion or whether he was influenced by influences of the opposite
character from childhood; and yet this must be a matter of indifference if it is the
indefinable freedom of will in the first decisions and, consequently, in the later ones
that depend on them, whether he wants to take care of the leadership or discipline that
has become him or obdurate against it. It is true that some child is more obstinate
than another; but it is no less difficult task to maintain the assertion that the child has
hardened himself through his first voluntary decisions; that the different innate
temperaments which the child already shows when it is in diapers does not contribute
anything to the determination of its later directions of will. This view contradicts not
only all impartial, but also more in-depth consideration so much that in fact this view,
insofar as it goes into more depth at all, is involuntarily compelled to go back further
or to go back further. And so it either already occurs to human decisions, or also
outside the sphere of its present being, whereby certain directions are supposed to be
implanted in the will, which also determine the child. Here comes the so-called
intelligible or transcendent freedom, which Kant, Schelling, and Müller each grasped
in their own particular way, although Schelling's conception is actually more of a
deterministic one. We do not want to lead the reader into this dark area, where the
question of freedom becomes completely impractical, the most important difficulties
unsolved, the others only appear to have been pushed back into the dark. More details
about this can be found in Müller's book on sin. which Kant, Schelling, and Müller
each conceived in their own particular way, although Schelling's conception is
actually more of a deterministic one. We do not want to lead the reader into this dark
area, where the question of freedom becomes completely impractical, the most
important difficulties unsolved, the others only appear to have been pushed back into
the dark. More details about this can be found in Müller's book on sin. which Kant,
Schelling, and Müller each conceived in their own particular way, although
Schelling's conception is actually more of a deterministic one. We do not want to lead
the reader into this dark area, where the question of freedom becomes completely
impractical, the most important difficulties unsolved, the others only appear to have
been pushed back into the dark. More details about this can be found in Müller's book
on sin.
4) Cf. Müller's writing on sin, Th. II. P. 84.
The ordinary obscure view is often terrified of determinism because of a

circumstance which ought, on the contrary, to terrify it of indeterminism in its
ordinary form. In the first place, nothing is any longer dependent on the person
himself; he thereby becomes a passive instrument of foreign powers. But precisely in
the sense of determinism, it is actually man himself, his innermost, innermost being,
what wills; It only wants what it wants every time with a necessity based in itself, that
is, in its entire previous being, and even in that which conditions man from outside,
his being always enters into as a factor; therefore the same occasions determine one
person quite differently from the other. The whole system that the human being
receives as the basis of his being, everything What has further developed in it through
learning, reading, listening, experiencing, educating, every, even the smallest
determination that has passed into his being in the course of life, works together
according to determinism to determine his present will, and this is called this not in
other words, his whole previous person? According to ordinary indeterminism,
however, none of this contributes to determining the will, as far as it is free, and the
most essential part of the will is supposed to lie in its freedom; the meaning of the
view is precisely to direct the will to its free side out of this causality, and precisely
with this out of man himself according to determinism, works together to determine
his present will, and does this not mean, in other words, his whole previous human
being? According to ordinary indeterminism, however, none of this contributes to
determining the will, as far as it is free, and the most essential part of the will is
supposed to lie in its freedom; the meaning of the view is precisely to direct the will
to its free side out of this causality, and precisely with this out of man
himself according to determinism, works together to determine his present will, and
does this not mean, in other words, his whole previous human being? According to
ordinary indeterminism, however, none of this contributes to determining the will, as
far as it is free, and the most essential part of the will is supposed to lie in its
freedom; the meaning of the view is precisely to direct the will to its free side out of
this causality, and precisely with this out of man himself to solve. In this way, free
will hovers like an alien, uncanny power over everything that a person is and what
affects him.
The free will decisions, on which, according to the prevailing indeterministic view,
the most important thing for humans should depend, basically have the character of
chance, since no past or general reason is allowed, which is why the will rather
decides for good or bad. It is true that one tries to reject this accusation of chance by
saying: The will sets itself its reasons, its motives; this or that presents itself to him as
stimulating from outside; but whether he wants to take it as a motive is entirely up to
him. But if he acts according to motifs he has created or chosen himself, he is not
acting by chance.
This may be correct, man's actions may then no longer be called random, but his
will decisions, and this is what matters. In such a way, one relocates the contingency
only from the action into the core of the will itself, because it remains purely
coincidental to what extent the free man now sets this and nothing else as a motive or
accepts it as a motive, because none at all is admitted with any related determinant
for one or the other.
Now it cannot be denied that whatever can be said against the usual modes of
conception of indeterminism and in favor of the above conception of determinism,
something in us contradicts the assumption of pure determinism. One can ask
whether this does not stem from the fact that determinism is usually conceived and
presented from the most unfavorable point of view and therefore naturally appears in
the most unfavorable light. For, according to the usual version of determinism,
certain persons are predestined to eternal hell as well as others to heaven, against
which no human will can help. And of course this must result in moral indolence and
gives a sad view of the world order. For the better, The moment in our view that
determines activity is not included in ordinary determinism. Determinism, however,
takes on a completely different character when it is understood in the above
sense. And if we see how many peoples get along with a very crude determinism
without finding anything reluctant in it, yes, how the Turks themselves take it more
strictly in life than is required by their religious regulations (see below), it can be
thought that a determinism refined in the above sense must find it even easier to find
its way into; and all the less the evil consequences it will have with it, which it
certainly has in its crude form with these peoples on one side, while on the other it
also has the good thing to generate a composure and submission to fate in
them, which we would often like to see very much. This composure and surrender
must of course only increase if it is not based both on the idea that nothing can be
changed and on what happens, it must be good again. To compensate, it should also
be noted that if ordinary indeterminism does not have even worse consequences than
ordinary determinism, it is only because it practically never asserts itself consistently,
since one can rather determine the will to good and bad through still everywhere
recognizes something other than the will itself in practice, even if one could not admit
it theoretically after the view has clearly developed. Nothing can be changed except
for whatever happens, it must be good again. To compensate, it should also be noted
that if ordinary indeterminism does not have even worse consequences than ordinary
determinism, it is only because it practically never asserts itself consistently, since
one can rather determine the will to good and bad through still everywhere recognizes
something other than the will itself in practice, even if one could not admit it
theoretically after the view has clearly developed. nothing can be changed except for
whatever happens, it must be good again. To compensate, it should also be noted that
if ordinary indeterminism does not have even worse consequences than ordinary
determinism, it is only because it practically never asserts itself consistently, since
one can rather determine the will to good and bad through still everywhere recognizes
anything other than the will itself in practice, even if one could not admit it
theoretically after the view has clearly been developed.
The nations that pay homage to determinism include, in particular, the Turks, the
Mohammedans in general, the Hindus, the Chinese, and the American redskins. Here
are some references:
"The Muslim woman's fatalism contains the following three general sentences:
l) The predestination relates only to the spiritual state of the person; 2) does not
concern the whole human race; but only a part of the mortals who, even before their
birth, were destined to be among the number of the chosen or rejected, and 3) has no
relation at all to the moral, physical and political condition of man, which is his in
every action has free will. Those who deny free will are believed to be unbelieving
and worthy of death. At least this is how the Mufti's explain the doctrine, since, on
the other hand, the whole nation almost adheres to the principle of unalterable fate,
which is decided in divine counsel and also leaves little to human free will in civil
and moral actions. "
(Fledged, "Gesch. Des Gl. An
Unsterbl." II. P. 299.)
In the law Menu's (v. Huettner p. 7 you will find the following passage (chapter 7):
"28. And. As often as a life soul gets a new body, it keeps itself to the occupation
which the highest Lord instructed it first.
29. If He (God) made a being harmful or harmless, harsh or gentle, unjust or just,
false or true at creation, it naturally assumes the same quality at its subsequent births.
30. Just as the six seasons take their mark of themselves at the appropriate hour, so
every embodied spirit is naturally associated with its actions. "
In Travels in Europe, Asia, etc., p. 823, a man of observation tells the following
example of the callousness of the Hindus based on fatalism: One of his friends and
his people passed a thicket. A tiger suddenly jumped out and grabbed a little boy who
was screaming loudly. The Englishman was beside himself with terror and fear, the
Hindu was calm. "How," says the latter, "can you stay so cold?" The Hindu replied,
"The great God wanted it that way."
"They excuse even the most heinous crimes which the Chinese commit by saying
that they seek the cause of them in an inevitable predestination of the godhead. They
say of the most vile villain that he is a pitiful man; but he cannot help it, so be it
decided about him. " (Beseler's Miss. Mag. 1816. p. 328 from Bruder's Miss. Anecd.)
"Above the great spirit (the North American savages) stands the unalterable fate,
which the Iroquois call Tibariman. What this imposes cannot be changed Spirit
Tharon Hiaouagon originated in time and comes from a grandmother, the evil
goddess of the dead Ataentsic, who brings down everyone. The grandmother is also
nothing other than fate, because the original causes of things are called grandfathers
or grandmothers. " (IG Müller, Theolog. Stud. U. Krit. 1849. S. 867.)
In the meantime, people have the choice, but they might prefer not to be absolutely
compelled, not to have absolutely predetermined their fate. But now we are
confronted with the observation that we are not at all bound to see the whole view in
that deterministic view. Even if all people are absolutely determined for the good, the
greatest possible freedom can still develop on the way in which they come to it; and
once they have become firmly established in the good, the good is not of the kind that
it made man less free, but by releasing him from the power of indolent habit and the
compulsion of desire, it makes him freer in a certain respect; In the end he can be
completely bound, well, to act with good intent, but on this necessary basis the
greatest freedom can still arise,
In the end, however, one sees that the practical interest is not at all so great as to
induce us to prefer to take the side of complete determinism or indeterminism; if only
in both cases the essential, definitive predestination for the good is retained.
One can say: but if, according to both views, the good in man is forced, then the
value of being good falls away. Apart from the fact that two things are necessary and
forced; how there is something in man that naturally drives him to the good, but only
comes into conflict with contrary drives; I think that if a person is compelled by
divine punishments to feel or to believe that he cannot achieve his eternal salvation
on the previous path, his improvement is therefore no less worthy, if it is only a real
improvement. The value of the good does not depend at all on its dependence on a
will that can be determined by nothing but itself (which is basically an empty pseudo-
concept), but the good has a real content, a real ability, that retains its value, no
matter how it came into being. The will, the disposition, must assume a certain
quality so that a person can be called good; but whether this quality arose necessarily
or not does not change the nature of goodness. Of course, everyone is free to relate
the concept of goodness, through an arbitrary definition, to the concept of a freedom
which could have spurned good in eternity; but the notion of goodness that is valid in
life and the means of education for good do not care. to relate the concept of
goodness, through an arbitrary definition, to the concept of a freedom that could have
spurned good forever; but the notion of goodness that is valid in life and the means of
education for good do not care. to relate the concept of goodness, through an arbitrary
definition, to the concept of a freedom that could have spurned good forever; but the
rder row.
7) One obtains z. B. those, if one raises the numbers of a row of the first order
respectively to the cube, to the 4th, 5th power, etc., or the subordinate terms
respectively of 3, 4, 5 rows of the first order multiplied by each other.
If one generally needs the higher numerical references to represent the higher
spiritual, one sees that the higher spiritual cannot exist everywhere independently of
the lower spiritual and corporeal; rather, since its existence and its life are only linked
to its relationships, in that it regulates and dominates the same at the same time.
The identical or the unity of consciousness, in which the spiritual references are
closed, is according to the scheme in the lowest sensible beings and processes
everywhere as perfect as in the highest ones, but it takes on a higher meaning in the
highest ones precisely because it rises above lower references.
If we compare the numbers of the series of higher order, by which individuals are
represented in possession of a higher spiritual, with the numbers of the series of lower
order, we find the higher and lower series made of similar material, and no other
difference between them than that those rows appear more intricate in shape than
these. Thus the bodies of intellectually superior individuals are made of the same
material as those of intellectually lower ones, those of humans are made of the same
material as those of animals; their organic processes can also be reduced to material
movements in the one as in the other, only there is a greater entanglement , there is no
so simply emerging regularity of bodily organization and movement;
Instead of arithmetic series, one can also use geometrical series in the previous
schemes with some advantages for the representation of some relationships; But I
preferred the simplest here; Incidentally, I am far from believing that all relationships
between mind and body can be correctly represented by series of one kind or another,
of which the opposite is definitely taking place. A more completely accurate (direct,
not merely schematic) mathematical representation of the relationships between body
and soul seems to me to be based on the principles to be cited at the end of this
beginning under Addendum 2, which are at the same time those of a mathematical
psychology; but these do not allow for such a simple representation and application,
and are not yet entirely unequivocal. And if one does not go beyond the right limits
with the explanations through the scheme of the series, the same is always very
suitable for explaining precisely the most general and most important relationships
between body and spirit, lower and higher spiritual. Afterwards, it turns out to be
particularly insidious to state changes in the higher spiritual without corresponding
changes in the bodily.
In order to relate the schema to our general way of looking at the relationship
between mind and body, it would be irrelevant to regard the visible corporeal number
series as the essential, independent, fundamental being and the invisible proportions
as an inner appearance dependent on it; this would be quite materialistic. In reality,
the differences in the basic series are real, only externally invisible and different
numbers than the numbers in the basic series themselves, and the physical basic
series can just as well count as a function of the spiritual difference series as vice
versa.
Even so, it cannot be said that the basic physical series and the corresponding
spiritual series of differences (with all the higher differences that it still includes) are
two things which are different in themselves and stand in relation to one another in
relation to independence, the first merely with the Faculty of appearance for other
things, the other endowed only with the faculty of self-appearance; Rather, their
difference itself depends only on the fact that one and the same fundamentally real
being, which cannot be separated at all, appears either to someone other than itself in
the form of the physical series, otherwise it appears to itself in the form of the
spiritual series of differences. In the first place, the mode of appearance is essentially
determined by the relationships of the appearing basic being to something external,
which relationships are of no concern to self-appearance as such, in the end, through
the fundamental inner being's own internal relationships, which again do not affect
the appearance for others as such, although both kinds of relationships change as a
function of alternation. Hence the appearance of different numbers in both series; as
long as numbers always serve to express relationships; but hence also their ongoing
relationship.
b) comparison.
According to the common view, body and soul are two essentially different things,
even in a kind of opposition, or at least two inherently different sides of the same
fundamental being with opposing determinations. Our view is indisputably not the
usual one, but it can be put in close relation with the last version of the same. Indeed,
as much as body and soul seem to go together from s itself is in itself something quite
different from the ability to appear to itself, and the two modes of appearance for the
different standpoint are no less different. The nature of something other than the self
also essentially enters into the bodily appearance; for it changes just as essentially
according to the nature of the other as according to the nature of the self. And so,
according to us, it can do no harm if one still regards soul and body as usual as two
different, interconnected sides of the same being, since the fact that the same being
allows a two-sidedly different conception, from within and from without , itself can
be seen as a two-sidedness of its nature. One can actually still grasp them as
something opposite, only that we have now become aware, it is only a contrast of the
standpoint from which they appear, and a difference in the beings to which they
appear, not a contrast in or on the substance of the being itself, what appears here as
the reason for the various appearances. And this is the main difference between our
view and the ordinary, when it regards body and soul as two sides of the same
being. The usual view looks as though this difference exists in itself regardless of the
difference between the point of view of the contemplation and the viewer, whereas,
according to us, it only comes to light through the latter difference.
The fundamentally essential or too sharp distinction between the material and the
spiritual, which takes place in the ordinary view, stands in the opposite extreme of the
almost even more untenable identification or mixing of the two, which often occurs
in science. In fact, the essential identity of what is based on the spiritual and the
material (mostly somehow by the philosophers, even if recognized from different
points of view than by us) should not induce the desire to identify the spiritual and
the material oneself, since they are identical One appears as spiritual and material in
any case in opposite relation; and is to be called one way or the other after this,
otherwise there will be an incurable confusion of language and concepts. Well, if the
principle is added, everything in nature,
Here are some examples in this regard:
G. says (N. Jen. Literat. 1845. No. 64. p. 258): "Nature is a system of thoughts that
God has established out of himself .... God did not and does not find matter in
creation before, but his thought creates and forms the matter at the same time, or
rather the thought is also at the same time its realization, the matter. "
I mean, however, that material nature can never be understood as a system of
thoughts, and thought never as matter, because language is not a synonym for the
identical one, which is subject to both, but as differentiating words for it, depending
on what it is appears to itself or appears (realized) in external manifestation, appears
from an internal or external point of view, has formed. Otherwise I would have to
explain the concavity and convexity of a mathematical circular line to be the same,
because in fact both differ only from the point of view of observation inside or
outside the circular line; the underlying essence, the mathematical line, is both the
same; but it is good that we have two words for the double appearance,
8) The above picture can at the same time well explain the possibility of
different, indeed in a certain way opposite appearances of the same being from
different standpoints; although the standpoint within the circle is not yet a true
inner standpoint of the circular line, which would rather coincide with the
location of the circular line itself.
At the Philosophers' Meeting in Gotha (Sept. 23, 1847), Professor U. gave a lecture
on the essence and concept of logical categories. A certain H. remarked against this
lecture: "In the opinion of the lecturer there is something else in the matter than the
matter itself; Oxygen is not oxygen, but the thought of God. But he may well know
how oxygen and hydrogen can be thoughts Both are oxygen and hydrogen and
penetrate each other; the fact that water becomes water only requires this mutual
penetration, but no thinking, etc. "In response to this, U. declared himself as follows:"
By speaking, his opponent immediately refutes what he was speaking He maintains
that oxygen is not a thought, but oxygen. Just by talking about oxygen, if he must
have an idea of it himself, he must think of oxygen in the broader sense of the
word. The name oxygen is only the designation of an idea, a thought, or, if you like, a
(imagined) image in which everything is contained that is contained in the thing
itself; and only because human conditioned thinking is a mere mapping (reflection),
not a primordial picture, is the real object different from the human thought of it. Or
is human speech nothing but a convulsion of air, thinking nothing but nerve affection
or a digestive process of the brain? But then it is apparently impossible to see why
such a numerous assembly as the present one was sitting here to throw empty noises
at one another or to affect their nerves. All worth all interest in spiritual life and thus
in existence in general ceases. If, on the other hand, there is an underlying thought,
and if Mr. H. is able to think oxygen, hydrogen, etc., it cannot be seen why oxygen
should not be the thought of an absolute, unconditional and thus creative, primordial
thought, and in this thought the thing itself should be its existence can have.
"(Fichte's Zeitschrift für Philos. XVIII. p. 313.) s magazine for Philos. XVIII. P.
313.) s magazine for Philos. XVIII. P. 313.)
I must confess that H.'s common sense seems to me to be more right here than U.'s
more philosophical. After all, a thought of God might succumb to oxygen; Although I
by no means believe that what appears to us externally as oxygen really corresponds
to a special thought in God as a self-appearance, oxygen as such is always only a
physical thing, because it is only there for external appearance. And the fact that
oxygen can be thought by us does not make it a thought, otherwise we again cancel
out the difference that language makes between thought and body, which is the great
advantage of clarity.
On the other hand, we must, in the sense of our opinion, declare ourselves very
much against the statement, which is not uncommon among recent materialistic
naturalists, that thinking in itself is a function of the brain as the secretion of gall is a
function of the liver, and digestion is a function of the stomach. That means
confusing the viewpoints. The secretion of bile is a function of the liver which, from
an external point of view, is as much a matter of scientific observation as the liver
itself; but thinking is a function which does not belong to observation from an
external standpoint at all. Only the movements in the brain which are subject to
thinking, and any secretions and secretions connected with them, can be called a
function of the brain in a similar way as the secretion of bile can be called a function
of the liver. Perhaps this seems to amount to one thing; but it is due to the clear
separation of what belongs to two different points of view, a far-reaching clarity in
general.
The common view has various expressions for the relationship between body and
soul, such as that the body is the support, support, seat, cover, organ, condition of the
soul. We will also still be able to use these expressions safely, with the advantage of
maintaining a relationship with the ordinary understanding when explaining technical
relationships, if only we always understand them in the sense of our basic view, or, if
necessary, in those that refer to it more directly , translate.
The carrier, base, seat of the spiritual is that bodily, whose state and changes are
conditioned by changes with those of the spiritual, or whose external appearance
belongs to the self-appearance of the spiritual. For the rational reason for these
expressions, see above under a)
The corporeal is the outer covering of the spiritual, insofar as the corporeal
appearance never gives the self, but only its outer appearance for another, which
nevertheless also depends on the form of the self, like a cover on the form of the
content. It is true that one usually associates the concept of a shell with the idea that it
can be taken off without harming the being that was clothed with it, an idea that
seems inapplicable to the relationship of the body to the spirit, but in in fact is
applicable to this in so far as the same individual soul, the same individual spirit,
already changes body successively during life, from which conclusions can be drawn
for what happens at our death. The self-appearance of a soul thus always has a bodily
shell in the appearance for something else, but not necessarily always the same; With
leaving the previous shell it necessarily changes the mode of self-appearance; but
insofar as an identical basic reference can be maintained through different envelopes,
the individuality linked to it is not necessary. This is discussed further in the
following parts of this document.
The body is the organ or instrument of the soul, insofar as it is only by means of it
that the soul can work outwards at all; because in itself it remains self-appearance.
The body is the condition of the soul, of the spiritual, insofar as a given way of
self-appearance can only take place in accordance with the ability to simultaneously
appear in a given way for others. But the body is not a one-sided condition of the
soul, but is dependent on it, its mode of appearance is equally dependent on the self-
appearance of the soul and vice versa.
The usual view suffers from many difficulties and incongruences in entering into
the particular, some of which stem from the fact that it has been determined by
various philosophical and religious views, without being clear about their
incompatibility, partly with the nature of things, partly among themselves to
become. According to the usual view, the physical intervenes alternately in the
spiritual and the spiritual in the physical; but not everywhere, in that both also partly
take place separately; also the spiritual should soon pull the corporeal with it, soon
follow suit and vice versa. But it is now sometimes difficult to explain how two
beings thought of as completely alien by their nature (in so far as the opposition of
the essence is still held firmly) can act on one another, a difficulty which both the
one-sided materialism and spiritualism tried to use in its favor, partly which principle
takes place for the so irregularly appearing interventions. According to us, however,
heterogeneous beings do not have any effect on each other, but basically there is only
one being that appears different from different points of view, nor do two causal
connections that are alien to one another intervene irregularly, because there is only
one causal connection, the in the one substance, in two ways, that is, from two
standpoints, can be traced. In this way the difficulty and inconsistency of the usual
view is met without falling into the one-sidedness of the monistic systems, since one
can change one's point of view at will. I'll get to that below. partly what principle
takes place for the seemingly irregular alternating intervention. According to us,
however, heterogeneous beings do not have any effect on each other, but basically
there is only one being that appears different from different points of view, nor do
two causal connections that are alien to one another intervene irregularly, because
there is only one causal connection, the in the one substance, in two ways, that is,
from two standpoints, can be traced. In this way the difficulty and inconsistency of
the usual view is met without falling into the one-sidedness of the monistic systems,
since one can change one's point of view at will. I'll get to that below. partly what
principle takes place for the seemingly irregular alternating intervention. According
to us, however, heterogeneous beings do not have any effect on each other, but
basically there is only one being that appears different from different points of view,
nor do two causal connections that are alien to one another intervene irregularly,
because there is only one causal connection, the in the one substance, in two ways,
that is, from two standpoints, can be traced. In this way the difficulty and
inconsistency of the usual view is met without falling into the one-sidedness of the
monistic systems, since one can change one's point of view at will. I'll get to that
below. According to us, however, heterogeneous beings do not have any effect on
each other, but basically there is only one being that appears different from different
points of view, nor do two causal connections that are alien to one another intervene
irregularly, because there is only one causal connection, the in the one substance, in
two ways, that is, from two standpoints, can be traced. In this way the difficulty and
below. for there is only a causal connection which can be traced in the one substance
in two ways, that is, from two standpoints. In this way the difficulty and
below.
The parallelism in the process of the physical and the spiritual that results in this
way is reminiscent of the Leibnizische pre-established harmony, only that it rests on
very different grounds than this. After us, as after Leibniz, when something goes in
the spirit, something goes correspondingly in the body, without being able to say that
one thing has caused the other. But if, according to Leibniz, soul and body are
similiar two clocks that fit with each other, yet completely independent of each other,
only because of their good arrangement by God never stray from each other, then
according to us it is rather one and the same clock that turns itself into appears to its
course as a spiritually moving being and to an opposing person as a gearing and
driving of material wheels. Instead of pre-established harmony, it is the identity of the
fundamental being what makes both appearances match. There is no need for God as
an external foreman, but God himself as a foreman lives in his clock, nature.
Moreover, we can say in general: Despite the empirical character that our view has
(since it is in fact based entirely on empirical evidence, of which under c Point of
view from which their relationship to one another becomes clear.
It is entirely materialistic on one side; for the spiritual must then change
everywhere according to the measure as the physical changes, in which it is
expressed, appears in this respect as entirely dependent on it, as a function of it,
indeed it can be completely translated into such; but from the other side it is entirely
spiritualistic and idealistic; for nothing material exists for itself, it has an existence as
such only for the spirit opposite, as an expression of something spiritually self-
appearing for other spirit; is in this respect entirely a function of the spiritual and the
relationship between spirit and spirit. The whole of nature evaporates into self-
appearing spirit, because the appearance for other things only gains reality in the self-
appearance of this spirit. It is in the nature of the view that, depending on your point
of view, Purpose and context of contemplation, the spiritual or the physical can be set
as the sole or priority for contemplation, only that it is not posited as the sole for
reality. In one case, for a purely materialistic view, one consistently takes the external
point of view. There is no talk of God or spirit, but only of matter and its forces,
movements and their laws, relationships, changes. Material processes in the brain
trigger the movement of the arm or other material processes in the brain during
volitional and thought processes. A pinprick, a ray of light in the eye does not
stimulate sensation, but rather material nerve processes that may at least carry
sensation; but because such can only be perceived from the standpoint of self-
appearance, this is none of our business from this point of view, where we always
place ourselves outside the matter. When two speak to each other, it is brain
vibrations that communicate through vibrations of the vocal cords and eardrum and
air vibrations in between; and from this standpoint one can ask about the causal nexus
in which these movement processes stand, regardless of the way in which they appear
spiritually to themselves. But in the same way everything can be viewed in a spiritual
nexus without inserting the physical. In doing so, one consistently positions oneself
everywhere on the inner standpoint, that of self-appearance, if not directly, through
conclusion. There are only notions, sensations, thoughts, feelings, intentions,
purposes, spirit and God. In the will, non-material movements and their material
consequences come into consideration, but what the spirit of the will and the world
spirit feels in these movements and consequences, the feeling of the will itself, the
feeling of success or hindrance in execution; intervening in the intentions and
purposes of a higher spirit that fills the world that reaches beyond us. If we receive
stimuli from nature, it is the spirit of nature that stimulates ours. Since, of course,
there is not exactly a single spiritual element corresponding to every single physical
element, we are not able to set the task of translating every single physical stimulus
with which nature acts on us into something just as single spiritual. which we
experience through it are included in more general determinations of the world
spirit. A wave of light emanating from the sun stimulates a thousand human eyes and
flowers at the same time and in a context, and this widespread wave of light certainly
carries something in the divine spirit for itself or in connection with other things,
which is not just as splintered as that wave, but rather only in the various people and
flowers according to specifications mentally specialized in the process specially
stimulated in them. Every external stimulus thus contributes to something spiritual in
nature, although it does not necessarily carry it for itself and in this case can only be
used on the spiritual side of consideration in connection with other things. rather, it is
only spiritually specialized in the various people and flowers in accordance with the
process specifically stimulated in them. Every external stimulus thus contributes to
something spiritual in nature, although it does not necessarily carry it for itself and in
this case can only be used on the spiritual side of consideration in connection with
other things. rather, it is only spiritually specialized in the various people and flowers
in accordance with the process specifically stimulated in them. Every external
stimulus thus contributes to something spiritual in nature, although it does not
necessarily carry it for itself and in this case can only be used on the spiritual side of
consideration in connection with other things.
Thus our view can be conceived as monistic in a materialistic or in a spiritualistic
sense and consequently developed; only with reluctance that only one side of it is
hereby grasped and developed. At the same time, however, it coincides in identifying
the substantial basis of the physical and spiritual with the identity views, only that it
grasps the relation of the physical and spiritual to one another and to the one
substance differently than the previous views. Even the Stoics thought God and
nature to be fundamentally identical; The same substance was valid for them on the
side of their suffering, changeable faculty as matter, on the side of the active, forming
force, always constant, as God. The whole of nature was accordingly divinely
inspired to them; the stars still particularly animated individually (cf. Vol. I. Chap.
XIV). We share the most general point of view as well as the main conclusions of
their view; only the point of view of the distinction between matter and spirit is
different with us.
From a certain point of view our view appears entirely Spinozist, indeed it can
appear as pure Spinozism 9) Like ours, Spinoza's view permits the double,
materialistic and spiritualistic conception of the realm of existence, in that it defines
the identically one being (substance) once as physical (under the attribute of
expansion), then again as spiritual (under the attribute of thought). can be grasped and
followed, but both modes of apprehension are linked by the substantial identity of the
basic being. According to Spinoza, if man wills, this process can be viewed under the
attribute of thinking, that is, as a psychological one, but also as a physical one or
under the attribute of expansion, in that one looks at the physical change that
presupposedly takes place in the will , reflected. The soul is necessarily the more
perfect, the more perfect the body, because body and soul are always essentially the
same, different just for viewing. A certain soul can only exist once and for all with a
certain body. For the influence of the physical on the spiritual, Spinoza substitutes a
coexistence between the two, as with Leibniz, only on the basis of their essential
identity, as with us. Every area has a purely traceable causal process.
9) With Schelling's theory of identity, on the other hand, I can at least find no
clear points of contact; because his whole point of view seems fundamentally
unclear to me; although it was a work rooted in Schelling's views (the natural
philosophy of Oken) which, through its titanic boldness, first pushed me
beyond the common view of nature and for a time in his direction.
In all of this we fully agree with Spinoza. But that is essentially different: Spinoza
thinks that the causal process in each area cannot only be traced for itself, but must
also be traced for itself; According to him, there is no encroachment of causality from
one area into another, but according to us there is due to the possible change of point
of view. According to Spinoza, the mind has no influence on the body, nor does the
body on the mind; both always work with each other, causally independent of each
other. Accordingly, Spinoza does not know any teleological consideration which
makes the order of the material world dependent on spiritual intentions, but rather
rejects it in principle, and must, since there is no principle of transition between his
attributes (that of the physical and spiritual), besides the most general, by the concept
of substance; on the other hand, with us the teleological consideration in principle
finds leeway far beyond what is usually assumed.
As well as one can always take an inner standpoint, and as well one can always
stand against things from an outer standpoint, just as well one can change one's
standpoint of contemplation, take an inner standpoint in contemplation of the cause,
contemplate the Consequence to the external, as well as the other way around, and
thus pass from spiritual cause to material consequence, as vice versa; without
therefore denying the other side, which is found again and again in the
implementation of one point of view in the other. Indeed, since we naturally only take
an internal standpoint towards some things, and only an external standpoint towards
others, this alternation between the two standpoints is the natural one that is familiar
to us, one that spares us from conclusion and hypothesis; the point of view changes
by itself, so to speak, by following or experiencing the work of our spirit in the
outside world or the work of nature in our spirit. If a needle pricks me, then I
naturally stand against my sensations from an internal standpoint, against the needle
and the whole of nature, in which it is included, from an external standpoint. Driven
only by higher scientific and religious needs, and partly through complex mediations,
can we find the brain processes in us for the thought processes, and the divine
spiritual processes for the natural processes outside; we should, of course, do so in
the interest of those higher needs; but, in finding them, we do not consider the
conception of things from the natural immediately given standpoint to be
inadmissible, as Spinoza does, which, with the teleological approach, is compelled to
reject the natural approach. According to our point of view, the natural view cannot
be stunted by any scientific one, as, on the other hand, these have not to allow
themselves to be misled in their consequence by it. I'll get to that below.
If Spinoza does not keep pace with us in this respect, it is due to his
misunderstanding of the circumstance on which the difference between the physical
and the mental attribute (according to us, the physical and mental appearance) is
based. In fact, Spinoza not only leaves the reason for how the identical one can
appear so different, sometimes as physical, then again as spiritual, not only
unexplained, but actually allows it to be misunderstood, in that, in the sense of the
most common way of thinking, he traces the difference in attributes us of the
appearance) for the observing subject, regardless of the difference in his standpoint,
as present, and accordingly cannot see it as cancelable by changing the standpoint, as
is the case with us. Accordingly, according to Spinoza, the materialistic and
spiritualistic approach, both carried out unilaterally, are the only admissible,
according to us they are also admissible, as scientific necessary and valid, but not the
only ones that are possible, and because not only possible, not only accessible. They
are conveyed through a third way of looking at things, which twists back and forth
between the two in a most vital and special way, depending on the variability of our
natural point of view.
In a recent treatise, "About Spinoza's Basic Thoughts and Its Success. Berlin
1850," (from the writings of the Berl. Akad.), Trendelenburg has astutely discussed
the weak points of Spinoza's system. On the whole, the polemic against him should
be accurate, but unfounded if he believes that the identity view is refuted at all, and if
he considers the materialistic, teleological and identity view mutually exclusive. For
the way the identity view is presented here is not affected by his objections, and the
possibility of including the other views is there, as will emerge more clearly from the
persecution.
In addition to the previous three ways of looking at things, the materialistic,
spiritualistic and changing with one's point of view, there is a fourth one, which can
be seen as well-founded even in Spinozism, although Spinoza did not give it any
development Following the relationship of the spiritual to the physical, it shows how
God belongs to nature, nature to God, in general, how the appearances for an internal
and external point of view belong together; what kind of function the spiritual is from
the physical and vice versa in the whole area of existence. Of course, even if the first
two ways of looking at things have not yet been fully developed and trained
anywhere, because one has not even correctly recognized the pure task of them,
To the area of this fourth point of view I include the problem of a mathematical
psychology, formulated in the way I will explain it at the end under Addendum 2.
The insight into the relationship between the four ways of looking at things seems
to me to be of great importance. Generally one believes that whatever forces and
effects one ascribes to nature is withdrawn from the spirit, and what is ascribed to the
spirit is withdrawn from nature. Since one cannot and does not want to let nature or
spirit become idle and powerless, one makes half concessions to one side and the
other, and the argument does not stop as to how far they have to go. Since one only
stipulates one way of following the connection between things, because one does not
know the secret of the doubling through the twofold standpoint, one always pushes
one thing between the two in order to do enough in the one context of spirit and
matter others and so neither does natural science free from what actually belongs in
the spiritual context, to hold, nor vice versa; but every such intervention becomes a
gap, limitation, and disturbance in the field of the science in question. According to
most philosophers, ideas should dominate or even replace the forces of nature, even
where there is only a connection within nature itself; and the physiologist fills the gap
in his observations in the brain with mind, as if it were a real gap in the body, but the
psychologist, in his discussion of the mental activity, believes that the physical is
partly as ballast, partly as a lever for mental movement with consideration to have to
take and to be able to explain some things from it, which otherwise could not be
explained, despite the fact that from his point of view it was a matter of only looking
for the reasons of the inner inhibition and the promotion of the spiritual itself in the
spiritual. still vice versa; but every such intervention becomes a gap, limitation, and
disturbance in the field of the science in question. According to most philosophers,
ideas should dominate or even replace the forces of nature, even where there is only a
connection within nature itself; and the physiologist fills the gap in his observations
in the brain with mind, as if it were a real gap in the body, but the psychologist, in his
discussion of the mental activity, believes that the physical is partly as ballast, partly
as a lever for mental movement with consideration to have to take and to be able to
explain some things from it, which otherwise could not be explained, despite the fact
that from his point of view it was a matter of only looking for the reasons of the inner
inhibition and the promotion of the spiritual itself in the spiritual. still vice versa; but
every such intervention becomes a gap, limitation, and disturbance in the field of the
science in question. According to most philosophers, ideas should dominate or even
replace the forces of nature, even where there is only a connection within nature
itself; and the physiologist fills the gap in his observations in the brain with mind, as
if it were a real gap in the body, but the psychologist, in his discussion of the mental
activity, believes that the physical is partly as ballast, partly as a lever for mental
movement with consideration to have to take and to be able to explain some things
from it, which otherwise could not be explained, despite the fact that from his point
of view it was a matter of only looking for the reasons of the inner inhibition and the
promotion of the spiritual itself in the spiritual. but every such intervention becomes a
spiritual. but every such intervention becomes a gap, limitation, and disturbance in
the field of the science in question. According to most philosophers, ideas should
dominate or even replace the forces of nature, even where there is only a connection
within nature itself; and the physiologist fills the gap in his observations in the brain
with mind, as if it were a real gap in the body, but the psychologist, in his discussion
of the mental activity, believes that the physical is partly as ballast, partly as a lever
for mental movement with consideration to have to take and to be able to explain
some things from it, which otherwise could not be explained, despite the fact that
from his point of view it was a matter of only looking for the reasons of the inner
inhibition and the promotion of the spiritual itself in the spiritual. Limitation and
interference in the field of the science in question. According to most philosophers,
inhibition and the promotion of the spiritual itself in the spiritual. According to most
philosophers, ideas should dominate or even replace the forces of nature, even where
there is only a connection within nature itself; and the physiologist fills the gap in his
observations in the brain with mind, as if it were a real gap in the body, but the
spiritual. According to most philosophers, ideas should dominate or even replace the
forces of nature, even where there is only a connection within nature itself; and the
physiologist fills the gap in his observations in the brain with mind, as if it were a real
gap in the body, but the psychologist, in his discussion of the mental activity, believes
that the physical is partly as ballast, partly as a lever for mental movement with
consideration to have to take and to be able to explain some things from it, which
otherwise could not be explained, despite the fact that from his point of view it was a
matter of only looking for the reasons of the inner inhibition and the promotion of the
spiritual itself in the spiritual.
Not that the physiologist does not have to take into account the moving mind and
the psychologist to the externally stimulating nature and the human body's own
organs; no teaching can and should isolate itself from the others in this way in order
to forget the connection with the others; but then it should just be points of contact
with the others, not its own ties, its own content of the teaching itself. But according
to us, the natural scientist as such nowhere needs to tolerate the interference of
spiritual principles in the area he is treating, or whether it encroach on the spiritual
area himself. Natural science can now enjoy a full coherence, is now entitled to
coincide with the purest materialism, which it has always shown the tendency to,
without ever having dared to and she has ever been allowed to follow it, and was ever
allowed to do so before, as long as mind and body seemed to be arguing about the
same thing, about what, in our opinion, they are now compatible. Now we know that
science gives the whole, but it only exists from one side, from one point of view, and
what it neglects is not lost, but is found all the more purely on the other side, from the
other point of view. Where instead of a material middle link a spiritual one enters
immediate experience, we know that it is only because we are opposed to it from an
inner standpoint, and we don't let ourselves be mistaken, we push it further and close
the gap with matter through the end. It does badly to science, which only deserves a
general point of view, to regard the contingency of the particular position against this
and that as a decisive restriction and to accommodate oneself to such
contingency; since this accommodation is spared by the fact that the spiritual appears
from another standpoint in its own unrestricted right.
For does that mean that for pure natural science everything that happens in the
world, even the movement of thought, has dissolved or translated into a material
process, that spiritual doctrine limits its area, withers away? No, rather it is only
brought to the same completeness, purity, consistency, and coherence by the fact that
the spirit is no longer inserted anywhere between matter; so, conversely, matter will
no longer interfere anywhere between spirit. The areas of the spiritual and the
material are scientifically separated from the mutual entanglement in which they are
usually grasped, according to our natural point of view, in principle pure; each is
purely on itself, compared to the other as something alien. Spiritual doctrine can just
as well be perfected in itself, as before with the theory of nature; in that wherever the
nature of our standpoint and self-appearance fail, the conclusion has to be added to
exclude what is within, to lock it up as above. Everything material can be translated
into spiritual, if not individually, but in connection with other things; and a coherent
spiritual doctrine gives only this translation. Where it is impossible for us to find this
translation already now, we know that it is not due to the mistake of the matter, but to
the mistake of our knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course only
too inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge of things with a limit of things
themselves. in addition, has to exclude the inside, as above to lock. Everything
material can be translated into spiritual, if not individually, but in connection with
other things; and a coherent spiritual doctrine gives only this translation. Where it is
impossible for us to find this translation already now, we know that it is not due to the
mistake of the matter, but to the mistake of our knowledge, and the task still
remains. But we are of course only too inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge
of things with a limit of things themselves. in addition, has to exclude the inside, as
above to lock. Everything material can be translated into spiritual, if not individually,
but in connection with other things; and a coherent spiritual doctrine gives only this
translation. Where it is impossible for us to find this translation already now, we
know that it is not due to the mistake of the matter, but to the mistake of our
knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course only too inclined to
confuse the limit of our knowledge of things with a limit of things themselves. To
find this translation already now, we know that it is not the fault of the thing, but the
fault of our knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course only too
inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge of things with a limit of things
themselves. To find this translation already now, we know that it is not the fault of the
thing, but the fault of our knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course
only too inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge of
Only the general foresight is permitted: that, if one now assumes that our solar system
itself belongs to a larger star system which deals with the entire Milky Way, the
system closest to our solar system would have to be sought here; one wanted to try to
go further.
XIX. Appendix to section eleventh.

A. Practical argument for the existence of God
and a future life.
Argumentum a consensu boni et veri.
To the theoretical argument for the existence of God and future life (Vol. IS,
Chapter XI.B), I add a practical one, which I would like to call Argumentum a
consensu boni et veri ; since the truth of belief is here derived from its goodness
according to the general principle of the correspondence of good and truth. Far-
reaching discussions can be attached to this principle and the evidence, depending on
it, of the validity of the highest ideas; but here I content myself with a brief
exposition of the main moments.
l) Every erroneous or inadequate presupposition proves to be such that, assumed to
be true, it has disadvantages through the influence it gains on our thinking, feeling
and acting, or it harms human happiness by damaging us involved in repugnant
moods and wrong actions, some of which lead to direct displeasure, dissatisfaction,
and some of which lead to later consequences of discomfort, whereas the truth of a
presupposition proves to be such through the opposite of all of this. This sentence
proves its worth the more the greater the influence of error or truth on our feelings,
thoughts, and actions, the larger the circle of people and the longer it extends, while
an error without significant interference with the rest of our feelings and
thoughts , Acting for a small circle of people and for a short time can also appear
satisfactory and useful in itself. But now it is just shown that belief in God and
immortality, apart from the theoretical satisfaction that it can bring with it, also has
all the greater, more important and far-reaching advantages, while unbelief has
disadvantages for mankind and individual people The further and deeper this belief or
unbelief intervenes in a determining way in the mind and the behavior of people and
the greater the circle and for the longer duration it extends; whence it just comes that
unbelief cannot hold its own in large circles in the long run. So the belief that God
and immortality exist carries the mark of truth in itself. But now it is just shown that
belief in God and immortality, apart from the theoretical satisfaction that it can bring
with it, also has all the greater, more important and far-reaching advantages, while
unbelief has disadvantages for mankind and individual people The further and deeper
this belief or unbelief intervenes in a determining way in the mind and the behavior
of people and the greater the circle and for the longer duration it extends; whence it
just comes that unbelief cannot hold its own in large circles in the long run. So the
belief that God and immortality exist carries the mark of truth in itself. But now it is
just shown that belief in God and immortality, apart from the theoretical satisfaction
that it can bring with it, also has all the greater, more important and far-reaching
advantages, while unbelief has disadvantages for mankind and individual people The
further and deeper this belief or unbelief intervenes in a determining way in the mind
and the behavior of people and the greater the circle and for the longer duration it
extends; whence it just comes that unbelief cannot hold its own in large circles in the
long run. So the belief that God and immortality exist carries the mark of truth in
itself. Otherwise, the greater, more important and far-reaching advantages, but the
unbelief has disadvantages for mankind and individual people, the further and deeper
this belief or unbelief intervenes in the mind and the behavior of people and in the
larger and for longer Duration he continues; whence it just comes that unbelief cannot
hold its own in large circles in the long run. So the belief that God and immortality
exist carries the mark of truth in itself. Otherwise, the greater, more important and
far-reaching advantages, but the unbelief has disadvantages for mankind and
individual people, the further and deeper this belief or unbelief intervenes in the mind
and the behavior of people and in the larger and for longer Duration he
continues; whence it just comes that unbelief cannot hold its own in large circles in
the long run. So the belief that God and immortality exist carries the mark of truth in
itself. the further and deeper this belief or unbelief intervenes in a determining way in
the mind and the way people act, and the greater the circle and the longer it
itself. the further and deeper this belief or unbelief intervenes in a determining way in
the mind and the way people act, and the greater the circle and the longer it
itself.
Even parents and rulers who do not believe in God and immortality generally consider it useful
that their children and subjects should be brought up in this belief, so much so is the salutary nature
of this belief; Nor will one deny that it really does increase in its wholesomeness with the spreading
and strengthening of the influence it gains on people's feelings, thoughts and actions. And even if
this is only the case with a certain form of this belief, such a form of it is in any case possible,
which then (according to No. 2) must be regarded as the right one.
2) The more detailed shaping of this belief then occurs under the same principle: If
it is found that a shaping or side of the shaping of the belief in God and immortality
contributes all the more to the happiness of mankind, the more, the longer and the
wider it is Influence on feeling, thinking and acting wins, so this formation or side of
the formation of the faith is to be regarded as true, in the opposite case as false or
inadequate, so that after all only the faith can count as the truest, which of humanity
after the whole who is most wholesome in relationships.
3) Insofar as what is best for human beings has to be regarded as what satisfaction,
happiness, for humanity, probably not only according to individual relationships, for
a short time, for individual fractions, but for all sides of human nature, for the entirety
of humanity indefinite duration, with regard to all consequences, is most suitable to
secure and promote, the truest faith founded in the previous way can at the same time
be called the best, and in general it will be possible to infer its truth from the
goodness of the faith. This is what I call the practical principle of inference.
Opposite the conclusion from the practical principle is the conclusion from the theoretical
principle, which takes the agreement of belief in itself and with the actual nature of things as
decisive. The practical principle judges the truth of belief according to its conformity to the ends,
the theoretical according to its conformity to the reasons of being and happening
As such, the practical principle can be used just as well for the formation of faith as the
theoretical one, only that it is generally just as difficult to judge the goodness of faith from the most
general, highest, ultimate viewpoints as its consistency with itself and the actual nature of
things. Therefore, a combined application of both principles is the most advisable, and since
(according to No. 4 and 5) both principles have worked from the beginning to shape belief, the
consideration of the historical aspect of belief gains a meaning which no individual can escape
target; how then the individual reason itself reaches its height only on the basis of the historical
basis of faith and errs more easily according to the measure than it goes further away from it.
4) The practical argument, which is borrowed from the goodness of faith, has
always worked, consciously and unconsciously, to generate, maintain and shape
belief in God and immortality, and continues to do so, not alone but at the same time
with theoretical reasons and on the basis of an innate feeling. Even Christ's teaching
could only take hold as a salutary and salutary place. It can and has often happened
that belief, partly for the temporal advantage of individuals, partly out of an untrue
view of what is good for the whole, partly because of apparent conflict with
theoretical reasons, takes on erroneous forms which are therefore unsuitable for
mankind; but the error does not lie in the fact that men tried to arrange it to their
advantage,
5) In one context, our principle allows us to gain clarity about why so much is still
lacking in the right formation of faith, and gain the sure prospect that we will
nevertheless approach it in an indefinite way. Man begins with having particular
interests and believing or explaining the belief that this creates as the best. But
according to the measure, as the advantages of the true and the disadvantages of the
falsehood take hold more and more in time and space, they also hit more and more
and more difficultly all individuals who have the true or false faith, and fix them in
the correct knowledge, bring them back from the wrong one, so that in the end only
the belief that can best and most perfectly combine all individual interests into one
general interest can remain.
6) Our principle allows us to respect something as belonging to the essence of
religion, the essentiality of which has been challenged many times in recent times, the
firmness, security and unity of all in a common belief, whereas many modernists
want everyone should his religion as much as possible for have to plan according to
his or her special needs. For, according to our principle, the truth of faith is
practically proven by the fact that its wholesomeness grows, the more people and the
more firmly and deeply they are permeated by it. A belief that was merely held by
individual or individual fractions of humanity, that served or seemed to serve them,
but which, if accepted by all of humanity, could not achieve the same, thus proved
that it was not the truest one, and it would always turn out that its advantage, even for
the individual, would not really and permanently hold down. Faith is not, therefore,
the needs of the individual, but the need of the individual is to be adapted (through
upbringing, one's own and others) to a belief that is most capable of satisfying the
needs of all in a context; and if unity has not yet been achieved in the best faith, it
must at least always be presented as an ideal target point.
From this point of view, general measures which guide religious education in a common good
direction are not only not reprehensible, but are based on the essence of right religion itself. Yes,
there is a great blessing in the maximum possible unity of all in a given faith, even apart from its
particular content, only its general fundamentals are good. The danger which the people run when,
with common upbringing in the once historically founded belief, they get certain errors in the
purchase, which do not affect the fundamentals of the good, is unspeakably lower than when they
give up the rift of views and on their own Criticism of faith is instructed, to which, according to the
nature of things, very few can be qualified and called. Then there is a risk To err in the most
important things, to lose the very foundations of the good, and in any case forfeit the blessing of
unity. In view of the fact that the historical basis cannot be regarded as absolutely valid in every
detail, it must also be left free to everyone, based on the education that has become for him in the
sense of it, the truest and best in his own To search wisely, without giving rise to any justification
for introducing one's views into public education without further ado. The profession of a reformer
can only come from God to very few people. But this difficult subject, so rich in considerations and
counter-considerations, cannot be completely dealt with here. In view of the fact that the historical
basis cannot be regarded as absolutely valid in every detail, it must also be left free to everyone,
based on the education that has become for him in the sense of it, the truest and best in his own To
search wisely, without giving rise to any justification for introducing one's views into public
education without further ado. The profession of a reformer can only come from God to very few
people. But this difficult subject, so rich in considerations and counter-considerations, cannot be
completely dealt with here. In view of the fact that the historical basis cannot be regarded as
absolutely valid in every detail, it must also be left free to everyone, based on the education that has
become for him in the sense of it, the truest and best in his own To search wisely, without giving
rise to any justification for introducing one's views into public education without further ado. The
profession of a reformer can only come from God to very few people. But this difficult subject, so
rich in considerations and counter-considerations, cannot be completely dealt with here. which has
become for him in the sense of the same to seek the truest and best in his own way, without this
giving rise to any justification for introducing his views into public education without further
ado. The profession of a reformer can only come from God to very few people. But this difficult
subject, so rich in considerations and counter-considerations, cannot be completely dealt with
here. which has become for him in the sense of the same to seek the truest and best in his own way,
without this giving rise to any justification for introducing his views into public education without
further ado. The profession of a reformer can only come from God to very few people. But this
difficult subject, so rich in considerations and counter-considerations, cannot be completely dealt
with here.
7) From the point of view of our principle, the development and shaping of
religious ideas are placed in the most harmonious and practical connection with the
permissibility of morality and the whole of life, because the tendencies of morality
and life also tend to assert and to assert this receive what is most wholesome and
prosperous for mankind; The ideas of God and immortality, however, appear as the
most powerful aids to the prosperous shaping of life, according to the form they
assume through our principle, because the point of view of their formation is
precisely that of establishing what is valid in them from the highest point of view
must have the most general, sweeping, salutary influence on the whole of humanity.
8) Our argument is generally based on a most general basic relationship, which lies
in the innermost nature of things and the ultimate essence of the spirit at the same
time, to which a divine dignity has always been recognized, that of truth and good,
and at the same time leaves this relationship itself out of the most practical points of
view emerge.
At the same time, however, it is based on the broadest basis of experience, provided
that in the last instance man can only experience what serves him or what satisfies
him through its consequences. Indeed, the whole connection of the good and the truth
in the indicated sense could only be found through the most possible generalization of
the empirical.
9) One can relate the previous argument to the following or translate it into the
following.
We wouldn't need belief in God and immortality if it weren't for God and
immortality; for if man has made faith in God because he needs it, he has not made
the circumstance himself that he needs faith in God for his prosperity, and the need
compels him to make it accordingly. The creation of this belief by man must therefore
be based on the same real nature of things which man himself created with his
needs. But it would mean partly to ascribe an absurdity to the nature of things, partly
it runs counter to experience, so far as it can be made that nature would have prepared
people to thrive only by believing in something that would not be.
B. Addition on the supreme world law and its relationship to freedom.1)

The supreme law of the world, which we Bd. I. Chap. XI.B, is tacitly recognized
everywhere and actually applied and is therefore nothing new in itself. However, it
seems to me that the fundamental importance that it has for the whole area of real
existence in terms of its generality and conceptual self-evident has not yet been
adequately appreciated. A few more discussions about this now follow, partly to
expand, partly to elaborate on what was made earlier. However, I will not go into the
relations of the law to the existence of the divine spirit again here; since the earlier
discussions were mainly concerned with this.
1) The following is essentially a treatise in the reports of KS Ges. Der Wiss. (math.phys. class) borrowed from
Leipzig from 1849, p. 98 ff. But the treatment of the question of freedom has taken a somewhat different turn
here.
In the realm of material as well as spiritual events we distinguish various laws; in

that z. B. that of gravitation, magnetic, electrical, chemical attraction, persistence, the
coexistence of small vibrations, etc; in this that of association, habituation, the
connection of pleasure and instinct, etc. Many special laws can be subordinate to a
more general one; So all special laws of attraction to the more general, that the
masses strive to move towards one another in the straight line connecting them, and
all laws of attraction and repulsion at the same time to the more general law of
reciprocity, that the masses in the direction of their connecting line generally have the
same quantities of motion strive to change their distance. The laws of association,
habituation, etc.
It is easy to see that the difference in the laws of events is as much connected with
the difference in the circumstances to which they apply as with the difference in the
successes which are determined by them. The law of gravitation differs from the law
of cohesion insofar as the law relates to noticeable distances between the particles,
the latter to proximity; these are different circumstances with which a different
success is connected; and the different law determines the success, or the relation
between the two, which differs according to different circumstances. Correspondingly
with the laws in the spiritual. More general laws of events are therefore not only
those which formally form a larger circle of laws, but also, because this is related to
them, those which which actually comprehend a larger circle of circumstances and
successes between which they establish the relationship; and the question of whether
there is a most general law of the event will thus be at the same time automatically
the question of whether there is a law which contains all possible laws and which all
possible circumstances and all possible successes that can occur in the area of the
occurrence, concerned among themselves.
We have established such a law in the sentence: If and where the same
circumstances recur, and whatever these circumstances may be, the same successes
also recur, but under different circumstances different successes.
Basically, this is the self-evident concept of a formally and actually most general
law for events. For if somewhere and at some point something could happen
differently than the other time under the same circumstances, then this very case
would emerge from the general legality which is required, and it would not really
exist as such. But if the same consequence could have other reasons than the other,
then within this possibility lawlessness would exist in the opposite direction.
In order to leave no doubt about the meaning of the expressions, I understand once
and for all possibly all somehow specifiable determinations of material and spiritual
existence in space and time 2) , only the absolute place in space and time in time
cannot be considered a Circumstance, a determination of existence, since it only
receives its determinateness through what exists in it. The use of the word
circumstance appears expedient insofar as in our law the nature of every event is
related to the nature of what surrounds it in time and space. Insofar as circumstances
lead to success within the meaning of our law, we call them reasons for success.
2) See more on this in Vol. I, Chap. XI.B. Note
One could raise the objection that our law is illusory from the outset, since the
totality of the circumstances in time and space actually comes into consideration as a
condition for every occurrence, and consequently there is no mention of a repetition
of the same in time and space as the reasons for the occurrence could be. But then
there could be no question of any law of events at all, since such a law presupposes
the possible repetition of the cases and their circumstances. Law is only what allows
repeated application. With every law of events we must therefore suppose the
possibility of abstracting from reasons that are more distant in space and time in favor
of closer ones, or the more so, the more distant they are. Whether this supposition is
actually admissible depends on the empirical proof of our law itself, which we will
talk about in a moment, together, since only with reference to this requirement is the
probation possible and can make sense. In the case of their validity, however, under
the guidance of our law, pure success can also be found for isolated
circumstances. We cannot really cut off two world bodies from the action of the other
world bodies, but we can find how they would really behave towards one another
without this cooperation, by watching what happens the further they move away from
the other.
The mere thinkability of our law does not yet include its reality or actual validity,
as long as the opposite is also conceivable. And, in fact, nothing in itself prevents us
from thinking that at different times or in different places the same circumstances
also led to a different success, the same success could also depend on different
circumstances; that z. B. two celestial bodies of a certain given mass and distance
dress like this today and so tomorrow, or dress here, repel in another part of
heaven; that two people or the same person could act differently under exactly the
same external and internal conditions. Since thinkability decides for reality neither
here nor there, it is important to look into experience.
It must now be admitted that completely pure experiences cannot be made, because
in all respects neither exactly the same circumstances nor successes recur in any
larger or smaller spatial or temporal circle; but in many cases they come back in
approximation, and in the greatest diversity of circumstances one can always find
congruent points of view, for which the convergent can also be found in the
consequences. And so it can be said that, as far as experience allows us to conclude,
we can only find that general law confirmed. The fact that, first and foremost, the
same circumstances always lead to the same successes in the realm of the physical is
the basis on which astronomy, physics, and physiology are all based. It may
appear that, conversely, the same success can depend on various reasons. A string can
e.g. B. have the same tone, whether it be bowed, struck, plucked, or generally set in
vibration in the most varied of ways; But then we will always find: On the one hand,
that these various reasons have something in common, which determines what is
common in success; second, that we are only neglecting the different side of the
successes depending on the difference in reasons. Just as in our case the common
thing that carries the same note is the vibration of a string that is always tensioned in
the same way, but the difference in success, which we neglect, lies in it,
Our most general law defines organic and inorganic in the same way and
breadth. In fact, it is only a special, although very general case of our most general
law, which I express in the proposition that, in so far as the same conditions recur in
the organic as in the inorganic, the same results recur, in so far not the same
circumstances, not the same successes either. But experience confirms this
proposition as far as it is always present, and with it at the same time our law itself
through one of its most general cases.
So the eye works optically according to the laws of the camera obscura , because
and so far the circumstances of its establishment are those of a camera
obscuraare; the vocal organ gives tones according to the laws of wind instruments
and vibrating bands, because and so far the circumstances of its arrangement are the
same; the heart works like a printed work because and in so far as it is arranged as
such; the limbs act like levers and pendulums, because and in so far as they are
arranged as such; and so in all cases. On the other hand, the organic body produces
substances which cannot be produced in any retort or crucible, because the body is
arranged quite differently from these; Processes take place in the nervous system that
do not occur anywhere else, because there are no equivalent facilities anywhere else.
Reaching the spiritual area, which however never exists without material or bodily
gift, which therefore always requires consideration (if one does not eliminate the
consideration of the same through the spiritualistic point of view), we also find here
that according to the measure, as men themselves In the nature of their existing
spiritual constitution they are more subject to the same and similar other
circumstances, and their behavior becomes more similar, so that at least in experience
there is no reason to doubt that two inwardly, spiritually and physically identical
people are under exactly the same external circumstances would always behave the
same way. What certain theories of freedom might object to this sentence, which in a
certain way seems self-evident, does not affect us here, where we first pay attention
to the experiential point of view. On the other hand, one may object that it is idle,
because an absolute equality of all internal and external circumstances does not occur
at all for two people and, indisputably, cannot occur in the nature of the
thing; Equality only ever takes place after certain relationships. But since there are
greater or lesser approximations to this case, it is at least necessary to present it as an
ideal borderline case; and the fact that it is never fully realized is our own basis for
considerations, whereby the interest of freedom can be satisfied not in spite of our
law, but by virtue of it. because an absolute equality of all internal and external
circumstances does not occur at all for two people and indisputably cannot occur in
the nature of the thing; Equality only ever takes place after certain relationships. But
since there are greater or lesser approximations to this case, it is at least necessary to
present it as an ideal borderline case; and the fact that it is never fully realized is our
own basis for considerations, whereby the interest of freedom can be satisfied not in
spite of our law, but by virtue of it. because an absolute equality of all internal and
external circumstances does not occur at all for two people and indisputably cannot
occur in the nature of the thing; Equality only ever takes place after certain
relationships. But since there are greater or lesser approximations to this case, it is at
least necessary to present it as an ideal borderline case; and the fact that it is never
fully realized is our own basis for considerations, whereby the interest of freedom can
be satisfied not in spite of our law, but by virtue of it. to present it as an ideal
borderline case; and the fact that it is never fully realized is our own basis for
considerations, whereby the interest of freedom can be satisfied not in spite of our
law, but by virtue of it. to present it as an ideal borderline case; and the fact that it is
never fully realized is our own basis for considerations, whereby the interest of
freedom can be satisfied not in spite of our law, but by virtue of it.
If all the proofs of our law could only be won under the presupposition and can
serve to confirm the presupposition "that one can abstract from reasons lying further
in space and time in favor of closer ones or the more the further they are", then This
does not mean that the reasons that are far away in time and space really have no
influence on success; it may only become noticeable in a longer sequence and in a
larger area of the event. All the validations and applications of the law could only be
approximate, assuming that this is the case, which is in itself not improbable, because
in fact we never take into account the totality of the conditioned circumstances and
accordingly cannot find full success by inference; but in part this approximation
could equal accuracy for our practical interests, in part the law does not lose its
binding force and usability because it is only applicable to approximations, if at all
only such approximations are possible. We would then get the success all the more
correct, the wider a range of conditions we considered, and the less far we followed
the consequences; if we wanted to conclude far beyond, we would also have to
broaden our view of the circle of conditions in time and space. Under that
presupposition, this limitation lies in our finitude, and we shouldn't have to hide it,
but rather become clear about it. in part, the law does not lose its binding force and
usability because it can only be applied to approximations, if at all only such
approximations are possible. We would then get the success all the more correct, the
wider a range of conditions we considered, and the less far we followed the
consequences; if we wanted to conclude far beyond, we would also have to broaden
our view of the circle of conditions in time and space. Under that presupposition, this
limitation lies in our finitude, and we shouldn't have to hide it, but rather become
clear about it. in part, the law does not lose its binding force and usability because it
can only be applied to approximations, if at all only such approximations are
possible. We would then get the success all the more correct, the wider a range of
conditions we considered, and the less far we followed the consequences; if we
wanted to conclude far beyond, we would also have to broaden our view of the circle
of conditions in time and space. Under that presupposition, this limitation lies in our
finitude, and we shouldn't have to hide it, but rather become clear about it. and the
less we followed the consequences; if we wanted to conclude far beyond, we would
also have to broaden our view of the circle of conditions in time and space. Under
that presupposition, this limitation lies in our finitude, and we shouldn't have to hide
it, but rather become clear about it. and the less we followed the consequences; if we
wanted to conclude far beyond, we would also have to broaden our view of the circle
of conditions in time and space. Under that presupposition, this limitation lies in our
finitude, and we shouldn't have to hide it, but rather become clear about it.
This did not exclude the investigation, but rather called for the extent to which the
given circumstances have a noticeable effect on the expanse of space and time; but
we are all the less concerned with this particular investigation since the whole
presupposition still requires a particular test. However, empirical science does not
seem to me to provide sufficient data for a secure and sharp general answer to the
questions pending here. In spatial terms it is generally assumed that the effectiveness
of the forces has no limits, but forces are established which decrease very quickly
with distance. Different in terms of time. One might consider it possible that the
totality of the present circumstances would in any case suffice to determine future
success, insofar as it can be determined in advance without the need to still to look
around for the reasons that lie back in time, provided that every present has the means
in itself to generate the next present, and this so on into the indefinite; everything
earlier, however, has transferred its effects to the present present in such a way that
one basically takes into account everything earlier as a reason by taking into account
the present. However, this is a question which has yet to be investigated, considering
that the present itself is fluid, and neither the state of acceleration of a body nor the
state of a soul can be adequately characterized by a moment. everything earlier,
however, has transferred its effects to the present present in such a way that one
basically takes into account everything earlier as a reason by taking into account the
present. However, this is a question which has yet to be investigated, considering that
the present itself is fluid, and neither the state of acceleration of a body nor the state
of a soul can be adequately characterized by a moment. everything earlier, however,
has transferred its effects to the present present in such a way that one basically takes
into account everything earlier as a reason by taking into account the
present. However, this is a question which has yet to be investigated, considering that
the present itself is fluid, and neither the state of acceleration of a body nor the state
of a soul can be adequately characterized by a moment.
According to W. Weber's investigations, the state of acceleration is particularly important in the
movements of the imponderable.
Let us now attach some general considerations to our law, some briefly
recapitulating those already made earlier, and some further elaborating after some
reference.
1) Our law is the most general law of causation; for reason and consequence relate
to one another only according to this law; and are only called cause and consequence
insofar as they refer to one another according to this.
2) Insofar as different successes always depend on different circumstances, this
side of our supreme law contains the general principle for its particularization, and
insofar as forces are established as mediators of successes, at the same time the
principle for the particularization of forces, as which only through their law can be
characterized. Since every particular circumstance or complex of circumstances
always leads to the same particular success or complex of successes when it is
repeated, one can always set up a particular law and a particular force that mediates
this type of success. In such a way laws and forces can be specialized in minute
detail, and in fact there has never been a limit in this respect. But insofar as the
various special circumstances are connected in continuity or are subordinate to more
general ones, the same applies to the various laws and forces. Usually we do not
distinguish especially the most particular laws, and we do not know the most general
laws sufficiently to speak of them or to introduce them into consideration. We
differentiate z. B. Do not consider the laws of attraction for every other distance and
every other relation of the masses, but consider them only as a unit under the general
law of gravitation; We do not sufficiently know the general laws under which the
phenomena of light and magnetism are united, and accordingly consider these
phenomena only under the laws especially applicable to them. it also applies to the
various laws and forces. Usually we do not distinguish especially the most particular
laws, and we do not know the most general laws sufficiently to speak of them or to
introduce them into consideration. We differentiate z. B. Do not consider the laws of
attraction for every other distance and every other relation of the masses, but consider
them only as a unit under the general law of gravitation; We do not sufficiently know
the general laws under which the phenomena of light and magnetism are united, and
accordingly consider these phenomena only under the laws especially applicable to
them. it also applies to the various laws and forces. Usually we do not distinguish
especially the most particular laws, and we do not know the most general laws
sufficiently to speak of them or to introduce them into consideration. We differentiate
z. B. Do not consider the laws of attraction for every other distance and every other
relation of the masses, but consider them only as a unit under the general law of
gravitation; We do not sufficiently know the general laws under which the
phenomena of light and magnetism are united, and accordingly consider these
phenomena only under the laws especially applicable to them. to speak of it or to
introduce it into contemplation. We differentiate z. B. Do not consider the laws of
attraction for every other distance and every other relation of the masses, but consider
them only as a unit under the general law of gravitation; We do not sufficiently know
the general laws under which the phenomena of light and magnetism are united, and
accordingly consider these phenomena only under the laws especially applicable to
them. to speak of it or to introduce it into contemplation. We differentiate z. B. Do
not consider the laws of attraction for every other distance and every other relation of
the masses, but consider them only as a unit under the general law of gravitation; We
do not sufficiently know the general laws under which the phenomena of light and
magnetism are united, and accordingly consider these phenomena only under the
laws especially applicable to them.
With this conception, of course, the not uncommon idea cannot exist that the
various forces are independently existing beings that are really separated from one
another and are able to control successes without being controlled by them
themselves. Rather, as the circumstances under which the forces act change, the
forces do not change conceptually, but in real terms, in that they only always remain
under the general law, which is the circumstances before and after the change, and
with it those of the change includes itself. Gravitation can transform itself into
cohesion through its own action, in that it brings the particles close to contact from a
noticeable distance; but it is undisputed that a more general law encompasses
gravitation and cohesion as special cases,
When substances, which in the outer world were still subject to inorganic forces,
because of inorganic conditions, enter the organism, it is not a new, strange force
being passed over to it, which conditioned the new successes that are shown in them,
but the organic and Inorganic arrangements are themselves both only special cases of
generally possible material arrangements, for which general laws must also apply, in
which it is justified how the phenomena change when substances from the one enter
into the other. The formation of the crystal in the brine and the formation of the
chicken in the egg take place under the influence of very different forces; but this
does not prevent that there is a law which determines how, according to the various
material circumstances, which prevail in the brine and which prevail in the incubated
egg, the material educational successes must also turn out differently in both; which
more general law characterizes a more general material formative power, of which
the organic and inorganic are only special cases.
In this way all the partitions fall that one is so fond of placing between different
forces, without the distinctions falling between them, which one can rather go further
than one is used to doing.
The just as confusing as confused dispute about the extent to which the laws of the
inorganic can be transferred to the organic, the organic may be considered according
to the laws of the inorganic, is hereby clarified and settled from something that is
only very general, but still sufficiently authoritative for exact research Viewpoints.
It is only valid in so far as other laws for organic than inorganic happenings, than
the circumstances, the institutions on which the happening depends, are both
different. Now it can be argued whether the differences between the organic and
inorganic arrangements are based on an essential difference between the two, or to
what ultimate reasons they can be traced back at all. But the exact researcher,
however much he may care about this dispute in the philosophical interest, can, in the
light of our law, completely dispense with it in the course of his research. In any case,
he may consider and treat the organic according to the rules found to be valid in the
inorganic, insofar as he finds in it corresponding or according to rules that have
proven themselves in the sense of our law, circumstances traceable to it, as the
(above) examples show themselves; He has to look for new rules for new, not so
reducible circumstances, just as well as if he encounters new, non-traceable
circumstances in the inorganic itself, and then has to look for the new rules with the
old as much as possible under more general rules to unite; no different from what he
was used to doing for himself in the realm of the inorganic.
The distinction between the organic and the inorganic, the arrogance, if you will, of
the former over the latter, therefore means nothing before the instance of our most
general law, which itself still encroaches on this distinction and rises above this
arrogance. The character of the organic can only condition special successes if it also
has special circumstances or means to condition them; and of course he does this
many times and is part of his own concept. But it does not do it in every respect, and
if it does not do so, it cannot bring about any new successes against the
inorganic. But the other side of the matter is just as certain; in so far as it is the case,
it must also cause new consequences; and the research into the new laws for these
new circumstances is not cut off, but required. It is only important to really relate
these new laws to the new circumstances, not, as is so often the case, to consider the
question of this relationship to have been eliminated by the general concept of the
organic.
One tries perhaps to atrophy this guiding principle for the natural scientist by the
following objection: It is possible to observe the equality of material circumstances
between the organic and the inorganic; But in the organic there is also an ideal
principle, if one calls it soul, life principle, purpose principle, which does not fall into
the observation of the natural scientist and yet participates in the successes; the
circumstances could therefore appear to be the same externally in the organic and the
inorganic, but not really be the same with regard to the ideal factor involved. With
this, the transfer of rules from the inorganic into the organic is in any case
inadmissible after the apparent equality of circumstances has been observed. But
experiences of the above kind show that, just as it is with the difference of the ideal
between the two areas, as long as the material circumstances are the same in both,
and the material successes remain the same in both, so that that presumed difference
of the ideal between the two areas cannot change the conclusions in any way that may
be drawn from the equality or inequality of material circumstances in relation to
material successes. The reason for this is easy to find in our general views on the
relationship of mind and body. which, for material successes, may be drawn from the
equality or inequality of material circumstances. The reason for this is easy to find in
our general views on the relationship of mind and body. which, for material
successes, may be drawn from the equality or inequality of material
circumstances. The reason for this is easy to find in our general views on the
relationship of mind and body.
4) The conclusions of experience, induction and analogy, gain a generalization and
principled determinateness and certainty, with recognition of our law, in which they
are usually not grasped.
Induction is generally believed to require the footing of repeated
experience. According to our law, however, a single experience is entirely sufficient
in itself to guarantee the return of success under the same circumstances for all time
and to base a certain law on it, and the repetition of the experience is only necessary,
partly for the uncertainty and absent-mindedness of our sensual ones View of
granting remedial action, partly to abstract from the individual cases more general
laws for the general or elementary, which several cases have in common. Taking the
analogy, one usually concludes indefinitely: Similar reasons will give similar
successes; but the question is in how far similar? According to our law, one will
conclude with absolute certainty: In so far as the reasons are alike, the successes will
be alike; In so far as the reasons are not alike, the successes will not be alike either. In
this way the unequal of the cases is made just as serviceable to the conclusion as the
like. Most of the fallacies of experience are based on a lack of consequent separation
and retention of this double point of view, and the frequency of such fallacies has
been the reason why one usually only attaches precarious security to empirical
conclusions in relation to the so-called rational conclusions, which rest on the
principle of contradiction. In the meantime, the conclusions of experience have in
principle a certainty which is equal to that of our supreme law itself, which has an
analogous meaning for the real domain as the principle of contradiction for the
conceptual; in so far as the real area as little as the area of reason tolerates a
contradiction with what has once been established; only that, of course, our law, as a
law for experience, can in principle seek its most general validation only in the most
general experience. Errors in the application of empirical conclusions can of course
no more be attributed to the principle of the same than logical errors to that of
reasoning.
Let us now note that conclusions of reason without the use of conclusions from
experience, instead of having some kind of validity for reality, cannot mean anything
for it at all. Because I can conclude: All people are mortal, Cajus is a person,
therefore Cajus is mortal; but that all men are mortal is itself a matter of induction
and analogy, without which the whole conclusion would be empty. According to this
it can be asserted that every certainty of inference in the realm of the real depends on
the certainty and safe application of our most general law.
The main difficulty of making valid conclusions from experience lies in the fact
that, in the case of complex processes, and all processes are more or less complicated,
it is not immediately clear what is specifically related to one another as cause and
consequence. If new, complicated experiences occur which do not completely
coincide with the previous ones, and later experiences never completely coincide
with earlier ones, they will always have something like and unlike with them, the
consequence which belonged to the first complex of reasons cannot to be transferred
entirely to the second; but at first it remains indeterminate what kind of consequences
depend on the same, what kind of consequences depend on the unequal. In this
respect, however, a single experience can never be decisive for the assessment of the
following experiences. But at the same time you can see how the principle of exact
research depends on this, to determine the laws for the general and elementary of
phenomena from repeated experiences under changed circumstances and with the
greatest possible isolation of special circumstances. Our supreme law cannot spare
anything from this work, but can only provide the most general point of view for it.
5) As long as our law applies, we can assume a completely inviolable legality
ruling through the whole world of nature and spirits, just as it is in the interest of our
theoretical research, as in the correctly understood practical interest, but regardless of
this, freedom does not thereby abolish. Because as vol. IS chap. XI.B has been
shown, our law nevertheless leaves that it is binding for all space and all time, for all
matter and all spirit, but according to its essence still leaves an indetermination,
indeed the greatest one that can be imagined. For it does say that insofar as the same
circumstances recur, the same success must recur, if not, not; but there is nothing in
its expression that suggests the nature of the first success even in any place for any
circumstances, nor in any way determined the manner in which the first
circumstances occurred. In this respect everything was free from the beginning
according to the law; and everything is still free now, insofar as old circumstances are
not repeated, which they never do completely.
If we apply this in particular to human freedom, it can be said:
Every human being, viewed as one from the spiritual and physical side, represents
a special combination of circumstances adjusted to the general combination of
circumstances in a special way, which from a certain point of view comes back here
and there, but nowhere fully, and thinks and acts accordingly also according to his
own world position, which is dependent on his inner being and his inseparable from
it, in a legality that links bondage and freedom in a way that is nowhere quite so
recurring, which makes up his individual character, that is, that he is bound to think in
the same way and to act like others, when he shares the same previous circumstances
of his inner being and his position in the world with them, which can and will be the
case from a thousand different sides;with his freedom, however, always reaches
beyond it from other sides, so that even the particular cannot turn out exactly the
same between him and others.
Since every new human being has the entire history of human development behind
him, he is of course also subject to all of its already developed legality; but he can
always freely contribute new moments to the further development of the same, which
will be decisive for the future. From a general point of view it can also be seen as the
determination of the individual, not both to dissolve what has already been won by
mankind and to develop it further.
With the manifold expressions which the concept of freedom can take (see Addition
1 below), one cannot expect that freedom, as it appears depending on our principle,
will correspond to all expressions of this concept in the same way, which is rather
impossible . If one statutes z. B. a free will of the kind that it arises, so to speak, for
no reason, out of nothing; so the concept of freedom, which is dependent on our
principle, does not correspond to this idea. Everything free, including the freest will
there is, has its reasons according to which it grows out of the earlier and is related to
the earlier; only which direction it will take as a result of these reasons remains
indeterminate and indeterminate as far as it is free. If one looks for freedom in
general only in the will, so this narrow formulation also does not correspond to the
concept of freedom, which is dependent on our principle; at least there is nothing in
our concept of freedom by which it would be restricted to the will, although it can be
applied to it. In the meantime, our concept of freedom is at least one that does not
somewhat from the indeterministic views that are now prevailing. In the meantime,
our concept of freedom is at least one that does not exceed the fluctuating area of the
current concepts of freedom; and our view of freedom is indeterministic insofar as
not everything appears necessarily predetermined from the start, as it did under
determinism, although it differs somewhat from the indeterministic views that are
now prevailing. In the meantime, our concept of freedom is at least one that does not
somewhat from the indeterministic views that are now prevailing.
Addition l. About the manifold uses of the concept of freedom. According to some, doing for
internal reasons, for self-determination, without external coercion, is generally considered to be free
doing; where then, of course, the planetary system, which determines its movements purely by
itself, would also have to be called free in the exercise of these movements. From this point of view
one even identifies freedom with inner necessity; in so far as one regards self-determination as lying
in the nature of the free subject and necessarily expressing itself according to the nature of the
subject. Elsewhere one demands the absence of everyone for freedom, be it internal or external,
coercion, yes, in extreme views, the absence of reasons in general. Other times it is just the absence
of internal or external obstacles to doing what one demands for the freedom of doing, whereby,
however, it would not in itself be ruled out that this doing was caused by internal or external
necessary reasons. Soon it is an indefinable possibility of different modes of action that is counted
as freedom; But this indeterminable possibility can relate partly to each individual case in particular,
partly to the whole area of action in context, partly an objective one that takes place in itself,
provided there are no reasons for the decision, partly a subjective one, insofar as these are not
related let us judge what makes different turns of the concept of freedom possible and real. In a
narrower sense, one draws the category of the spiritual to freedom, only calls spiritual beings free,
although self-determination, question of the necessity of the event, Lack of obstacle, indeterminable
possibility can equally be applied to the physical area, i.e. in those general definitions of freedom
with which some are content, there is no reason in themselves for restriction to the spiritual, and one
also speaks of free movements of the body. The above fluctuations in the general definition of
freedom are now also carried over to the freedom of spiritual beings or beings endowed with soul,
and new ones are added. In a broader sense, one ascribes freedom of action not only to humans but
also to animals and means here to have a distinguishing feature of the same from the plants assumed
as inanimate: In a narrower sense, however, freedom is only attributed to creatures who have a will
or a conscious choice have, but it remains questionable where will and choice actually begins. The
existence of the will as well as the ability to choose leaves the question of whether the will or the
decision arises in the choice with or without necessary determination; what constitutes the main
point of contention between the determinists and indeterminists. Depending on whether one
considers the will as such, regardless of the way in which it originated, or an indeterministically
formulated will to freedom, the application of the concept of freedom can turn out to be very
different. Furthermore, in addition to the will, one can also demand the ability to carry out the will
for freedom. One also calls someone with all will unfree if he is unable to withstand his desires, free
only someone who subordinates his will to the will of God or to a general moral maxim. A
distinction is also made between higher, lower, external, internal, absolute, relative, physical, moral,
legal freedom, etc. In ordinary life there is great confusion between these different versions of the
concept of freedom; and it can be said that it is increased rather than decreased by the scientific
treatment of them.
Here, too, it is not the intention to clarify this subject, much less to set up a certain definition
of the concept of freedom as the only adequate and universally adherent one, since one would try in
vain to do violence to the freedom of use of language by restricting it in any way whatsoever. We
only grasp freedom in relation to our basic law in a certain way, as it has become apparent through
the explanation of this law, in order not to discuss the word, the concept of freedom, which one may
use differently in different contexts, but rather to make factual considerations about the
predeterminability or non-predeterminability of the event.
Addition 2.About the opposition of the deterministic and indeterministic view. In general, the
deterministic view affirms a universal necessity of everything that happens, without it being any
different in the spiritual, moral, volitional, and thinking than in the physical, the object of natural
research; the laws may be different, more difficult to grasp and follow; but the necessity is the
same. Everywhere, for the reasons given, what is happening necessarily follows, and everywhere
only one mode of success is possible, which is determined by the nature of the reasons just
present; these reasons are again predetermined by their backward reasons, and thus indefinitely. Is
the nature of his interior and exterior given to a person, and are the external circumstances given for
him, so everything is given for him in eternity, since according to these reasons all consequences
necessarily develop into the indefinite. If a person believes he is acting freely, he is just not aware of
the necessary reasons.
The indeterministic view, as opposed to the deterministic one, denies this universal necessity
without being able or willing to deny that there is an area or a side of necessity in the world. Its
essence lies in the fact that it does not necessarily keep everything determined in all directions, like
the deterministic one. It can, however, take on a different form, depending on whether it seeks
freedom as the absence or the opposite of necessity, here or there, in a wider or narrower sphere,
and as it determines itself more closely in one way or the other. According to the views now
prevailing, freedom in the narrower sense is not only limited to the spiritual area, but also in this
area in particular to the area of the will, or at least the most excellent manifestation of freedom is
found in the will. 2) In the will there is a principle which breaks through the barriers of necessity, is
elevated above them and, through its rule, changes what would otherwise be subject to
necessity. The will is not determined by any internal or external necessary reasons to take the
direction we see it take; but his decision in this or that direction, especially in moral terms, for good
or bad, comes about purely from himself, indeterminable through everything else. He brings the
reasons for the decision with him from himself. Neither the preceding nor the accompanying has an
influence on the nature of the same. It is not disposition and upbringing that make people good or
bad, but despite disposition and upbringing, one's own will makes people good or bad, a will, which
is not itself predetermined by disposition and upbringing. What disposition and upbringing can
mainly have an effect is only to determine the area and the form in which the determinations of the
will, good or bad, will develop. It is true that external motives can stimulate the will to make a
decision, but the type of decision remains up to him, without being bound by anything to decide one
way or another. However, according to the more recent version, indeterminism generally admits that
the freedom of the human will is subject to self-restraint, insofar as it is determined more and more
towards a persistent direction through earlier decisions. The more often he has already decided in a
certain direction, the more the inclination increases to decide further in the same direction; this is
how man's character and inclination arise. It is only a result of earlier free self-determination of the
will that constitutes the dominant interest of man; hence faulty tendencies also blame man. But this
determination is never complete either. Some, in order to explain the innate tendency, speak of
volitional decisions even before birth in a being of which we have no knowledge.
2)Without asserting that the following presentation exactly meets the meaning
of all indeterministic views, it should nevertheless emphasize the most
essential of most, and in particular agrees with the view put forward by Müller
in his doctrine of sin, Th. II.
It is well known that the determinist declares the freedom of the indeterminist to be
apparent. His objections can also be turned against our conception of freedom, only
in a different form than against the usual indeterministic conception. I consider the
decision of the issue to be difficult in general; Yes, I used to be dedicated to pure
determinism, but it seems to me that the retention of an indeterministic moment of
freedom in the sense we have just discussed can not only be justified, but also be
combined in an advantageous manner with the advantages of a justified
determinism. A few things should now be said about this from a theoretical point of
view, in order to take up the subject again afterwards (C.) from a practical point of
view.
According to our presentation, something is predetermined and predeterminable
only insofar as it arises from a repetition of earlier circumstances; insofar as new
circumstances arise, the success cannot be determined. Success can come in one way
or another, only that it does not agree with what has already happened in a certain
way elsewhere or earlier for other reasons. Otherwise he is free. Insofar as the
indeterminacy of success, insofar as it takes place, lies in the nature of things, that is,
of the supreme law that governs all things and all events, one can say that the mode
of success is not necessarily this or this. For all new reasons, circumstances, insofar
as they are really new, something follows for which there is no principle of
determination that it must occur in this way in the world. We would know a different
meaning for the expression that something is not necessarily determined, not to be
subordinated at all. In the course of the evolution of the world, however,
circumstances continually arise which, if not new in all respects, have a side of the
new, and this is where our area of freedom lies, which nevertheless never exists apart
from the area of necessity.
Now, however, the determinist can believe that he has found the appearance and
deny that anything new occurs in the world at all. He can point out that in any case
much of what we are simply inclined to call new circumstances or new in
circumstances is only a combination or modification of old circumstances in such a
way that the new successes, as special cases, come under old rules that have already
been established ; the success of an innovation can often be calculated according to a
proportionality or composition covered by old laws or, more generally, as a function
of what was previously there. And the possibility of this lies in the generality of our
law itself.
Thus, with regard to the arrangement of its masses, our planetary system never
completely returns to the state it was in at any given moment; but in spite of this, all
its movement in eternity is completely determined according to rules which are based
entirely on what has already been there. In the end, all the circumstances that are
important for success are reduced to sizes of masses, distances, speeds, directions, to
the compositions and proportions of all this; and how the causes are composed, the
consequences are composed; Experience itself has shown that it is the case, and has at
the same time taught us the rules for calculating the composition of the consequences
according to the composition of the causes.
In the sense of the determinist it will now lie to generalize what we notice about the
planetary system, to say: Everything we call new circumstances or new to the
circumstances are those compositions and changes that can be calculated according to
rules which, if not already found from what has been there, but can be found from
it. From the beginning, all the basic conditions that matter are given and given in such
a way that no new determination can arise in the course of time.
Schein has chosen this point of view, but only to the extent that it is an example as
the starting point of the consideration and is asked to generalize it, which certainly
belongs to an area of necessity that cannot be denied, but the justification of its
generalization is not by itself carries.
It is a fact that for the determinist the tracing of the new back to old circumstances
according to the rules of proportion and composition or in general as a function of the
simple has by far not succeeded, and there is just as little prospect of it ever
succeeding completely. As far as the spiritual realm is concerned, the simplest laws,
which are valid for the simplest conditions, nowhere suffice to cover by composition
and proportion or in any use what belongs to the complexion of these conditions as a
whole. What spiritual relationships and developments will arise from the coming
together of three people is so little completely calculable from what comes from the
coming together of two people, like the impression of a chord, a melody cannot be
found from its individual intervals either. There is something in the whole
compilation that becomes unpredictably different with every other compilation.
But as it is in the spiritual, it is also in the material basis of the spiritual. The
principles with which one is sufficient in gravitation are not sufficient everywhere in
the body world. In the past, of course, naturalists were more inclined to assume that
everything in nature, as in the case of the action of gravity, can be traced back to the
composition of the effects of elementary forces between one and another particle, and
to the laws of these forces and their composition Their effects are given the principle
of calculating everything that happens in nature. But it has been shown that this is not
the case. In the organic it is almost obvious that this principle is insufficient. Nor is
there any need for the basic effects to depend only on the relationship between two
particles. Why can't there also be those where three, where four, where all parts of a
system contribute to the basic effect? So it really seems to be the case with organic
molecular actions. That such an assumption does not take place in the void is shown
by the fact that in the realm of the unpredictable, which also intervenes everywhere in
the ponderable and plays a major role in the organic itself, such effects certainly
occur. It has been shown here (in the field of electrical, galvanic, magnetic
movement) that not only the particular success, but also the general law of success in
the action of two particles by the cooperation of other particles, is changed in a way
for which none has been modified up to now Principle of certain calculation is
given. The connection to the whole has an influence which cannot be determined
from the composition of any particulars. We do not yet quite know how far such
effects reach and what their basic nature is; therefore cannot yet expect more detailed
information on this from science; The only thing that remains certain is that such
effects exist. In the realm of the chemical, the molecular in general, effects appear
which also seem to belong here; whereby one can question whether they do not, just
like those in the organic, depend on the intervention of the imponderable into the
weighable. Then it is also important that through the imponderable ether in the
celestial space, which is not only contained between all world bodies, but also
permeates everything that can be weighed and interacts with it, the whole world is
linked into a whole,
Compare a passage in W. Weber's "Electrodynamic Measure Determinations" (Treatise of the
Jablonowskische Gesellschaft 1846, p. 376). He says: "According to this, this force (which two
electrical particles exert on one another) depends on the size of the masses, on their distance, on
their relative speed, and, finally, on the relative acceleration which is due to them partly as a result
of the continuation of the movement already present in them, partly as a result of the forces acting
on them from other bodies.
It seems to follow from this that the direct interaction of two electrical masses does not
depend exclusively on these masses themselves and their relationships to one another, but also on
the presence of third bodies. It is now known that Berzelius already suspected such a dependence of
the direct interaction between two bodies on the presence of a third, and called the resulting forces
the name of catalytic. If we use this name, it can be said from this that the electrical phenomena also
result in part from catalytic forces.
However, this proof of catalytic powers for electricity is not a strict consequence of the basic
electrical law that has been found. It would only be it if one had to necessarily combine with this
fundamental law the idea that only such forces would be determined which electrical masses
directly exerted on one another from a distance. But it can also be thought that the forces included
in the foundational law are in part also those forces which two electrical masses exert indirectly on
one another, and which therefore come first from the mediating medium, and furthermore from all
bodies which act on this medium act, have to depend. It can easily happen that such indirectly
exerted forces, when the mediating medium eludes our consideration, appear as catalytic
forces. although they are not. . . . The idea of the existence of such a mediating medium can already
be found in the idea of the ubiquitous electrical neutral fluid. "
In addition, Weber says it is not improbable that the neutral electrical medium, which is
spread everywhere, "coincides with the ether spreading everywhere, which makes and propagates
the vibrations of light".
If we are based on the presupposition of such a connection that extends through the
whole world, even if it is only mediated by the imponderable, to which each
individual organism must then also be classified, it can easily be overlooked how
considerations that relate to persistence, impact, Severe dependent phenomena are
applicable, become inapplicable to everything that depends on this connection, and
just as the necessity that takes place in the field of those phenomena is inapplicable to
the field of what depends on this connection.
Indeed, in the case of persistence, impact and gravity, only the behavior of a body
for itself or the effect that two body particles or bodies express on one another comes
into consideration as the basis of the calculation; the relationships of a single body or
two bodies to one another repeat themselves everywhere in space and time, and so the
rule that applies to it is repeated and generalized and can be based on it in the
calculation. Even cases in which the basic effect depends on the combination of three
or more bodies or body parts could be repeated, and it is in principle possible to
generalize from one case to other cases and therefore to anticipate the success of
these other identical cases. But is there a general link between effects where the
combination of all (even if it is only all imponderable, but retroactive to the
weighable) parts comes into consideration, such a combination can neither quite so
recur in other space and other time, since the whole world has nothing outside of
itself and always in Further development is understood, and according to the
assumption itself, a calculation of the total effect from the individual effects and
comparison with earlier conditions is then in principle possible; and consequently
something remains here that is on the whole indeterminable. This indeterminable
whole then naturally also affects the individual, which is included therein, and indeed
each individual differently according to its different position to the whole, so that, if it
itself has the character of an individuality,
Thus our freedom does not appear to be singled out from the connection with the
whole as one so likes to imagine it; but really only justified by and in this context, is
to be seen as part of general freedom and as a contribution to it, just as the necessity
to which we are subject is only part of the general necessity and a contribution to it.
The working of persistence, shock and gravity itself has a background of freedom, is again the
basis of free working and is essentially related to it, insofar as it is called free originated at all, its
origin cannot be deduced as necessary according to any laws. Neither the first arrangement nor the
first movements in the world can be deduced as necessary from the laws of persistence, shock and
gravity or any laws, not even these laws themselves; But what can then be deduced as necessary
first needs what is given without calculation and is, even if we take into account the most precise
astronomical calculations, in the last instance only an approximation, which must finally become
irrelevant, because basically every body is influenced by the sum of all bodies; but we can only take
into account the effect of a limited body world. Now it is just as difficult to think of a limited as an
unlimited world, but the rule of calculating the effects of gravity could in principle only have
complete success for the former; Otherwise, and if it were only after ten million by ten million
years, raised to the centillion by the centillionth power, the deviation of the calculation, no matter
how far carried it, from the incalculable in itself must be felt not only factually, but in principle at
last. And how necessary the celestial bodies may move due to gravity and persistence in the
celestial space, it is nevertheless an area of freedom that moves within them. According to the
movements of the heavenly bodies and the effects of gravity, the life and structure of free creatures
also change, and the whole heavy structure of the celestial bodies, indeed of the whole world, is
only the substructure of this free life, originally emerged with it from a connection of action,
consists and thus still works in an inseparable connection, as we have explained so many times. The
free creatures, on the other hand, are not free in all respects.
However much freedom there is in the world, this does not prevent us from calculating
everything that is individual in it according to the side that is necessary in it, in that what is
indeterminable through freedom, be it as indeterminate (by means of indeterminate coefficients ,
Limbs, etc.) or as to be given by experience in the calculation; no different from the way we have
long dealt with everything that is indeterminable due to our ignorance of the reasons or the laws
according to which they operate.
Compare my treatise "On the mathematical determinability of organic shapes and processes"
in the reports of the Leipz. Soc., Math. phys. dept., f. 1849. p. 50.
It cannot be overlooked that these considerations about the physical conditions

which may underlie freedom leave much to be desired, insofar as our inadequate
knowledge of these conditions does not allow for a safe contemplation; possible that
they are still subject to objections; Yes, the doctrine of freedom would be in a bad
position if it could only be based on it; But it was also only the intention to show that
even with the assumption of a firm connection of the spiritual to the material, natural
research has no right to transfer the necessity, which it abstracts from certain areas, to
the whole of the physical and thus justified psychic events while, on the other hand,
no view of freedom can deny that there is also a side of necessity in the world.
In addition to the objective impossibility of calculating everything that has
happened in advance, there is also a subjective one. In fact, it is factual and
understandable that as conditions become more complicated or rise to a higher order,
as is the case with the advancing development of the world as a whole, the
calculation of the success of these more complicated conditions becomes more and
more difficult, an ever higher degree of development of the spirit presupposes that it
is always possible in itself. And it is undisputed that no being can calculate successes
that arise from reasons which are more complicated or of a higher order than the
inner relationships of the being itself, but only lower ones, may we also refer to the
spiritual or physical, whatever goes with one another, since a more highly developed
spiritual is always related to a more highly developed corporeal. A worm will never
be able to foresee how a monkey, a monkey never, like a person, a person never, how
God will behave, except for relationships according to which they are adequate to the
higher itself; for insofar as the insight of every being is related to its stage of
development, it cannot open up something beyond its ability that only has space in a
higher stage of development.
So a person who is still on a lower level of education will never be able to calculate
how he will behave when he has reached a higher level, except after relationships in
which he already agrees with the higher level; The reverse is more likely that a
person, having reached a higher level of education, overlooks the motives for his
behavior on the earlier, lower level, although this too is never completely. Insofar as
the world is in fact in the process of advancing development, we must confess that for
this reason too there is an impossibility in the nature of things to calculate all the
successes of the world in advance, insofar as the calculation of what will later lead to
higher levels Development will fall, would already presuppose a being of a higher
degree of development, which contradicts itself.
It can be said that, even if the knowledge of the future in this way always includes
an indetermination, on the other hand it will be possible for the higher level of
knowledge achieved to calculate the necessity of the earlier course of education more
and more backwards. But if we take a closer look, it seems to be more accurate to put
it this way: the higher the level of education, we become more and more capable of
calculating what is necessary in higher education, at least after experience we will
not be able to say anything else .
C. On the question of freedom from a practical point of view.
How it has its difficulty, from a theoretical point of view, between the deterministic
and indeterministic view of freedom 3)It is also the case in practical terms to make a
pure decision, while the decision is, of course, very easy if, as usual, one looks at one
from the most advantageous and the other from the most disadvantageous point of
view. Finally, I declare myself for an indeterministic view, but with little
preponderance of the reasons, and in such a way that the deterministic moment,
which every indeterminism has to absorb (since everyone has to recognize an area of
necessity,) receives a greater leeway than without comparison according to the usual
indeterministic views; on the other hand, however, the indeterministic moment is not
restricted to the domain of the will.
3) Cf. on the conceptual aspects of these views in B of this chapter.
Let us first let pure determinism develop under its most advantageous form; Which
will be all the less superfluous as it will continue to be shown that ultimately we will
not have to give up anything of this deterministic view, but only have to acknowledge
that it covers only one side of the whole instead of the whole.
The disadvantages, which one ascribes to determinism in its usual form, in fact
disappear if one sets it up under the more detailed definition and carries it out from
the point of view that the necessary world order is at the same time a necessarily
good one in the way that everything individual in it, whether at times and as an
individual, it does not appear good now and here, but considered in the whole of time
and space, finally necessarily conforms to the good and even the evil is necessarily
finally determined to the good by the consequences of the evil here or there.
Our determinism, however, not only postulates such a world order, but can appeal
to the factual manifestation of the same, insofar as counter-effects against the good
and backlashes against it appear innumerable in detail, but on the whole always
manage a tendency towards the good. This tendency emerges more clearly as we rise
from the individual to the whole (cf. Vol. I, Chapter XI.G); so that we can conclude
what seems to be lacking in their full realization is only lacking insofar as we are
unable to survey the whole of time and space, but from this we can draw confidence
about this whole . Our life down here, however short it may be, is enough to overlook
the meaning and course of the world order to such an extent that we can be sure on
the whole it leads to good and just ends. Individuals err and sin in many ways, and
often the wicked receives the reward that the good has earned; but the laws and rules
which bind mankind or larger fractions of it are, if not removed from the danger of
error, on the whole predominantly directed towards what is good, right and just; and
there is an inner necessity which drives mankind to perfect it more and more in this
direction. The individual himself, who sins and errs now, is driven by the
consequences of his error and his sins that hit him back sooner or later to finally
come to knowledge and to the good, as the one who knows and does what is right is
driven by the inner and external wages, which the good and the true with and finally
after them, are strengthened and fixed in it. Already in the present life we see a good
and bad conscience, divine and human punishments, threats and promises,
admonitions and warnings, praise and blame, honor and shame, all of which are
related to good and bad, and also in the direction of good urge and drive away from
that of evil, see the good consequences of good and the evil consequences of evil
increase the more and the more surely and vigorously strike back on the author, the
longer they have time to grow and develop; but the present life is often not enough to
just consummation; and we should not be surprised if the world order encompasses
not only the narrow limits of our here but of our eternal existence. But everything that
is not yet fulfilled and completed by this in the present life, we can rightly look for in
the following life; in which we can only assume a further development of the same
plan that we already see expressed in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we
here clearly shine a plan, a tendency out of the whole and as a whole, and yet not see
the details completed and developed, gives us the most definite hope of a future,
leaves us with the present life as a moment or fragment of a greater one Wholes
appear which progress towards this perfection. And it is undisputed that the
demands, the view of a future life. we can rightly look for it in the following life; in
which we can only assume a further development of the same plan that we already
see expressed in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a
life. we can rightly look for it in the following life; in which we can only assume a
further development of the same plan that we already see expressed in the present
life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a plan, a tendency out of the
whole and as a whole, and yet not see the details completed and developed, gives us
the most definite hope of a future, leaves us with the present life as a moment or
fragment of a greater one Wholes appear which progress towards this perfection. And
it is undisputed that the deterministic view is not made worse by the fact that it not
only includes, but demands, the view of a future life. which we already see
pronounced in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a plan,
a tendency out of the whole and as a whole, and yet not see the details completed and
developed, gives us the most definite hope of a future, leaves us with the present life
as a moment or fragment of a greater one Wholes appear which progress towards this
perfection. And it is undisputed that the deterministic view is not made worse by the
fact that it not only includes, but demands, the view of a future life. which we already
see pronounced in the present life. Indeed, the very fact that we here clearly shine a
life. lets the present life appear to us as a moment or fragment of a larger whole
which is advancing towards this perfection. And it is undisputed that the deterministic
view is not made worse by the fact that it not only includes, but demands, the view of
a future life. lets the present life appear to us as a moment or fragment of a larger
whole which is advancing towards this perfection. And it is undisputed that the
demands, the view of a future life.
Let us think accordingly to the law that, the longer, the more surely the good or bad
consequences of action strike back on the originator and finally, the more often they
strike back, the more and longer the action has expressed itself in the same direction,
reaching beyond this life, yes death itself as a great means to achieve and complete
under new conditions what could not be achieved in this respect under the conditions
of now life, so even the good will surely finally find his reward, perhaps here still
reduced, so so more plentiful, the longer it was curtailed; for the evil one, however
persistent stubbornness, there will finally have to come a time when the consequences
of his evil will become too powerful for him, he will be forced to redirect by them,
and according to the measure when he redirects,
And so we can with this version of determinism, which allows man to be
necessarily determined everywhere, but allows man to be determined in such a way
that the consequences of his actions themselves become necessary determinants of
the same for his salvation, first and foremost and with all temporal crosses and
suffering, all present Error and misery, generally the consolation that everything must
turn out once more for the best, the good must find his reward once more, the evil
must find his punishment, and through continued punishments the evil finally forced
to repent and thus finally to his own salvation because this is so grounded in the
general necessity, its eternal and immutable laws. According to this view, the fact that
someone becomes quite obstinate comes in a certain sense all the closer to the change
to the better, because the consequences of hardening grow the more it grows
itself; and after the necessary course of the world order they eventually
overgrowth. So whoever becomes obstinate may indeed become more and more evil
for a while, the habit of sinning itself has an effect, but in the end comes with the
same necessity, only in a harder way, to the good than that which does not become
obstinate, there the punishing and redeeming Makes the betting order greater than the
stubbornness of every single person.
Do we see e.g. B. the immoderate. He eats, drinks, and lets himself be good, but as
he goes above and beyond what is right, the consequences of his excessiveness also
begin to prepare, or even now to mingle with his pleasures, with the tendency to spoil
his iniquity. Overloading is followed by discomfort, and after repeated repetition,
disruption of health, and certainly of property, disregard for others. Many have
already been converted to temperance by these consequences, others have been kept
from intemperance by contemplating them beforehand. But many don't. Well, after
the establishment of the world order, about the ultimate reasons of which
determinism and indeterminism are equally ignorant, it is not possible, that under the
conditions of this life this or that immoderate will be turned back; what drives him to
sin is too mighty in him; sufferings would have to arise under which his life cannot
exist in order to force him to improve. Well, they really do occur if he persists in his
excessiveness; he dies, takes his immoderate meaning into the other world, and now
comes under new conditions, but these will presumably be those which do not
prevent the proliferation of the unfortunate consequences of his fault, but rather allow
a greater increase in them than hitherto. Finally man can no longer stand it, there is a
point where hell gets too hot for everyone; where he no longer knows how to help
himself other than to get better, and by getting better, he herewith also creates
conditions,
Another example:
Someone is an egoist who relates everything to himself. As a result, he gradually
alienates all people. It is met with a dismissal; one no longer wants to have anything
to do with him; love and respect are denied to him; you don't help him because he
doesn't help others. He can get into such hardship, such misery, he can ultimately feel
so lonely that he goes into himself and is finally determined to change his way of
acting and thinking. Maybe not. Because all of that necessarily has a certain effect,
but it does not therefore necessarily translate into good success. Now then he will
again take his egoism over into the other world; the consequences of his mistake will
grow again in the other world; loneliness, or whatever else hell has for him, will be so
terrible for him, that his mind is finally forced to take another direction. So in all
cases.
If man leads this course of the world order as a necessary right to mind, he will find
a powerful drive in it himself, which partly turns him away from evil, partly leads
him back to the right path. And so the determinism so conceived by no means, as it is
accused of, does not allow us to idly look towards the good final goals or to go limp
towards it, but rather helps to determine activity and virtue ourselves. Let the wicked
answer the admonition to do better: What can I do for my doing this? I act like this
because I have to, what can I do against the necessity that drives me, and if
everything has to be all right one day, I don't have to worry about it. But the answer is
ready: well, you act like this because it is so necessary; but it is just as necessary that
if you continue to be excessive, you get sick if you continue to be lazy, you become
poor, if you continue to be loveless, you are abandoned and hated, and above all, that
all the consequences of your evil deeds will one day still haunt you in the
hereafter. No matter how much a person apologizes to himself and others with his
necessary certainty, if he only believes in the necessity of these consequences at the
same time, the consideration of them will necessarily co-determine him so that he
tries to evade them. But that belief in this necessity is awakened in him lies in the
necessity of the world order. If I don't tell him the like, others will tell him, if others
don't tell him, he will see the consequences in others for himself, and if all this saying
and seeing is not fruitful, the impetus for the future consequences is insufficient, to
enforce the improvement, the consequences that once really occurred will themselves
suffice at last. The torment can and will always rise so high in the end that it forces
people first of all to do everything, to get rid of it, and then to avoid everything that
could bring it back. The stronger the conviction in any of these ways that the
consequences of evil will inevitably strike back upon the evil one himself and force
him to change, the more your consideration will compel him to change himself
now. The fact that someone believes he is necessarily determined cannot cancel out
the effects of the necessary determinations themselves, and yet one always seems to
presuppose this when one reproaches determinism from the practical side. There are
necessary provisions for good in the world order, and they are of the kind that even
the consideration of this coercion contributes to coercion. The deterministic belief,
properly and thoroughly understood, is thus itself one of the most effective means of
coercion for the good.
) as long as this coercion is only supposed to be a result of one's own human will,
but no determinability of the will for good and evil is recognized by the educational
means of the world order. It should only be possible to give suggestions to decide on
good or bad, but the decision itself should not be influenced by it; this always comes
only directly from the freedom of the will, which can be determined by nothing but
itself, or is pre-determined by earlier free decisions of the will. He who has once
fallen into sin so undoubtedly falls into eternal hell; for the more often he has sinned,
the more the freedom to redirect decreases, while according to the previously
established deterministic view the power of habituation is recognized as a factor that
determines evil,
All internal and external means of the world order, by which people are in fact
directed towards good, held back by evil, lose their meaning in this version of
indeterminism (as it is put forward by Müller, Baader, Fischer and others). When a
wicked person is admonished to improve himself, the consequence of this view is that
his free will struggles and replies that only I determine myself by myself; Whatever
you may say, there is no purpose in it for me to take a motive for good rather than bad
from it, and if the most terrible thing you threaten happened it would run off like
water from the impenetrability of my freedom. It is true that the will never asserts this
consequence; but this is just proof that its principle does not in fact exist in this way.
The most urgent admonitions, punishments, sufferings often seem to pass the
person by without a trace; he remains obstinate; at other times a word, a small
occasion, can bring about a total change in a person. And it is to such cases that those
who hold this view tend to refer. But, if we look closer, it is only the same case,
which is why we can often put many pounds in a weighing pan without the balance
turning to this side, and another time a hundred part of a grain is enough; it depends
on whether there is a lot on the opposite scale or not, whether the balance is already
fairly well established or not. But who will say that the many pounds did
nothing? They certainly help to promote the final swing to their side, when it has to
be to their side. Punishment and pangs of conscience are supposed to be justified by
that view, but afterwards they appear glaringly in the light of the superfluous. The
consequence of a volitional decision to do evil should always only be that in order to
make the easier decision in the future in the same direction. The retreating force of a
sense of guilt and punishment finds no possible place here. The evil will only has
consequences here that worsen it more and more, none that could improve it. Now
consider what one says that all the bitter cross and suffering that God imposes on
people as a result of his sins should also be completely in vain, to turn people for the
better. Of course, you don't say it. One hides the conclusion. According to our version
of determinism above, punishment and a sense of guilt can still be of use to improve
people; According to us, they are the bad consequences of previous bad reasons that
will necessarily occur sooner or later, but which now also bring with them a
necessary success or necessary contribution to the success of the future cancellation
of these bad reasons. According to that view, however, it is true that the necessary
consequences of bad reasons are just as important, because this necessity is not
denied, but which do not lead to the necessary success to improve these bad reasons,
because free will remains indeterminable through everything that is not itself and that
is neither guilt nor punishment. Both should be able to do nothing more than an
opportunity to consider the consequences of evil; but if in this consideration they
could also promote a change in the direction of the good, then that which precedes
the will and which is still outside the will would be declared as determining for the
will itself, man depended on past things not in his will Moments, because punishment
and a sense of guilt do not depend on his will, and it would only be a matter of
intensifying the punishments properly in order to intensify this determination
properly; but this would be quite deterministic; or at least so far deterministic that one
obviously sees that there is nothing left to do with the remains that one wants to
save. According to that indeterministic view, it is the weak child who is burdened
with the chief and heaviest responsibility for his whole future life, indeed for his
eternity. After all, the child's first self-decisions are the most important, because they
become binding for those who come later. Upbringing is not an essential part of
this. The child is supposed to create its later character for itself. If this view were to
admit that education had an influence on people becoming good and bad, it would
thereby cancel itself out. In fact, the tendency of this view is to portray the influence
of upbringing in a very low way.4) According to this, the best upbringing can only
change relatively external things in people and cannot wrest those who are
determined by the chance of their will to go to hell. It is always entirely up to the
freedom of the will whether he wants to accept even the best suggestions, motives for
the good that are presented to him. But if it is so why choose the best anyway? So this
view of itself shows that it is practically unsuitable, since no consequence can be
given in its practicality. And yet it remains a hard task to carry out the assertion that,
as far as the moral direction of man is concerned, at a later age it matters not how
man was guided by others as a child, whether he has been accustomed to obey good
commands, his desires to tame, to submit to the order of human society, whether he
was taught religion or whether he was influenced by influences of the opposite
character from childhood; and yet this must be a matter of indifference if it is the
indefinable freedom of will in the first decisions and, consequently, in the later ones
that depend on them, whether he wants to take care of the leadership or discipline that
has become him or obdurate against it. It is true that some child is more obstinate
than another; but it is no less difficult task to maintain the assertion that the child has
hardened himself through his first voluntary decisions; that the different innate
temperaments which the child already shows when it is in diapers does not contribute
anything to the determination of its later directions of will. This view contradicts not
only all impartial, but also more in-depth consideration so much that in fact this view,
insofar as it goes into more depth at all, is involuntarily compelled to go back further
or to go back further. And so it either already occurs to human decisions, or also
outside the sphere of its present being, whereby certain directions are supposed to be
implanted in the will, which also determine the child. Here comes the so-called
intelligible or transcendent freedom, which Kant, Schelling, and Müller each grasped
in their own particular way, although Schelling's conception is actually more of a
deterministic one. We do not want to lead the reader into this dark area, where the
question of freedom becomes completely impractical, the most important difficulties
unsolved, the others only appear to have been pushed back into the dark. More details
about this can be found in Müller's book on sin. which Kant, Schelling, and Müller
each conceived in their own particular way, although Schelling's conception is
actually more of a deterministic one. We do not want to lead the reader into this dark
area, where the question of freedom becomes completely impractical, the most
important difficulties unsolved, the others only appear to have been pushed back into
the dark. More details about this can be found in Müller's book on sin. which Kant,
Schelling, and Müller each conceived in their own particular way, although
Schelling's conception is actually more of a deterministic one. We do not want to lead
the reader into this dark area, where the question of freedom becomes completely
impractical, the most important difficulties unsolved, the others only appear to have
been pushed back into the dark. More details about this can be found in Müller's book
on sin.
4) Cf. Müller's writing on sin, Th. II. P. 84.
The ordinary obscure view is often terrified of determinism because of a

circumstance which ought, on the contrary, to terrify it of indeterminism in its
ordinary form. In the first place, nothing is any longer dependent on the person
himself; he thereby becomes a passive instrument of foreign powers. But precisely in
the sense of determinism, it is actually man himself, his innermost, innermost being,
what wills; It only wants what it wants every time with a necessity based in itself, that
is, in its entire previous being, and even in that which conditions man from outside,
his being always enters into as a factor; therefore the same occasions determine one
person quite differently from the other. The whole system that the human being
receives as the basis of his being, everything What has further developed in it through
learning, reading, listening, experiencing, educating, every, even the smallest
determination that has passed into his being in the course of life, works together
according to determinism to determine his present will, and this is called this not in
other words, his whole previous person? According to ordinary indeterminism,
however, none of this contributes to determining the will, as far as it is free, and the
most essential part of the will is supposed to lie in its freedom; the meaning of the
view is precisely to direct the will to its free side out of this causality, and precisely
with this out of man himself according to determinism, works together to determine
his present will, and does this not mean, in other words, his whole previous human
being? According to ordinary indeterminism, however, none of this contributes to
determining the will, as far as it is free, and the most essential part of the will is
supposed to lie in its freedom; the meaning of the view is precisely to direct the will
to its free side out of this causality, and precisely with this out of man
himself according to determinism, works together to determine his present will, and
does this not mean, in other words, his whole previous human being? According to
ordinary indeterminism, however, none of this contributes to determining the will, as
far as it is free, and the most essential part of the will is supposed to lie in its
freedom; the meaning of the view is precisely to direct the will to its free side out of
this causality, and precisely with this out of man himself to solve. In this way, free
will hovers like an alien, uncanny power over everything that a person is and what
affects him.
The free will decisions, on which, according to the prevailing indeterministic view, the most
important thing for humans should depend, basically have the character of chance, since no past or
general reason is allowed, which is why the will rather decides for good or bad. It is true that one
tries to reject this accusation of chance by saying: The will sets itself its reasons, its motives; this or
that presents itself to him as stimulating from outside; but whether he wants to take it as a motive is
entirely up to him. But if he acts according to motifs he has created or chosen himself, he is not
acting by chance.
This may be correct, man's actions may then no longer be called random, but his will
decisions, and this is what matters. In such a way, one relocates the contingency only from the
action into the core of the will itself, because it remains purely coincidental to what extent the free
man now sets this and nothing else as a motive or accepts it as a motive, because none at all is
admitted with any related determinant for one or the other.
Now it cannot be denied that whatever can be said against the usual modes of
conception of indeterminism and in favor of the above conception of determinism,
something in us contradicts the assumption of pure determinism. One can ask
whether this does not stem from the fact that determinism is usually conceived and
presented from the most unfavorable point of view and therefore naturally appears in
the most unfavorable light. For, according to the usual version of determinism,
certain persons are predestined to eternal hell as well as others to heaven, against
which no human will can help. And of course this must result in moral indolence and
gives a sad view of the world order. For the better, The moment in our view that
determines activity is not included in ordinary determinism. Determinism, however,
takes on a completely different character when it is understood in the above
sense. And if we see how many peoples get along with a very crude determinism
without finding anything reluctant in it, yes, how the Turks themselves take it more
strictly in life than is required by their religious regulations (see below), it can be
thought that a determinism refined in the above sense must find it even easier to find
its way into; and all the less the evil consequences it will have with it, which it
certainly has in its crude form with these peoples on one side, while on the other it
also has the good thing to generate a composure and submission to fate in
them, which we would often like to see very much. This composure and surrender
must of course only increase if it is not based both on the idea that nothing can be
changed and on what happens, it must be good again. To compensate, it should also
be noted that if ordinary indeterminism does not have even worse consequences than
recognizes anything other than the will itself in practice, even if one could not admit
it theoretically after the view has clearly been developed. nothing can be changed
except for whatever happens, it must be good again. To compensate, it should also be
noted that if ordinary indeterminism does not have even worse consequences than
it theoretically after the view has clearly been developed. nothing can be changed
except for whatever happens, it must be good again. To compensate, it should also be
noted that if ordinary indeterminism does not have even worse consequences than
it theoretically after the view has clearly been developed.
The nations that pay homage to determinism include, in particular, the Turks, the
Mohammedans in general, the Hindus, the Chinese, and the American redskins. Here
are some references:
"The Muslim woman's fatalism contains the following three general sentences:
l) The predestination relates only to the spiritual state of the person; 2) does not
concern the whole human race; but only a part of the mortals who, even before their
birth, were destined to be among the number of the chosen or rejected, and 3) has no
relation at all to the moral, physical and political condition of man, which is his in
every action has free will. Those who deny free will are believed to be unbelieving
and worthy of death. At least this is how the Mufti's explain the doctrine, since, on
the other hand, the whole nation almost adheres to the principle of unalterable fate,
which is decided in divine counsel and also leaves little to human free will in civil
and moral actions. "
(Flügge, "Gesch. Des Gl. An
Unsterbl." II. P. 299.)
In the law Menu's (v. Hüttner) p. 7 you will find the
following passage (chapter 7):
"28. And. As often as a life soul gets a new body, it keeps itself to the occupation
which the highest Lord instructed it first.
29. If He (God) made a being harmful or harmless, harsh or gentle, unjust or
just, false or true at creation, it naturally assumes the same quality at its subsequent
births.
30. Just as the six seasons take their mark of themselves at the appropriate hour,
so every embodied spirit is naturally associated with its actions. "
In Travels in Europe, Asia, etc., p. 823, a man of observation tells the following
example of the callousness of the Hindus based on fatalism: One of his friends and
his people passed a thicket. A tiger suddenly jumped out and grabbed a little boy who
was screaming loudly. The Englishman was beside himself with terror and fear, the
Hindu was calm. "How," says the latter, "can you stay so cold?" The Hindu replied,
"The great God wanted it that way."
"They excuse even the most heinous crimes which the Chinese commit by
saying that they seek the cause of them in an inevitable predestination of the godhead.
They say of the most vile villain that he is a pitiful man; but he cannot help it, so be it
decided about him. " (Beseler's Miss. Mag. 1816. p. 328 from Bruder's Miss. Anecd.)
"Above the great spirit (the North American savages) stands the unalterable fate,
which the Iroquois call Tibariman. What this imposes cannot be changed Spirit
Tharon Hiaouagon originated in time and comes from a grandmother, the evil
goddess of the dead Ataentsic, who brings down everyone. The grandmother is also
nothing other than fate, because the original causes of things are called grandfathers
or grandmothers. " (IG Müller, Theolog. Stud. U. Krit. 1849. S. 867.)
In the meantime, people have the choice, but they might prefer not to be absolutely
compelled, not to have absolutely predetermined their fate. But now we are
confronted with the observation that we are not at all bound to see the whole view in
that deterministic view. Even if all people are absolutely determined for the good, the
greatest possible freedom can still develop on the way in which they come to it; and
once they have become firmly established in the good, the good is not of the kind that
it made man less free, but by releasing him from the power of indolent habit and the
compulsion of desire, it makes him freer in a certain respect; In the end he can be
completely bound, well, to act with good intent, but on this necessary basis the
greatest freedom can still arise,
In the end, however, one sees that the practical interest is not at all so great as to
induce us to prefer to take the side of complete determinism or indeterminism; if only
in both cases the essential, definitive predestination for the good is retained.
One can say: but if, according to both views, the good in man is forced, then the
value of being good falls away. Apart from the fact that two things are necessary and
forced; how there is something in man that naturally drives him to the good, but only
comes into conflict with contrary drives; I think that if a person is compelled by
divine punishments to feel or to believe that he cannot achieve his eternal salvation
on the previous path, his improvement is therefore no less worthy, if it is only a real
improvement. The value of the good does not depend at all on its dependence on a
will that can be determined by nothing but itself (which is basically an empty pseudo-
concept), but the good has a real content, a real ability, that retains its value, no
matter how it came into being. The will, the disposition, must assume a certain
quality so that a person can be called good; but whether this quality arose necessarily
or not does not change the nature of goodness. Of course, everyone is free to relate
the concept of goodness, through an arbitrary definition, to the concept of a freedom
which could have spurned good in eternity; but the notion of goodness that is valid in
life and the means of education for good do not care. to relate the concept of
goodness, through an arbitrary definition, to the concept of a freedom that could have
spurned good forever; but the notion of goodness that is valid in life and the means of
education for good do not care. to relate the concept of goodness, through an arbitrary
definition, to the concept of a freedom that could have spurned good forever; but the
notion of goodness that is valid in life and the means of education for good do not
care.
D. Basic view of the relationship between body and mind.
Vol. I. Chap. VI. The most general view of the relationship between body and mind
or body and soul, which has been developed in its most general outlines,
recapitulates, explains and elaborates something as follows:
In the following a) statement, I first try to make the meaning of the view as clear as possible; in
the subsequent b) comparison to develop their relationship to other views, which will help to clarify
their meaning itself and reveal the most general scientific consequences thereof, in which
c) justification and validation finally by summarizing the partially already under a) and b) to show
the reasons put forward, what binds us to this view.
a) Presentation.
For the expression of meaning, however, the combination or sequence of signs and
their simple combinations, words, is much more important than the nature of the
elementary signs and words themselves, so that the same elements, depending on
their combination, express a very different sense can. I. E. the same physical
elements, depending on their composition and movement, can carry a spiritual
element of very different kinds. The basic relation between the externally appearing
body writing and the internally appearing spiritual sense can be expressed in such a
way that basically only one and the same thing appears in both; But it appears
different because, on the one hand, it appears to itself internally, and on the other, it
appears to another externally; but every thing appears different,
The appearance of the solar system takes z. B. quite different from the sun, the central point of
view, than the earth, the peripheral, there there is the simpler appearance of the Copernican, here the
more complex one of the Ptolemaic world system; Both phenomena always fit together as if in pre-
established harmony, every Copernican view from the central point of view necessarily and
essentially belongs to a Ptolemaic view from the peripheral, neither change exactly in the context
other than the appearance of the soul and the body; and yet always remain different according to the
different standpoint of consideration. Now basically in this example we only have to do with two
different external viewpoints, because whoever is on the sun, is still as good outside the sun and the
other bodies of the solar system as someone who is on a planet; but precisely for this reason the
difference between the two still external modes of appearance cannot be so great here as where, as
in the case of the difference between the spiritual and physical appearance, the observing being
coincides with the observed being (which is what gives the true central inner standpoint ), and with
this the spiritual self-appearance wins, at other times it stands opposite the observed, and with this
wins the material appearance of the other. At the extreme of the difference in point of view also
depends an extreme in the difference in appearance. but precisely for this reason the difference
between the two still external modes of appearance cannot be so great here as where, as in the case
of the difference between the spiritual and physical appearance, the observing being coincides with
the observed being (which is what gives the true central inner standpoint ), and with this the
spiritual self-appearance wins, at other times it stands opposite the observed, and with this wins the
material appearance of the other. At the extreme of the difference in point of view also depends an
extreme in the difference in appearance. but precisely for this reason the difference between the two
still external modes of appearance cannot be so great here as where, as in the case of the difference
between the spiritual and physical appearance, the observing being coincides with the observed
being (which is what gives the true central inner standpoint ), and with this the spiritual self-
appearance wins, at other times it stands opposite the observed, and with this wins the material
appearance of the other. At the extreme of the difference in point of view also depends an extreme
in the difference in appearance. and with this the spiritual self-appearance wins, at another time it
stands opposite what is being viewed, and with this wins the material appearance of the other. At
the extreme of the difference in point of view also depends an extreme in the difference in
appearance. and with this the spiritual self-appearance wins, at another time it stands opposite what
is being viewed, and with this wins the material appearance of the other. At the extreme of the
difference in point of view also depends an extreme in the difference in appearance.
Regardless of the meaning of scripture has nothing in common with the external
appearance of scripture, a person facing scripture can guess the meaning from the
external appearance of scripture when he has learned it; but also misinterpret it if he
has not learned it; and as with the sense of the ordinary it is with that of the natural
writing. A lower and higher sense can be expressed by characters of the same kind,
only in a different combination or sequence, and it is correspondingly with the lower
and higher spiritual which lies as sense in natural writing.
A look at our usual writing or language can indeed serve very well from the start to refute the
objection (which will be taken into consideration again later) that only the lower spiritual, sensual
(the soul area in the narrower sense of some philosophers) could unite Find such adequate
expression in the physical that one changes essentially with the other and according to the same,
while the higher spiritual does not necessarily go hand in hand with physical changes. If the most
sublime thoughts cannot find their objective expression in individual letters, sounds, but in the
order, sequence of them, and even if the whole variety of human knowledge can thereby be
expressed externally, then one does not see at all, why such a thing should not be able to find an
adequate expression in our body in the same sense through order, sequence of material elements,
movements and their changes, especially since nature in this respect has more and more varied and
graduated means at its command than we do in the means of writing or language. With 25 dead
letters on dead paper all the works of the poets and philosophers are written outside, why shouldn't
those works still with the infinitely more numerous, livelier brain fibers and their lively movements,
be they currents or vibrations, and the changes in the same and higher changes in these changes can
be written inside more originally? And could the writings of the poets and philosophers themselves
the higher thoughts on which they depended? awaken again in others, if they are not able to re-
create a similar order and sequence of changes in the brain of the reader than that to which the
thoughts of the poet and philosopher himself were connected? At first there is only the effect of the
material signs on the material brain, which of course, in order to receive a given effect, has to be
prepared accordingly; hence an animal does not understand the scriptures that a man understands,
and a child does not understand the scriptures that an adult understands. which of course, in order to
receive a given effect, must already be prepared accordingly; hence an animal does not understand
the scriptures that a man understands, and a child does not understand the scriptures that an adult
understands. which of course, in order to receive a given effect, must already be prepared
accordingly; hence an animal does not understand the scriptures that a man understands, and a child
does not understand the scriptures that an adult understands.
It is true that one can dishonor this view by portraying the brain as a rough lump with which
the mind must be ashamed to occupy itself much; but isn't there another way of conceiving your
wonderful structure? Can the divine reason, which belonged to his creation, not also be further
expressed in it?
It is said that the brains of animals appear too similar to that of humans for one to believe that
the difference in their intellectual faculties is essentially linked to the difference in their
organization. But can't two harps even look exactly the same, and yet only allow a piece of higher
expression to be played on one, provided that the strings of the other are in unison or not at
all? Should one be able to see the unspeakably more finely developed stringed instrument of the
brain more easily than the harp, which is what matters in intellectual play?
By linking the higher to material expression no less than the lower, the sensuality of self-
appearance, one does not yet throw it together with it, just as little as the top of a pyramid is thrown
together with the base when they rest on the same ground by means of it on which it rests, and
recognizes the direction to the tip right from the base. How to understand this will be evident
enough from the later discussion.
Let us move on from the picture to the point: if we imagine a person who thinks,
feels, then someone else who looks into his brain, his nerves, cannot perceive
anything of his thoughts and feelings going on in it. Instead it becomes matter and all
kinds of fine material movements 5)perceive, the more he sharpens the means of
observation, or, if he cannot perceive such movements directly from the outside, he
will nevertheless be able to infer such movements from directly externally perceptible
(even if only in a scientific context). These movements with the underlying matter
represent the letter, the word of thought, of sensation, but a word that is naturally
connected with it. Conversely, he who thinks, feels, cannot outwardly perceive any of
these physical movements and the underlying matter of his brain, his nerves, because
he cannot face himself; rather, he only has thought, feeling itself as the meaning of
this expression for himself . To him, the brain and nerve and the movements that go
through them appear as thoughts, sensations,
5) For the sake of brevity, I do not always add: "and changes in motion" (although such may be the main
point), especially since changes in motion can themselves be included under the concept of higher-order
motions.
At first sight this mode of representation may appear quite materialistic; but it is
not; For as little as the thoughts appearing inwardly can run differently than the
externally appearing movements in the brain allow, to which they are bound by the
identity of the fundamental being, because of the same identity the movements in the
brain can run differently from the thoughts to which they are bound are. Thoughts are
not one-sided products, consequences of material movements, but the material
movements which are able to carry thoughts can only follow from those which are
also able to carry them, and so backwards into the indefinite. Only a thoughtful
movement can produce a thoughtful movement again; so spirit does not flow out of
matter after us. If dead writing generates a thought in someone, it can only do so if it
first started from a thoughtful movement and still belongs to a higher thoughtful
context in which we are all grasped with the writing at the same time and works into
a thought-bearing brain. Even the first system of the brain itself, which makes people
capable of such high thoughts, could only flow out of a material order which is
capable of even more general and higher thoughtful movements (cf. Vol. I, Chapter
XI. M), which had to be be active in creation; otherwise, of course, it became the
crude lump, the mere ballast of the mind, which it is so often taken to be. The
essential interrelationship of the material and the spiritual, which emerges from the
identity of their basic being, leads to other conclusions in general, as the one-sided
conditioning of spirit by matter, at which the materialist stops. This is proven
everywhere by the present text itself, as which is based on the basic view discussed
here. In the first part of the same conceptions of God are based on this view, which
the most worthy may place aside, and in the following the hope of a future life will be
based on it, while the materialist's view is always only the denial of a God who
deserves this name, and has known how to found an afterlife.
Because of the identity of its fundamental being with the material as stated here, the spiritual
cannot in any way become less free than it is thought loosely in relation to it. For in what one may
also seek the essence of freedom, because the spirit also has its expression in the body, its freedom
cannot be restricted; the physical will then naturally also contain the expression of its
freedom. Really, it is admitted everywhere that the freedom of the spirit brings about changes in the
realm of the physical, and only thinks that it consequently follows them up. For us this only changes
insofar as it directly draws such as its expression. Whether one or the other cannot be decided,
understandably, through experience; and the last is at least as reasonable as the first, yes in my
opinion, if one overlooks the consequences and connections of both assumptions, more reasonable
than the first. (See Vol. I. Chap. IX)
In the meantime, if our view is by no means completely materialistic, it certainly has a
completely materialistic side, which is however supplemented with a completely spiritualistic side
(about which under b). But here it is neither materialism nor spiritualism, the essence of which is
based on its one-sidedness.
Some people conclude from this that our thoughts and sensations and the material
brain and nervous process that accompanies them are not at all alike. Basically, both
of them do not have much to do with each other, one cannot be thoroughly related to
the other . But according to us, the difference in appearance is explained at the same
time as the illusion that a different being is present, quite simply from the fact that he
who looks at the brain process from outside or deduces it from the outside as if he
saw it externally, the nature of the thing cannot have the same appearance of it or can
infer from the connection of the facts which is available to it from an external
standpoint that the brain has directly of itself from its inner central standpoint. So one
now thinks to have another being in front of you, than itself appears in it. Because,
however, rough observations or conclusions already show that the material brain
process (which appears so outwardly) and the psychological state (which appears so
inwardly) change in certain relationships, one sees two somehow related beings in it,
meanwhile, out of ignorance the identity of their fundamental being, one thing could
in a certain respect also go independently of the other; on the other hand, according to
us, the ability to appear to oneself spiritually, psychologically in a certain way is
essentially dependent on the interrelationship with the ability to appear bodily and
physically to another in a certain pertinent way, in a certain way, of course, only with
a certain external point of view and a certain nature of the Senses of the perceiver,
Insofar as the mental process in man as a whole is not only related to the brain and
nerves, which must first be examined more closely, we would have to grasp our idea
in a more general way than before: It is basically just the same processes, those from
one side as bodily organic, by which others can be understood as spiritual,
psychic. As bodily processes they present themselves to someone who, standing
outside of these processes themselves, looks at them, or deduces them from what is
seen in the form of the externally perceptible, as the anatomist, physiologist, physicist
does; Such a person may begin as he likes, he will not be able to perceive the
slightest of psychic phenomena in the other directly. On the other hand, these
processes present themselves again as psychological ones, as common feelings,
sensory perceptions,
One can specify the physiological conditions which, from experience, belong to the fact that
something appears to man objectively as a body (not merely a subjective physical common feeling
arises) a little more precisely than has happened here, and many further discussions can be linked to
it without the expression That the difference between the physical and the spiritual, which appears
objective, depends, respectively, on the external and internal point of view of the observation, and
therefore needs to be modified. And since the general considerations that we first have to make are
not changed by this specification, we will initially abstract from them in order to add more details
about this only at the end (under addition 1), so that the subject does not become confused by
peculiarities that are now can still be set aside.
If we grasp our view at all under a general expression, we will be able to say:
Body and mind or body and soul or material and ideal or physical and
psychological (these opposites used here in the broadest sense as being equally valid)
are not different in their ultimate ground and essence, but only according to the point
of view of conception or consideration. What appears to itself as spiritual,
psychological from an internal standpoint, can only appear to an opposing person by
virtue of its external standpoint in a different form, which is precisely that of bodily
material expression. The difference in appearance depends on the difference in the
standpoint of contemplation and those who stand on it. In this respect, the same being
has two sides, a spiritual, psychological one, insofar as it is itself, a material,
corporeal one, insofar as it is able to appear to someone other than itself in a different
form,
In the external sense perception, a spiritual self-appearance of a lower kind always
touches or coincides with the material appearance of another. The sensual self-
appearance, which is stimulated in me by another, reveals to me at the same time the
existence and activity of this other, and in this respect counts to me as its external
appearance. In this way I can find the spiritual or the physical, the psychic or the
physical in sensual perception, whatever I want; all that matters is the direction of the
view. In fact, when I look around me, I can regard the appearance that I see in my
sight as a self-appearance stimulated from outside in me, in that I align it with the
uniform self-appearance of my whole being, and thereby find this further determined
as my perception , Sensation, which is a lower spiritual process, but also as the
material appearance of external nature, grasped only by my spirit, in that I consider
the individual of it in relation to the other details of it. Both types of appearance fall
into one, because we know and have no other way in which something else can
appear to us than by means of a self-appearance of our spirit that is stimulated by
this. One represents the other. But we do not count the self-appearance that the thing
in us excites as the thing itself, but rather look for something as its peculiar substance
behind the appearance, what excites such in us, and what then also (for itself or in
connection with something else ) may be subject to a self-appearance of a different
kind than that which we have of it. We then contrast this own self-appearance of the
thing as its soul to that self-appearance which it stimulates in us and by which we
consider its body to be characterized. The difference between the spiritual self-
appearance and the material appearance of another, which disappears in the sensory
perception for one point of view, merges into one, therefore also immediately
emerges again glaringly when we, as always happens in the juxtaposition of the
spiritual and corporeal related to one another, and therefore, even when discussing
their relationship, we always assume that what appears to oneself from an internal
standpoint, thinks at the same time viewed from an external standpoint. Should
someone, while looking at nature outwardly and thereby gain an inner self-
appearance, which for me coincides with the appearance of external nature, can look
into my eyes and brain, and can follow the visual processes that are going on in them
(and if he is not able to do so directly, he can ultimately up to certain limits from what
is seen externally), so would He sees them, although sensual too, but in a completely
different form due to his external standpoint than they appear to me from my inner
standpoint. In my view, my active nerve appears to me in the form of mountains,
lakes, trees, houses, and he would see a white mass of nerves and all sorts of currents
and vibrations in it, if he could use sufficiently sharpened aids. And only this is called
the active nerve. But also the nature that I see outwardly in the form of mountains,
lakes, trees, houses, can still appear internally in a different way than I see it from my
external point of view, as well as my brain and optic nerve, which someone sees
externally in the form of a white vibrating nerve mass, appear internally in a different
way, wherever but then we no longer need the names brain and optic nerve for the
appearance. So the double point of view of observation always makes the appearance
different, and we always differentiate the spiritual, the psychic and the corporeal, the
physical according to whether we understand the appearance as our own inner self-
appearance or as the appearance of another. Yes, if there can be cases where it
becomes doubtful whether one has to speak of a spiritual, psychological, or bodily,
physical appearance, there will always be cases of doubt at the same time,
If one sees parts of his own body, it is only with other parts of his body, therefore
by virtue of a juxtaposition of the perceiver and the perceived which enters into him
and over which the whole reaches out in a higher self-appearance. Here, too, the
appearance of the corporeal, the physical, is only there for something other than the
self. As a body, the leg does not appear to itself, but to the eye; the sensation it
stimulates in this, however, belongs to the self-appearance, the consciousness of the
whole, to which the eye and the leg belong at the same time; indeed, it can exist only
as part of such a more general self-appearance, just as the eye can only exist as part
of a more general body. The leg, as long as it belongs to the body, also contributes to
the general feeling of the soul, hereby contributes to the self-appearance of the
whole. Thus, in general, the totality of the parts of our body contributes to our general
self-appearance; But special sensory determinations can just as well be evoked by the
external position of certain parts of the body (the sense organs) against the rest, as
against external nature (to which our body itself belongs), which nevertheless always
remain subordinate to the self-appearance of our whole, ie falling into our soul. Vol. I.
Chap. XI. J traded; and the consideration made here may be explained in more detail
with the one made there, since perhaps the object is somewhat difficult at first
sight. But special sensory determinations can just as well be evoked by the external
position of certain parts of the body (the sense organs) against the rest, as against
external nature (to which our body itself belongs), which nevertheless always remain
subordinate to the self-appearance of our whole, ie falling into our soul. Vol. I.
sight. But special sensory determinations can just as well be evoked by the external
position of certain parts of the body (the sense organs) against the rest, as against
external nature (to which our body itself belongs), which nevertheless always remain
subordinate to the self-appearance of our whole, ie falling into our soul. Vol. I.
sight. Vol. I. Chap. XI. J traded; and the consideration made here may be explained in
more detail with the one made there, since perhaps the object is somewhat difficult at
first sight. Vol. I. Chap. XI. J traded; and the consideration made here may be
explained in more detail with the one made there, since perhaps the object is
somewhat difficult at first sight.
As in the small body of man, it is also in this relation in the larger body of nature
(Vol. I. Chap. XI. J). In it, creatures confront an external world with awareness, which
gives the material appearance of the world for them and through them for God. The
spiritual side of the world in general lies partly in the self-appearance of the whole
world, partly, according to subordinate relationships, in the self-appearance of the
individual creatures that belong to the world; but the former is by no means
completely covered by the sum of these, in that not only the sum of their individual
self-appearances belongs to the sum of the individual beings, but also an upper,
connecting self-appearance belongs to the combination of these. In this regard we
refer for more details to the discussions already given in the first volume (op. Cit.).
Since we naturally only take an internal standpoint towards many things, and only an external
standpoint towards others, but always have to acknowledge the existence or the possibility of the
other standpoint, we have to supplement in the imagination and in conclusion, (so far not instinct or
revelation should spare the conclusion, which possibility can at least remain open here,) what is
denied to us by our natural position, with which we receive what is imagined and opened up in
relation to the really perceptible physical and psychical. I cannot look outwardly into my own brain,
even into another living brain, but I can still place myself in my thoughts on the standpoint of
outwardly looking into it, discover what it looks like and what happens in it; I cannot see into
another's mind, cannot immediately know God's intentions; but still in my imagination place myself
on the standpoint of the self-appearance of another person or of God, to open up, or seek to open up
what another person thinks, for example, that God has for intentions. It is true that everything that
we have only inferred remains mere conjecture, probability, hypothesis, as long as we do not
succeed in proving it through direct experience, but we reckon the hypothetical or inferred physical
and psychological to be equal to the real or tangible it under the category of the same, insert it into
the context of the same, classify the experienceable itself accordingly, in accordance with the
stipulation that it fulfills the following three conditions: l) that it, if not directly experienced or
perceptible, but it is conceivable under the form of that which can be experienced externally or
internally and in a context without contradiction; 2) that it is inferred from the context of what is
experienced and according to rules that have proven themselves in experience; 3) that his
assumption, in that it supplements our field of experience without contradiction, does not conflict
with our practical interests, but rather enters them in a compatible or beneficial way.
There is much in the physical and psychological realm that can be thought of as an
abstraction, but does not exist as abstractly as e.g. B. speed, number, force, change, diversity, unity,
order, all general categories of reality in general. The same counts when considering the tangible or
accessible reality in the physical or mental realm, depending on whether it appears to be abstracted
from one or the other or related to one or the other.
These determinations are basically nothing but declarations that we take the conditions in
these relationships as they are taken everywhere in life.
We have reason to believe that the external shape and actions of a person, which
are directly subject to our external perception, partly represent only the outer
boundary of an internal organization, partly represent the consequences and
extensions of internal movements, with the changes of which the soul relations
directly change, and which in so far can count as the immediate expression of this,
whereas what is externally appearing does not show this fixed relation to the spiritual
self-appearance of man. According to this, an internal and external expression of the
soul phenomena can be distinguished; and science must endeavor to ascertain what is
internal, but what it can only ultimately do by including external. This consideration
does not contradict the general view, that everything corporeal has a definite
relationship to spiritual; for that which appears externally in man, which does not
reveal a very specific relation to his particular spiritual, belongs to the inner essential
expression of that spiritual which belongs to the whole of nature and will have its
specific relation to it.
In the self-appearance of the spiritual, a distinction is made between higher and
lower levels, of which sensual perception is considered the lowest; yet it shares with
the highest spiritual the character of self-appearance. For, it cannot be said that it
appears for itself, but it falls into a more general self-appearance, and is subordinate
to and subordinate to such. Now the question can be asked, how is it possible, if the
sensual sensation is already expressed in material processes of the nerves and the
brain and that which is connected with them, that the higher spiritual also does it; will
it not rather differ in that it rises above it independently? Only, provided that the
higher spiritual cannot be without a sensual or symbolic base (cf. Vol. II. Chapter
XVII), in references, Relationships, changes in the sensual or symbolic prevail, it also
remains bound by the same to the physical and its changes. While now belongs to the
sensual of self-appearance as an expression of the particulars of given material
processes, the higher spiritual expresses itself in such an order and sequence of such
processes that, according to the greater height of the spiritual, references,
relationships, changes of a higher order take place in these processes , or, in abstract
terms, expresses itself in these references, relationships, changes of a higher order. So
instead of being unrelated to the relationships and changes in the physical, as many
believe, it is in the manner of alternating that, should the physical functions assume a
uniform course for a while, it would have to be silent during this time. In a word, the
higher spiritual life is tied to a higher physical life, and vice versa, but not divorced
from physical life; Accordingly, a higher increase and development of the physical
organization is necessary in order to be able to exist than a merely lower spiritual life,
as vice versa. This confirms the experience very well.
One can say that order, sequence, relationship, change are not material after all; so
the higher spiritual does not express itself in something material. But order, sequence,
relationship, change are nothing real at all, if not in the real material or spiritual
realm; but these categories are in fact applicable to both the material and the spiritual
realm; and an ordered material process always remains a material process, and the
nature of a material process can always be characterized by speaking of the
relationships and changes in the movements that take place in it without our mental
apprehension of these relationships making them spiritual itself when they rule in the
material realm. The remarks made above apply here. In themselves are order,
consequence, relationship, Change abstracts; but also the associated higher spiritual is
for itself an abstraction, realiter only existing in relation to the lower or in relation to
the lower itself. Just as the lower spiritual is expressed in the details of the material
process or in a single material process, so the higher in what can be grasped in the
context of such process or processes as a higher order, higher relation, higher
relationship, higher change in them.
It would be improper if one wanted to derive the task of specifying a special
spiritual belonging to every special body, every special movement in nature, from the
parallelism of the spiritual and the physical, which is based in our view, rather the
most general experiences show that a distinguishable multiplicity of the material can
co-ordinate into a simple unity of the spiritual; many nerve tremors to a sensation,
very complex brain movements to a thought, both cerebral hemispheres to a
thinking. The material appearance contracts in the self-appearance so to speak. The
soul has a simplifying power. The spiritual is indeed not simple everywhere, but
everywhere simpler than the material in which it appears to itself. Just as a
relationship is always simpler than the numbers whose relationship it represents, just
as a word made up of many letters can have a very simple meaning, the spiritual is
simpler than the material in which it is expressed. But just as there can be higher
relationships, for which lower relationships again form the material, and the meaning
of a whole speech can be composed of the meaning of several words, the spiritual is
not necessarily simple either; it is just simpler than the material, the meaning of
which it represents, and the higher spiritual is simpler than the lower, which is subject
to it, in the relationship of matter to it. Only the task can therefore be deduced from
our view of specifying of every body and every movement, either what kind of
spiritual belongs to it or which larger, Spirit-bearing whole helps to constitute it. For
what does not form such a whole for itself will always enter into such a whole.
The general point of view of our view would e.g. B. does not prevent the whole
of the gravitational-dependent movements of the world bodies from carrying a single
indistinguishable consciousness phenomenon or basic feeling in the divine spirit or
even something that is unconscious, i.e. indistinguishable (in the sense of the
unconscious, vol. I. chap. VII) enter into his consciousness phenomena and help to
constitute them. The nature of the individual movements which contribute to an
identical phenomenon of consciousness is, however, not yet indifferent; for the whole
phenomenon of consciousness is influenced by the modification of the individual. It
can be explained like this: Every kind of smell is a simple sensation; but every
odorous substance is a compound substance; if only a single component of the
odorous substance changes, the whole simple sensation changes with it; though a
slight change in composition may change it little.
This principle is also used to judge the contribution which the fixed structures of
our organism and the world make to consciousness (although there is actually nothing
that is absolutely immovable). It would be in vain to ask what particular spirituality
corresponds to these fixed institutions; nothing at all. But the connection between the
mobile and the fixed gives direction and form to the mobile itself, which without this
connection could not exist at all. So one only has to grasp the movable in connection
with this fixed as a base for the spiritual; or, even if special movements can serve the
special characteristic of the spiritual, do not forget that they can only be what they are
because of the connection with the fixed, thus not separating the fixed itself from the
expression or carrier of the spiritual,
The previous considerations explain where the reason lies in contrasting the
spiritual as something simple with the material as manifold, although in fact they
only justify doing it in a relative sense. There are a lot of spiritual things that are not
easy at all, but always simpler than the corresponding physical. Furthermore, it
explains how far the soul, the spiritual, can count as the bond of the body, of the
physical. Finally, therein lies the rational reason why one can regard the material in
relation to the spiritual as the lower, the base, the support, the seat of it; Namely, like
a base, it only closes a relationship below, which already asserts itself within the
spiritual from the higher to the lower. The higher spiritual is always simpler than the
lower, which is in relation to the substance. In this way, the spiritual sits on the broad
base of the physical, so to speak, and it comes to a head from the lower to the higher
above it.
According to this it then also becomes clear how the same material can support a
lower and higher spiritual at the same time, in that the higher rests on it by means of
the lower. But the material must be organized differently in order to carry a higher
than just a lower spiritual, according to a higher order, as we called it; it must not
only be a manifold itself, but also include a manifold of relationships which in turn
include such .
How something (as a physical) can appear more varied to another than to itself (according to its
spiritual side) cannot be explained, because it remains a basic fact, but it is explained as
follows. Contrast a system of 5 points with another system of 5 points, and each perceive the whole
connection of its points in one, so that the different number and arrangement of the points merely
entails a different strength and quality of the simple sensation. Now one system is not linked to the
other in the same way as each system is; for we presuppose both as two different systems; thus the
connection of the other is not perceptible to him in the same way as the other himself, but it is
affected by every point of the same as by a particular.
A similar consideration as to the simultaneous or spatial is to be applied to the
successive temporal. We cannot demand that for every particular moment of a
material process the pertinent particular of a spiritual process be given; but it also
summarizes some of the successive temporal aspects of a material process into a
simple spiritual unity. Visual and auditory sensations in us are stimulated by
processes of oscillation, and so the material changes that are subject to them in us
may themselves also be of an oscillating nature; but we do not feel any oscillation;
this oscillation of matter is summed up for us in the continuous simplicity of a
sensation. Each moment of oscillation is different from the other; but we feel nothing
of these interrelated changes, rather the whole connection between them as one. Thus
the states of sleep into which we can fall from time to time are to be considered from
two points of view as co-carriers of consciousness. On the one hand, because our
sleeping body does enter into the entirely conscious system of nature, with whose
conscious movements it is in a definite and determining relationship; the sleeping of
men on one side of the earth is connected with the waking on the other side in a
communal condition; second, in that our sleep is itself a precondition for our
waking. We could not wake up like this if we had not slept like this, and our state of
consciousness is thus carried by these, of course, unconscious processes of
matter. Thus the states of sleep into which we can fall from time to time are to be
considered from two points of view as co-carriers of consciousness. On the one hand,
because our sleeping body does enter into the entirely conscious system of nature,
with whose conscious movements it is in a definite and determining relationship; the
sleeping of men on one side of the earth is connected with the waking on the other
side in a communal condition; second, in that our sleep is itself a precondition for our
consciousness is thus carried by these, of course, unconscious processes of
matter. Thus the states of sleep into which we can fall from time to time are to be
considered from two points of view as co-carriers of consciousness. On the one hand,
because our sleeping body does enter into the entirely conscious system of nature,
with whose conscious movements it is in a definite and determining relationship; the
sleeping of men on one side of the earth is connected with the waking on the other
side in a communal condition; second, in that our sleep is itself a precondition for our
consciousness is thus carried by these, of course, unconscious processes of matter. to
be regarded as a co-bearer of consciousness from a double point of view. On the one
hand, because our sleeping body does enter into the entirely conscious system of
nature, with whose conscious movements it is in a definite and determining
relationship; the sleeping of men on one side of the earth is connected with the
waking on the other side in a communal condition; second, in that our sleep is itself a
precondition for our waking. We could not wake up like this if we had not slept like
this, and our state of consciousness is thus carried by these, of course, unconscious
processes of matter. to be regarded as a co-bearer of consciousness from a double
point of view. On the one hand, because our sleeping body does enter into the entirely
conscious system of nature, with whose conscious movements it is in a definite and
determining relationship; the sleeping of men on one side of the earth is connected
with the waking on the other side in a communal condition; second, in that our sleep
is itself a precondition for our waking. We could not wake up like this if we had not
slept like this, and our state of consciousness is thus carried by these, of course,
unconscious processes of matter. the sleeping of men on one side of the earth is
connected with the waking on the other side in a communal condition; second, in that
our sleep is itself a precondition for our waking. We could not wake up like this if we
had not slept like this, and our state of consciousness is thus carried by these, of
course, unconscious processes of matter. the sleeping of men on one side of the earth
is connected with the waking on the other side in a communal condition; second, in
that our sleep is itself a precondition for our waking. We could not wake up like this
if we had not slept like this, and our state of consciousness is thus carried by these, of
course, unconscious processes of matter.
The fact that it must be so does not, of course, lie in the conceptual precedents of
our view, but only in the factual ones. But we do not derive anything in itself from the
concept, rather the conceptual of our view is only to be interpreted in the sense of
generalizing the factual, otherwise it leads to wrong conclusions.
Some of the above relationships can be explained well by arithmetic series of numbers.
In the first order arithmetic series:
l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ....... (a)
there is a multiplicity of visible members which invisibly have the constant (arithmetic) ratio or the
difference l between them. The multiplicity of the visible members of the series is intended to
denote the physical multiplicity of an organism, the invisible difference which is identical
everywhere, whereby the members of the series are connected, the law of the series characterizes
itself, the soul ruling in the body or the spiritual, which is externally invisible to that Body
ubiquitously heard, forming the secret bond of it. Here we have a simple spiritual in addition to the
manifold of the physical.
Should there not be a soul that is simple in itself, the soul always has the character of
simplicity in relation to the body, and this is at least expressed in the scheme. Instead of a simple
soul, one can also think of a simple sensation to which a complex physical process is subject.
The rows
l, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 ....... (b)
l, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 ..... (c)
differ from the previous one only insofar as another constant
relationship, respectively 2 or 3, instead of 1, is found in
it. In them too there is something that is consistently identical,
only that it is different for different series. So a body with
different compositions can carry a soul of different types, or a
differently modified physical process can carry a different type
of sensation, which in these simple cases always remains simple,
provided that we see the identity of the relationship through the
whole series of numbers as its representative that nothing can be
distinguished in the soul of the body or in the sensation of the
physical process presented by this series.
In order to obtain a different kind of soul or sensation, the whole body or physical sensation
process must change according to the scheme. And so it confirms experience as far as we can do
such.
If one looks more closely, one finds one of the greatest miracles expressed in the previous
diagrams, which shows itself in the relation of the soul to the body. The body is different from place
to place; now one might think that the soul that dwells in this body, in so far as it is thought of in a
fixed relation to it, must itself become just as different according to this difference; on the other
hand, the soul can grasp through the greatest bodily diversity in an identical manner, i.e. it shows
itself independently of the individual quality of this diversity, whereas its quality is essentially
related to the total relationship quality of the physical diversity.
The same thing that applies to the relationship between the soul, the spirit and the body, can
also be transferred to the relationship between spiritual and physical occurrences; if we imagine the
individual visible numbers as successive moments of bodily events or as successive bodily
conditions of the same individual.
Consider e.g. B. the series of numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ....
in this way one can hold a different bodily state expressed by
each later number than by each earlier one. At first sight it
could also seem that the individual cannot find himself in the
later states of affairs; every number is different. But since
every number flows out of the earlier one in the same way and the
soul is represented by the law or ratio of progression, the same
soul remains and the whole series of numbers retains the same
character.
The scheme has hitherto only been presented in its simplest, most undeveloped form, whereby
only the most general relationships can be covered, including the simplicity of the spiritual as
opposed to physical diversity. In the meantime this simplicity is only valid in a relative sense, at
least for our soul. We distinguish some things in our soul, in our spirit. At first sight it now seems
difficult to rediscover in the schema this peculiar relationship between the inner manifoldness of the
spirit and the character of the unifying unity vis-à-vis the physical. Nor can it be found in the
undeveloped scheme. But the principle of series of numbers includes this representation in the most
natural way by itself; by finding rows of higher order,
Take e.g. B. a so-called second order series
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22 .... (A)

so the differences between the numbers following one another are
no longer constant, as in the previous series, but rather form the
series themselves
1, 2, 8, 4, 5, 6 .... (A ')
Through the series of these differences to be thought invisibly,
which are secretly enclosed in the visible series, we get
represented a manifold spiritual which is supported by the
physical manifold of the visible series A; but the numbers of the
spiritual series A 'in their succession approach the identity more
than those of the physical series A. But the series A' only
expresses a lower spiritual and closes itself off in a higher,
identical spiritual relation; for if one takes their differences,
they are constant 1. The same corporeal series A therefore carries
lower and higher spiritual at the same time, the deviation of the
numbers from one another, which serves as the measure of
diversity, still exists in the series of the lower spiritual A ',
although it is less than in A; in the highest spiritual, the
constant difference, but disappears. Here we have a soul of a
higher level compared to that which is supported by the physical
ranks of the first order a, b, c. The more sophisticated scheme
also represents a more sophisticated soul. In all lower and higher
souls there is a spiritual unity, something identical, which
penetrates through everything; but in the lower souls nothing is
different, the lowest in them is at the same time the
highest; everything is united in it in an indiscriminate
sensation, the unity of the soul is immediately immanent to
this; Or else, we can basically only represent simple sensations
through the simplest scheme, not a unity of different sensations
as it takes place in a soul; but in souls of a higher level or
souls in general,
Other examples of series of the second order (where only the differences of the second order
are found constant) are:
l, 5, 12, 22, 35, 51, 70. . . . (B)
1, 6, 15, 28, 45, 66, 91. . . . (C).
The former closes with the constant difference 3, the latter with the constant difference 4.
In general, an infinite number of different series of the second and first order are possible 6) if
we always call series of the second order those where the differences of the second order are
constant, and here too the constant difference can take on the most varied of values, depending on
the nature of the series . In the same way, however, rows of any higher order are also possible,
where only the third, fourth, fifth differences etc. turn out to be constant 7) , and through which
bodies (or processes) are represented that carry souls (or processes of consciousness) of even higher
levels, in which they are build up spiritual relationships through relationships, and yet always end in
something identical.
6) Second order series can be formed at will by multiplying the terms of two
first order series (e.g. b. And c., Cf. above) placed one below the other by two
each, or by the terms of a row are squared: then 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 86, 49 ....
consisting of the squares of 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6, 7 is a second order row.
7) One obtains z. B. those, if one raises the numbers of a row of the first order
respectively to the cube, to the 4th, 5th power, etc., or the subordinate terms
respectively of 3, 4, 5 rows of the first order multiplied by each other.
If one generally needs the higher numerical references to

represent the higher spiritual, one sees that the higher spiritual
cannot exist everywhere independently of the lower spiritual and
corporeal; rather, since its existence and its life are only
linked to its relationships, in that it regulates and dominates
the same at the same time.
The identical or the unity of consciousness, in which the spiritual references are closed, is
according to the scheme in the lowest sensible beings and processes everywhere as perfect as in the
highest ones, but it takes on a higher meaning in the highest ones precisely because it rises above
lower references.
If we compare the numbers of the series of higher order, by which individuals are represented
in possession of a higher spiritual, with the numbers of the series of lower order, we find the higher
and lower series made of similar material, and no other difference between them than that those
rows appear more intricate in shape than these. Thus the bodies of intellectually superior individuals
are made of the same material as those of intellectually lower ones, those of humans are made of the
same material as those of animals; their organic processes can also be reduced to material
movements in the one as in the other, only there is a greater entanglement , there is no so simply
emerging regularity of bodily organization and movement;
Instead of arithmetic series, one can also use geometrical series in the previous schemes with
some advantages for the representation of some relationships; But I preferred the simplest
here; Incidentally, I am far from believing that all relationships between mind and body can be
correctly represented by series of one kind or another, of which the opposite is definitely taking
place. A more completely accurate (direct, not merely schematic) mathematical representation of
the relationships between body and soul seems to me to be based on the principles to be cited at the
end of this beginning under Addendum 2, which are at the same time those of a mathematical
psychology; but these do not allow for such a simple representation and application, and are not yet
entirely unequivocal. And if one does not go beyond the right limits with the explanations through
the scheme of the series, the same is always very suitable for explaining precisely the most general
and most important relationships between body and spirit, lower and higher spiritual. Afterwards, it
turns out to be particularly insidious to state changes in the higher spiritual without corresponding
changes in the bodily.
In order to relate the schema to our general way of looking at the relationship between mind
and body, it would be irrelevant to regard the visible corporeal number series as the essential,
independent, fundamental being and the invisible proportions as an inner appearance dependent on
it; this would be quite materialistic. In reality, the differences in the basic series are real, only
externally invisible and different numbers than the numbers in the basic series themselves, and the
physical basic series can just as well count as a function of the spiritual difference series as vice
versa.
Even so, it cannot be said that the basic physical series and the corresponding spiritual series
of differences (with all the higher differences that it still includes) are two things which are different
in themselves and stand in relation to one another in relation to independence, the first merely with
the Faculty of appearance for other things, the other endowed only with the faculty of self-
appearance; Rather, their difference itself depends only on the fact that one and the same
fundamentally real being, which cannot be separated at all, appears either to someone other than
itself in the form of the physical series, otherwise it appears to itself in the form of the spiritual
series of differences. In the first place, the mode of appearance is essentially determined by the
relationships of the appearing basic being to something external, which relationships are of no
concern to self-appearance as such, in the end, through the fundamental inner being's own internal
relationships, which again do not affect the appearance for others as such, although both kinds of
relationships change as a function of alternation. Hence the appearance of different numbers in both
series; as long as numbers always serve to express relationships; but hence also their ongoing
relationship.
b) comparison.
According to the common view, body and soul are two essentially different things,
even in a kind of opposition, or at least two inherently different sides of the same
fundamental being with opposing determinations. Our view is indisputably not the
usual one, but it can be put in close relation with the last version of the same. Indeed,
as much as body and soul seem to go together from one side in one direction from our
point of view, so much do they separate from one another afterwards. For the ability
of the same fundamental being to appear to another as itself is in itself something
quite different from the ability to appear to itself, and the two modes of appearance
for the different standpoint are no less different. The nature of something other than
the self also essentially enters into the bodily appearance; for it changes just as
essentially according to the nature of the other as according to the nature of the
self. And so, according to us, it can do no harm if one still regards soul and body as
usual as two different, interconnected sides of the same being, since the fact that the
same being allows a two-sidedly different conception, from within and from without ,
itself can be seen as a two-sidedness of its nature. One can actually still grasp them as
something opposite, only that we have now become aware, it is only a contrast of the
standpoint from which they appear, and a difference in the beings to which they
appear, not a contrast in or on the substance of the being itself, what appears here as
the reason for the various appearances. And this is the main difference between our
view and the ordinary, when it regards body and soul as two sides of the same
being. The usual view looks as though this difference exists in itself regardless of the
difference between the point of view of the contemplation and the viewer, whereas,
according to us, it only comes to light through the latter difference.
The fundamentally essential or too sharp distinction between the material and the
spiritual, which takes place in the ordinary view, stands in the opposite extreme of the
almost even more untenable identification or mixing of the two, which often occurs
in science. In fact, the essential identity of what is based on the spiritual and the
material (mostly somehow by the philosophers, even if recognized from different
points of view than by us) should not induce the desire to identify the spiritual and
the material oneself, since they are identical One appears as spiritual and material in
any case in opposite relation; and is to be called one way or the other after this,
otherwise there will be an incurable confusion of language and concepts. Well, if the
principle is added, everything in nature,
Here are some examples in this regard:
G. says (N. Jen. Literat. 1845. No. 64. p. 258): "Nature is a system of thoughts
that God has established out of himself .... God did not and does not find matter in
creation before, but his thought creates and forms the matter at the same time, or
rather the thought is also at the same time its realization, the matter. "
I mean, however, that material nature can never be understood as a system of
thoughts, and thought never as matter, because language is not a synonym for the
identical one, which is subject to both, but as differentiating words for it, depending
on what it is appears to itself or appears (realized) in external manifestation, appears
from an internal or external point of view, has formed. Otherwise I would have to
explain the concavity and convexity of a mathematical circular line to be the same,
because in fact both differ only from the point of view of observation inside or
outside the circular line; the underlying essence, the mathematical line, is both the
same; but it is good that we have two words for the double appearance,
8) The above picture can at the same time well explain the possibility of
different, indeed in a certain way opposite appearances of the same being from
different standpoints; although the standpoint within the circle is not yet a true
inner standpoint of the circular line, which would rather coincide with the
location of the circular line itself.
At the Philosophers' Meeting in Gotha (Sept. 23, 1847),
Professor U. gave a lecture on the essence and concept of logical
categories. A certain H. remarked against this lecture: "In the
opinion of the lecturer there is something else in the matter than
the matter itself; Oxygen is not oxygen, but the thought of God.
But he may well know how oxygen and hydrogen can be thoughts Both
are oxygen and hydrogen and penetrate each other; the fact that
water becomes water only requires this mutual penetration, but no
thinking, etc. "In response to this, U. declared himself as
follows:" By speaking, his opponent immediately refutes what he
was speaking He maintains that oxygen is not a thought, but
oxygen. Just by talking about oxygen, if he must have an idea of
it himself, he must think of oxygen in the broader sense of the
word. The name oxygen is only the designation of an idea, a
thought, or, if you like, a (imagined) image in which everything
is contained that is contained in the thing itself; and only
because human conditioned thinking is a mere mapping (reflection),
not a primordial picture, is the real object different from the
human thought of it. Or is human speech nothing but a convulsion
of air, thinking nothing but nerve affection or a digestive
process of the brain? But then it is apparently impossible to see
why such a numerous assembly as the present one was sitting here
to throw empty noises at one another or to affect their
nerves. All worth all interest in spiritual life and thus in
existence in general ceases. If, on the other hand, there is an
underlying thought, and if Mr. H. is able to think oxygen,
hydrogen, etc., it cannot be seen why oxygen should not be the
thought of an absolute, unconditional and thus creative,
primordial thought, and in this thought the thing itself should be
its existence can have. "(Fichte's Zeitschrift für Philos. XVIII.
p. 313.) s magazine for Philos. XVIII. P. 313.) s magazine for
Philos. XVIII. P. 313.)
I must confess that H.'s common sense seems to me to be more right here than U.'s more
philosophical. After all, a thought of God might succumb to oxygen; Although I by no means
believe that what appears to us externally as oxygen really corresponds to a special thought in God
as a self-appearance, oxygen as such is always only a physical thing, because it is only there for
external appearance. And the fact that oxygen can be thought by us does not make it a thought,
otherwise we again cancel out the difference that language makes between thought and body, which
is the great advantage of clarity.
On the other hand, we must, in the sense of our opinion, declare ourselves very much against
the statement, which is not uncommon among recent materialistic naturalists, that thinking in itself
is a function of the brain as the secretion of gall is a function of the liver, and digestion is a function
of the stomach. That means confusing the viewpoints. The secretion of bile is a function of the liver
which, from an external point of view, is as much a matter of scientific observation as the liver
itself; but thinking is a function which does not belong to observation from an external standpoint at
all. Only the movements in the brain which are subject to thinking, and any secretions and
secretions connected with them, can be called a function of the brain in a similar way as the
secretion of bile can be called a function of the liver. Perhaps this seems to amount to one thing; but
it is due to the clear separation of what belongs to two different points of view, a far-reaching clarity
in general.
The common view has various expressions for the relationship between body and
soul, such as that the body is the support, support, seat, cover, organ, condition of the
soul. We will also still be able to use these expressions safely, with the advantage of
maintaining a relationship with the ordinary understanding when explaining technical
relationships, if only we always understand them in the sense of our basic view, or, if
necessary, in those that refer to it more directly , translate.
The carrier, base, seat of the spiritual is that bodily, whose state and changes are conditioned by
changes with those of the spiritual, or whose external appearance belongs to the self-appearance of
the spiritual. For the rational reason for these expressions, see above under a)
The corporeal is the outer covering of the spiritual, insofar as the corporeal appearance never
gives the self, but only its outer appearance for another, which nevertheless also depends on the
form of the self, like a cover on the form of the content. It is true that one usually associates the
concept of a shell with the idea that it can be taken off without harming the being that was clothed
with it, an idea that seems inapplicable to the relationship of the body to the spirit, but in in fact is
applicable to this in so far as the same individual soul, the same individual spirit, already changes
body successively during life, from which conclusions can be drawn for what happens at our
death. The self-appearance of a soul thus always has a bodily shell in the appearance for something
else, but not necessarily always the same; With leaving the previous shell it necessarily changes the
mode of self-appearance; but insofar as an identical basic reference can be maintained through
different envelopes, the individuality linked to it is not necessary. This is discussed further in the
following parts of this document.
The body is the organ or instrument of the soul, insofar as it is only by means of it that the
soul can work outwards at all; because in itself it remains self-appearance.
The body is the condition of the soul, of the spiritual, insofar as a given way of self-
appearance can only take place in accordance with the ability to simultaneously appear in a given
way for others. But the body is not a one-sided condition of the soul, but is dependent on it, its
mode of appearance is equally dependent on the self-appearance of the soul and vice versa.
The usual view suffers from many difficulties and incongruences in entering into
the particular, some of which stem from the fact that it has been determined by
various philosophical and religious views, without being clear about their
incompatibility, partly with the nature of things, partly among themselves to
become. According to the usual view, the physical intervenes alternately in the
spiritual and the spiritual in the physical; but not everywhere, in that both also partly
take place separately; also the spiritual should soon pull the corporeal with it, soon
follow suit and vice versa. But it is now sometimes difficult to explain how two
beings thought of as completely alien by their nature (in so far as the opposition of
the essence is still held firmly) can act on one another, a difficulty which both the
one-sided materialism and spiritualism tried to use in its favor, partly which principle
takes place for the so irregularly appearing interventions. According to us, however,
heterogeneous beings do not have any effect on each other, but basically there is only
one being that appears different from different points of view, nor do two causal
connections that are alien to one another intervene irregularly, because there is only
one causal connection, the in the one substance, in two ways, that is, from two
standpoints, can be traced. In this way the difficulty and inconsistency of the usual
view is met without falling into the one-sidedness of the monistic systems, since one
can change one's point of view at will. I'll get to that below. partly what principle
takes place for the seemingly irregular alternating intervention. According to us,
however, heterogeneous beings do not have any effect on each other, but basically
there is only one being that appears different from different points of view, nor do
two causal connections that are alien to one another intervene irregularly, because
there is only one causal connection, the in the one substance, in two ways, that is,
from two standpoints, can be traced. In this way the difficulty and inconsistency of
the usual view is met without falling into the one-sidedness of the monistic systems,
since one can change one's point of view at will. I'll get to that below. partly what
principle takes place for the seemingly irregular alternating intervention. According
to us, however, heterogeneous beings do not have any effect on each other, but
basically there is only one being that appears different from different points of view,
nor do two causal connections that are alien to one another intervene irregularly,
because there is only one causal connection, the in the one substance, in two ways,
that is, from two standpoints, can be traced. In this way the difficulty and
below.
The parallelism in the process of the physical and the spiritual that results in this
way is reminiscent of the Leibnizische pre-established harmony, only that it rests on
very different grounds than this. After us, as after Leibniz, when something goes in
the spirit, something goes correspondingly in the body, without being able to say that
one thing has caused the other. But if, according to Leibniz, soul and body are
similiar two clocks that fit with each other, yet completely independent of each other,
only because of their good arrangement by God never stray from each other, then
according to us it is rather one and the same clock that turns itself into appears to its
course as a spiritually moving being and to an opposing person as a gearing and
driving of material wheels. Instead of pre-established harmony, it is the identity of the
fundamental being what makes both appearances match. There is no need for God as
an external foreman, but God himself as a foreman lives in his clock, nature.
Moreover, we can say in general: Despite the empirical character that our view has
(since it is in fact based entirely on empirical evidence, of which under c Point of
view from which their relationship to one another becomes clear.
It is entirely materialistic on one side; for the spiritual must then change
everywhere according to the measure as the physical changes, in which it is
expressed, appears in this respect as entirely dependent on it, as a function of it,
indeed it can be completely translated into such; but from the other side it is entirely
spiritualistic and idealistic; for nothing material exists for itself, it has an existence as
such only for the spirit opposite, as an expression of something spiritually self-
appearing for other spirit; is in this respect entirely a function of the spiritual and the
relationship between spirit and spirit. The whole of nature evaporates into self-
appearing spirit, because the appearance for other things only gains reality in the self-
appearance of this spirit. It is in the nature of the view that, depending on your point
of view, Purpose and context of contemplation, the spiritual or the physical can be set
as the sole or priority for contemplation, only that it is not posited as the sole for
reality. In one case, for a purely materialistic view, one consistently takes the external
point of view. There is no talk of God or spirit, but only of matter and its forces,
movements and their laws, relationships, changes. Material processes in the brain
trigger the movement of the arm or other material processes in the brain during
volitional and thought processes. A pinprick, a ray of light in the eye does not
stimulate sensation, but rather material nerve processes that may at least carry
sensation; but because such can only be perceived from the standpoint of self-
appearance, this is none of our business from this point of view, where we always
place ourselves outside the matter. When two speak to each other, it is brain
vibrations that communicate through vibrations of the vocal cords and eardrum and
air vibrations in between; and from this standpoint one can ask about the causal nexus
in which these movement processes stand, regardless of the way in which they appear
spiritually to themselves. But in the same way everything can be viewed in a spiritual
nexus without inserting the physical. In doing so, one consistently positions oneself
everywhere on the inner standpoint, that of self-appearance, if not directly, through
conclusion. There are only notions, sensations, thoughts, feelings, intentions,
purposes, spirit and God. In the will, non-material movements and their material
consequences come into consideration, but what the spirit of the will and the world
spirit feels in these movements and consequences, the feeling of the will itself, the
feeling of success or hindrance in execution; intervening in the intentions and
purposes of a higher spirit that fills the world that reaches beyond us. If we receive
stimuli from nature, it is the spirit of nature that stimulates ours. Since, of course,
there is not exactly a single spiritual element corresponding to every single physical
element, we are not able to set the task of translating every single physical stimulus
with which nature acts on us into something just as single spiritual. which we
experience through it are included in more general determinations of the world
spirit. A wave of light emanating from the sun stimulates a thousand human eyes and
flowers at the same time and in a context, and this widespread wave of light certainly
carries something in the divine spirit for itself or in connection with other things,
which is not just as splintered as that wave, but rather only in the various people and
flowers according to specifications mentally specialized in the process specially
stimulated in them. Every external stimulus thus contributes to something spiritual in
nature, although it does not necessarily carry it for itself and in this case can only be
used on the spiritual side of consideration in connection with other things. rather, it is
only spiritually specialized in the various people and flowers in accordance with the
process specifically stimulated in them. Every external stimulus thus contributes to
something spiritual in nature, although it does not necessarily carry it for itself and in
this case can only be used on the spiritual side of consideration in connection with
other things. rather, it is only spiritually specialized in the various people and flowers
in accordance with the process specifically stimulated in them. Every external
stimulus thus contributes to something spiritual in nature, although it does not
necessarily carry it for itself and in this case can only be used on the spiritual side of
consideration in connection with other things.
Thus our view can be conceived as monistic in a materialistic or in a spiritualistic
sense and consequently developed; only with reluctance that only one side of it is
hereby grasped and developed. At the same time, however, it coincides in identifying
the substantial basis of the physical and spiritual with the identity views, only that it
grasps the relation of the physical and spiritual to one another and to the one
substance differently than the previous views. Even the Stoics thought God and
nature to be fundamentally identical; The same substance was valid for them on the
side of their suffering, changeable faculty as matter, on the side of the active, forming
force, always constant, as God. The whole of nature was accordingly divinely
inspired to them; the stars still particularly animated individually (cf. Vol. I. Chap.
XIV). We share the most general point of view as well as the main conclusions of
their view; only the point of view of the distinction between matter and spirit is
different with us.
From a certain point of view our view appears entirely Spinozist, indeed it can
appear as pure Spinozism 9) Like ours, Spinoza's view permits the double,
materialistic and spiritualistic conception of the realm of existence, in that it defines
the identically one being (substance) once as physical (under the attribute of
expansion), then again as spiritual (under the attribute of thought). can be grasped and
followed, but both modes of apprehension are linked by the substantial identity of the
basic being. According to Spinoza, if man wills, this process can be viewed under the
attribute of thinking, that is, as a psychological one, but also as a physical one or
under the attribute of expansion, in that one looks at the physical change that
presupposedly takes place in the will , reflected. The soul is necessarily the more
perfect, the more perfect the body, because body and soul are always essentially the
same, different just for viewing. A certain soul can only exist once and for all with a
certain body. For the influence of the physical on the spiritual, Spinoza substitutes a
coexistence between the two, as with Leibniz, only on the basis of their essential
identity, as with us. Every area has a purely traceable causal process.
9) With Schelling's theory of identity, on the other hand, I can at least find no clear points of contact; because
his whole point of view seems fundamentally unclear to me; although it was a work rooted in Schelling's views
(the natural philosophy of Oken) which, through its titanic boldness, first pushed me beyond the common view
of nature and for a time in his direction.
In all of this we fully agree with Spinoza. But that is essentially different: Spinoza
thinks that the causal process in each area cannot only be traced for itself, but must
also be traced for itself; According to him, there is no encroachment of causality from
one area into another, but according to us there is due to the possible change of point
of view. According to Spinoza, the mind has no influence on the body, nor does the
body on the mind; both always work with each other, causally independent of each
other. Accordingly, Spinoza does not know any teleological consideration which
makes the order of the material world dependent on spiritual intentions, but rather
rejects it in principle, and must, since there is no principle of transition between his
attributes (that of the physical and spiritual), besides the most general, by the concept
of substance; on the other hand, with us the teleological consideration in principle
finds leeway far beyond what is usually assumed.
As well as one can always take an inner standpoint, and as well one can always
stand against things from an outer standpoint, just as well one can change one's
standpoint of contemplation, take an inner standpoint in contemplation of the cause,
contemplate the Consequence to the external, as well as the other way around, and
thus pass from spiritual cause to material consequence, as vice versa; without
therefore denying the other side, which is found again and again in the
implementation of one point of view in the other. Indeed, since we naturally only take
an internal standpoint towards some things, and only an external standpoint towards
others, this alternation between the two standpoints is the natural one that is familiar
to us, one that spares us from conclusion and hypothesis; the point of view changes
by itself, so to speak, by following or experiencing the work of our spirit in the
outside world or the work of nature in our spirit. If a needle pricks me, then I
naturally stand against my sensations from an internal standpoint, against the needle
and the whole of nature, in which it is included, from an external standpoint. Driven
only by higher scientific and religious needs, and partly through complex mediations,
can we find the brain processes in us for the thought processes, and the divine
spiritual processes for the natural processes outside; we should, of course, do so in
the interest of those higher needs; but, in finding them, we do not consider the
conception of things from the natural immediately given standpoint to be
inadmissible, as Spinoza does, which, with the teleological approach, is compelled to
reject the natural approach. According to our point of view, the natural view cannot
be stunted by any scientific one, as, on the other hand, these have not to allow
themselves to be misled in their consequence by it. I'll get to that below.
If Spinoza does not keep pace with us in this respect, it is due to his
misunderstanding of the circumstance on which the difference between the physical
and the mental attribute (according to us, the physical and mental appearance) is
based. In fact, Spinoza not only leaves the reason for how the identical one can
appear so different, sometimes as physical, then again as spiritual, not only
unexplained, but actually allows it to be misunderstood, in that, in the sense of the
most common way of thinking, he traces the difference in attributes us of the
appearance) for the observing subject, regardless of the difference in his standpoint,
as present, and accordingly cannot see it as cancelable by changing the standpoint, as
is the case with us. Accordingly, according to Spinoza, the materialistic and
spiritualistic approach, both carried out unilaterally, are the only admissible,
according to us they are also admissible, as scientific necessary and valid, but not the
only ones that are possible, and because not only possible, not only accessible. They
are conveyed through a third way of looking at things, which twists back and forth
between the two in a most vital and special way, depending on the variability of our
natural point of view.
In a recent treatise, "About Spinoza's Basic Thoughts and Its Success. Berlin 1850," (from the
writings of the Berl. Akad.), Trendelenburg has astutely discussed the weak points of Spinoza's
system. On the whole, the polemic against him should be accurate, but unfounded if he believes that
the identity view is refuted at all, and if he considers the materialistic, teleological and identity view
mutually exclusive. For the way the identity view is presented here is not affected by his objections,
and the possibility of including the other views is there, as will emerge more clearly from the
persecution.
In addition to the previous three ways of looking at things, the materialistic,

spiritualistic and changing with one's point of view, there is a fourth one, which can
be seen as well-founded even in Spinozism, although Spinoza did not give it any
development Following the relationship of the spiritual to the physical, it shows how
God belongs to nature, nature to God, in general, how the appearances for an internal
and external point of view belong together; what kind of function the spiritual is from
the physical and vice versa in the whole area of existence. Of course, even if the first
two ways of looking at things have not yet been fully developed and trained
anywhere, because one has not even correctly recognized the pure task of them,
To the area of this fourth point of view I include the problem of a mathematical psychology,
formulated in the way I will explain it at the end under Addendum 2.
The insight into the relationship between the four ways of looking at things seems
to me to be of great importance. Generally one believes that whatever forces and
effects one ascribes to nature is withdrawn from the spirit, and what is ascribed to the
spirit is withdrawn from nature. Since one cannot and does not want to let nature or
spirit become idle and powerless, one makes half concessions to one side and the
other, and the argument does not stop as to how far they have to go. Since one only
stipulates one way of following the connection between things, because one does not
know the secret of the doubling through the twofold standpoint, one always pushes
one thing between the two in order to do enough in the one context of spirit and
matter others and so neither does natural science free from what actually belongs in
the spiritual context, to hold, nor vice versa; but every such intervention becomes a
spiritual. still vice versa; but every such intervention becomes a gap, limitation, and
disturbance in the field of the science in question. According to most philosophers,
inhibition and the promotion of the spiritual itself in the spiritual. still vice versa; but
every such intervention becomes a gap, limitation, and disturbance in the field of the
science in question. According to most philosophers, ideas should dominate or even
replace the forces of nature, even where there is only a connection within nature
itself; and the physiologist fills the gap in his observations in the brain with mind, as
if it were a real gap in the body, but the psychologist, in his discussion of the mental
activity, believes that the physical is partly as ballast, partly as a lever for mental
movement with consideration to have to take and to be able to explain some things
from it, which otherwise could not be explained, despite the fact that from his point
of view it was a matter of only looking for the reasons of the inner inhibition and the
promotion of the spiritual itself in the spiritual. but every such intervention becomes a
spiritual. but every such intervention becomes a gap, limitation, and disturbance in
the field of the science in question. According to most philosophers, ideas should
dominate or even replace the forces of nature, even where there is only a connection
within nature itself; and the physiologist fills the gap in his observations in the brain
with mind, as if it were a real gap in the body, but the psychologist, in his discussion
of the mental activity, believes that the physical is partly as ballast, partly as a lever
for mental movement with consideration to have to take and to be able to explain
some things from it, which otherwise could not be explained, despite the fact that
from his point of view it was a matter of only looking for the reasons of the inner
inhibition and the promotion of the spiritual itself in the spiritual. According to most
philosophers, ideas should dominate or even replace the forces of nature, even where
there is only a connection within nature itself; and the physiologist fills the gap in his
observations in the brain with mind, as if it were a real gap in the body, but the
spiritual. According to most philosophers, ideas should dominate or even replace the
forces of nature, even where there is only a connection within nature itself; and the
physiologist fills the gap in his observations in the brain with mind, as if it were a real
gap in the body, but the psychologist, in his discussion of the mental activity, believes
that the physical is partly as ballast, partly as a lever for mental movement with
consideration to have to take and to be able to explain some things from it, which
otherwise could not be explained, despite the fact that from his point of view it was a
matter of only looking for the reasons of the inner inhibition and the promotion of the
spiritual itself in the spiritual.
Not that the physiologist does not have to take into account the moving mind and
the psychologist to the externally stimulating nature and the human body's own
organs; no teaching can and should isolate itself from the others in this way in order
to forget the connection with the others; but then it should just be points of contact
with the others, not its own ties, its own content of the teaching itself. But according
to us, the natural scientist as such nowhere needs to tolerate the interference of
spiritual principles in the area he is treating, or whether it encroach on the spiritual
area himself. Natural science can now enjoy a full coherence, is now entitled to
coincide with the purest materialism, which it has always shown the tendency to,
without ever having dared to and she has ever been allowed to follow it, and was ever
allowed to do so before, as long as mind and body seemed to be arguing about the
same thing, about what, in our opinion, they are now compatible. Now we know that
science gives the whole, but it only exists from one side, from one point of view, and
what it neglects is not lost, but is found all the more purely on the other side, from the
other point of view. Where instead of a material middle link a spiritual one enters
immediate experience, we know that it is only because we are opposed to it from an
inner standpoint, and we don't let ourselves be mistaken, we push it further and close
the gap with matter through the end. It does badly to science, which only deserves a
general point of view, to regard the contingency of the particular position against this
and that as a decisive restriction and to accommodate oneself to such
contingency; since this accommodation is spared by the fact that the spiritual appears
from another standpoint in its own unrestricted right.
For does that mean that for pure natural science everything that happens in the
world, even the movement of thought, has dissolved or translated into a material
process, that spiritual doctrine limits its area, withers away? No, rather it is only
brought to the same completeness, purity, consistency, and coherence by the fact that
the spirit is no longer inserted anywhere between matter; so, conversely, matter will
no longer interfere anywhere between spirit. The areas of the spiritual and the
material are scientifically separated from the mutual entanglement in which they are
usually grasped, according to our natural point of view, in principle pure; each is
purely on itself, compared to the other as something alien. Spiritual doctrine can just
as well be perfected in itself, as before with the theory of nature; in that wherever the
nature of our standpoint and self-appearance fail, the conclusion has to be added to
exclude what is within, to lock it up as above. Everything material can be translated
into spiritual, if not individually, but in connection with other things; and a coherent
spiritual doctrine gives only this translation. Where it is impossible for us to find this
translation already now, we know that it is not due to the mistake of the matter, but to
the mistake of our knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course only
too inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge of things with a limit of things
themselves. in addition, has to exclude the inside, as above to lock. Everything
material can be translated into spiritual, if not individually, but in connection with
other things; and a coherent spiritual doctrine gives only this translation. Where it is
impossible for us to find this translation already now, we know that it is not due to the
mistake of the matter, but to the mistake of our knowledge, and the task still
remains. But we are of course only too inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge
of things with a limit of things themselves. in addition, has to exclude the inside, as
above to lock. Everything material can be translated into spiritual, if not individually,
but in connection with other things; and a coherent spiritual doctrine gives only this
translation. Where it is impossible for us to find this translation already now, we
know that it is not due to the mistake of the matter, but to the mistake of our
knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course only too inclined to
confuse the limit of our knowledge of things with a limit of things themselves. To
find this translation already now, we know that it is not the fault of the thing, but the
fault of our knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course only too
inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge of things with a limit of things
themselves. To find this translation already now, we know that it is not the fault of the
thing, but the fault of our knowledge, and the task still remains. But we are of course
only too inclined to confuse the limit of our knowledge of things with a limit of
things themselves.
But now that the pure doctrine of nature and the pure doctrine of the spirit are so
alien, so repellent, so independently opposed to one another, does this perhaps cancel
their relation? No. Elsewhere it breaks out again from our basic position of the
matter, and indeed in a double way, partly in a natural alternation, partly in the
scientifically connected pursuit of both one-sided ways of looking at things that
opposed each other before. Yes, one can ask whether a pure implementation of the
materialistic and spiritualistic conception will be practical everywhere; but it will
always remain theoretically possible. It can be continued everywhere as far as it
promises to be really practical; without finding a limit in the nature of the matter. In
any case, it has never been able to be really theoretically determined;
Our juxtaposition of the possible betting views differs somewhat from the one
given by Trendelenburg, op. Cit., But it seems to me that it is sharper and more
exhaustive. He only stipulates three; We believe that we have to substitute the four
given for it, and to add two more, no less to be developed from our principle, for
completeness, if it is to be an exhaustion of the possible and real ways of looking at
things, although these two have no permanent justification. Indeed, in addition to the
twofold one-sidedness, the combination and change of standpoints, there is also the
indistinctness and the confusion or confusion of these; and on this, too, approaches of
factual power are based. The indistinguishable point of view characterizes the
original natural view, in that at the beginning man is not even aware that he changes
his point of view in the transition from the physical to the spiritual, and therefore
does not make any definite distinction between the physical and the spiritual. The
soul is a material breath to him, the names of all soul activities are borrowed from
physical activities, which is revealed today partly directly in the words, partly
through tracing back to its roots; the rule of nature is identified with the divine
rule; everything is alive. The confusion of viewpoints, however, characterizes the
common view, for that's what I want to call it, i.e. the ruling, unclearly mixed with
philosophical views,
All in all, our basic view results in the following possible ways of following the
whole area of existence.
l) The materialistic (purely natural-scientific) one, where, always from an
external point of view, one only considers the material side of the world.
2) The spiritualistic (purely spiritual-scientific), where, always placed from an
internal standpoint, only the ideal or spiritual side of it is taken into account.
3) The linking (natural-philosophical) one, where, combining both points of
view, one pursues the material and ideal side in consistent relation to one another.
4) The changing (natural) one, where one goes back and forth between the
material and the ideal side, changing one's point of view, natural in so far as the
change of point of view in the consideration of the natural position of the observer
applies according to or unconsciously making analogies happens without reflection.
5) The indistinguishable (originally natural), where a certain distinction between
what appears from an internal and external point of view, i.e. between the spiritual
and the material, has not yet been made.
6) The mixing (common) one, where the standpoints are mixed, confused,
confused, without reflection or out of conceptual ambiguity, and accordingly unclear
and contradicting ideas about the relationship between the material and the spiritual
arise.
The first three of these approaches are to be regarded as purely scientific, the
last three are those of life; but in such a way that the fourth also tolerates scientific
treatment, the sixth often usurps it; the fifth represents the common starting point of
all others. The naturally changing has the particular significance that it provides the
basis of experience for the others and that the fruits to be transferred into it are
offered for practical use by others; the linking, completely closed, conveys the
general possibility of passing from one to the other; the materialistic and the
spiritualistic, linked to observation, are one-sided mediating links between the
two. The common opinion surges indefinitely between the others now and then.
All in all, I believe that these six ways of looking at the underlying point of view
of their distinction exhaust the possible cases: always an external, always an internal
standpoint, combination of both, alternation between the two, identification of both,
mixing and confusion of both.
c) Justification and probation.
In the final analysis we can regard the whole of the foregoing view as a
generalizing expression of experience, indeed in a certain sense only as an
explanation of the use of language.
In the first sense we say: It is a general fact of experience that when we perceive
something as bodily, material, corporeal, physical, we are either real from an external
point of view or against it in our imagination to find placed; but if as spiritual,
psychological, on the inside of self-appearance.
In the last respect we say: something is called bodily, material, physical, physical or
spiritual, psychological, depending on whether it appears to someone else as itself or
appears to itself, but in such a way that the ultimate expressions, themselves and
others, appear according to the language used relate to experience, although a certain
fixation of the use of language, which allows for different expressions, is necessary
for scientific consistency.
One can say, be it that in the sense of experience and the use of language the
spiritual as self-appearing is opposed to the material as that which appears for others,
it does not follow from this that it is the same being that is itself and that to another as
itself appears or may appear. It could be that there was another being to whom the
faculty of self-appearance and another being to which the faculty of appearing to
something other than oneself belonged. So at least our mind could go on without
reference to the processes in our brain, and the natural processes without reference to
immanent spiritual processes. B. the self-appearance of our mind would not be
subject to the same essence as the external appearance of the brain.
In fact, conceptually there is no need at all to subject the spiritual self-appearance
and the material appearance for others to the same being as we do. But the
experiences, insofar as such can be made at all, are of the kind that the factual
relationships of the spiritual and the physical are expressed in the shortest and most
significant and at the same time most compatible with a consistent use of language,
when we say that it is the same as what itself is mental and appears to someone other
than itself as a material object. It should still be added that nothing else can be
derived from these words, and that they are not to be understood in any other way
than in the sense of the earlier explanations.
However, the basic facts and points of view on which I am based, summarized and
recapitulated in more detail, are as follows:
l) It is a general fact that one and the same thing appears different from different
standpoints and for different people who stand on it, i.e. the different appearances of
the physical and spiritual belonging to one another can also be explained from this,
since we in fact always have a different, respectively external one or find the inner
point of view subject to consideration for these various appearances.
2) If one does not ascribe the difference in physical and spiritual appearance to this,
but rather wants to keep a difference in essence or a difference in essence subordinate
to it, as so usually happens, it should take us wonder that the spirit of its own kind is
the least recognizable is able to know directly, even not at all, while he can know
himself as spirit. According to this, one should think that he should also most easily
and most directly become aware of the other spirit, which belongs to him in the same
area, shares his being. Instead, he only perceives material corporeal signs from the
other spirit, something that seems so completely alien to the nature of the spirit, the
spirit the matter. But according to us that goes without saying. What we see of a
strange spirit, cannot look to us as it looks to himself, not just the same object, also
the same standpoint of its contemplation and the same contemplative being standing
on it; and what makes the external standpoint different from the internal one is
precisely the appearance of the body instead of the spirit.
3) The immediate mode of appearance of every spiritual, physical, is only one,
because only an inner standpoint, which is possible for the coincidence of the subject
with the object of the conception, whereas the same thing can appear different and
very different from a physical point of view, because very different outer standpoints
on the other hand are possible, and beings of different kinds can stand on these
external standpoints.
4) There is a factual parallelism of the physical and the spiritual, which shows itself
all the more thoroughly the more one pursues it with conclusions based on facts. This
parallelism, which prompted Leibniz to think of a pre-established harmony of the
physical and spiritual 10) , is, in our view, self-explanatory on the basis of their
essential identity, or rather, according to the way in which it asserts itself, it can be
most briefly and the most apt to denote that it is said that the physical and mental
appearance are subject to only a twofold view of the same being.
10) It is not unknown to me that Leipniz's system is ultimately idealistic, but the physical also finds its place in
him in the confused conception of other spiritual things.
5) The material and the spiritual stand in an effective and causal connection, which
can be more easily interpreted from the point of view of the substantial similarity as
the dissimilarity of what is subject to both; since even in the realm of the material as
well as the ideal, opposites can have an effect on one another, but only on the basis of
a common basis. (For example, electricity is always jointly subject to the effects of
opposing electricity on one another.)
6) It is true that our view for an exact standpoint always remains hypothetical to the
extent that it can never be directly demonstrated by experience, partly that what
appears to itself as a thinking, feeling spirit, soul, with what outwardly appears as a
physical base of it to be one and the same being, partly that the nature externally
viewed by us is a self-feeling, conscious being; but the impossibility of this direct
proof is itself a consequence of our view and can in this respect help to confirm it,
inasmuch as a being or organ, in that it is subject as a whole to self-appearance from
an internal standpoint, does not at the same time stand entirely against itself from an
external point of view can and vice versa, consequently the pure coincidence of both
modes of appearance in one being or organ can never fall directly into
experience. Rather, the purely spiritual and physical appearance of the same being or
organ always necessarily appear like something brought together from two
standpoints, which at the same time favors and explains the emergence of dualism.
7) The fourfold and equal possibility of conceiving the whole area of existence as a
material, another time as a spiritual being, a third time in alternating or sequential
relation, a fourth time in constant interrelation, which is the conflict between
materialism, spiritualism, natural and identity. Conditional view demands a linkage
and reconciliation which is fully found in our view and only in our view. In addition,
our view includes the uranium view of the peoples, which has not yet made a
substantial distinction between the material and the ideal, and gives the clarifying
point of view for the multiple views in which both are confused.
8) The same view also best suits our practical interests, as evidenced by the very
inferences based on it in this scripture.
After all, I am not saying that by contrasting the spiritual as self-appearance with
the material as that which appears to other than itself, we have thereby also grasped
the identical basic being itself, which is subject to their mutual appearance, insofar as
we are still a being want to look behind their appearance; it is just a relationship that
allows us to orientate ourselves in the realm of phenomena, and a principle is given to
set tasks for the conclusion where the observation breaks off. Our view dictates that
we should look for the body everywhere to the spirit and spirit everywhere to the
body, even where, due to the one-sidedness of the point of view, we only perceive one
of the two directly; and finds in the presupposition this, which experience, of course,
can never be fully proven, continuous belonging together even the most satisfactory
principle of the connection of all things. But what body and mind are apart from how
they appear or are imagined as appearing, it cannot say. If one wants more than our
view can give in this respect, one may see whether one finds it in other philosophical
representations; Of course, I am concerned that words will rather be found which, by
giving the appearance of leading us deeper, only lead us into deeper
obscurity. whether it is found in other philosophical representations; Of course, I am
concerned that words will rather be found which, by giving the appearance of leading
us deeper, only lead us into deeper obscurity. whether it is found in other
philosophical representations; Of course, I am concerned that words will rather be
found which, by giving the appearance of leading us deeper, only lead us into deeper
obscurity.
Addition l.About the more detailed physiological conditions of the objective physical
appearance.
One must distinguish the objective physical appearance, which allows us to
assume something physical beyond our perception of it, whereby a person or our
hand, our leg appears to us as something outside of our perception of it, from merely
subjective physical feelings (common feelings), like pain, well-being, hunger, thirst,
heaviness, exertion, weakness, frost, heat, whereby we can be reminded that we have
a body, but which does not itself bring it to an objective appearance. Indeed, if we
had not seen and felt the body outwardly through our eyes and touch, we would never
have come to attach to those feelings the idea of a body that still exists outside of
those feelings; we would always only be subjective,
As already mentioned earlier, the development of subjective bodily feelings only
requires a certain active relationship between the nervous system and the rest of the
body in which it has grown, and consequently one part of the body is opposed to the
other. Neither the bare nervous system nor the rest of the body can give them. But for
the emergence of the objective appearance of the corporeal, corporeal, whereby this
appears in relation to the spiritual interior as something external, the juxtaposition of
the body parts must still fulfill special conditions, as they are really fulfilled in the
juxtaposition of the external sense organs against the rest of the body and nature and
a thorough consideration accordingly becomes the external standpoint, which
recognizes the body as something objective, something external to the soul, appear,
must everywhere demand the fulfillment of these or equivalent conditions (to be
discussed in more detail in a moment). Wherever there has been talk of an external
point of view and of corporeality in relation to the spirit, the fulfillment of such
conditions must therefore always be tacitly assumed.
What are these conditions? They can, however, be specified.11) The following
remark can lead us to this:
If, looking out into a region, we turn our head or our eyes, or touch an object
with our fingers, the visual sensation changes, the tactile sensation in connection with
our movement. When we have a headache or hunger, these sensations do not change
with our movement. They go unchanged with how we move; And so we also count
them among us, those who are moving, do not oppose them to us or assume any
cause that would oppose us; on the other hand, those first sensations are objectified or
interpreted as depending on external objects in relation to which we move and which
we then characterize through this sensation ourselves.
11)Cf. on this subject in particular the discussions by EH Weber in the article
"Sensing of touch and common feeling" in Wagner's physiolog. Vocabulary P.
481 ff., Or in the special reprint of this article (Braunschweig, Vieweg. 1851) p.
1 ff. As far as I know, this is the first time that the subject has been thoroughly
and appropriately discussed based on experience.
It is true that I also objectify a smooth mirror surface over
which I run my finger, despite the fact that the tactile sensation
does not change here, like a bird that flies by with my eye held
still, where a change in sensation occurs without my movement; but
the feeling of objectivity is always based on experiences that we
otherwise had with changes in visual and tactile sensations
depending on the movement of the sense organs, and we now
interpret those experiences in this way according to their
connection with the totality of our experiences (since there is no
other without contradiction Interpretation by intellect or feeling
is possible) that the mirror is everywhere the same and the bird
moves instead of us. We can always get out over the mirror with
our fingers move the still eye again, then the change in sensation
with the movement is immediately asserted again; and so we
immediately objectify everything in general that appears to us
through sight and touch.
That this point of view is valid is confirmed by the fact that, among the external senses, it is
only sight and touch that clearly awaken the idea of objective corporeality, because only with these
senses is there a clear change in sensation with movement of the sense organs in relation to the
objects entry. In fact, sound and smell only change very roughly if we turn our ears and nose
differently towards the resounding and smelling object. But it is the case; hence we also get the
general impression of objects outside of us by means of the ear and nose. If, while we were walking
around an object with our ears or nose, the sound or smell sensation would be modified accordingly,
as if we were moving our eyes or fingers around it, so we would not only hear or smell the shape of
a body as well as we can see or feel, but it would also clearly, while now only indistinctly, confront
us. According to this principle, the tongue grants us clearer objective perceptions when it acts as an
organ of touch than when it acts as an organ of taste. Because it tastes only what has been dissolved
and cannot move against the dissolution that meshes it, as against the teeth and the palate. Sensation
of taste therefore appears more than something subjective; and only the fact that we touch the tasted
body with our tongue makes it appear objective to us. A strict boundary between the merely
subjective bodily feelings or sensations and the objective appearance of the physical cannot be
drawn for this very reason,
If hearing, smell and taste in themselves only contribute indistinctly to the objective
appearance, we also objectify the sound, taste, smell in its connection with the visible and
tangible. The violin is an objectively sounding body to us, the orange an objectively smelling and
sweet body, because here we experience sound, smell, taste in clear connection with what is visible
and tangible in it.
In any case, one sees that in order to gain the appearance of objective corporeality, it is
necessary to possess sense organs which can move against objects (by themselves or by virtue of
the movement of the whole body). Of course, nothing prevents you from perceiving parts of your
own body through such sensory organs. The free mobility of our eyes, our organ of touch and our
tongue (as the organ of touch for food), the free mobility of whole people, of whole world bodies
against one another, gains a new important meaning from this point of view. But if we assume that
the world initially represented a single primordial ball in which no mutually movable masses had
yet separated, then at the beginning there was no appearance of objective corporeality either; nature,
as the epitome of such, did not yet exist in opposition to the spiritual being, although there could be
subjective physical feelings. Everything only appeared under the form of self-appearance, and the
appearance of external bodies only fell into it from then on, when body against body really
appeared in the world to be movable. Nature emerged from the spirit at the same moment as
movable world balls, bearing primitive creatures, or primitive creatures after ourselves, emerged
from the primordial ball; rather it did not appear objectively as nature, only subjectively as soul,
spirit. Yes, if such a separation had never occurred, if there were still no separately mobile world
bodies, creatures, or sense organs, then a distinction between nature and spirit, body and soul as two
disparate beings could never have occurred. A pure idealism Spiritualism would be the only
possible system today, and the world may have started with it. These considerations interfere with
those which we set out earlier (Vol. I. Chap. XI. M) on the creation of the world.
If the foregoing considerations are correct, the objective physical appearance can only come
about with the help of a faculty of combining in memory (even if only unconsciously) the earlier
and later impressions gained in the course of movement is no longer a purely sensual faculty. We
also characterize every body as such by a multitude of properties that we only attach to it from the
memory of earlier sensory experiences. Since now the plants have neither organs which they can
move freely against the objects; probably still have a combining ability to remember, they will only
be able to have subjective bodily sensations, which agrees with our considerations in Nanna, pp.
309 ff.;
It is easy to see that this whole exposition of the conditions under which something appears
objectively physical is held in an external position. It is just a representation in the sense of natural
science. For when I say: One part of the body must move flexibly towards the other so that the
appearance of objective corporeality occurs, that is, to follow the conditions of the appearance of
the body entirely in the realm of the corporeal itself, I place myself on the same external standpoint
of observation that I am at the same time thereby characterize. Meanwhile, it is easy to translate it
into a conception of internal standpoints. We feel that we or parts of ourselves are moving; and feel
that certain sensations change in connection with it, others do not. We objectify those, but not these.
Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that the stepping of a movable body part against another
is not in itself sufficient to give the appearance of objective corporeality. A dry ball would like to
turn as it would, it would not gain any appearance in relation to a body world. It must be properly
organized in order to have a sensory perception that can vary according to the nature of the
impressions. Their mobility and the associated change in the sensation then only brings with it that
this also objectifies itself, with which only the appearance of objective corporeality arises. In the
meantime, to feel for oneself everything that is not organized is, in our opinion, part of such a larger
whole.
Addition 2.Brief presentation of a new principle of mathematical psychology
For reasons which would lead too far to discuss here, I consider Herbart's principle of
mathematical psychology to be irrelevant. If such a thing is possible at all, and I believe that it is the
case, it will, in my opinion, be based on the fact that the material phenomena to which the psychic
are linked are taken as the basis of the calculation, because these are an immediate attack for the
calculation and a certain measure permit what is not so the case with regard to the psychic, although
nothing in itself prevents the material phenomena, which are subject to given psychic ones, from
being regarded as a function of these as well as vice versa. In any case, it is more correct to replace
the indeterminate emotional measure of psychic phenomena, which cannot be disputed away in
itself, by means of a within the limits of the certainty of this measure, to characterize the relation to
the definite measure of the associated physical phenomena and thereby indirectly elevate itself to
definiteness, rather than proceeding the other way around, and making the definite dependent on the
indefinite. For this, however, it is necessary that one no longer merely state the basic relationship
between the physical and the psychic in general, as it has always been done in previous
considerations, where it was only a matter of establishing the most general fundamental point of
view, but that on the basis of this determination also a specific one indicate the mathematical
relationship of dependency between them, which, in the absence of a direct, precise measurability
of the phenomena in the psychic area, but an empirical test for borderline cases, Changes and
turning points, increases and decreases, predominance and defeat, superiority and subordination of
the spiritual phenomena add everything that can be judged precisely by feeling or in consciousness
without precise measurement; and that the calculation based on the principle of this dependence is
able to draw the quality of mental phenomena into the realm in a similar sense to the way that
calculating physics has drawn the quality of colors and tones into the realm, and indeed in a related
way. This would also provide a solid scientific basis for the entire fourth way of looking at the area
of existence that we have established. what can be judged precisely by feeling or in consciousness
of existence that we have established. what can be judged precisely by feeling or in consciousness
of existence that we have established.
Indeed, I believe that I have found such a relationship of dependency which, at least as far as
the matter can be assessed so far, meets these requirements. It is this:
Let us measure the strength of the physical activity, which is subject to a spiritual one, in a
given place and at a given time by means of its living force b (living force in the sense of
mechanics) 12) , and call the change in it, be it in one, infinite small part of space or time, db , the
corresponding change in the intensity of mental activity to be estimated by feeling or in
consciousness is not proportional to the absolute change in the living force db , but to the relative
change , i.e. by or if we k once for all = l put to express by myself.
12) Inthe following we only speak of the living force which emerges from the
relative changes in position of the parts of the sensitive system; there z. B. our
continuation through the movement of the earth, or an elevation in the balloon
does not affect our sensation.
If the living force of a material element is given at a
certain time and in a certain place, then by summing up a
continuous series of absolute increases it will be possible to
arrive at the living force of any other element (or the same
element) in any other space and any other time ; but by
appropriately executed summation of the associated relative
increases, that is, by the integral
on the mental or psychological intensity of the element concerned 13) , whereby the
mental intensity of the initial element must be considered known, since it serves to
determine the constant of the integral. This results in the sought-after spiritual
intensity g of the second element
,
where b denotes the value of b for which g = 0, provided that, according to the
formula itself, the zero value of g cannot occur at the zero value of b, which is related
to important conclusions.
13) Themental intensity of an element is a mathematical fiction which has no
other meaning than to lead to the calculation of what belongs to a connection, a
system of elements; since a sensation of noticeable magnitude can neither
belong to an infinitely small part of space nor of time.
In short, although it is easy to understand, one can say that
psychological intensity is the logarithm of the associated
physical intensity, it advances in arithmetic proportions when
this in geometrical proportions; With what form of psychic
function the circumstance itself may be connected, that of psychic
intensities we can only appreciate a greater or lesser degree, but
not a how many times.
In order to have the psychic intensity that prevails within a certain space and a certain time, b
is to be determined as a function of time t and space s and (as far as discontinuity relationships
allow it) the integral
to take within the relevant limits.

Insofar as momentary sensations are not differentiated, but a certain period of time is always
summarized in the sensation, and every simple sensation also includes a certain extension of the
underlying process, the measurable strength of a simple sensation is always represented by an
integral of the form (3) can be expressed, while the value of g in (2) merely expresses the
elementary element that is not particularly distinguishable and which contributes to it; although a
comparative consideration of this elementary element for different sensations already allows some
conclusions to be drawn. 14)
Assuming that the sensory stimuli produce a change in our sensory tools proportional to their
living force, which is probable at least in the case of light and sound vibrations, one can deduce
from (2) and (3) without difficulty how it comes about that the strength of the light- and the
sensation of sound increases in a much weaker proportion than the physical strength (living force)
of the light and sound itself, as can be judged even without a specific measurement, indeed that,
what is decisive, one can no longer clearly distinguish the gradations of higher light intensity . Even
the mirror image of a candlelight appears to the eye almost as bright as the reflected light itself,
despite the fact that it is really far weaker (the change in pupil does not explain this by any
means, one can also look at lights of different intensities at the same time, and the comparison of
the physical strength of fixed star light with the psychological estimate of its strength (for stars of
the first, second magnitude, etc.) is particularly illustrative. Also under the above assumption (by a
simple calculation) the no less experience-based circumstance flows from the formulas that a
sensory stimulus can be weakened to the point of imperceptibility through sufficient distribution,
without changing its vital force as a whole, but for the sensation; a very strong sensory stimulus
through moderate distribution, but rather a greater amount of sensation arouses. ) and particularly
explanatory is the comparison of the physical strength of the fixed star light with the psychological
estimate of its strength (for stars of the first, second magnitude, etc.). Also under the above
assumption (by a simple calculation) the no less experience-based circumstance flows from the
formulas that a sensory stimulus can be weakened to the point of imperceptibility through sufficient
distribution, without changing its vital force as a whole, but for the sensation; a very strong sensory
stimulus through moderate distribution, but rather a greater amount of sensation arouses. ) and
particularly explanatory is the comparison of the physical strength of the fixed star light with the
psychological estimate of its strength (for stars of the first, second magnitude, etc.). Also under the
above assumption (by a simple calculation) the no less experience-based circumstance flows from
the formulas that a sensory stimulus can be weakened to the point of imperceptibility through
sufficient distribution, without changing its vital force as a whole, but for the sensation; a very
strong sensory stimulus through moderate distribution, but rather a greater amount of sensation
arouses. but for the sensation it can be weakened to the point of imperceptibility; a very strong
sensory stimulus through moderate distribution, but rather a greater amount of sensation
arouses. but for the sensation it can be weakened to the point of imperceptibility; a very strong
sensory stimulus through moderate distribution, but rather a greater amount of sensation
arouses.15) Furthermore, it follows from this, with the aid of a known sentence, that it is of greater
advantage for the strength of consciousness phenomena to use the same amount of living force
distributed in several identical and equally effective organs (e.g. in two identical hemispheres of the
brain) than in several unequal and unequal effects; according to which the symmetrical composition
of man and many animals from similar parts would have another use than that of the representation
of the parts by one another.
14) It is still questionable whether the grouping of the movements that belong to
one and the same sensation does not have to take place under a condition other
than the continuity of the underlying matter in space, and whether the
integration therefore extends over different material elements from the point of
view such continuity when it is a matter of grasping into one what belongs to
the same sensation. Another principle could be thought of where the integration
in relation to space would no longer be valid, as was provisionally assumed
above. See a comment that follows later, which explains this comment even
more.
15) A mere lead ball on one hand seems heavier to us than an equal lead ball
placed in a light box on the other; regardless of the weight of the box still
enters here; because in the end the pressure is more distributed. Very dilute
colorations can no longer be recognized when spread over large areas. But if
one distributes a light that is already so bright that halving its intensity no
longer brings any noticeable weakening of the sensation with it, into double the
space, then it noticeably arouses twice the sum of sensations.
The greater intensity of a consciousness phenomenon or of the
whole consciousness naturally corresponds to a greater positive
value of the integral measuring this intensity, which also demands
a greater value of the living force going into it; the moment when
consciousness just wakes up or sinks into slumber, which is called
the threshold of consciousness, corresponds to a zero value of the
associated integral and a certain lower value of the living force,
namely b = b in formula (2), where it is merely It is about the
momentary psychological intensity of an element, while in formula
(3), which belongs to a whole sensory process, the values of b
within the interval of integration are partly above, partly
below bcan lie, as is overlooked without difficulty. Now, however,
consciousness can experience-wise sink below its threshold, that
is, sleep, the unconsciousness deepen more and more in such a way
that a re-awakening becomes more and more difficult, it demands
more and more positive stimulation in the sense of the earlier
conscious activity, to only the To reach the threshold of
consciousness again. If the increase in consciousness above the
threshold corresponds to a positive value of the relevant
integral, and if the threshold itself corresponds to a zero value,
then a negative value must correspond to the decrease in
consciousness below the threshold. Because here it is necessary to
fill in a deficiency in a certain sense before the zero value is
reached; this is the character of negative quantities. Indeed, the
integrals (2) and (3). through this,16)One sees how, with the
periodic nature of our organism, which is fundamentally subject to
the law of antagonism, the whole soul as well as individual
phenomena of consciousness or ideas can, by means of this
circumstance, sometimes step below, sometimes over the threshold
of consciousness, without a standstill of the associated movements
, just slowing down, (the movements in our brain do indeed go on
while we sleep), and how the phenomena of consciousness themselves
can thereby come into lively interrelation. Just as the living
force sinks for certain phenomena of consciousness, it increases
antagonistically for others, but will naturally be inclined to
increase in relation to psychologically connected phenomena of
consciousness, which presumably also have a physical
connection. From a general point of view it can be overlooked at
once how certain sensations or ideas can be suppressed, but can
also provoke and drag others, depending on the circumstances, and
I believe that our theory, although not intentionally tailored to
it, in this respect at least as favorable general conditions for
the representation of the facts as Herbartsche presents, which has
put her hypotheses mainly on the representation of them, namely
those which are connected in the most direct way with the nature
of our organism itself; even if calculation examples of fruitful
or explanatory application to experience will only be possible
when we ourselves have the empirical basis for it more in our
control than now. how certain sensations or ideas can suppress
themselves, but also provoke others, drag them along, depending on
the circumstances, and I believe that our theory, although not
intentionally tailored to it, in this respect offers at least as
favorable general conditions for the representation of facts as
Herbart's which has placed its hypotheses mainly on the
representation of the same, namely those which are connected in
the most direct way with the nature of our organism itself; even
if calculation examples of fruitful or explanatory application to
experience will only be possible when we ourselves have the
empirical basis for it more in our control than now. how certain
sensations or ideas can suppress themselves, but also provoke
others, drag them along, depending on the circumstances, and I
believe that our theory, although not intentionally tailored to
it, in this respect offers at least as favorable general
conditions for the representation of facts as Herbart's which has
placed its hypotheses mainly on the representation of the same,
namely those which are connected in the most direct way with the
nature of our organism itself; even if calculation examples of
fruitful or explanatory application to experience will only be
possible when we ourselves have the empirical basis for it more in
our control than now. according to circumstances, and I believe
that our theory, although not deliberately tailored to it, in this
respect presents at least as favorable general conditions for the
representation of facts as Herbartsche, who put her hypotheses
mainly on the representation of them, namely those which with the
very nature of our organism itself; even if calculation examples
of fruitful or explanatory application to experience will only be
our control than now. according to circumstances, and I believe
that our theory, although not deliberately tailored to it, in this
respect presents at least as favorable general conditions for the
representation of facts as Herbartsche, who put her hypotheses
mainly on the representation of them, namely those which with the
very nature of our organism itself; even if calculation examples
of fruitful or explanatory application to experience will only be
our control than now. which has placed its hypotheses chiefly on
the representation thereof, namely those which are most directly
connected with the nature of our organism itself; even if
calculation examples of fruitful or explanatory application to
experience will only be possible when we ourselves have the
empirical basis for it more in our control than now. which has
placed its hypotheses chiefly on the representation thereof,
namely those which are most directly connected with the nature of
our organism itself; even if calculation examples of fruitful or
explanatory application to experience will only be possible when
we ourselves have the empirical basis for it more in our control
than now.
16)Because waking and sleep correspond to positive and negative mathematical

expressions, respectively, it is not necessary to understand waking and sleep
themselves as positive and negative states of consciousness, since rather the
mathematical opposition of positive and negative in geometric and real
contexts everywhere Contrast of the real and the non-real (imaginary) denotes
where, according to the nature of the matter, reality can only be grasped in one
direction. This applies e.g. B. From the radius vector in the system of polar
coordinates, this also applies to the living force b ,which in reality does not
allow positive values opposite negative ones. And so the opposition of the
signs for waking and sleep or heightened consciousness and deepened
unconsciousness is not to be interpreted as the opposition of a positive and
negative consciousness, but as the opposition of a real and not real
consciousness, but in such a way that the absolute value indicates the negative
magnitude whether the distance from reality is greater or less. Whether this is
the case is not a matter of indifference to the context and the development of
the real phenomena of consciousness themselves, since their easier or more
difficult reappearance depends on when they have sunk below the threshold of
consciousness, and then on the real connection of the relationships (Law the
preservation of the living force) small values of b, hence sleep states here,
generally with large values of b , waking states elsewhere weigh up, of which
more above.
That antagonism, indisputably dependent on the law of the
preservation of living force, which shows itself in our narrow
organism and extends from the body to the soul, will undoubtedly
express itself in the world or in the further organism in which
our organism itself is built, yes between to express themselves to
this and the rest of the world, with which it is connected to form
a common system; to which various considerations can be linked
which enter into the general views of this work.
Attention is a psychic faculty founded in the self-activity of our soul, which is

evidently connected with a physical faculty founded in the self-activity of our
organism, to strengthen the living force in a certain direction, for certain physical-
psychological functions at the expense of others, and is therefore subordinated the
stated principle.
The places or times where the change of mental intensity di, , becomes zero,
generally correspond to maximum or minimum values of the living force b and the
integral (2). If one is dealing with periodic or oscillating movements, and the
processes of the organism that supports our soul, as well as the sensory stimulation of
the face and hearing, are generally of this nature, then such maximum and minimum
values occur periodically or at intervals. The number of such periods or intervals in a
given time or space determines empirically (and all basic relationships should as far
as possible be based on experience or confirmed by it) merely a quality of the
sensation, without the individual periods, intervals or individual moments therein
being themselves distinguishable in the sensation fall (if not discontinuities, of which
afterwards, between fall); the soul has as we express ourselves elsewhere, a
simplifying force; pulls together what is physically vast and complex, which from an
external point of view can only be grasped under the form of the manifold, into a
simplified self-appearance. This is to be seen as a basic fact.
The periodicity can not only differ in tempo, but can also be simple or complex,
smaller periods can build themselves into larger ones, rational and irrational, lower
and higher relationships between the periods occur, after which the quality of the
sensation changes and Relationships of various kinds can arise between the
sensations, the relationship of which to the relationships of the periods is to be
discussed in more detail. The principle of the coexistence of small vibrations is
undisputedly of great importance for the coexistence of mental states.
Insofar as the height of the tones allows a gradation analogous to that of
strength, the soul also makes this comparison according to the same principle as that
of strength. Experience has shown that the perceived pitch is not based on the inverse
ratio of the duration of the oscillation or the direct number of oscillations, but on the
logarithm of this ratio. The next and second octave above the fundamental does not
appear to us again and four times as high as the fundamental, regardless of the
number of vibrations is twice and four times as large, but the statement of the feeling
is that each octave is an equal interval from the other which corresponds to the
logarithmic ratio. Drobisch has already discussed this well in the treatises of the
Jablonowskische Gesellschaft (1846), p. 109. But why don't we also compare colors
like tones according to their height? This remains a mystery at the moment.
In the near future, the discontinuity relationships of the psychic change in
intensity deserve attention, which occur when the living force b becomes zero or
assumes grade values, with which there is also a discontinuity in the psychic intensity
value and the integral (3) occurs. As long as there is continuity in this respect, as
within an oscillation we do not distinguish the psychological intensity of the
individual points and moments individually (as we have noticed), but the sum of the
continuous values of g which fall in an oscillation measures in one the intensity of the
Sensation during the duration and expansion of the vibration; and the entire sum of
the intensity of the sensation within a given time and space interval is obtained by
adding up the sums associated with the individual vibrations. Since with tones of
different heights and lights of different colors the partial sums which belong to the
individual vibrations differ not only because of the strength of the movement, but
also because of the extension of the periods, the difficult comparability of the
intensity of tones of different heights and lights of different colors in sensation
depends on this, insofar as the comparison is more complex. But now there is
discontinuity of and with this, a difference in strength is felt. So if a second, albeit
identical, note is struck on a note, the new vibration is combined with the previous
one, b and g suddenly take on a different value, and we feel the difference in strength
17)
17) As regards the interpretation of the discontinuity relationships, much
remains doubtful. Two world bodies z. B., mutually determined to move by
attraction, are discontinuous in space but the conditions , the two belonging to
the same time are therefore not discontinuous in size; rather, whether the
masses of the celestial bodies are equal or unequal, they always remain the
same for the entire duration of their movement. Since the periodicity of their
movement now also coincides, in my opinion, regardless of their spacing apart,
their movement would only be linked to an identical sensation, not two
sensations separate in strength and quality, if any sensations at all. The soul
does not care about spatial distances, unless otherwise significant differences
are carried along by it. Propagate effects by a uniform means, e.g. B. a nerve or
brain fiber, there is always no identity for the successive parts, but continuity
of Therefore, no distinction would be made here in terms of strength, if the
parts of it should also be thought of as discrete in the sense of atomism. For
different organisms there may be such an incommensurability of the relations
of motion that identity or continuity from nowhere does not exist for a finite
time for the same parts between them. But if one wanted continuity of the
value of to indistinguishability of strength demand in successive parts of
space, this would only be possible with a real continuous space filling, to
which today's exact physics is not favorable, and some things are generally less
favorable. But the subject still deserves consideration, since many difficulties
in consideration also arise in our conception. It also seems to be a difficulty to
make zero values of b, provided that in rectilinear oscillations at the limit of
each oscillation It becomes discontinuous, so it would seem that the vibrations
would have to be differentiated in individual paragraphs. Perhaps this can be
countered by considering that there are probably no absolutely linear vibrations
in nature. Perhaps, however, the discontinuity relationships also demand a
somewhat different view than what they have found here.
Let us imagine (irrespective of the majority of the
dimensions) the points of a sentient system arranged according to
the order in a straight line or plane and the magnitude of the
living force that belongs to them by the height of ordinates that
are established at the points in question, Expressed, the living
force of the whole system is generally represented as a line or a
wave train, the shape of which changes in accordance with the
changes in the living force. On the main wave train, which
represents the living force of the main movements of the system,
small ripples or wave trains can arise due to special interactions
of individual parts of the system or external influences,18) These
smaller ripples or waves can have very different relationships
with the main wave and with each other; z. B. be above or below
the threshold of the special consciousness, by virtue of which
they are detached from the main wave while the main wave is in the
opposite state, show different periods in relation to the main
wave and to each other, carry with them higher-order
discontinuities, and so on the possibility or foresight of the
possibility of representing many important psychological
relationships.
18)It is undisputed that the living force of these ripples, to which special
sensations belong, must also be taken into special account and not treated
together with the living force of the main wave, where it is not a question of
the general strength of consciousness in general, but the strength of this
specific one Sensation on the basis of a given state of general consciousness.
For example, this explains the difference between whether we
see nothing because our attention is not preoccupied with what is
visible when light already hits our eye, or seeing black, which
sensation can be very intense although it corresponds to a lack of
light excitation. We see nothing in the first sense when the main
wave of the living force with associated consciousness, which
belongs to our visual organ as a member of an ensouled whole apart
from external stimuli, is below the threshold of consciousness,
and even if ripples due to the influence of light are present on
it, so these are thereby pushed down below the threshold of our
general consciousness. We see black when the main wave is above
the threshold, the more intense the higher it goes, but there are
no ripples on it due to light excitation. This can be transferred
to other senses. Afterwards, there is no difference between
hearing because of withdrawn attention and a feeling of silence
when the attention in the listening area is awake but there is no
stimulation by sounds. It also explains the not uncommon case in
which we hear someone else's speech physically, but not
immediately hear it psychologically; but we can still do this
retrospectively if we turn our attention retrospectively to what
has been heard, in that we hereby lift the living force wave of
the inner auditory activity with the ripples that arose from it,
which was only below the threshold, over the threshold. but there
is no stimulation by sounds. It also explains the not uncommon
case in which we hear someone else's speech physically, but not
which was only below the threshold, over the threshold. but there
is no stimulation by sounds. It also explains the not uncommon
case in which we hear someone else's speech physically, but not
which was only below the threshold, over the threshold.19) In
general, this principle allows multiple applications. This is the
only way to explain how pressure can be felt at all. When I press
an object with my finger, I have a sensation of it without it
appearing that the pressure can produce or increase a living force
in the body. But he can change the wave of living force that
belongs to the finger, and as long as this wave is above the
threshold of consciousness, this change, whether it is positive or
negative, will also be felt. It is undisputed that it is a
negative change in the fundamental wave that occurs here. For in a
certain way we feel the slightest touch, the tickling, most
strongly, in so far as the underlying wave is still the least
diminished; she perceives the slightest change with the greatest
sensitivity; on the other hand, when the pressure is strong, the
strong change is perceived with reduced sensitivity. The more the
pressure increases, the more it dulls the sensitivity to itself.
19)In the meantime I confess that in the auditory organ there is a difficulty in
explaining by means of the above principle how a single one can be heard
through attention from a mixture of several tones, if one assumes that every
fiber of the auditory nerve sounds at the same time in all tone sensations, all the
same mixture of sensations repeat. The intensification of the main wave
through attention will then have to raise all sound waves at the same time to the
same degree above the threshold of consciousness; on the other hand, the
difficulty disappears if one assumes that the division of the auditory nerve into
fibers (which is otherwise difficult to interpret teleologically) has the benefit of
presenting different fibers to the conception of different tones. And it is
undisputed that there is still an open question as to whether that is the case or
not. If it weren't like that
Higher mental activities are indisputably related to higher-
order movement or change relationships in a way that must first be
discussed in more detail. A large field of possible assumptions is
still open here. Differential quotients and higher-order
discontinuities, relationships between ratios, logarithms of
logarithms, the multiplication of constants with the integration
of higher differentials offer at first sight a rich material for
possible application here; just as the diversity of the higher
spiritual phenomena itself will require a different expression. In
any case, from a general point of view, one overlooks the fact
that our principle in the presentation of such relationships
includes the possibility of explaining the structure of higher
mental activities above lower ones in the manner
In order only to indicate a possibility above, one might think of attaching a
similar meaning to the term for higher phenomena than to the term for lower
ones; then we get for the elementary intensity of the higher phenomenon where b,
the value of b for the zero value of the integral. Some things can be explained well
below. But I think it better not to develop any further immature and uncertain
considerations here. And it is undisputed that one must also think of higher relations
between the periods of movement, on which the quality of the sensation depends.
The following points are well summarized by the previous theory, according to
the level of their previous training: How it is connected that the mental functions
always go parallel to the physical ones and show related changes and turning points,
but not the absolute ones Size of physical activity done proportionally; - why, in
particular, the increase in sensory perception lags behind the increase in the sensory
stimulus, and the distribution of the stimuli, without changing the size as a whole, is
able to weaken the sensation to the point of imperceptibility; - why the mental
functions always appear simpler than the underlying physical ones, without being
absolutely simple; - how the sleep and wakefulness of the mind are related to that of
the body; - why sleep or the sinking of individual mental activities below the
threshold of consciousness does not correspond to the standstill of the associated
physical activities, but only to a sinking of them; - on what circumstance the
deepening of sleep and unconsciousness is based; - how the sinking of certain mental
activities below the threshold of consciousness can lead to the elevation of others
above it; - how the quality of sensation can relate to quantitative determinations; -
How the tension or tension of attention, as a function of the main wave of living
force, which is peculiar to our organism, can raise the ripples of the same, which are
produced by external sensory stimuli, above the threshold of general consciousness or
let them sink below it;
It is undisputed that this suffices to show that, notwithstanding the impossibility
of precise measurement of the intensity of psychological phenomena (from which one
has always borrowed the main objection to the possibility of a mathematical
psychology), it is nevertheless an application and comparability of our theory with
experience, precisely with regard to the most general and most important phenomena
is possible, and even some very special phenomena are directly affected by it. But
this theory is still in its first rudiments, a child in diapers; so one can expect even
more of it; but of course it is also possible to keep the child in this form again. For I
cannot, of course, claim that this theory has already been established; an
Experimentum crucis is still missing ,as an exact science requires; general agreement
with the facts can only arouse favorable prejudice for them. There are also many
difficulties in this, which I have not yet been able to overcome, as is easy to see with
such a young theory, but which are not of the kind that would oppose a possible
solution in and of themselves. I may reserve a closer discussion at another
location; In the meantime I wished to encourage others to pursue the same subject
with these brief hints, since some things that still seem difficult to me are perhaps
more easily overcome by others, perhaps also be it the principle or the development
of the principle on one side or the other more happily in another turn than is captured
by me. I believe that,
XX. Overview of the Doctrine of the Things of Heaven. 1)

1) In the sense of the actually correct, if not the usual way of looking at the earth,
which includes everything that is held together by gravity around its center, including
water, air, people, animals, plants (II) The earth as well as our body is a system that is
intimately linked through the continuity of matter as well as in purposes and activity,
which is divided into a multiplicity of particularly distinguishable areas and parts, and
a system that never stops, is again divided into a multiplicity of periods and cycles A
game of activities that goes through great epochs of development unfolds, into which
division of parts and activities our body with its activities itself only enters in a
subordinate way (III, XV, B. ff.).
1) The Roman numerals in the following refer to the sections under which the
relevant subjects are dealt with.
2) Having considered all points of similarity and difference between us and the
earth in general (III), the earth agrees with us on all points which, according to any
view of the relationship between body and soul, are essential characteristics or
indications of an animated special being can assert itself in materiality, while the no
less striking differences between us and the earth all unite to make the earth appear as
a living, more independent, individual being in a higher sense than we ourselves are,
whereas our own Life is very much at a disadvantage in terms of abundance and
depth, our own independence takes a back seat, our individuality is only very
subordinate. This is explained in more detail in detailed discussions (III, IV).
3) Just as our bodies belong to the greater or higher individual body of the earth, so
our spirits belong to the greater or higher individual spirit of the earth, which
generally understands all the spirits of earthly creatures as subordinate as the body of
the earth understands all their bodies. But the spirit of the earth is not just a sum of
the earthly individual spirits, but the all-comprehending, unified, higher, conscious
connection of these. Our individuality, independence and freedom, which can only be
grasped in relative terms, do not suffer because we belong to it, but rather find root
and reason in them, in that they always retain the relationship of subordination to it.
These ideas are justified (from I to VIII) in more detail from various points of view,
and an attempt is also made (VII, VIII; to go a little more closely into the psychology
of the higher spirit.
It is reminded that we are already used to speaking of a spirit of mankind that
includes our spirits as a link, and it is shown how the view of the spirit of the earth is
only an expanded and more valid version of this idea. If the idea of the spirit of
mankind is to gain hold, it necessarily passes over into that of the spirit of the
earth. (Vol. I. Chap. IV, VII, VIII.)
4) What applies to our earth, which is itself only a heavenly body, applies
analogously to the other celestial bodies. They all participate in individual
animation; and thus form a realm of higher heavenly beings above us. It is shown
(especially VI) that both physically and mentally the stars meet the demands that we
can make on higher, superordinate beings, and reminds us that not only the natural
belief of the peoples everywhere in the stars is higher , sees divine beings (I, XIV),
but even our belief in angels has its first point of departure from belief in the higher
animated nature of the stars, so that our view only leads back to natural belief (VI).
5) Just as all the stars belong to the material side of nature as the epitome of
everything corporeal, so all the spirits of the stars belong to the spirit, which belongs
to the whole of nature, i.e. the divine spirit. But because they belong to him, they lose
their individuality, relative independence and freedom as little as our spirits do
because they belong to the spirit of the earth; but only find their uppermost bond,
their highest conscious link in it (II, VI).
6) The divine spirit is a unified, highly conscious, truly omniscient being, that is,
which carries all the consciousness of the world in itself and thus also connects the
consciousness of all individual creatures in higher relationships and highest unity of
consciousness, whose relationships to its individual beings and to nature are
discussed in more detail (XI). In particular, it is shown that evil in the world cannot
be blamed on God (XI, G), and that its connection to the nature of his dignity, height,
freedom is incapable of doing anything (XI, O). The proof of the existence of God is
given on the one hand from a theoretical (XI, B), another time from a practical (XIX,
A) point of view.
7) As little as the earth is a separating link between our body and nature, since it is
rather incorporated into nature itself through it, the spirit of the earth does not form a
separating link between us and the divine spirit; is rather the higher individual
mediation through which our spirit belongs to the spirit of God together with other
earthly spirits. It is shown (Vol. I, Chapter XII) how this idea fits into our practical
interests.
8) The intimate relationship of the divine spirit to nature and the totality of our
spirits in the divine spirit contradicts the prevailing ideas only apparently, only
insofar as they contradict themselves. It is shown how we can only gain by
responding clearly and fully (XII).
9) The general mediation through the Spirit of the earth to God does not replace the
special mediation through Christ. Rather, the spirit of the earth itself demands a
mediator to God for the highest and best relationships, who becomes part of it in
Christ and at the same time becomes part of mankind. The viewpoints from which
Christianity appears in our teaching are discussed in more detail (XIII).
10) The supreme world law (XI, B; XIX, B), the relationships between necessity
and freedom (XI, B; XIX, B, C), the relationships between body and soul (XI, p. 252;
XIX, D) , the origin of the creatures (XVI), are discussed in more detail from a
general point of view.
About the things of the hereafter.

Preface.
The following doctrine, according to its most general features, was written by me a
long time ago in a small script 1) has been set out, which many friends of their time
made for themselves, only that it has been developed here on a broader basis, with
more weighty consequences, and a more valid formulation and position of a few
special points. It may well be that the compactness and freshness of that first
representation asserts a formal advantage in relation to the richer but broader present
one. I would not, however, have given her this broader explanation if she had not at
the same time been able to become a deeper one, especially through the reference to
the considerations of the previous doctrine of the things of heaven, and not have been
convinced that the doctrine such a deserved one, through the gain of more binding
reasons for it and the continuing experience of its living effect on the mind, would
have intensified the longer the more.
1) The Book of Life After Death, by Dr. Mises. Leipzig. Voss. 1836.
Of course, I can only give the following as reasonable possibilities, reasonable

insofar as they are connected without contradiction in themselves and with the facts,
laws and demands of our present life, and find positive support in them. Proofs in the
sense of mathematics and physics need not be demanded. One wonders whether,
among the conceivable possibilities, the most probable ones, which are at the same
time most compatible with our knowledge of the nature of things, our just hopes and
practical demands, as they are based on Christianity itself, are met here at the same
time. I say whether the most compatible at the same time. For, of course, the natural
scientist will find little binding in the considerations of this text if he does not at all
recognize the requirement of an eternal life; but is it the case so he will not be
reluctant to see that this demand, which cannot be satisfied by standing still on his
accustomed path, is satisfied here by an extension of it. For the theologian, on the
other hand, everything that I am about to say here must seem vain if he states from
the outset as an axiom that the transition from this world to the hereafter can only
take place on a supernatural path, which is certainly the light of faith, but not of
knowledge on the other hand, if he has other views, he may welcome a doctrine
which also gives him some weapons of knowledge to support his demands of
faith. But this doctrine in itself cannot compel anyone any more than the previous one
can only meet needs which, of course, are themselves compelling enough. which
cannot be satisfied by standing still on its accustomed path, but is satisfied here by
expanding it. For the theologian, on the other hand, everything that I am about to say
here must seem vain if he states from the outset as an axiom that the transition from
this world to the hereafter can only take place on a supernatural path, which is
certainly the light of faith, but not of knowledge on the other hand, if he has other
views, he may welcome a doctrine which also gives him some weapons of knowledge
to support his demands of faith. But this doctrine in itself cannot compel anyone any
more than the previous one can only meet needs which, of course, are themselves
compelling enough. which cannot be satisfied by standing still on its accustomed
path, but is satisfied here by expanding it. For the theologian, on the other hand,
everything that I am about to say here must seem vain if he states from the outset as
an axiom that the transition from this world to the hereafter can only take place on a
supernatural path, which is certainly the light of faith, but not of knowledge on the
other hand, if he has other views, he may welcome a doctrine which also gives him
some weapons of knowledge to support his demands of faith. But this doctrine in
itself cannot compel anyone any more than the previous one can only meet needs
which, of course, are themselves compelling enough. For the theologian, on the other
hand, everything that I am about to say here must seem vain if he states from the
outset as an axiom that the transition from this world to the hereafter can only take
place on a supernatural path, which is certainly the light of faith, but not of
knowledge on the other hand, if he has other views, he may welcome a doctrine
which also gives him some weapons of knowledge to support his demands of
faith. But this doctrine in itself cannot compel anyone any more than the previous one
can only meet needs which, of course, are themselves compelling enough. For the
theologian, on the other hand, everything that I am about to say here must seem vain
if he states from the outset as an axiom that the transition from this world to the
hereafter can only take place on a supernatural path, which is certainly the light of
faith, but not of knowledge on the other hand, if he has other views, he may welcome
a doctrine which also gives him some weapons of knowledge to support his demands
of faith. But this doctrine in itself cannot compel anyone any more than the previous
one can only meet needs which, of course, are themselves compelling enough. but
does not tolerate knowledge, on the other hand he may welcome a doctrine with other
views that also gives him some weapons of knowledge to support his beliefs. But this
doctrine in itself cannot compel anyone any more than the previous one can only
meet needs which, of course, are themselves compelling enough. but does not tolerate
knowledge, on the other hand he may welcome a doctrine with other views that also
gives him some weapons of knowledge to support his beliefs. But this doctrine in
itself cannot compel anyone any more than the previous one can only meet needs
which, of course, are themselves compelling enough.
Incidentally, in this whole doctrine one pays less attention to the individual than to
the totality of the points of view, which, through their coherence, often have to
replace and supplement what remains inadequate in detail; and put more emphasis on
the outline than on the specific execution of the view. Every redesign begins with
unsteady grips; but without it preceded, security would never come. But one should
also be careful not to stop at limited points of view in a region which, by its nature,
calls for going beyond the usual limits of observation. Anyone who wants to find the
way beyond this world cannot possibly focus their gaze only on what lies at their feet.
After all, I think that a beginning has been made here on a new path, and one need
not ask for more than such a path at first. I hope to convince individuals of the
validity of the bases of these views; They will then help to set the ground more firmly
and to build further and to correct the faulty and to curb what is too quick and to
remove what is too high, so that the company becomes more suitable and worthy,
also to awaken more general conviction. Because no one can feel better than me how
much help is still needed in all these relationships.
XXI.About the meaning of human death and the relationship between

the future and the present life.
What about man's death?
Will the spirit of man not be withdrawn as the product of a higher spirit in death in
its universality or unconsciousness, just as it had first individualized itself out of it?
It is so with the products of our own mind. Our thoughts emerge from the
unconscious, only to be extinguished in it again. Only the whole spirit endures in the
fleetingness and transience of the individual that comes in and out of it.
The human body also dissolves again in death into the general body of nature or of
the earth, just as it had first individualized itself out of it. His small body melts, the
big one remains. But the spirit is not carried off the body for nothing; he also has to
share its fate.
How can there still be any doubt as to where everything is right in all directions?
It is the old question and the old concern that arises here against our future,
incidentally, irrespective of whether we want to think of our dissolution in a spirit and
body of the earthly or in God, because while we dissolve in one, we dissolve in
others.
But the question and the concern hover over our heads so threateningly, and the
fate of man and the earth is so intertwined that it would in truth only be a sad half-
work if we did not want to save the soul of the earth sought, now also seek to save
man's soul from those misgivings.
And it is precisely that which seems so dubious to others that it should save
us. Many seem to be in danger that the human spirit is the product and element of a
higher spirit. For us, however, all security depends on the fact that he is and remains
in something higher and highest. If the human soul is not already now carried in the
lap of a self-living spirit, and the human body belongs to a self-living body; so I
really do not know where there is to be a place and a seat for the future life of man
after he has given up his present mode of existence; Death deprives him of those who
are only directed to his own source of life, then with the conditions of previous life
the conditions of the whole of life; but if the earth and, in a broader sense, the world
around us is alive, we are already partakers of its life, Without becoming blurred in it,
losing ourselves in it, death immediately appears only like the breakthrough from a
lower, narrower into a higher, wider sphere of life of the spirit and body, of which we
are already members, and our narrow, lower life on this side itself only like the seed
the higher further beyond. Well, of course, when the seed bursts, the plant spreads
apart; the little plant thinks at the moment that it will melt after it has been tightly
folded in the seed for so long; but how, does it really melt and flow with other
plants? Rather, it wins a new world. and our narrow, lower life on this side only like
the seed of the higher further on the other side. Well, of course, when the seed bursts,
the plant spreads apart; the little plant thinks at the moment that it will melt after it
has been tightly folded in the seed for so long; but how, does it really melt and flow
with other plants? Rather, it wins a new world. and our narrow, lower life on this side
only like the seed of the higher further on the other side. Well, of course, when the
seed bursts, the plant spreads apart; the little plant thinks at the moment that it will
melt after it has been tightly folded in the seed for so long; but how, does it really
melt and flow with other plants? Rather, it wins a new world.
What so many are wrong is an inaccurate analogy. Insofar as human spirits are the
products of a higher spirit, like our thoughts ours, death should now also be compared
with a withdrawal of these thoughts into the unconscious, like birth with their
emergence from the unconscious of this spirit. But I mean, nothing is the same in
between.
Thoughts spin on thoughts; one gradually flows into the other; in order for one to
come, another must go, and as he goes, the other comes out of him; and like the
thought spiritually, the bodily impulse which may carry it flows into that of the
following thought. Nothing suddenly breaks off. It is a quiet walk, a progression.
But death is a sudden being, abruptly cutting off an earlier state, breaking off, not
building a bridge to related beings, not spinning on your spiritual thread, but tearing it
off briefly, breaking the body to it, abruptly all at once. The old state is off. That's
all. At least so it seems.
It is no different harshly than with death with birth. Doesn't every human spirit
enter the spirit world as a peculiarly new, unpredictable event, as a new beginning,
partly as an imprint of earlier spirits, but not spun from it? Every spirit is like a new
miracle. Now the old world of spirits only spins itself into it with its old knowledge
and belief; but the old spirits are not the stuff out of which the new came. The spirit
of the father and mother are, of course, necessary as an occasion for emergence, as an
instrument, if you want, in a greater hand; but do not pass into the child's mind, nor
go out as the child's mind awakens. It is not at all directly related, like cause and
consequence, rather only remotely related in a higher order, that spirits come, spirits
go,
So the picture fits little on all sides; but another picture is available, admittedly
only one picture, and which therefore cannot always fit. But if it fitted a little better
than that, why let the hope of a hereafter wither from that as if there were no way
out? In fact, what we bring fits better.
Open your eyes, suddenly a picture falls into it, which cannot be explained from
anything that was previously in your mind, a new beginning from which many things
can become; what cannot develop in your mind through the new image; how can it
stir up your whole inner world, not unlike a newborn person the whole outer
world. In a certain way it will always be an imprint of already existing images, as
every newly born person in a certain respect only repeats earlier ones, but it is a new
imprint, is not a spin-off of the old one, and never exactly resembles the previous
ones. Your ensouled body must give sap, forces and sensation, to shape and maintain
the image in its bosom physically and spiritually, not unlike the body of the earth
must give sap, forces and sensation, to shape and keep a new person in his bosom. Of
course, you alone are not able to create the image in you; the world that surrounds
you throws its image into you; and so the earth alone could not create a human
being; God, who embraces her, throws his image into her. Because not only is man a
sprout and image of the earth, he is a sprout and image of the whole God-souled
world, although first of all of the earth. You also see yourself in every new picture,
this is how the earth looks in every new child. The new picture in you is like a new
child on earth, a new earth child is like a new picture in you. Except that as a child of
the earth you are more and more important than an image in you, because the earthly
world into which you step as a child,
I mean, in truth, man's first bodily spiritual becoming, entry into the great bodily
spiritual kingdom of the earthly world through God's creative rule, which begins a
new series of destinies in it, explained by nothing in the same kingdom, is much more
like such first becoming, Entry of a new bodily, spiritual image into your little realm
of body and spirit, which also begins a new series of fates, explained by nothing in
the same realm, other than the flow of one thought out of the other. The fact that the
image in you, like the child on earth, begins to be something purely sensual, may well
be compared, but it soon takes on higher spiritual relationships; Memories, terms,
ideas seize and inspire it immediately in a higher sense.
But how do we compare dying?
Hit your eye! Suddenly the picture pales, the bright, warm one, is suddenly gone,
does not merge into any other; the juices and forces that are pressed together from all
sides in the eye to make the image the bearer of sensation, flow briefly back into the
general body. Who can still find something of the image in the whole body? It's all
over. So is your death, suddenly, beating, breaking off, like the blink of an eye. The
night of death suddenly draws a veil over the whole view that the higher spirit has
gained through you up to now; it disappears, the bright, warm, and like the
individually designed corporeal image in your eye flows again into the larger body,
which it was first born, so your individually designed body flows back into the larger
body of the earth, which only added sap and strength .
As true as it is with the closing eyes in life with the picture, so true will it be with
you with the closing eyes in death. So true; Yes, of couse; but also not truer. And will
you believe in your future life when a second image breaks out behind the life of that
image, a higher one, a freer, a more unrestricted, a more bodiless or a freer corporeal,
all as you wanted your future life to be? What happens to the picture in you, why
should that not happen to you in something greater than you; is it only happening in a
larger sense?
If I close my eye and the sensual image disappears, doesn't the more spiritual one
of memory awaken instead? And if the present moment of perception caught me
completely beforehand, I saw everything brightly and strongly, but always only what
was just there and how it just occurred, now the memory of everything that
comprised the duration of my perception begins in detail probably less bright, on the
whole more lively and richer, self-empowered to live in me and to weave and to
relate to everything else that has entered me remindingly through earlier views and
other senses.
If I now close my eye in death, and my life of sensual perception expires, won't a
life of remembrance in the higher spirit be able to awaken instead? And if through me
he saw everything brightly and strongly in the visual life, but always only what was
just there and how it just occurred, the memory of everything that my visual life
encompassed does not now also become less clear in detail, as a whole more alive
and richer, self-reliantly to begin to live and weave, and to enter into relationships
and intercourse with the circles of memory that he gained through the death of other
people? But as true as my perceptual life was that of a being that felt and
differentiated itself independently in it, the life of remembrance must also be true.
For, when using the analogy, let us not forget the differences that depend on the fact
that even in the perceptual life of the higher spirit we are something very different
from our perceptions in us, and the higher spirit itself is something higher than we
are. But from the unequal follows just as unequal as from the like equals. Our
memories are only dependent beings, driven by the stream and floating in it again,
without knowing about themselves and what they are doing. But for that reason the
same will not apply to you one day. Because since you are already independent here,
knowing what drives you and what you do, it will also be the case in your memory
existence. You are memory only if you remain mentally behind after the destruction
of your current sensual existence, but more than memory, as long as that from which
you remain mentally behind is more than that from which memory remains. Our
memory, too, reflects the essential characteristics of what it grew out of. Such is the
memory that grows out of you in the higher spirit. What is most peculiar to you, your
individuality, cannot be lost in the process; it also persists in remembering. If the
perceived image were already independent in you, self-confident in the same sense as
you are here below, then its memory in you would be too. And so everywhere else it
is important to focus on the side of the differences next to the side of the agreement,
and not to look for what is weak and miserable and narrow in you, also in the larger
spirit.
Naturally, my narrow mind cannot carry as many memories or areas of memory at
once in consciousness, as the larger mind, because it cannot carry so many different
views or areas of memory at the same time in consciousness. Just as the memories
repress each other in my mind and only appear one after the other in my
consciousness, it will not be in the higher mind because it is not the same with the
perceptions; As well as a thousand different areas of perception clearly and
independently coexist in him in a thousand different people, as well as a thousand
areas of memory with one another. One does not always have to wait, in order to
become conscious, for the other to go out in the consciousness of the higher spirit,
You only have to close two eyes, and if they are closed, everything is closed to your
intuition until you open them again; with this you help yourself to gain new
views; He has to shut the eyes of all people, keeps a thousand open when he strikes a
thousand, and instead of ever opening again those that have been struck in death, he
opens a thousand new ones for it in other places, so he helps himself, and thereby
gains in much higher areas Always meaning new perceptions for you, while at the
same time he processes the memories of the earlier ones in the intercourse of the
otherworldly spirits. Every new pair of human eyes is to him a new pair of buckets,
with which he scoops something special in a special way, even scoops out of the old
in a new way; you yourself are merely a bearer of such a pair of buckets in his
service; have you scooped enough for him, so he tells you to carry you home, puts the
lid on the outside of the bucket so as not to spill anything and opens it inside his
house; now the task is to continue to consume what has been created. But he does not
release you the servant. Whoever you carried it home must now rule it inside as
well; because outside he doesn't need you anymore; but inside you are now useful to
him to further process what you have drawn. There stand a thousand laborers who,
like you, have carried yours home to him, and work one another in the house of the
same spirit; only now really knowing what it is. How much closer do they get now,
when they are gathering the full buckets from all sides, than when they are carrying
them out to scoop on all sides, and one at a time one only meets the other, and they
wondered where from, where to, and wandered around the still locked door of the
house, which only opens in death. What is your wages now? How good is the
Lord! Everything you have carried home and what you create with it in the work of
the higher spirit is your reward; he doesn't keep anything for himself, he shares it
with you in such a way that he has it whole and you have it whole because you
yourself are whole. Now see to it that you bring back good things for him; you carry
it home
But let us not lose ourselves from one picture to the other, but instead focus on a
few things in which the picture, which so far has been the subject of our
considerations, sometimes does not seem to apply, and sometimes really does not.
Memory in us appears in a certain way merely as a developmentless echo of
perception, which can no longer gain anything from what is once and for all given in
perception. Should our future life also be nothing but such a developmentless
reverberation of the present? But memory can only develop further in so far as
perception does not; but we are already developing here; this is how our memory will
also develop; it takes with it the powers of what it is born of. Yet who says our
notions and memories don't evolve? Rather, what does not all develop in us from our
views and consequently memories? Man is born as a sensual intuition and closes as a
higher being of ideas.
Much of the individual thing we have seen does not particularly come back into our
memory, only this and that, be it also that everything contributes to the development
of our soul life as a whole, because nothing is without after-effects in us. So, for
example, will many people not appear again at all in the memory of the higher
spirit; only these and those who only generally contribute to the further development
of the life of the higher spirit? So we too would have come back to the blurring of the
spirits. But that is the only reason why many perceptions do not particularly come
back into our memory, because even as perceptions they are nothing as special as we
are, our whole life of perception is rather a river. But every life of perception forms
its particular flow, And so every life of memory will also form its own particular
river, and the different rivers of memory will no more flow together into one than
those of perception. This also has to do with the height and breadth of the spirit above
us. It is a river basin, but each of us is just a river, both in looking and remembering.
What is less relevant in the picture of individual perceptions of the same realm of the senses also
becomes more relevant in the picture of whole realms of the senses, because this brings us closer to
the matter itself. Much of what has been individually seen and heard may be blurred in the memory,
the whole memory realms of seeing and hearing in us do not just blur into one another, because the
sensory realms of seeing and hearing themselves flow more than special currents than the waves of
the individual Seen and heard in it. But now all the more and in an even higher sense than the
different realms of the senses of a person, the whole realms of the senses of different people are to
be regarded as different currents. So even if a lot of the individual things we encounter in our life of
the senses on this side may not appear again in our life of remembrance on the other side,
The comparison of different people with whole sensory spheres of the higher being is
generally better in some relationships than the comparison of the same merely with images of the
same sensory sphere, but the last comparison is not only often easier to handle, but also in turn is
better in other relationships, sometimes in consideration of the large quantity and spatial
relationships of people, which are reflected in the quantity and spatial relationships of the
perceptual images, partly the species correspondence of people, which is reflected in the species
correspondence of the perceptions of the same sense, while the real comparison of people is not so
reflected in it . 2) This is where the other twist of the comparison begins to be more accurate. One
will therefore soon be allowed to prefer one turn, now the other, depending on the point of view of
the comparison itself, or, if one prefers to stick to only one turn, as we do, the principle of inferring
from the unequal on the unequal (Vol. II. Chap. XIX. B) when interpreting the picture, in that one
has to remember that without its help no picture at all, no analogy can be properly interpreted and
traced, while with the help of it one can also from can probably make use of analogies that are only
half true.
2) Thereal juxtaposition of beings does not contradict their species
correspondence. Two rivers of similar water can in reality face each other as
something special than a wave of wine and water in the same river.
My memory is faint, it is pale, held against the point of view. Will my future life
also be like this compared to the present, since the higher spirit takes me in as a
reminder after the life of perception? But it is not a different matter whether I, a weak
person, merely absorb the superficial perception of my eye in a reminder, or whether
a higher being absorbs all of my full human being; that will also give a completely
different, fuller echo, and I will be that echo. So do not measure the weakness of your
previous life of memory according to the weakness of your present memory.
The massive, tangible aspects of your present life may of course dwindle in the
future, your body may no longer be graspable with hands, no longer walk with heavy
feet, no longer be able to carry and move loads, as here; all of this lies in the grave,
lies behind you; In all of this, your future life may really be more powerless and
powerless than your current one. For it is undisputed that the relationship of sensual
weakening, which exists in us between perceptions and memories, is also reflected in
the higher spirit between our perceptual life and the life of memory; the analogy will
not break; And so our future life of remembrance may appear light, light, airy,
outwardly incomprehensible compared to our present heavy, thick, full life, which
can be grasped with gross senses and only grasped with such senses; instead of
heavier, more intuitive physical forms, light, more freely mobile memory forms may
walk in the head of the higher spirit; we'll come to that in the future. Now, however, it
is not just a matter of considering this sensual weakening of our future life of memory
compared to our present life of perception, but also the increase in our future life of
memory compared to our present life of memory, an increase that is related to that
weakening itself.
In fact, it is the same circumstance that makes our previous perceptual life pale,
powerless and colorless in death, it is what will make our previously pale, powerless,
colorless, indistinct memory life from now on bright, strong, vividly colored, full,
determined, the abolition of our life of perception on this side into the life of
remembrance itself on the other side. The life of perception does not perish in death,
but rather it dissolves, is dissipated into a higher life, like the life of the caterpillar
and the pupa does not perish when the butterfly comes out, but in Butterfly itself is
only elevated to a higher, freer, lighter form. Of course, it no longer exists as a
caterpillar-doll life. Direct considerations are linked here to analogical ones.
See, already now, the more tightly all my senses close to the outside, the more I
withdraw into the darkening of the outside, the more alert, brighter the memory
becomes, the long forgotten comes back to me. But death does nothing other than
close the senses very firmly, forever, so that the possibility of reopening also
disappears. No closure of the eyes in life is so deep, and no awakening of memories
can be so bright as it will be in death. What the closing of the eyes in life only
temporarily, superficially does for a meaning, for a short day, the last deepest closing
of the eyes does for the entirety of your senses and in relation to your whole body and
life, does it to you in relation to a higher spirit and Body, meanwhile the closing of
the eyes in life only done it with the picture in the eye to you. All power that is shared
between your life of perception on this side and life of remembrance falls in the
hereafter to your life of remembrance alone, because this is the only reason why your
present life of remembrance is so weak, because the perception life down here has the
largest part of the power that is used on you by the higher spirit , takes. But when this
worldly view is completely dead, even when a new one has become completely
impossible, every old one will become possible again in memory. A full remembering
of the old life will begin when the whole old life is behind, and all remembering
within the old life itself is just a small preliminary concept of it. because your present
life of remembrance is only so weak because the perception life down here takes up
the greater part of the power that is used on you by the higher spirit. But when this
within the old life itself is just a small preliminary concept of it. because your present
life of remembrance is only so weak because the perception life down here takes up
the greater part of the power that is used on you by the higher spirit. But when this
within the old life itself is just a small preliminary concept of it.
What we now live in memories and higher references to them is, as it were, only a
slight breath that rises above our present life of perception, like a faint steam invisibly
floating over the producing water, as a precursor in the same blue sky where all the
water ultimately wants to go. Destroy, but destroy the water, blow it into the air,
because of course you can really destroy, destroy it as little as you can destroy a
person, but apparently just as well, in a word transform it completely into steam, like
enormously much more extensive, powerful effects will this steam be able to
produce, into which the whole water rose invisibly, when it only rose from its surface
in a foreground, how much more extensive, more varied, individually more
imperceptible, on the whole more powerful effects than the water itself, that is
transformed into it. In clouds, dawn and sunset, rain, thunder, lightning, it can now
play the most important role in the household of nature in its new, higher, freer,
brighter, lighter, clearer state, because you probably think foolishly that it is over
because you can no longer grasp it with your hands, nor scoop it into a special glass.
Let's just not compare what is not comparable here either. The vapors of water and a uniform
being; but it is already the water, how could it not be the steam? Man down below is not a uniform
being, how should it be what comes out of him? The steam that comes out of the water immediately
dissolves with the steam of all other water. But the water itself, where the steam comes from, flows
with other water that is brought to it; is nothing individual. The person from whom the spirit on the
other side comes does not, however, flow with other people whom one brings to it, remains an
individual under all the influences that may come across him. So what is basically unequal, expect
the corresponding unequal consequence from it. But that the vapors meet more easily and more
freely than the waters, that they have a common scope of activity above the waters that feed the
waters as they are fed by them; We shall find the corresponding of all this in the relations of the
hereafter and the here and now in the progress of our contemplation.
It is undisputed, however, that such distant images can only serve as secondary explanations.
So think to yourself that after the last closing of your eyes, the complete destruction
of all this worldly intuition and sensory perception in general, which the higher spirit
has gained through you, not only the memories of the last day awaken, but partly the
memories, partly the ability to recollect of your whole life, more lively, coherent,
more comprehensive, brighter, clearer, more comprehensible than memories ever
awakened, since you were still half trapped in sensory bonds; for as much as your
narrow body was the means to create this worldly perceptions of the senses and to
process them earthly, just as much it was the means to bind you to this business. Now
there is creation, collection, transformation in the sense of this world; the bucket you
have carried home opens, you win, and in you the higher spirit does it, all of the
wealth at once, which you gradually put in. A spiritual connection and echo of
everything that you have ever done, seen, thought, achieved in your whole earthly life
will now be awake and bright in you, good for you when you can be happy about
it. With such light of your whole spiritual structure you will be born into new life in
order to work from now on with brighter consciousness on the higher spiritual
structure.
Even in the present life, when going to bed and when waking up, when everything
around him is dark, every person should reflect inwardly what he has done right and
wrong in the past day, what to continue, what to leave behind in the following
day. But how many do it. But now death, falling asleep for the previous life and
awakening to a new life, urges us involuntarily, we like it or not, the memory not only
of one day, but of the whole circle of our previous life, and the thought of what now
to continue and leave in the new life; and powers that only appeared here with a dark
warning will then begin to appear loud and compelling.
Not that in the hereafter it should just remain with the memory of this world. On
the contrary, the hereafter will also have its further development. We already said
it. But the memory of this world will initially only be through which death saves our
conscious part in the hereafter, and in which we find the basis for our further
development in new life; with that we start. In any case, the memory of the old life
forms the starting point for the new life; but now there is further continuation.
Memory itself is to be understood here in a broader sense. With the memory at the
same time, what is called that in a narrower sense, everything will be absorbed into
the hereafter that of the higher on the basis of memories has already built up here
below in us, including the higher building faculties themselves the same relationship
with the memories become lighter, clearer. That's how it is when we close our eyes to
the outside for a while in life. Then the reflection, insight, the higher thought, the
fantasy, the foresight begins to play out all the more vividly in us. How much more
will it be when we shut it down forever. So we also include all of this higher level in
our life of remembrance; the expression is always well suited, the relation of this
whole higher life,
Some are who probably believe in a future life, only just that the memory of the
present will reach over, they do not want to believe. Man is made anew, and someone
else finds himself in the new life who no longer knows anything about the previous
man. In doing so, you break off the bridge that leads between this world and the
hereafter and throw a dark cloud between them. Instead of the fact that, according to
us, man should win himself again completely and completely with death, yes, as
completely as he never had himself in life, they let him lose himself completely; the
breath that rises from the water, instead of foreshadowing the future state of the entire
water, and completely absorbing what is finally disappearing, disappears with the
water at the same time. Now it should suddenly be there as new water in a new
world. But how did it come to be? How did it get there? You owe us the answer. So it
is easy to believe in it.
What is the reason for such a view? Since no memories from a previous life reach
over into the present, it is not to be expected that such memories will pass over from
the present into the following. But let's stop inferring like from unlike. Life before the
birth had no memories, no memory, how should memories of it extend into the
present life; The present has memories and a capacity for memory developed in itself,
how should memories not extend into the future life, even not increase, when we
have to expect an increase in the future life of what has increased in the transition
from the previous to the present life . Death will certainly have to be grasped as a
second birth in a new life; we still want to pursue the equation points ourselves; but
can therefore everything be the same between birth and death? Nothing else is exactly
the same between two things. Death is a second birth, while birth is a first. And
should the second throw us back to the point of the first, rather not lead us on from a
fresh start? And does the section between two lives have to be a cut? Can it not also
consist in the narrowness suddenly expanding into the vastness?
After all that, why still look anxiously at the disintegration of the body in death, as
if that were all about you? Does the spiritual memory in you also need the same
narrowly circumscribed bodily image as an embodied carrier as the sensual
perception, yes, with its greater freedom, can it keep such a narrow base? Why should
the higher spirit for your future spiritual life of memory still need the same tight,
fixed physical form for embodiment that it needed for your life of sensual perception,
yes, how could it use it for this when your future life is also so much more free than
your present should be? Have you not always spoken of a dismissal of the bonds of
corporeality in the hereafter? You see this already in the small things within yourself,
without the spiritual, that adheres to the bodily is lost; Why not look for the
corresponding only in a higher sense in something higher than you, since you see not
only something narrow in your body, but your narrow body itself dissolving in the
larger body? If, with the dissolution of the material image in your body, the spiritual
part of the image does not also dissolve in your spirit, why should then with the
dissolution of your body in the larger body your spirit dissolve in the larger spirit,
why not just all the more freely in it exist to him? but see your narrow body dissolve
even in the larger body? If, with the dissolution of the material image in your body,
the spiritual part of the image does not also dissolve in your spirit, why should then
with the dissolution of your body in the larger body your spirit dissolve in the larger
spirit, why not just all the more freely in it exist to him? but see your narrow body
dissolve even in the larger body? If, with the dissolution of the material image in your
body, the spiritual part of the image does not also dissolve in your spirit, why should
then with the dissolution of your body in the larger body your spirit dissolve in the
larger spirit, why not just all the more freely in it exist to him?
In a similar sense, St. Augustine wrote to Evadius:
the dream fled, but he was still thinking about it as much as one is wont to think about a
dream. Another night, behold, the same youth appeared to him again and asked if he knew him? He
replied that he knew him well, whereupon the youth asked how he knew him from? Gennadius was
able to give an exact answer, was able to tell the whole dream, the chants of the saints, without
being offended, because everything was still fresh in his memory. Then the young man asked him
whether he had seen what he had just said while he was sleeping or while he was awake. In sleep,
he replied. You know it very well and have kept everything, said the youth; it is true, you saw it in
your sleep, and know what you see now, you see in your sleep too. - Now the teaching youth said:
Where is your body then? Gennadius: In my bedroom. The youth: But do you know that your eyes
are now tied to your body, closed and inactive? Gennadius: I know. The youth: So what kind of eyes
are you with when you see me? Then Gennadius did not know what to answer and was silent. As he
hesitated, the young man explained to him what he wanted to teach him with these questions, and
went on: How the eyes of your body are inactive and ineffective now that you are lying in bed and
sleeping, and yet those eyes with which if you see me and perceive this whole face, are truthful,
then even after death, when the eyes of your body are no longer active, you will still have a life
force for life and a feeling force for feeling. So do not let yourself be in any more doubt whether
there is another life after death. - Thus, the credible man testified, all doubts were numb. And who
taught him other than the caution and mercy of God? "(Augast. Epist. 159. Edit. Antwerp. L. I. pag.
428. Here from Ennemoser, Geschichte der Magie. P. 140.)
It is true that you do not want to be completely without a body in the hereafter
either; You only want to let go of the rough, the heavy. Can it ever completely miss
the soul of a physical bearer? Aren't my memories still carried by something
physical? How could they falter when the movements in my brain get stuck, get out
of order, when the order of my brain is disturbed? They are certainly carried by
something bodily, but what they carry is just no longer collected in such a narrow
picture, reaches freely through your brain, yes, the bearers of all memories may reach
through one another; imagine how waves in a pond intermingle without disturbing
each other; only a freer circulation of memories is created through the harmonious
interaction and disorder of the bodily arrangements and movements, what they are
attached to, possible. None of this can be shown in a single limited space. Couldn't it
be the same with our bodily existence one day? We will not one day, without
becoming completely disembodied, just as our memories are not, but in a freer
material way of existence we can collectively fill earthly nature and meet ourselves in
it; that is, that we appeared to be comparatively stripped of our restricting and
separating bodies? And despite this undressing, they could still appear designed as in
the past, just as the memories of what was designed still appear designed as in the
past, regardless of the physical form of the past no longer subject to them. So we
would have the spiritual body that Paul speaks of. More of this in the future. But now
it is not our task to save the body, but the soul. It is enough if we see that when a
vivid material image is destroyed, a spiritual memory of it remains in us, and even
more so awakens, the same can also be the case when our perceptible body image is
destroyed in the larger being that cherishes and sustains us . And we must not allow
ourselves to be mistaken if we do not immediately recognize the new material basis
on which our life of remembrance will one day be based; since we do not recognize
them properly even for the more limited memory in us down here. But it is there. But
if someone should hold a special material basis for the memories in us unnecessarily,
and there are some who cannot undress the spirit enough of the body even down
here, in this way he will also be able to spare himself the question of a special
material basis for our future life of remembrance. General nature is just as useful as a
general basis for it, as is the brain for our memories. Everyone may think what they
want, not the future existence of our soul is thereby called into question, only the
future relation of it to the corporeality, in a similar way as it is already the case.
It is undisputed that one cannot already demand that this world be able to
experience conditions that can only be brought about in the nature and determination
of the hereafter. However, since nature does not easily set strict dividing walls, one
can imagine that occasionally conditions occur in this world which are considerably
more similar to those of the hereafter than the ordinary ones, although of course
without ever being able to become those of the hereafter itself for so long this has not
yet occurred. Especially since we already have something in us in this world that only
needs to be increased, expanded and liberated in order to give our hereafter. We will,
however, be able to seek and find such approximations preferably in cases where by
peculiar causes at the expense of the brightness of the external sensory life the inner
spiritual life is awakened to an unusual degree and enabled to perform unusual
activities, especially since these causes only need to be increased in order to bring
about real death. Such cases really do happen. Admittedly, they always remain
abnormal for our present circumstances, and one must take offense at the pathological
character that they have for this world, as if for this reason they could not resonate
with future life. Should a chicken once open its eyes or ears in the egg and see
something of the external light shine through the shell or hear something of sound
ringing through, this would also be pathological and certainly not conducive to its
development in the egg;
First of all, a few examples, which seem to me to explain to a certain extent what I called a light
of the inner spiritual structure with death; although it is undisputed that these are only very
incomplete approximations of what we can expect with the real awakening in the other life, where
so to speak a larger brain than our current one will take over the functions for us that we are still
here at our narrow one Having to think in terms of the brain, which itself only receives its meaning
for us because it makes itself at the same time a mirror image of the larger one and a tool through
which the human being reflects back into it, as to how to look further.
"After all, strange individual observations have been made which seem as if a brightness of
consciousness suddenly spread over an entire realm of imagination. Such an experience was once
made known to an English opium eater, who had before the onset of the full narcotic effect of the
anesthetic, it seemed as if everything that he had ever taken into consciousness was suddenly spread
out before him like a sunlit area the same thing happened. " (Carus, Psyche p. 207.)
"I knew a woman who at times suffered from the most severe nerve headaches. When the pain
had reached the highest level, it suddenly stopped, and she was in a condition that was pleasant for
her, which, according to her, had an uncommon memory up to and including her earliest years of
life. " (Passavant, study on the magnetism of life.)
Excerpt from a report by Pastor Kern in Hornhausen to the Prussian government in
Halberstadt in 1733: "After a protracted, painful illness, Johann Schwertfeger was close to death.
He called for me, took Holy Communion and looked forward to death with serenity. Soon he fainted
that lasted an hour. He woke up without saying anything. After a second faint that lasted a little
longer, he told a vision he had had. A voice called out to him he had to go back and examine his life.
Then he should appear before the judgment seat of God. The first words on his awakening were: I
have to go again; but it will be a difficult situation; I will come again, but not as soon as before.
"After two days he passed out for a third time, which lasted four hours. His wife and children
thought he was dead, laid him on straw and were about to put his shroud on him. Then he opened
his eyes and said: Schicket nach the preacher, for I want to reveal to him what I have learned. As
soon as I entered the room, he straightened himself up as if he had never missed anything, hugged
me tightly and said in a strong voice: Oh, what kind of a man I have Fight over! The patient
overlooked his whole life and all the mistakes that he had made in it, even those that had come
completely out of his memory. Everything was so present to him as if it had only just happened.
" The whole story closes with the fact that at the end he heard wonderful tones and saw an
inexpressible shine of light, whereby he was brought into great delight. "Out of such joy I have now
come back to this act of misery, in which everything disgusts me after I have experienced
something better. I also do not want to mix the heavenly taste with earthly food and drink, but wait
until I get back into it my rest come. "
“It was strange,” continues the preacher, “that the illness should leave him. For after the last
swoon he was strong, fresh and healthy and freed from all pain, since he could not move a limb
beforehand. The eyes, which before were dripping, cloudy and deep in the head, were so bright and
clear, as if they had been washed with fresh water. The face was like a youth in its prime. " In the
meantime the patient predicted that he would die after two days; as also arrived. (Passavant, study
on life magnetism, p. 165.)
That long-lost memories sometimes return as we approach death, has also been noted several
times.
In somnambulistic states there are many things that can be referred to here, but will in part be
classified more appropriately in the context of later discussions.
"With states (magnetic clairvoyance) it was shown, among other things, that the soul hardly
loses a single word or thought from memory. It sees everything that it has done and that which has
happened to it as long as it was in the body , in a clear light around and next to you as soon as she
awakens inwardly. Man also shows himself there in his actual free, uninhibited power of thinking,
feeling, mentally apprehending and representing. " (Schubert, Gesch. D. Seele II. P. 43).
which occurred a short time before death, overlooks the whole of past life, with all its rich
experiences and guides, with its thousandfold actions, in ghostly juxtaposition and lightning speed,
and in other cases the history of an entire past seemed as though through a single meaningful one
number comprehensible to the soul or expressed by a single image. When the soul then takes this
peculiar flight in clairvoyance, the ordinary course of memory is no more able to follow its traces
than a four-footed animal can follow the flight of a bird. Because the sequence and concatenation of
what is seen is completely different here than there. "(Exactly. in ghostly juxtaposition and lightning
speed, and in other cases the story of an entire past seemed to be expressed by a single meaningful
number understood only by the soul, or by a single image. When the soul then takes this peculiar
flight in clairvoyance, the ordinary course of memory is no more able to follow its traces than a
four-footed animal can follow the flight of a bird. Because the sequence and concatenation of what
is seen is completely different here than there. "(Exactly. in ghostly juxtaposition and lightning
speed, and in other cases the story of an entire past seemed to be expressed by a single meaningful
number understood only by the soul, or by a single image. When the soul then takes this peculiar
is seen is completely different here than there. "(Exactly. When the soul then takes this peculiar
is seen is completely different here than there. "(Exactly. When the soul then takes this peculiar
is seen is completely different here than there. "(Exactly. II. 46 f.)
"The somnambule I (Passavant) observed looked back on her whole past life, reported events
from her earliest youth (the truth of her statements was proven) and received light on her moral
condition down to the most hidden thoughts, which she said once everyone is preserved in death.
" (Passavant p. 99.)
and he now remembered exactly everything that had happened in his life. He described the
origins of his illness, the type of operation he had undergone when he was four years old, the
instruments that were used, and he said that without this operation he would have died, but that the
brain was injured and the Illness has increased since then. He also claimed that magnetism could
cure his madness, but he would never regain his memory; and the success proved the truth of his
statement. "(Ebendas. p. 100.) without this operation he would have died, but the brain was injured
and the disease has increased since then. He also claimed that magnetism could cure his madness,
but he would never regain his memory; and the success proved the truth of his statement.
"(Ebendas. p. 100.) without this operation he would have died, but the brain was injured and the
disease has increased since then. He also claimed that magnetism could cure his madness, but he
would never regain his memory; and the success proved the truth of his statement. "(Ebendas. p.
100.)
Even ordinary sleep sometimes presents phenomena which perhaps deserve mention
here. Thus the soul sometimes proves in a dream the faculty of developing in a very short time an
immense number of ideas which we could only develop one after the other in wakefulness over a
long period of time. It dreams z. B. Someone has a long story which, after its natural course, ends
with a shot or a stone throwing at the window, from which the sleeper wakes up. But now it is found
that he was awakened by a real shot or throw at the window, so that there is hardly any other
assumption than the shot or throw was the cause of the whole dream and this was composed at the
moment of awakening. Of course, this seems so unbelievable that without more thorough
confirmation and investigation of such cases, doubts about the fact or conception of them must still
be permitted; but I have been given examples of this kind by otherwise credible persons. The
following case, which belongs here, is found in the Mém. et souv. du comte Lavallette TI
Paris. 1831. p. XXVIII. listed:
"One night where me Having fallen asleep in the prison, the palace bell woke me up by
striking 12 o'clock; I heard the gate open to relieve the guard, but fell asleep again immediately. In
my sleep I had a dream (... Now follows the narration of a terrible dream, the details of which for
the dreaming filled at least a period of 5 hours) when suddenly the gate was closed again with
violence and I woke up again. I let my pocket watch strike, it was always at noon. So the terrible
phantasmagoria only lasted 2 or 3 minutes, that is, the time it took to relieve the guard and to open
and close the gate. It was very cold and the consigne was very short; and the turnkey confirmed my
bill the next morning.2 c., XXXI. P. 313.)
There are still many reports of conditions and feelings in the case of numbness or apparent
death or in the approximation of ordinary death, whereby one could think or have thought that an
echo of otherworldly conditions already spills over into this world.
So sometimes something of the kind occurs among the very changeable psychic states which
the anesthesia carries with it through ether. A student who, under the supervision of Professor
Pfeufer, made an experiment on himself with breathing in ether, describes the state he got as
follows:
"A sea of fire of light sparks swirled before my eyes. It seized me with great anxiety and fear.
But just a moment, and I felt nothing more of all this, but also of the outside world in general, yes of
my own body. The soul was as it were completely isolated and separated from the body. At the same
time the spirit still felt as such, and I had the thought as if I was now dead, but had eternal
consciousness. Now all of a sudden I thought, Mr. Professor Pfeufer, the words were speaking hear:
“Gentlemen, I think he's really dead.” Shortly afterwards it seemed to me as if the blood rushed
back out of my head, and I came to myself again as if one had bent down and the blood was strong
afterwards Head streamed and one must hold still for a few moments,until one is again completely
in control of one's senses. "(Henle and Pfeufer, Zeitschr. 1847. Vol. VI. p. 79.)
A person who knew how to remember his or her condition during asphyxia (apparent death)
after awakening said of himself: "I felt like waking up from a sweet morning dream. If this is the
moment of death, it is a des highest feeling of joy. " (Hagen, Sinnestaulungen p. 184, after Nasse,
Zeitschr. 1825. H. l. P. 189.)
Hüffell says: "It is not uncommon for us to find the last moments of the dying extremely
calm, transfigured, often truly moving happy, unless special illnesses such as clouds cover the sun.
All worry, all unrest is gone; the last blessing comes as if from a higher perfection of power and a
blissful smile hovers around the mouth even when death has already completed its work. A dying
woman, in whose presence the author was found, fell asleep under a chorale which she stated and
which a friend on the piano was playing intoned soft chords. Such facts compel us to assume that
the first beginnings of the otherworldly existence are already sinking into the last moments of
earthly existence. " (Hüffel, Letters on Immortality. P. 112.)
"A father, a man of great education, assured me that he had found an expression in the almost
broken eye of his dying daughter, which he would never forget, in which everything was
transfigured, what only love, resignation, bliss in itself unite. " (Same as p. 45.)
"And I once heard someone like that (with a worldly understanding) say with a gasp in
death:" "All life is now from the brain into the pit of the heart, I don't feel anything from my brain
anymore, I don't feel my arms, my feet anymore, but I see inexpressible things that I never believed
in; it's another life "" - and there he passed away. " (Justinus Kerner, The Seer of Prevorst. IS 4.)
Let's briefly summarize what has been said so far.

We said: When a person closes his eye in life and thereby loses view, a memory
awakens in him. So when a person closes his eye in death and his life of perception is
thereby extinguished, a life of remembrance awakens in the higher spirit. The tighter
a person closes the eye, the senses in general, in life and withdraws into the darkening
of the outside, the brighter the memory awakens in him; if he now closes the eye and
all senses very firmly and irretrievably in death, an even brighter life of memory will
awaken for it in the higher spirit, in that now it is no longer just individual
perceptions in him, but his entire perception life in the higher spirit itself is canceled
out to the life of remembrance, which belongs to him, the human being, but still as
well as the life of perception,
But now we encounter an objection: Doesn't a person also close his eyes, indeed all
his senses, while sleeping, without memories awakening? Rather, does not the life of
memory sink in sleep with the life of perception at the same time in night? And is not
death to be understood as the deepest sleep? So will not our life of remembrance and
our visual life have to darken at the same time in death?
This objection reminds us that there are, in fact, two cases of obscuration of the
sensory life which must be distinguished. As long as the mind remains awake as a
whole, there is the first one we have considered so far; the life of memory becomes
all the brighter, the more tightly the senses close; but when he falls asleep completely,
the second case occurs: the life of memory sinks into night at the same time as the life
of perception. And certainly, if the higher spirit, of which we are on this side and on
the other side, should and could once completely fall asleep, the life of remembrance
that the spirits of the hereafter lead in him would also be at the same time as the life
of perception that the spirits of this world lead in him sink into the night until he
woke up again. Let us ask whether such a case is possible. Certainly when we die the
higher spirit does not fall asleep as a whole, but remains constantly awake. The first,
not the second, applies to him. The death of a person is only a partial obscuration of
the intuiting life in the higher spirit while he is awake, just as we can close one sense
while we are awake while keeping others open; and consequently the condition for
the transition from this life of perception to a corresponding life of remembrance is
present in him, which, however, is no less good for us than it is for him, since it is
just as true of our life of perception. In some ways, death is just as much the opposite
of our ordinary falling asleep, than when a butterfly breaks out of the
chrysalis. Because our ordinary sleep represents the exhausted capacity, to gain this
worldly sensory conceptions and to process them again and again in the manner of
this world; death almost cancels it. Sleep causes a constant relapse into the old life,
and the deepest unconsciousness characterizes precisely the sleep that will awaken us
most vigorously and freshly to the old life; death does the opposite. Indeed, in the
destruction of the conditions of the old life we can find the incentive to awaken to a
new, conscious life, just as new epochs of development in general are often
characterized by the destruction of the old; since that destruction does not destroy the
conditions of our continued existence at all; for the greater spirit and body in which
we live, weave and are on this side, from which we draw all the conditions of life on
this side,
There is nothing to prevent death, as it is so customary, from continuing to be
called the deepest sleep; for he at least keeps his equation points with it, once insofar
as the life of this world of contemplation is abolished forever by him, as by ordinary
sleep temporarily; second, insofar as it is followed by an awakening, but into the
following life. The essential difference, however, always remains that ordinary sleep
restores the exhausted power to use for the old life of perception through rest, while
death converts the use of power into a new form of life. In death the soul does not lie
down in its old bed as it does in sleep, but its whole old house is destroyed and it is
driven into the open; but now immediately finds her new, larger house in this free
space, that of the greater spirit itself, who had hitherto cherished her as if in a narrow
room; Only now is she completely with him at the same time as the other spirits of
the hereafter, who are no longer so cell-like blocked off from one another by their
bodies as they are now, but all live together in the same big house, like all memories
in the same brain, like all butterflies, which were once closed from each other by the
doll's shell, fly in the same garden.
An essential difference between death and sleep is also shown in the fact that the
freshest and most vigorous person can die, even if he is not at all tired of life, just as
the most vivid perception can go out and suddenly change into memory if someone is
not at all tired Eye is slammed. Sleep, however, demands fatigue, not just of a single
part, but of the whole person. An old man, of course, finally becomes utterly tired of
life and longs for death. But with that the higher being to which he belongs has not
yet become tired. When the old man is utterly tired, it is the same for the higher being
as it is for us when a single organ, be it the eye, is utterly exhausted from long
looking, while the rest of us are still lively; then we do not have the need to sleep, but
the need to put that particular part, the eye, permanently in rest, and partly to occupy
other senses, partly to surrender to the memory of what we have seen, which of
course we can only do alternately; but we know that the higher spirit can do many
things at the same time in different places that we can only do one after the other in
the same place. The fatigue that naturally occurs in the perceptual life of an
individual with age will only entail the need to abolish this perceptual life, not the
memory of this person in the higher spirit; rather, the life of remembrance itself will
also contain the rest from the life of this person. So there is no need to take a nap
first. It is true that someone can fall asleep in this life and wake up in the
following; but it is not sleep that carries it over into the other life, it could only carry
it back into the old one, but the overthrow of sleep; and no previous sleep was
necessary. Whoever is hit by a bullet does not sleep until he wakes up in the other
life. Rather, the rift in the old life opens the door to the new life at the same time. But
it may be that in the ordinary course of dying consciousness gradually darkens up to
the moment of transition between old and new life, and everywhere at the moment of
transition it disappears completely; but the moment when it disappears completely for
the old will also be the moment when it begins to awaken for the new, just like a
string at the same moment when it ends a vibration, a new one begins; only the
moment of repentance itself can be seen as that of a standstill. This is different with
sleep; there the moment of sinking into unconsciousness is the beginning of a longer
state of this kind. Sleep is a vibration below, like waking above the threshold of
consciousness, but death does not cause a downward vibration in the sense of sleep,
but an ascent in the sense of a new awakening.
As little as we can see any intensification or deepening of ordinary sleep in
death; as little a deepening of impotence or apparent death as such sometimes afflicts
people. They differ from sleep in that instead of a restoration of the exhausted soul
and body forces for the service of this worldly life, they simply come to a standstill,
where nothing of strength is restored or used up. But death is not satisfied with such a
standstill and in this respect differs from these states in something other than merely
quantitative. It is true that it does not destroy the conditions of our life in general,
which will remain before and after in a higher, for we are, but of our previous
life; does not make the power that has been used up to our life, disappear from the
world at all; but it itself removes the possibility of their reuse in the old form.
The observation that is easy to make is therefore very erroneous: since fainting or
numbness makes a person unconscious; how unconscious must death first make man,
as an even deeper numbness or powerlessness. But a standstill cannot
intensify; Rather, when death occurs as a result of numbness, it is a new turn out of
impotence; and in general it is always questionable whether a faint or numbness will
turn back into old life or forward turn into new life. The powerlessness or numbness
is an intermediate state between life in this world and life in the other; and in so far,
however, an approach to the latter, because from a standstill of activities the direction
can more easily change into that of the following life, as if the direction in the sense
of this life still exists; Death, however, is not a continuation of this standstill, but the
abolition of it, which is marked by the disintegration of our body, comparable to the
disintegration of the image in our eye; with which the conditions for awakening our
memory life in the higher being are given.
Looking back at the outcome of our considerations, one more concern may
arise. How, one can ask, is the higher and highest being supposed to behave just as
passively when we are created as we do when the images that fall within us are
created? Does the higher being do anything, does God not do anything? We thought
he was proving himself to be quite automatic in the creation of his spirits. Should our
spirits even come into him from outside, like our views in us, appear to him as new as
if it were a gift from someone else? We thought they were flesh from his flesh, bone
from his leg.
But our views are also flesh from the flesh and bone from the bone of our spirit. Do
they not arise entirely in it? Aren't they quite his job? In spite of this, they appear to
him as new births. And so, in the process of arising, we too will be able to appear to
the higher and highest spirit like new births, in spite of the fact that we arise entirely
in it, our perceptive activity belongs to its activity.
From the outside, however, we really do not come into it any other way than a new
perception from outside comes into me when I open or adjust my eyes anew and look
at a part of my own body, the bearer of my own soul, its rain and
movement ; basically everything comes from me into me; one part of me creates its
image by interacting with the other. And I, the whole person, have the power to judge
my eyes and limbs rationally in relation to one another, so that the new views always
arise in an expedient context and expedient sequence; only that, of course, such can
arise in me through other parts of the body than my own and other than according to
my will, because there are other things besides me. But the highest being has nothing
other than itself, the rain and movement of his own parts in order to gain new images
of himself, that is, new living beings, through their action on one another, and can
also do this in a sensible and expedient context. So everything comes from him
through him.
Are we then passive if we keep our eyes and our limbs in new, purposeful and
sensible ways according to what the view of our previous being and work demands,
and thus create new perceptions for us? On the part of our receiving sensuality,
yes; but not according to our will, our reason, our higher intention. Rather, the
realignment of our eyes and limbs is itself a part of our sensible, independent
action. And basically the image itself is also produced by the eye and the rest of the
body's own activity, only that the eye is stimulated from outside. And so the higher
and highest world being may appear just as passively determined from its sensual
side in the birth of new (in the beginning really quite sensual) souls, as we are at the
birth of new conceptions in us; But it will just as little be really passive in its higher
sphere of consciousness, rather it will automatically steer the means and the order of
the new births from this in a higher context, as is best for the context of the whole
itself; but according to the highest order it is best for the connection of the whole
what itself flows from it; so that, of course, new men emerge in the river of natural
happenings; but this is itself permeated by a higher acting consciousness, and only
the general direction is certain of it; the individual, who could calculate that? But
least of all when and where a person is to be created. There lies the freedom of that
higher action.
Let us admit that all the pictures and comparisons from our life are only weak and
incomplete in relation to the matter that applies in the higher life, but they may well
contribute something to explain the position of our birth in this higher life. The
subject always remains difficult, dark. Incidentally, it was only necessary to deal with
it here in passing, in order to indicate the context of the whole view; and if someone
else knows how to explain the same thing better, we are happy to reveal this attempt
to him. But now we return to our future.
One more thing before and once and for all: We often do not separate what belongs
to the higher spirit (earthly) and what belongs to the Most High (God). Why part
it! What belongs to that belongs to this, through that we are in this; the latter draws us
through the former, and we remain in it. Only that the highest spirit is fully true of the
higher spirit only in relation to us, that the whole, not merely larger area of the world
in which we are included is subject to its self-appearance.
XXII. Development of the analogy of the future life with a memory life
.
After all, let us be careful not to want to base our hopes and views of the hereafter
on the one picture or one analogy that we have mostly had in mind up to now; who
does not know what uncertain ground an analogy affords in itself; so we will have to
look around for other bases. However, we can only benefit if we, following the
previous one a little further, see only those ideas of the hereafter awakened which
correspond to the dearest and most just demands that we have always been
accustomed to make to the hereafter. Even if the basis of such a conclusion always
remains too narrow for the whole structure of the considerations to be based on it to
be regarded as certain; well, we don't give him for it. Yet it can be used as an outline
of the whole view to allow the scope, depth and fullness of our subject to be
overlooked in one, and to offer preliminary probabilities and possibilities which in
advance of the indefinitely fluctuating idea a reasonable direction, of testing, testing,
and correction but deliver a definite object from another side; while at first they try to
hold themselves in place through their connection within themselves and with the
starting point of the considerations.
As important as the analogy of future life with our life of remembrance in this world is for the
explanation of our view, the justification for it is in fact not bound up with it, although every well-
used analogy can, of course, also contribute to the justification. But once the point of view of our
teaching has been grasped correctly, it will soon be found how everything leads back to it from all
sides, and so the path can be taken in very different ways. In the little book on life after death,
where I first presented this doctrine, the analogy of our future life with a life of remembrance is not
even thought of; and in lectures which I gave on the same subject in 1847, it only took a very casual
position. In that scripture it was mainly the analogy of death and birth, in these lectures the direct
conclusion, which I will continue to present (XXVII), on which I built the teaching. But all these
ways lead to an essentially consistent basic view of the nature and relationship of the hereafter to
this world, only that on the one hand the development of the doctrine succeeds more easily on this
side, on the other on that side. In this work, however, I have deliberately made the analogy of the
future life with a life of memory the main basis of the considerations, partly because this is the most
natural way to combine the doctrine of the hereafter with the doctrine of the spirit about us, which
was presented in the previous section of this book linked, partly because the concern that has come
to the fore in recent times that the individuality of our spirits, because they have come from the
higher spirit, must also be drowned in the same again, thereby settling itself most directly, partly
because it is generally very appropriate, explanatory and fruitful, indeed in a certain respect
something more than mere analogy, provided that our life of memory in this world is already the
germ and test of our life of memory can be viewed in the hereafter; our here and beyond are
connected in real terms in the higher spirit.
A. Relations of the otherworldly spirits to the higher spirit and to each other.
First and foremost, our analogy points to the fact that in the future we will enter
into a more intimately conscious, more intensely heightened relationship to the higher
spirit than we do now. The image always appears to the mind like something external,
alien, in fact it is actually his, but he feels the memory more than his, right in his
lap. So the higher spirit will also feel us in a different way after death than it is,
because now, and while it does so, we will feel it all the more that we are being, since
its self-consciousness and our consciousness of it do not at all are outwardly
apart. Now the higher spirit, in spite of the fact that we actually belong to it, is always
behind us like a distant ghost, which we can probably open up in the dark, but to
which we do not feel that we belong directly; that will be different in the future; then
we will recognize more directly that we live and weave and are in him, and he in
us. We will feel that we have our living ground in him, but also feel that and what we
mean for him.
Such a participation in the self-consciousness of the higher spirit, not only
mediated remotely and remotely for the understanding, as it is now, but immediate,
constant and shared with the other spirits of the hereafter in the self-consciousness of
the higher spirit is precisely the opposite of being absorbed in its unconsciousness. In
the spirits of the hereafter he becomes fully and clearly conscious of himself, and
when he becomes conscious of himself in them, they become conscious of them in
him. In memories and by means of memories, our mind works and creates even more
freely and automatically, while it feels outwardly determined when looking at
things. In this way the higher spirit will even more freely and automatically begin to
work and create with us in the hereafter, and we will feel ourselves as its automatic
tools.
First of all, it is the general spirit of the earthly to which we belong; but as a
heavenly spirit it is only the unified mediation through which the totality of the
individual earthly spirits is united in God. By now gaining a more direct, lighter
knowledge of our union with and in this higher heavenly spirit, we hereby also gain a
more direct, lighter knowledge of our way of unification in God, so that God himself
has moved one level of consciousness closer. How then everywhere has the life on
the other side grasped as such, which will place man with higher and the highest
being in more intimate, lighter relationships.
However, as we become more directly and more clearly aware of our relationship
to the higher spirit and thus to God in the hereafter than now, we also become more
directly aware of the relationship of attunement or conflict in which we stand to him
and through him to God and feel more clearly than now. Whether we are walking in
the spirit or against the spirit of the spirit that mediates us with God, whether it is
accordingly going with or against us, we only know through a never quite sufficient
understanding, or we only feel it in the and always remaining dark how often and
with how many dubious and half-silent admonitions of conscience. These are only
faint premonitions of the bright insight and fullness of feeling that we will one day
carry away in this regard.
But the becoming light or becoming more conscious of our relationships to the
higher and highest spirit in the hereafter will be both a light of heaven and a flaming
of hell for us, and whether one or the other will depend on our merit in this
world. Because it is the full memory of our life in this world that the higher spirit
takes from us into the area that we call our hereafter. Memories now please or
displease according to what appears good or bad what they remember or what the
memory has grown out of. So we too will please the higher spirit, which takes us into
itself remindingly, only according to the measure of what we were in the life of
perception; and depending on whether we please or displease him, we will please or
displease him in him; in that, according to his liking or disapproval of us, his inner
co-operations or counter-effects against us will also be weighed up. Justice, which
seems to be postponed in this world, or does not seem to come to light at all, will be
fully fulfilled there.
Indeed, in direct intuition, sensual experience, we like and dislike many things
merely in view of their immediate results of pleasure and displeasure. Only in the life
of remembrance behind the perception awakens the purer consideration, which of
course still cannot be as pure as in a higher spirit, which also means the same for us
in further relationships, whether it is good or bad for us as a whole, and then approve
or do we reject what we have seen or what happened in ourselves according to a
completely different standard than that of the momentary pleasure or displeasure it
afforded; we ask about its further consequences in the whole context of our life and
being. And the bigger, more comprehensive our minds, the further we go with this,
and the more correct our deliberations become. But that's how it will be s also to be in
the higher and highest spirit, only on a higher scale and in greater perfection, because
it embraces everything earthly, the highest even the world, that is, includes the full
means, to properly weigh what we mean for the earthly, the world been. Only after he
has accepted us from the life of perception into the life of remembrance will he
measure us according to the full value that our existence has hitherto had for him; and
it is no longer the momentary pleasure or displeasure that we have created for him in
the perceptual life that will form the measure of our merit, but the consideration of
what our life in this world as a whole, according to all its relationships and
consequences, has for earthly existence, which the higher spirit presides , has
meant. But how he is conscious of his relationships with us,
So woe to us when in the hereafter the memory of a whole lost or corrupted life
breaks over us all at once or in ever increasing power, according to the measure as the
just consideration in the higher spirit develops more and more, and it becomes ever
clearer and clearer to us how empty or bad it was for the spiritual community to
which we belonged, and now it is empty or bad for us; since this memory no longer
floats weakly, idly and blurrably in our head, but completely and fully absorbed in a
higher head, more than any memory of this world can ever do, summarize our whole
previous life according to all its relationships, the basis of all of our future ones
spiritual existence, and our conscious attitude to all other spiritual existences and the
higher spirit itself will determine; since all counter-effects now storm on us
punishingly, which the higher spirit has ready for him who goes against his mind, in
order to compel him with pain, but finally to redirect to his own mind. Hail, however,
to those who have lived a life here in the sense of the higher spirit; he will find
everything in the hereafter ready and adorned for his joyful reception; and how the
memory of the sufferings which we have steadfastly endured for the sake of a good
cause grants us the greatest satisfaction here, nay, the recovery from suffering is itself
a kind of bliss, if we are aware that we have borne it right; so and in a much higher
sense it will be there with the life of remembrance, which has grown out of a life led
down below, full of suffering but in a good sense.
These ideas, which are easy to develop further, are indisputable only in the sense of
our best practical demands. Later they will be met from other points of view.
The language through which different people communicate with one another and
inform each other of their inner spiritual states is only possible through their
memories. Understanding in language arises only through the association of
memories with words. Otherwise they would be hollow sounds. In this respect one
can say that different people are only able to circulate spiritually through their worlds
of memory; the mere looking at the figure, the mere hearing of the voice is not yet
spiritual intercourse.
So we may also believe that the higher spirit of the earthly can only communicate
spiritually with other spirits of heaven through its world of memory, and that, after
we have entered this world of memory, we also share in this conscious intercourse of
the higher spirit with others heavenly spirits will win. In this respect we will really go
into heaven with death in a different way than we are already in it. Although we will
not, as some dream, pass over to other world bodies, because we remain on the earth
to which we now belong, but other worlds gain more inner knowledge of the spiritual
content than now, when we only see their outer face.
Formerly vol. IS chap. VI. it was shown how the idea of angels is related to the idea of the spirits
of the stars. Now it can be overlooked how at the same time, from another side, the conception of
angels is connected with the conception of our spirits on the other side, and how both modes of
apprehension of angels, between which the ideas of men have fluctuated, but so that in later times
the one predominated , itself related. Our spirits on the other side can be regarded as partakers of the
higher conscious being of a heavenly spirit, angels, and herewith, since they are individual beings,
only of a subordinate kind, as subordinate angels, serving angels, while the spirits of the celestial
bodies are superior Angel, as an archangel, if you want. And indeed they serve the upper angels, to
which they belong, not only in intercourse with other upper angels, but also as a mediator to the
people below, as will soon become apparent when closer. But that these subordinate angels are not
placed next to the upper angels, but rather adjusted, is merely in the sense of the same general point
of view, which, of course, does not allow us and all the upper angels to stand alongside God, but
rather adjusts them, which we have dealt with enough in the past.
Memories tend to appear in the same contexts and relationships as the perceptions
from which they arose; but with the greatest freedom to enter into other relationships
and to connect in new relationships, which is even the purpose of our life of
remembrance. We can therefore believe that the bonds by which people are
intertwined with one another in the perceptual life of the higher spirit are not torn
when entering the life of remembrance, although there is the greatest freedom, indeed
the greatest reason for changing and developing these relationships . So we will
reconnect our local relationships with our loved ones there, yes, it will soon be shown
that they go through the only apparent rift that death makes between this world and
the hereafter,
The whole realm of our memories is a single realm in which the latest to come can
meet the earliest to come. So we can also believe that, when we pass into the realm of
memory of the higher spirit at death, we can meet there all the spirits who have long
preceded us into this realm of memory, not only those who lived with us, but also
those who who lived before us.
Memories generally enter into a more intimate, more varied, freer, more lively,
more direct intercourse with one another than the perceptions from which they have
grown, as which, in togetherness and in succession, touch and only in a much more
external way and limited by external conditions in this respect can meet. So we can
also believe that in the life of remembrance of the higher spirit we will one day enter
into a more intimate, more varied, freer, more lively, more direct intercourse with one
another than now, when we are still caught up in the perceptual life of it, one day no
longer so we will touch and encounter external conditions in a limited way as we do
now.
But memories call and meet according to the rules of association, subordinate
themselves to terms and work to generate new terms, are used in conclusions, follow
the course of the development of ideas; in short, their freedom is not licentiousness,
but their lively change and intercourse just like that in submission to rulership than in
exercising the freedom of our minds.
It will be the same with the memory of the higher spirit; the spirits of the hereafter
will not float unrestrained to and fro in it, but order and rule will prevail in it; groups,
areas, communities, relationships, superiors and subordinates of the spirits will be
found and formed in it; in truth there will be a kingdom with structures of this
kingdom.
Let us just not forget the difference that the height and breadth of the greater spirit
brings with it above ours. In us the memories between which such relationships arise
can only appear clearly separated from one another in consciousness; in the
consciousness of the higher spirit, however, innumerable memories, clearly
distinguished from one another, find their place at the same time. Nor are the
relationships between the spirits of the hereafter simply repetitions of the
relationships between our memories; but just as we as spirits of the hereafter are more
and higher than the memories in us in this world, so it will also apply to the
relationships between us. This point of view of the unequal with the like must be
carefully kept in mind here and everywhere.
Erroneous points of view are obvious here:
Concepts play a big role in us. The concept of a tree e.g. B. can be grasped in a certain way or
from certain points of view as the spiritual resultant of all our tree memories, in which, however, the
distinction between the individual individual trees disappears or seems to disappear. Now one could
conclude by analogy: So our spirits taken up in the memory area of the higher spirit will also give
higher resultants, in which, however, our individuality is extinguished. But if we look closer, our
memories do not really go out in general terms. In spite of the fact that I summarize all tree
memories in the concept of the tree, each one of them is still able to emerge individually in the
memory of its time, and if not each one really does it again, and one always has to wait for the other
to go ahead in order to do it, if this is not due to its blurring in the concept; the suspension in the
concept has nothing to do with it; and even when coming back into consciousness, every memory
still remains under the concept or concepts in which it entered as before; But it depends on the fact
that our mind, by virtue of its greater poverty and narrowness and deeper level, can only allow
clearly differentiated memories to play out at all only in succession; in what relation in the higher
spirit the quite different relations often touched upon take place. The concept is therefore not at all
to be regarded as the downfall of the individual in the general spirit; it is rather to be regarded as the
higher mediation of the individual with the general spirit. The mind controls and orders and
overlooks the individual contained in and under it through registration under the cadres of
concepts; but for this reason it remains individual and appears one after the other or at the same
time, completely or incompletely, as the nature of the mind allows it from other points of view.
So we will certainly also enter into connections in the hereafter, which the higher spirit, just
like us, grasps special concepts in consciousness; but none the less assert our individuality in that,
like everyone who enters a state, none the less remains an individual, the state can be grasped as a
superordinate general being above all subordinate individualities.
Although the spatial and temporal relationships and relationships in which our
perceptions emerged also extend their influence into our memory realm, the
relationship and diversity of our views and the memories arising from them in terms
of essence, origin, value, still develop a great deal in our memory world more
meaningful relationships and relationships. And our inner spiritual life emerges
mainly from the striving and expresses itself in the direction of moving the entirety of
our memories from these points of view into appropriate, harmonious, compatible
relationships to one another, regardless of the spatial and temporal distance in which
the views occurred to which they owe their origin. Terms, judgments, Inferences
themselves are made from such points of view. All of the higher order and activity of
the mind that we have spoken of relates to it. All tree conceptions, no matter how far
the trees seen were in time and space, appear in our memory realm according to mere
relationships of similarity under the same tree concept, and the concepts of trees fit
into the concept of the plant kingdom, and this is related to the concept of the animal
kingdom, the temporal and spatial relationships between plants and animals no longer
come into consideration. It is true that even the perceptions fit in with such an order
in common with memories; but in some cases the conscious activity of this
relationship and ordering does not fall into the realm of perception, but rather the
realm of memory,
So we will also have to believe that, although the temporal, spatial relationships
and relationships in which we appear in this world of intuition also extend their
influence into the hereafter, they are still reflected in them, but the inner kinship and
diversity of the memory of the higher spirit The spirits that have passed over
according to nature, origin, value will develop even more significant relationships
and conditions for them there than those externalities, and that the higher life of the
higher spirit will mainly emerge from the pursuit and will express itself in the
direction, the spirits of the hereafter from these To put points of view in harmonious,
just and compatible relationships. It will be irrespective of whether the spirits passed
into the hereafter today or a thousand years ago, lived here or in America, they form
communities according to the commonality of ideas, knowledge and separations
according to the difference between them. Here we are already included in such
communities; but only in the hereafter will the truly conscious life awaken in
it. Everything that several spirits of ideas and knowledge have in common can either
be regarded as having passed from one into the other, or as having passed into them
from a general source of education of the higher spirit; only in the hereafter will we
be able to become clearly conscious of the connection in which we stand directly
among ourselves or through the mediation of links in the higher spirit. Here we are
already included in such communities; but only in the hereafter will the truly
conscious life awaken in it. Everything that several spirits of ideas and knowledge
have in common can either be regarded as having passed from one into the other, or
as having passed into them from a general source of education of the higher
spirit; only in the hereafter will we be able to become clearly conscious of the
connection in which we stand directly among ourselves or through the mediation of
links in the higher spirit. Here we are already included in such communities; but only
in the hereafter will the truly conscious life awaken in it. Everything that several
spirits of ideas and knowledge have in common can either be regarded as having
passed from one into the other, or as having passed into them from a general source
of education of the higher spirit; only in the hereafter will we be able to become
clearly conscious of the connection in which we stand directly among ourselves or
through the mediation of links in the higher spirit. or viewed as having passed into it
from a more general source of education of the higher spirit; only in the hereafter will
we be able to become clearly conscious of the connection in which we stand directly
among ourselves or through the mediation of links in the higher spirit. or viewed as
having passed into it from a more general source of education of the higher
spirit; only in the hereafter will we be able to become clearly conscious of the
connection in which we stand directly among ourselves or through the mediation of
links in the higher spirit.
So also (which ties in with earlier) the agreement in the value or unworthiness of
our being will give us a common place in heaven or hell, which is not to be regarded
as different places, but as commonalities of different states and relationships, which
only us in the hereafter will be clearer, more palpable, and more proportionate to our
merit than it is now; in that the higher spirit puts all who agree on one kind of good or
bad under a common category and meets them from a common point of view in a
beneficial or counteracting manner; just as in all of us memories, according to their
value or unworthiness, come under the categories of good or bad in general and this
or that kind of good or bad in particular and then into the harmonious,
Insofar as all true and good is in the sense of the highest knowledge and will of the
higher and highest spirit, but everything false and bad is only the conflict of the
individual in him against the highest knowledge and will, one can also say that the
spirits of the hereafter according to standards of the truth and good that is in them, or
the deviation therefrom, have a positive or disgusting place in the hereafter and their
union with and through the higher and highest spirit in satisfaction, rest, joy, bliss or
their conflict with it in the opposite feeling become aware. There is nothing to
prevent them from being in the same spirit which they nevertheless oppose; it is also
the same with much that is in our spirit and yet opposes it. We have already looked at
this elsewhere.
The doctrine of Schwedenborg in his work on Heaven and Hell 1 touches upon the preceding and
some of the following in such essential respects that I cannot avoid going into these relationships a
little more closely. His teaching is presented in a somewhat strange form and fantastic decoration,
but in my opinion it is very dignified in its core and built on a profound point of view. However,
Schwedenborg does not justify the same with arguments, but gives it as something gained by
looking at and dealing with otherworldly spirits.
1)Heaven with its miraculous appearances and hell. What is heard and seen. To
the new church of the Lord. Tubingen. Publisher to "Guttenberg" 1830.
According to him, as after us, the essential connections and separations of the
spirits of the hereafter depend on the conformity of their essence, and in particular it
is the conformity in good and truth or its opposite that gives them a common place in
heaven or hell also according to Schw. there are no real spatially separated places
(even if they appear that way according to the so-called correspondence relationship)
but are different associations on the side of the good and the true or their
opposite. The commonality which the good spirits have, just as we do, is also
attributed by him to the harmonious union of them through and in the higher spirit
(the Lord), whom he immediately grasps as God, but the wicked, although against the
higher Spirit, but thought subordinate to it. Their fellowship is not a union in the
same sense as that of the good, since there is rather one evil against the other; but the
agreement in bad and inaccurate is always something that puts them in the same
communion in relation to the heavenly associations. I come elsewhere to other points
of view in which we meet with Schwedenborg.
It is true that there are also points of not insignificant deviation of his teaching from
ours. Sister assumes that in the hereafter his spatial relationships exist more like here, yet the spirits
in the hereafter appear immediately externally further or closer, depending on the similarity or
difference of their inner state, so that for this reason Hell is far removed from Heaven appears (§
193) because the evil spirits are in an opposite state to the good spirits (whom he calls angels), and
in general the similarity and dissimilarity of the spiritual state (according to the so-called
correspondence relationship) are formed in the appearance of one spatial proximity or distance, on
the other hand, on the basis of our assumptions, I believe that the similarity or dissimilarity of the
spiritual state can be better recognized in the hereafter than below by those who find themselves in
the relationship of this state, not pictorially in proximity and distance, but directly as what it is. How
our memories of visuals still reflect the earlier spatial and temporal relationships and can even enter
into new visual relationships through imagination, but also move in conceptual relationships and
relate to one another according to value relationships, which are, so to speak, two different sides of
our memory life also in the hereafter or in the realm of memory of the higher spirit there are two
such sides of the spirit life that will as little contradict each other there as here in us;
In general, one of the main features of the entire Swedish-borgic doctrine lies in the fact that
the inner spiritual states in the hereafter are supposed to produce a semblance of external state or an
external appearance in and around them, which is in a certain appropriate relation to the internal
state (in correspondence therewith), in so far but it is, now also appears with the full power of
external reality in the hereafter, indeed is valid as such in the hereafter. The shape, clothing, and
vivid surroundings of the spirits are merely expressions of their inner spiritual states and
relationships; they indeed imitate the spatial, temporal, material states of this world with
modifications that only fall under the form of what appears on this side, without actually imitating
them spatial, temporal, material conditions are really subject to, as they are now, which
Schwedenborg expressly protests against. This view, although ingenious, does not seem to me to
have any solid foundation in the nature of things in the manner suggested by Schwedenborg, as the
fantastic that is attached to Schwedenborg's doctrine of heaven and hell lies mainly in this side of it,
there When describing the external conditions of the spirits, Schw. Is based on very vague
assumptions about the correspondence between internal conditions and external appearance.
Furthermore, Schwedenborg keeps heaven and hell pure from one another, in that he takes the
basic spiritual being, the basic inclination of one person to be absolutely good, that of the other to
be bad, which after death turns out to be even more pure and decides; on the other hand, I believe
that a person can classify himself according to certain aspects of the category of the good, according
to others that of the evil, and that even the evil in the hereafter will be improved by the punishments
of hell; of which there is nothing at Schwebenborg.
Apart from these (and some other differences, which are to be ignored here), Schwebenborg's
views often agree so exactly with ours that one would like to say that nothing more has happened
from us than a theoretical basis for his revelations, regardless of his teaching to me in fact only
became known when this work was almost finished.
Here are some excerpts from his writing:
Schwedenborg's views on the bond that the spirits of the hereafter find in a higher spirit (the
Lord) and their relationships with one another.
§ 7. "The angels (that is, blessed good spirits) in their totality are called heaven because it
consists of them; however, it is always the divine proceeding from the Lord that flows into the
angels and is received by them that which heaven is in Whole and in its parts. The Divine
proceeding from the Lord is the good of love and the truth of faith; as much of good and truth they
receive from the Lord, so far are they angels, and so far are they heaven. "
§ 8. "Everyone in heaven knows and believes and becomes aware that he wills and does
nothing good in himself, and that he thinks and believes nothing in terms of truth, but from the
divine, hence from the Lord; also that that Good and truth, if they come from it, are nothing good
and nothing true, because they do not have life from the divine: the angels of the innermost heaven
themselves become clearly aware and feel the flowing in, and, how far they absorb, as far as only
mean they are in heaven, being so far in love and in faith, and so far in the light of insight and
wisdom, and out of these in heavenly joy: Because now all this proceeds from the divine of the
Lord and in this for the angel is heaven, it follows that the Lord's divine makes heaven,but not the
angels somehow from their own self ".....
§ 9. "The angels, by virtue of their wisdom, go still further; they do not only say that all good
and truthful things come from the Lord, but also everything of life; .... they also say that there is
only one source of life and the life of man is an outflow of it, which, if it is not continually
nourished by it, will at once run dry and these stimulate everyone according to his perception; in
those who receive them with faith and with walk, be heaven; but those who repel them from
themselves or suffocate in themselves, they transform that into hell, for they turn good into Evil and
truth in falsehood, so life in death ".....
§ 12. "This may then show that the Lord dwells in his own with the angels of heaven; and
thus that the Lord is all in all of heaven; this for the reason that good is from the Lord, the Lord is
with to them, for what is of Him is Himself; that consequently the good of the Lord for the angels is
heaven, and never anything of their own. "
§ 41. "The angels of every heaven 2) are not all together in one place, but divided into larger
or smaller associations according to the differences between the good of love and the good of faith
in which they are: Those who are in the same good form an association: The good in the heavens is
in infinite variety, and every single angel is like his good. "
2)More precisely, Schwedenborg distinguishes between three heavens
according to the different degrees of goodness and corresponding bliss of the
heavenly spirits, which he (§ 30) relates to a tripartite division of the human
mind. All three heavens are intrinsically separate, but indirectly linked by an
inflow from the Lord (§ 37).
§ 42. "The angels clubs in the heavens are from each other and
spatially separated to the extent that you do good in general and
in particular different 3) , for the distances in the spiritual
world are due to nothing else but the diversity of the states to
the interiors In heaven, therefore, from the difference in the
states of love. At a great spatial distance from one another,
which are very different in this; but are closer to one another,
which differ little; close resemblance causes them to be together.
"
3) Elsewhere in § 191, 192 it is expressly stated that in heaven, as here below,
everything appears in temporal and spatial relationships; Basically, however,
there is "no distance, no spaces, only states and changes in their place," as is
also explained by the following in the text.
§ 43. "Also the individuals in the same association are all

different from each other in the same way" .....
§ 45. "From this it is evident that good things are all united in the heavens, and that they differ
according to their nature; however, it is not the angels who come together in this way, but the Lord
from whom good comes. He himself guides they, connects them, separates them, and keeps them in
their freedom according to the measure that they are in good; and so each individual in the life of
his love, his faith, his insight and wisdom, and so in bliss. "
§ 46. "Also there everyone who is in similar goodness knows each other, just like the people
down here know their blood relatives, their brothers-in-law and their friends, even if they have
never met before; the reason is because in the There are no other kinships, brotherhoods and
friendships other than spiritual ones in other lives, therefore only on the basis of love and faith. I
saw some who I had known from childhood, and others who appeared to me to be completely
unknown. Those who appeared to me as known from childhood were those who, with me, were in a
similar state of mind, but who seemed unknown to me. who were in dissimilar. "
§ 54. "It can never be said that heaven is outside someone, but within, for every angel
receives heaven outside of him after heaven that is in him."
§ 194. "Here (that according to the similarity or dissimilarity of the spiritual state the spirits
appear closer or farther) has its reason that in the spiritual world one becomes present to the other as
soon as he longingly demands his presence, rather than his Longing he sees the other in his
thoughts, and transfers itself, as it were, into his state. The opposite consequence of this is that the
one is removed from the other according to the proportion that he is averse to the same: And
because all aversion results from the conflict of instincts and from the There is a conflict of
thoughts, it then happens that several people who are in one place in the spiritual world, as long as
they are unanimous, remain in one another's face, but as soon as they no longer think about one
another, vanish from one another. "
§ 205. "All are gathered together in heaven according to the spiritual relationships which exist
through good and truth in its order, so in the whole of heaven, so in every association, so finally in
every house; hence the angels who are in similar good and are truthful, like blood-friends and
relatives in this world, and just like acquaintances from childhood. In the same way, good and truth,
which bring forth wisdom and understanding, are joined together in every angel; these two also
know one another, and how When they recognize each other, they also connect, which is why those
in whom truth and good have united according to the form of heaven see the consequences in their
chain and in a wide area around them their inner connection; ,in which good and truth are not
connected according to the form of heaven. "
§ 268. "How great the wisdom of angels is, is shown by the fact that in the heavens there is
mutual communication of all, the insight and wisdom of one is communicated to the other; heaven
is the community of all goods; the cause of this lies in the Nature of heavenly love, it wants what is
hers to be of the other; that is why no one in heaven will inherit his good as good, unless it is also in
the other, from this the bliss of heaven; the angels get this from the Lord, whose divine love is so. "
B. Relationships between the other world and this world of spirits.

The individual memory in us grows out of the perception, the individual perception
will pass into memory. One follows from and after the other. But the relation of the
entire life of remembrance to the entire life of perception in us cannot be grasped as a
mere succession. The life of perception and the life of remembrance coexist in our
spirit and do not coexist without connection. The whole realm of our intuition is
completely connected in our minds with the whole realm of memories; and the whole
variety of perceptions only gains a connection through connection with the realm of
memory itself, which goes beyond the feeling of simple successions and
juxtapositions. The life of perception remains the inseparable lower basis of the life
of remembrance,
In this way the life of the individual on the other side grows out of his life in this
world, and this will pass over into that. But the relationship of the whole hereafter to
the whole of this world in the higher spirit is also not to be understood as a mere one
after the other. This world and the hereafter exist at the same time in the higher spirit
and do not coexist without connection. The whole kingdom of this world is also
connected completely and in one with that of the hereafter in the higher spirit, and all
general connections in that are only possible through connection with and by means
of this. This world remains as a lower, inseparable basis under the hereafter; and the
hereafter contains in its relationships the higher bond of this world.
We believe in the state, the church, science, and whatever else we know of general
connections in humanity, that we have something that is closed in this world; But all
these connections, as far as they are available to us in this world, are only so to speak
the surface of a connection that goes deeply inwards, that fills the hereafter, and
without our believing or knowing it, we are connected by bonds of the hereafter. This
world already owes its entire elevation above the lowly sensual to the quiet
communion with the higher kingdom on the other side.
Just as one is used to tearing everything apart, God and world, body and soul, soul
and spirit, so one is also used to completely tearing the kingdom of the hereafter from
the kingdom of this world, and to see its height above this world as whether the
hereafter above the clouds, this world on earth, would be separated from one another
by a gap. But we have already learned to give up such unfounded separations.
We can regard the hereafter as a higher level of development of this world; But
everywhere it is not the nature of higher stages of development to give up the
previous basis, to break free from it, but to culminate and crown the previous basis
itself; to develop higher relationships with it.
"By saying that there is a progression and an evolution in the realm of the dead, we must
necessarily think it in relation to the development of the kingdom of God in this world. For
although there are two worlds, there is only one kingdom of God, only one spirit of God and only
one goal of world development. Only when this earthly condition is perfect, only when the
contending church has fought through her battle on earth, can the kingdom on the other side also
become perfect ...... There must be an interrelationship between the kingdom on the other and the
kingdom on this side, and the development of the world on this side, according to its essential truth,
is to be thought of as shining into the consciousness of the spirits on the other side.The spirits on the
other side must behave in inner self-determination to those moments of our development to which
they have attached themselves according to their direction of will, and the spirit battle of history
must be reflected in the depth of their will. "(Martensen, Christl. Dogm. P. 520 .)
Let us develop these general considerations a little more specifically.

Every new view that we may grasp enters into a connection, relationship, with the
realm of our memories, and according to this the place which it will occupy in it,
once it has become a memory itself, is determined. Indeed, even as an intuition it
unconsciously enters common concepts with memories, and is combined therein with
those of the spirit.
In this way every human being already arranges himself in this world through
relationships in which he enters, even if unconsciously, with the kingdom of the
hereafter, already in advance of the hereafter or determines the place that he will one
day occupy in it; yes, even during his life in this world, he is grouped together in
higher connections with spirits of the hereafter from the upper spirit.
"To this I may assert that every person, even while he still lives in the body, is in the company
of spirits for the matter of his spirit, although he does not know about it; that by means of the good
in an angelic association, and the bad in a hellish one Association; and that he will join the same
association after his death. " (Schwedenborg, "Heaven and Hell." § 438.)
But not only the general order, the higher connection and relationship of the
hereafter takes hold of this world, but also the spirits of the hereafter themselves
weave and work from the hereafter into this world, yes they still find a ground in this
world over which they can only be found in a freer way than we walk, and yet still
need it to walk.
Let's look back into ourselves. Memories constantly play into our visual life, help
to determine our views more closely, to paint them, to turn the green spot in the
landscape into a forest for us, the silver ribbon in it into a river. Did we not
remember: There it grows, there birds sing, hunters go, there is shade, cooling, for us
it remained a raw green spot. It is basically innumerable, unpredictable memories that
turn the vivid green spot into a forest for me, even if I don't distinguish them
individually. Only the memories are not bound to appear attached to views in
interaction with other memories; they can also appear independently.
So now, as with the memories in our spirit, it will also be with our spirits in the
memory realm of the higher spirit. The spirits of the hereafter play into his life of this
world of contemplation; and we, who are still walking in this, share innumerable
things with spirits of the hereafter, get what we think we have for ourselves from
them. Just as the whole of vivid nature would remain nothing but a raw color table for
us, if a thousand and but a thousand earlier recollections did not occur and paint the
color table in a higher sense, so humanity in its present visual life would remain
nothing other than a raw being if not a thousand and but a thousand spirits of the
prehistoric world still worked in us, whether we do not distinguish their work
individually, and all the education they had gathered earlier would benefit us living,
keep pushing itself away from us, and already stamp us here as something higher than
we could become through ourselves alone. In our life on this side we switch with
spiritual treasures, which at the same time belong to the hereafter. Plato still lives on
in the ideas he left behind in us; yes, wherever an idea of Plato found its way, Plato
lives on, and the most diverse people who have mastered this idea are linked by the
spirit of Plato, who now after death also experiences the whole fate of this idea as his
own. Whoever brings foolish ideas into the world will suffer from the fate of the
same until one day they are corrected and improved. Who creates truth and good in
us,
It is true that we think that it is only dead residues that we take possession of from
the dead; but that is just the error. What remains of the dead stimulates us alive,
affects our lives a thousand times over, but by doing this, the dead themselves live on
in it. Of course, we cannot experience their own life in all this, only always how it
intervenes in ours, only the effects that we receive from them, not what is active with
which they express themselves. But why shouldn't there also be an activity behind the
effects that we consciously experience? The spirits of the hereafter have not given up
their old sphere of activity, although they are not restricted to its base either; they
continue to work out with us what they started here and take it higher, only with new
relations of consciousness to it. Everything that has passed over to the world from
ideas and consciously created works in the course of your life falls to you with death
as the starting point and point of attack of further conscious activity. This is how they
work around us, within us; spiritually and materially, we feel their continued working
and of course we cannot feel that they also feel anything in the process.
This is one of the advantages of life in the hereafter over that in this world, that the
spirits of the hereafter are no longer confined to such a narrow location according to
their being and work, but rather participate in the omnipresence and freedom of the
higher spirit in the earthly realm; they become his links of this world, each according
to the particular direction in which his spirit has now been active here. Let us also
notice in ourselves the greatest freedom of memories to associate with every view
with which they are related, and thus to build bridges between the most varied of
views; so the areas of memory which the greater spirit gains through our death will
also have the greatest freedom,
Every spirit of the hereafter works in this way in countless people and in every
person countless spirits work into it. But while every living person in this world is a
scene of the activity and intercourse of many spirits in the hereafter, none of these
spirits enters into him completely with his effects, but only from one side or the
other; just as the most varied memories contribute to the excitement of every view,
but each only ever contributes from one side or the other, according to the degree to
which it is related to it. No one can completely take control of a spirit of the
hereafter. Now it is quite natural that if each of us is touched only by this or that side
of the existence of a deceased person, we should only take in this or that particular
idea of the same and this with the effects of so many other spirits, he cannot feel
anything of the unity in which every spirit of the hereafter combines all aspects of its
work for itself. So to speak, only this or that of the many roots grows into each of us,
with which a spirit of the hereafter still branches out in this world, how should we be
aware of the one trunk in which all roots are united; especially since a network of so
many roots from so many spirits enters into us; which makes it difficult for us to
distinguish what comes to us from each individual. in which all roots unite, become
aware; especially since a network of so many roots from so many spirits enters into
us; which makes it difficult for us to distinguish what comes to us from each
individual. in which all roots unite, become aware; especially since a network of so
many roots from so many spirits enters into us; which makes it difficult for us to
distinguish what comes to us from each individual.
But the individuality of the spirits of the hereafter does not perish in ours, does not
flow away with it; nor vice versa. Because with all their work on and in us, this
always creates a spiritual separation between them and us, so that they feel as giving
and we feel as receiving, as far as we really receive. Even a memory loses, because it
inspires one, indeed many, views out of the memory-realm, not in the least the ability
to stand up for itself independently. And if it doesn't always do so, it is for other
reasons that have been discussed. It inspires perception and yet remains what it
is. Even a copper plate does not lose any of its peculiar character because it is
imprinted in as many sheets of paper, and does not merge with it. And so the spirits of
the hereafter may also express their ideas in us in so many different ways, and it may
be the same act in which they and we feel this; but every idea will be theirs from ours
in different relations, in different contexts; and if it comes from them, they will feel
determinative, we will feel determinate. But now we can also counter-determine it. In
fact, the relationship is not one-sided. In addition to the effects which the spirits of
the hereafter express on us, we step back with new effects and work back on them
ourselves, according to the measure that they have on us. From then on, your life has
ours to be something external, just as memories attach themselves in us to new
perceptions, as to something external, and thereby gain new determinations
themselves. Every idea of the deceased that enters us is nevertheless conceived and
shaped according to our peculiarity; in this we feel self-acting, giving; receiving or
stimulating them. In this way we also contribute something to their promotion, in that
the new points of view, relationships under which we grasp their ideas in general,
what continues to work spiritually as a result of their existence, become new stimuli
and determinations for them.
However much contact the life of the spirits of the hereafter has with ours, it is not
decided in intercourse with us, and their further development is not based solely on
this; since memories do not lead their life merely in connection with perceptions, but
have a higher intercourse among them, of which we only feel the reflexes in the
perceptual life. The life of remembrance develops, so to speak, only in lower
dependence on the life of perception, but in upper freedom from it. Let us think of
our life as a germ that breaks through into a realm of light with death, but still
remains roots in its old soil. Now, of course, the whole development of the germ
depends on the way in which it takes root, but not only and does not consist in the
mere further development of the roots. What is developed above on the basis of the
roots in branches, leaves and blossoms after the earth has broken through cannot be
calculated from what happens at the roots under the earth in the old soil, although in
constant relation to it. All the ideas with which the deceased continue to work in us,
however, may be such roots. To recognize the higher existence of the spirits of the
hereafter ourselves, we ourselves must first have broken through to the same higher
existence.
With these views both our freedom and the freedom of the spirits of the hereafter
certainly exist, as long as the being connected to a higher spiritual community does
not entail restrictions of the kind that we already demand. The game and the conflict
of freedom that we recognize in this world only extends to the linking of the kingdom
of this world and the other. One should take into account that whatever view of
freedom one may honor, there is no such thing as a completely free being; but every
being is more or less determined partly by the successes of its earlier acts of freedom,
partly by external influences. So every person is also essentially determined by the
ideas of the deceased or the works left behind, which are the bearers of them, and this
is the case, irrespective of whether a consciousness of the spirits of the hereafter is
active or not. If that man hadn't founded this school, if this man hadn't written this
book, then this boy would not have received this lesson, that man would not have
been able to develop this idea further. All the basis of the culture, on which we are
based as on a traditional one, belongs to our unfree side. But now we work out the
traditional basis of culture by ourselves, too; and everything that happens to us in this
relationship with the feeling of our own effort and our own will belongs to All the
basis of the culture, on which we are based as on a traditional one, belongs to our
unfree side. But now we work out the traditional basis of culture by ourselves,
too; and everything that happens to us in this relationship with the feeling of our own
effort and our own will belongs to All the basis of the culture, on which we are based
as on a traditional one, belongs to our unfree side. But now we work out the
traditional basis of culture by ourselves, too; and everything that happens to us in this
relationship with the feeling of our own effort and our own will belongs to our free
side. As we grasp the ideas of the earlier spirits according to their peculiarity, process
and transform them automatically, they feel themselves determined by us here, this
belongs to their unfree side, they in turn have a unfree basis for further development
in us; but not in such a way that in their further development they are given to us
passively and dependently, just as we are not to them; since it is always up to their
freedom whether they want to accept our conception and shaping of their ideas for
themselves; how it is in our freedom, how far we want to respond to your
ideas. Except that it is neither our nor their freedom to get rid of the relevant basis of
further development at all. And indisputable, at least that is our faith,
One can hold a great principle authoritative for the coexistence and cooperation of
the spirits of the hereafter with the spirits of this world, as well as with each
other. This is the following:
Just as one spirit can have many things and yet remain one, conversely many
spirits can have one and yet remain many.
What one spirit has, others can have with it, only have it in a different
relationship. In this way alone it is possible that so many spirits of the hereafter and
this world exist in the same world and can get along with one another. What they
have in common creates a bond. But they don't melt into one another as a result.
It is as if two circles of waves meet; then the crossing point belongs to both at the
same time, and the wave circles remain something special to each. Nothing can hit
one wave at the point of intersection that does not affect the other at the same time,
but the point of intersection belongs to a different context in each wave, and what is
active in one wave is receptive to the other and vice versa.
Or it is as if two series of numbers, each of which is linked by its special law, cross
each other.
l.
3.
l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.. .
7.
9
The same number 5 can be common to both, but they remain different series and
the same number occurs in each of the two series in a different relationship, meaning.
In our minds, too, can different ideas meet with the same characteristic and yet
remain different. But they have the same characteristic in common in different
ways. Why shouldn't the corresponding thing also take place in the higher spirit?
Similar views as here about the intercourse of the spirits of the hereafter with those of this world
have also been drawn up by others.
"Separated souls and pure spirits can never be present to our external senses, nor can they
otherwise be in communion with matter, but they can have an effect on the spirit of man, who
belongs with them to a great republic, so that the ideas which they awaken in him, clothe himself in
related images according to the laws of his imagination, and stimulate the apparence of objects
outside him that are appropriate to them. " (Kant, Dreams of a Spirit Seer 1, 2.)
"In the future, I do not know where or when, it will still be proven that the human soul is in an
indissolubly linked community with all immaterial natures of the spirit world in this life too, that it
works alternately in this and receives interventions from them, but of which she as a person is not
aware as long as everything is well. " (The very same.)
The Somnambule Kachler in Dresden answered the question in high sleep: "Can the spirits of
the deceased come close to us and be felt?" as follows:
"You probably won't feel, but you can get close, but you can also feel it through spiritual
thinking. The separated spirit can deal with the still living, and if it deals with the deceased at the
same time, it can be felt on both sides through the encounter . " (Communication from the magnetic
sleep life of the somnambule Auguste K. in Dresden. 1843. p. 297.)
Just as Schwedenborg's views on the intercourse of the spirits of the hereafter are very similar
to ours, so also of the intercourse between the spirits of the hereafter and the living. No less does the
Ibbur of the old rabbis enter into the above ideas; yes, as will be especially considered later, even
the mystery of the Christian doctrine of Christ's presence in his community dissolves in this.
From Schwedenborg's book about heaven and hell.
§ 228. "Understanding and will of man are guided by the Lord through angels and
spirits 4)And because understanding and will, then everything of the body as well, for the latter
proceeds from them; yes, if you want to believe me, man cannot take a step without heaven flowing
in. That this is so has been shown to me in manifold experience; Angels were given to move my
striding, my training, my tongue and speech at will, and that by flowing into my will and
thinking; And I realized that I could not do anything out of myself: afterwards they said that every
man is guided in this way, and could know this from the teaching of the church and from the Word,
for he asked God to send his angels to guide him , directing his steps, teaching him and wanting to
teach him what to think and say, etc .; and yet, if he thought down from the doctrine in himself, he
was speaking differently than he believed.
4) Schwedenborg distinguishes between spirits and angels. Angels are the
blessed spirits who have already passed into heaven; Ghosts par excellence are
still in a middle realm, where they first have to decide for heaven above hell.
what man knows; so also his languages. I spoke to angels about

this and said: They meant maybe that they would speak to me in my
mother tongue (because it is so is heard), and yet it is not they
who speak, but me; what the circumstance shows that the angels
could not utter a word from a human language; (In addition, human
language is natural, but they are spiritual; and spiritual cannot
express anything in a natural way); They replied: It is known to
them that their connection with the person to whom they are
speaking takes place with his spiritual thinking, but because this
flows into his natural thinking, and the latter is connected with
his memory, the language of man appears to them as theirs, and
also all his knowledge, and this is because it pleased the Lord
that there should be such a connection and, as it were, the
insertion of heaven into man; but at the present time the
condition of man is changed in such a way that such a connection
no longer exists with the angels, but with spirits who are not in
heaven. I also talked to spirits about this phenomenon, but they
did not want to believe that man was talking, but they spoke in
man, they said; Also, man does not know what he knows himself, but
they know it, and therefore all human knowledge is from them; my
effort to convince them otherwise was in vain. " but they knew it,
and so be all human knowledge of them; my effort to convince them
otherwise was in vain. " but they knew it, and so be all human
knowledge of them; my effort to convince them otherwise was in
vain. "
§ 247. "The fact that angels and spirits connect so closely with man, to the point that they
know nothing other than that what belongs to man is theirs, is also because the spiritual and The
natural world is so linked in man that they are, as it were, one, but because man had separated
himself from heaven, it was provided by the Lord that with every man there are angels and spirits,
and that man is guided through them by the Lord That is why there is such a close connection. It
would have been different if man had not separated himself, then he could have been guided by the
Lord by means of the common flow through heaven without the addition of spirits and angels. "
§ 248. "The speech of an angel or spirit with a person is heard just as audibly as the speech
from person to person, but it is not heard by those who stand next to him, but only by himself. The
reason is, because the speech of the angel or spirit first flows into the thinking of man, and on the
inner path into his hearing instrument, and thus stimulates the latter from within; while the speech
of man with man first on the air, and so on the external way the hearing instrument acts, and the
latter then stimulates from outside. "
§ 255. "This is also worth remembering: When angels or spirits turn to man, they can talk to
him at any distance; they also talked to me from a great distance just as audibly as when they were
close by; but turn Turn away from people and alternate speech among themselves, then the person
does not hear the slightest thing about it; whether they also speak hard on his ear; this shows that in
the spiritual world all connection takes place according to the measure of turning. It is also worth
remembering that Several people can talk to man at the same time, just as man can talk to them. For
they send a spirit to the person with whom they want to talk, and the sent spirit turns to the person,
and those several turn to their spirit, or unite like that in him her thoughts, which the spirit, so
united, then communicates to man; the spirit knows nothing else than that it speaks from itself; and
the angels know no other than that they speak for themselves; so the union of several with one also
takes place by means of addition. "
§ 256. "No angel or spirit may speak to man from his own memory, but only from man's
memory; namely, angels and spirits have a memory as well as men; now let a spirit speak to man
from his memory So man would know no other than that the objects that he is thinking about
himself belong to him while they belong to the spirit; in such a case it reminds man like a
recollection of something that he has never heard or seen I was allowed to experience that it is so. "
let it be that man thinks he is living by himself and without association with the primordial
being of life and does not know that this association is mediated through heaven; however, if that
association were loosened, man would immediately fall down, dead. "
About the Ibbur ofthe old rabbis.

The doctrine of the old rabbis, which bears the name Ibbur, consists in the fact that the soul of
a deceased person can pass into a living person or a whole generation, a whole offspring of men,
can be divided into the same without being firmly bound to it; also, through the Ibbur, several souls
can gain part in the same person. So the soul of Moses has spread among all generations, among all
disciples of the wise and just who study the law, and is propagated from generation to generation; in
this way the souls of the parents come to their children, and when a person sins he sins at the same
time as his parents. But the soul of the deceased does not identify with that of the living, there is
only an admission,
This Ibbur is of course very crude in its execution and is based rather on an arbitrary
interpretation of scriptures as reasonable grounds. However, there must be occasions to really
interpret the scriptures in this way.
It is understandable that with this crude explanation and implementation, Ibbur could just as
little gain general approval and dissemination as Schwedenborg's doctrine in its fantastic
implementation. In the meantime, various judgments have been made about it.
Flügge (Gesch. IS 433) says about it: "We cannot close the web of rabbinical folly in a more
edifying way than with the genuine rabbinical claim that the soul is divided into many thousands of
parts and thus transferred into just as many people could. "
Herder on the other hand (Dest. BI. IS 290) mentions in his conversation. Ibbur wrote a lovely
poem about the transmigration of souls, depicting it with the following features:
"Charikles. And what do you think of the transmigration of souls of the Jews, whom Rabbis
call Ibbur? You say that a person can be joined by several, even human souls, who, especially at
certain times, (when a friendly spirit sees them that he needs it, and God allows him) stand by him,
strengthen him, inspire him, live with and in him. But they leave him when the business is over,
they should help him to do so, unless God unites Favor people with this assistance of a strange spirit
to the end.
Theages. The poetry is lovely. It explains why a person often acts so unequally, as he
sometimes sinks so much to himself, especially in later years. The alien, helpful spirit has left him
and he sits there naked with his own. The clothing also honors extraordinary people in a beautiful
way, for what praise it is that the soul of an old wise man, or even several of them at once, enlivens
a wise man! - But you do not consider the beautiful poetic clothing to be physical-historical truth?
Ch. Who knows? The revolution of human souls has been widely believed among many
peoples. You have read the question to John: "Are you Elias? Are you a prophet?" You know who
even confirmed it and said straight out: "He's Elias!" "
Although no one among us believes in the Ibbur of the ancient Jews, at least one has enough
expressions that are in the same sense; only that one does not want to have taken them
literally. How often one hears it said that the spirit of a father has passed on to his children, that it
still animates them, that the spirit of a great man continues to have an effect on his pupils. But one
thinks that because it has passed on to the children and pupils, the father or the teacher no longer
has it, or one only thinks that it is similar to the spirit of the father.
Several passages relating to the Ibbur from the writings of the old rabbis can be found in
Eisenmenger's Entd. Judenth. II. P. 85 ff.
C. About the relationships of the spirits on the other side to the world of the senses on this side
and the higher reality.
Will the spirits of the hereafter get new sense organs after they have lost their
previous sense organs? First of all, will you notice ours? Because by entering into us
and connecting with us through common spiritual moments, they will also gain a
share in the further determinations which these spiritual moments gain through our
perceptions; our views will be so far with theirs, although only so far as they really
contribute to the further determination of what they have in common with us. But
there will be no more seeing or hearing for them in the sense of this world. You no
longer feel the sensual activity in the use of our sense organs that we feel; see, hear,
so to speak, into ourselves without seeing or hearing with our eyes; As it were, only
feel the breath of our senses, but do not breathe with it themselves. The work of
creating, collecting in the sense of this world is now behind once and for all for
them. Just as the memories in us also receive further determinations through our
senses; but there is no real seeing or hearing with memories.
Not only the way, but also the scope of relationships with the sensory world will be
different in the future than it is now. Now everyone has their special pair of eyes and
ears and thus controls their limited spatial area. It won't be like that in the future. We
will no longer have individual sense organs for ourselves on the other side; we just let
it fall in the transition to the hereafter. Generally speaking, the whole world of the
earthly spirit world on the other side will have the whole sense sphere, the whole
sense apparatus of the earth in one and collectively at its disposal for its continued
determination, just as the entire world of memory in us will have the entire sensory
sphere of our body at its disposal for its continued determination; only that each spirit
always only in its own special way, according to what it had here prepared for
it, Having developed points of contact for this, and his interest is directed beyond
itself, will be able and willing to make use of it. In addition to the sense organs of
humans and animals, however, the earth may possibly have other and more general
sensory mediations at its disposal, of which those are perhaps only special branches,
in which we will gain a share in the future; although nothing definite can be said
about this.
Through spatial distances and material obstacles, we will no longer be restricted in
our vision, let's call it that, although it is no longer in the sense of this world, as it is
here. A mile or a wall between us cannot move anything further, hide anything. We
go, penetrate through everything, live and settle down everywhere in the earthly area,
and can turn here and there, like a memory in our brain is there and ready wherever
something related and familiar calls it. But there will be no lack of other barriers for
that reason; yes, just as the old have fallen, new ones will rise, which are only of
importance for the hereafter. Not everything that is seen or heard will touch us; but it
will be necessary to relate (report) to the things which has already been linked in this
world through our preoccupation with it or its intervention in our sphere of life, or
which had to be developed in the hereafter on the basis of what is linked in this
world; we will be blind and deaf to everything else. Even memories in us only
receive further determination through perceptions with which they are related
according to the laws of association. How things are approaching can only be taught
in the future. Perhaps, however, it can be explained to some extent if we think of how
the phenomena of the clairvoyant are portrayed. This is also seeing, hearing, feeling,
anticipating through wide spaces and walls, even into others, without the use of
special individual sense organs, without any actual sense activity at all; only
improperly to call seeing, hearing, and yet accomplishing the achievements of it in a
higher sense, and at the same time again seeing nothing, hearing what everyone sees
and hears on this side, blind-deafness for the next; it depends on a special report
which, of course, cannot be traced in detail.
We do not ask, because this is a completely different question, are these statements about
clairvoyance correct? in any case, they are explanatory for us. Isn't it like this in this world, will it
be like this or similar in the hereafter, and can it be like that in the hereafter, couldn't some of this
also play a part in this world? Is the state of waking sleep at all still a pure state of this world? Not
even a memory of it reaches back into the waking world; however, it is the other way around.
It is understood from a general point of view that we cannot agree with such an unbelief,
which denies the possibility for the human spirit to gain knowledge in any other way than through
our current ordinary sense mediation, because this would at the same time deny the possibility of its
future continued existence . Because with death the spirit drops not only the present sense organs,
but also even the present brain. If one now wants the end, one must also want the means. A natural
scientist who believes and demands that after death he will continue to exist spiritually without his
present sense organs and brain and will hear something, must not consider it impossible that this
other way of understanding also plays into this world; because who has proven to him or how can
he prove that there is an absolute partition between the two states; since we don't see absolute
partitions anywhere else? And I don't think it's nice to believe something else and want to know
something else. But I am not saying that one should take indefinite possibilities for more than
such. Only one impossibility must not be seen where it is a question of the possibility of combining
our higher practical and scientific interests.
Be that as it may, the statements of the sleep-watchers themselves testify, at least
unanimously, that they perceive in a different way than in the actually waking state, namely in a
way which is well reflected in our above considerations. Yes, they themselves assert a relationship
between this faculty of perception and the otherworldly. Here is some evidence:
From the text: "Idiosomnambulism or, of course, Richard's magnetic sleep, by Dr.
Görwitz". Leipzig. 1851.
P. 93. Question. "Can you see me Richard?"
Answer. "I can see you very clearly. You are very large and
pale. - But I cannot see you with this eye of mine here; it is
tightly closed; I see you inside!"
Q. "Can you look around town?"
A. "Oh yes; just not particularly today; everything in me and in the air sways and rocks."
P. 106. Q. "How do you know?" 5)

A. "I know everything that relates to me or that is brought into my area by the question. I feel it,
it blows on me like air, it sounds like a sound inside. Your dreams have them Most resemblance to
this vision of mine. You too can dream whole long stories, coherent facts and developments, and
indeed in a very short time, often in a few minutes: - But you dream, I look; with me this dream is
being, without it I think with you it is thought. "
5)The somnambulist had indicated what his sister was doing in Eisenach at the
same time while he was in Apolda himself.
P. 135. Q. "Can you see?"

A. "I don't see anything with my eyes! It's actually not
seeing either, I feel everything in my soul."
Q. "Explain it more clearly."
A. "Hm, I can't explain it. It's as if you are dreaming; you see with your soul and don't need your
senses. But you don't see the truth, and that is the difference between your seeing and mine. "
From: "Messages from the magnetic sleep life of Auguste K. (Kachler) in Dresden.
1843."
On p. 270 the somnambulist says:
"There is an omniscience of the spirit; here in life it is
active as a faculty of intuition. This kind of omniscience that
already appears here is a foretaste of the life there. The spirit
becomes free there; there is in the body this is not possible,
because as soon as the spirit thinks, the soul often hinders
it 6) , which is physically occupied. "
6) Thisis contrasted by the somnambulist as the sphere of sensuality with the
higher spiritual than the spirit.
P. 119. Question. "The ability to know something specific

about other people and other places is what you want to be called
a hunch. The evidence you have given of it is more than a mere
hunch."
Answer. "No, this is nothing else, only to an increased
degree. A premonition is only spiritual in general, and precisely
because the sensual comes into play in the ordinary state and
interweaves false ideas, it is insecure and subject to deception.
With me, however Where the spirit is in close association with the
soul, it is more secure and heightened, but also never entirely
free from possible deception, just as we hope to have an
unhindered insight into everything by means of our spirit in the
future life can be recognized, then this premonition is already an
approximation of that state. "
P. 296. Q. "To what extent does the perception of somnambulists extend?"
A. "The distance has nothing to do with it, because the spirit is not sent. We can explain quite
well that God with his spirit, his being, his ancestor is everywhere and yet invisible. It remains the
same whether a somnambulist speaks of something in Africa or something in the next house, but
that is the difference that it is easier when the person she knows about has already been around. "
P. 382. Q. "When you sleep up, do you hear with your ears in the usual way?"
A. "I can hear with my ears, but it is not exactly the same as with the usual state; hearing has
changed. I can answer the most difficult question right away before it has faded away; the hearing
does not need the long guidance of the Nerves, in order to first penetrate the spirit, but the spiritual
being quickly comes into contact with the senses. "
So once again: When the higher spirit takes us from the area of perception into the
area of memory, the special sensory activity with which everyone now grasps and
dominates a limited circle of the world will cease to exist for us, but the possibility
will arise for it, with the whole To relate to the sense areas of the higher spirit,
thereby to be determined. This possibility, which in itself is unlimited and becomes
more and more realizable, will in the meantime find its limitation and more precise
definition in the fact that everyone only becomes a continuation of it in accordance
with the points of contact which his previous education and his interest in this area of
the senses offer can participate. Everyone will initially continue to deal with what has
preoccupied them so far, with what is analogous to his previous life context, what is
in accordance with his previous interest. Whatever comes into the experience of the
higher spirit through some kind of mediation of the senses, the person who has passed
over will be more involved, affected by it, than it is more in this sense. But our sphere
of knowledge and our interests will be able to expand and change on the other side, as
it would have been the case on this side if we had lived on. The longer we will learn
to penetrate the whole sphere of knowledge of the spirit to which we belong, in that
every connection point we have gained gives the opportunity for new
connections; and become more and more partakers of his general higher interests, as
we learn more and more to feel and understand, how it goes hand in hand with our
own true interest; and at the same time learn to find ourselves better and better in the
expanded and heightened conditions of the hereafter. Because it is undisputed how
the child must first learn to understand his new circumstances, to use the new means,
as he is at first a stranger in the new world, so will it be with us too. We will look
further than we do now; but what does what we see mean for the new world?
If we accept the assumption made earlier (Section XVII.) That the earth has been
given large sense organs for communication with the stars, we now have a more
definite view of the participation of the spirits of the hereafter in the communication
of the stars. As the spirits grow in knowledge in their new life, they also begin to gain
an understanding of these great means of transport, to weave and work in them. And
if the stars did not have the spirits of the hereafter, their sensual intercourse would be
as hollow and empty as if we exchanged words and looks without traces of memories
going with the words and looks.
When common feelings are linked to the great natural processes on earth, we can
believe that we will also be involved in this in the hereafter. How differently does the
flow of memories and train of thoughts run in our minds, depending on how the
general processes in our body and our attitude to life differ. So the general sensual
moods of the earth may also have an influence on the flow and train of the higher
spiritual life that we will lead beyond in and with the spirit of the earth, which we
cannot yet feel in the same sense.
On the basis of memories, the foresight and predetermination of what will and
should take place in our visual life in the future is built up in us in the images that
show and act in advance. It is the same realm in us in which the past is canceled out
in the form of memory images, and in which the models of the future develop. The
memory of the past must provide the material for the images of the future as well as
the guiding points of view for the foresight and predetermination of the future. The
more perfect, larger, more powerful our mind is, the further and higher its survey of
the present, its memory, its gift of combination, its power over the means of
execution, the greater the scope, the more far-reaching consequence of it, He can
foresee and determine in advance what will and should happen; the more certain is
the foresight of what will happen and the fulfillment of what is wanted. For
everything that enters the ordinary course of our life sphere, no special conclusion at
all, no special consideration of foresight and prediction is necessary; it occurs to us of
itself as self-understanding and occurs without our seeing anything wonderful in this
occurrence. On the other hand, however, no finite mind lacks limits which it cannot
cross, the possibility of error and failure always remains, and there is an area of
indeterminable freedom that falls beyond all foresight and calculation. the more
certain is the foresight of what will happen and the fulfillment of what is wanted. For
indeterminable freedom that falls beyond all foresight and calculation. the more
certain is the foresight of what will happen and the fulfillment of what is wanted. For
indeterminable freedom that falls beyond all foresight and calculation. no special
consideration of foresight and prediction necessary; it occurs to us of itself as self-
understanding and occurs without our seeing anything wonderful in this
indeterminable freedom that falls beyond all foresight and calculation. no special
consideration of foresight and prediction necessary; it occurs to us of itself as self-
understanding and occurs without our seeing anything wonderful in this
indeterminable freedom that falls beyond all foresight and calculation.
Everything we find in us in this respect can only be found again in a higher sense,
to a greater extent and higher perfection in the higher spirit, i.e. that what we find in
us contributes only in a subordinate way to what to be found in him. A higher, more
comprehensive, more anticipatory foresight and predetermination of what will and
should be realized in his life of perception will also be alive in him beforehand in the
images that show and act in advance; only in pictures of a completely different
clarity, abundance, liveliness, volume than we can carry them down here in us. Even
with him this faculty of limits will not be lacking; but they will be wider for him than
for us, in that the walls that limit the area of our gaze for the most part are only
partitions of the area that his gaze can still fully understand. With him, too, this
foresight and predetermination of the future relationships in his sphere of perception
can only come about by means of memories that have grown out of his sphere of
perception. And insofar as we ourselves are partakers of his life of memory in a
completely different, higher sense on the other side than on this side, where we are
still tied up in the narrow bonds of the life of perception itself, we will also have a
completely different share in this higher foresight, this higher predetermination win
than now, although everyone back only after special relationships. How our memory
and our perception of the visual world will increase,
As we as spirits on the other side still live and work in this worldly people, they
also have a share in our foresight and our predetermination; but no one can make our
entire foresight and our predetermination their own in the same way as we will have
them, but each only from a certain side up to certain limits, just as the barriers of this
world bring with them, as it is the narrow one this-sided area of observation and
memory is appropriate for everyone. Conversely, no spirit of the hereafter can make
the foresight and the predetermination with which a human being on this world
dominates his or her sphere of life completely its own, but can only reach into it from
certain sides, according to certain relationships; but by reaching out to other sides, as
is the case with regard to the perception of the present. The foresight and
predetermination of the spirits on the other side are just as essentially dependent on
what they experience through and in people on this side as vice versa. It is a
togetherness and confusion, as no one can say that I have it and that I am doing it for
myself.
Like distant vision, the foresight of the hereafter also seems abnormally to play over into this
world, insofar as one wants to accept what is reported about premonitions, premeditated dreams and
the foresight of clairvoyant somnambulists. The connection between distant vision and foresight,
which results from the above for the hereafter, can also be found in these phenomena of this world
that can be related to it. The faculty of far-sightedness and foresight is represented as a coherent or
essentially the same faculty. Of course, one must not overlook the fact that the far-sightedness and
foresight of somnambulists is more often deceptive than one should believe from the usual reports
of enthusiasts about them; What in the meantime would not be a counter-reason to their relation to
the otherworldly far-sightedness and foresight, be it that these errors are attributed to the only
incomplete approximation of the somnambulistic state to the otherworldly state, be it to the barriers
that are not lacking in the beyond want. In any case, it would lead too far to go into a critique of this
whole subject and a discussion of everything that is to be considered. As noted above, we do not
reject the possibility of this class of phenomena at all, but for good reasons we refer to it only
incidentally, and we are happy to leave everyone their opinion of it. How the general theory of the
same should be placed in connection with our ideas of the hereafter, if one admits its legitimacy at
all, will be indicated in a later section (XXIV, D). Here is just one more example of how the faculty
of foresight is conceived by a somnambulist himself.
Richard Görwitz, mentioned above, said (p. 156 of the cited publication) of a newborn child,
whose birth he had remotely reported, that in the 23rd year his fate would take a very serious turn.
Q. "What do you actually call fate, Richard?"
so I see the ongoing causes at once, and the spirit of fate stands before me! - Only you call it
foresight; but it does not actually foresee itself at all; but it is already now. "
On p. 135 Richard says: "The future is a light of its own!"
Question. "How do you mean the latter?"

Answer. "It is light and not light either; dark and not dark either. It cannot be put into words as
you have them. The human eye, I mean its spiritual one, cannot tolerate this light."
Q. "How do you know the future?"
A. "What happens flows towards me like an ether in clear knowledge, like a tone in spiritual
hearing."
In addition to the images of the future, which are approaching realization in the
world of perception, our mind also indulges in fantasy creations; yes, the imagination
works and continually creates new structures in our world of memory and out of our
world of memory. The life of memory and the life of fantasy are connected as one life
within us; The phantasy structures also have the same liveliness and level of reality as
the memory pictures themselves, which contributed to them, but more or less
memories from different sides contribute to each phantasy picture. The more noble,
higher, richer, stronger the mind, the more beautiful, richer, more lively its fantasy
life is, and the more a higher, regulating reason goes hand in hand with the
imagination.
This is how the phantasy of the higher spirit becomes what we like to call it
comparatively, although it is a creative faculty of a much higher level than our
phantasy, in and out of its world of memory, apart from the models of what is to be
realized in its world of intuition in the future , weave new structures, only for the
occupation and joy and edification of the presence of his higher life itself and we as
independent participants in this higher life will contribute our memory material and
our creative activity in the hereafter from different sides and thus also contribute to
this life for ourselves pleasing to expand. After the dividing barriers of this world
have fallen for us, we will no longer merely brood within ourselves with our
memories and our imaginative activity, but intervene actively in the general memory
and fantasy life of the higher spirit, helping it to create new structures through our
cooperation. Instead of the material hands that we have lost, the hands of a more
spiritual activity and creation, which everyone has hitherto carried folded as if in an
embryonic lock, which have not yet been able to do anything, are beginning to
become strong and lively and to work together with others to rain. And this fantasy
world of the higher spirit, on which we are so collaborating, will, according to its
higher level, have a completely different clarity, fullness, beauty, sublimity, reality
than the little this world of fantasy of our spirit, the little button that now opens
beyond henceforth to drift and bloom as a branch on the tree of new life. How
beautifully we always try to picture the future heaven with our still small, narrow,
poor imagination; the greater, more powerful, richer imagination of the spirit about us
will still be able to do it better; and instead of what our phantasy is now working in
itself seems to us only a world of empty structures, and we can only build heaven in it
as an illusion, what the phantasy of the higher spirit does in itself becomes a world
higher for us To think reality, to be a world of higher reality for us; we find heaven's
truth about us in the phantasy of the spirit and help build and work in this heaven
ourselves. the richer imagination of the spirit about us will still be able to do it
better; and instead of what our phantasy is now working in itself seems to us only a
world of empty structures, and we can only build heaven in it as an illusion, what the
phantasy of the higher spirit does in itself becomes a world higher for us To think
reality, yes, to be a world of higher reality for us; we find heaven's truth about us in
the phantasy of the spirit and help build and work in this heaven ourselves. the richer
imagination of the spirit about us will still be able to do it better; and instead of what
our phantasy is now working in itself seems to us only a world of empty structures,
and we can only build heaven in it as an illusion, what the phantasy of the higher
spirit does in itself becomes a world higher for us To think reality, to be a world of
higher reality for us; we find heaven's truth about us in the phantasy of the spirit and
help build and work in this heaven ourselves.
Indeed, after we have the present tangible reality below and behind us, we live in
the realm of memory and fantasy as in a new higher reality, only not only and no
longer in the realm of our own weak ones in this world, but of the whole, mighty,
rich, full, colored, in a high sense ordered world of memories and fantasy of the
higher spirit, to which the gates have opened for us, in which we appear to one
another with our memory forms, in and on which we have to live and work from now
on.
Our present little world of memories and fantasy also has its reality in it. For all
figures that appear, walk and weave in it, this is the true reality. In the same way,
when we appear, walk and weave in the memory and fantasy world of the higher
spirit, this is true reality for us; and we must no longer attach the concept of a bill to
it.
Our work in and on the otherworldly reality always remains under the rule and
direction of the higher spirit. Fundamentally, it is he who through us vividly expands
his sphere of life on both sides, only on the other side in a higher sense than this
side; and only that can gain and keep of the creations on which we work beyond,
what we can get along with in his sense, that is, that no one can switch to foolish
whims, or, if it is a foolish and evil one, at last must give way to the general order .
With regard to the higher fantasy world bearing the character of reality, we again encounter a
relationship between the somnambulistic state and the otherworldly state; provided that almost all
somnambulists have visions with the stamp of reality, which are often very beautiful, and which
they themselves regard as heavenly appearances.
Schwedenborg's ideas are no less in common with ours here.
What is true of the phantasy structures of the higher world, which are merely
destined to arise in this higher world, to exist and, when their time comes, to pass,
will also apply to the models of what will be in the lower world in the future The
world will and should realize that it has a vitality and reality for the spirits on the
other side, just like their own appearance in them. Those structures of a higher
imagination represent, as it were, bread that is only baked and enjoyed in heaven
itself, of which we receive nothing or only a weak taste in our imagination on this
side. These models, facing realization, represent the seed that is sown backwards into
this world to provide new grain for the bread of heaven. For the memories of the
vividness-es of this world with their continuation from this world remain the basic
material from which all fantasy structures of the hereafter grow. But both bread and
seeds have the same reality in the sense of the hereafter. To this extent, in the
hereafter that which is only to become real in the world of perception on this side in
the future will already appear to us as real in the present. Beyond that, we weave and
work with the models, model images of what is supposed to be realized here below,
as in something that is already real in a higher sense, and if the realization then takes
place in the perceptual life, then in a world that we are already under or have behind
us. The striving of the higher spirit will, however, go towards the structures that only
serve to expand the hereafter, with those,
Our whole poetry on this side is only a small reflex at the same time and a glimpse
of the higher fantasy reality of the hereafter, which strives to complete itself more and
more harmoniously at the same time in itself and with the same reality and thus
forming a realm of memories of the past on this side and models of the future on this
side Just as our little poetic world of fantasy strives for such a harmony in itself and
with the world of memory of the past and the exemplary world of the future; but only
achieved in a world of appearance. The heavenly life in the hereafter, however, is one
where the poetic truth itself becomes reality, into which what is past on this side in its
memory form, what is future on this side in its model really enters, and in and on this
world we live and work in the hereafter ourselves. But just as there is justice in the
most beautiful poetic work, according to which the evil is subject to the punitive
effects of a higher order, yes, the poetic work becomes all the more sublime and
beautiful, the more it is, the evil may also be allowed, despite that beautiful and
sublime world of the hereafter, in which he will have a part, do not hope that he will
enjoy it; their greater beauty and sublimity compared to our present life of
contemplation will itself be based on the fuller fulfillment of higher justice. Heaven
will not be heaven for the wicked, in spite of the fact that he dwells in it, because it is
against heaven and therefore heaven against him. Only heaven is more powerful than
it and guides and finally compels it to willingly take part in its order, which he
unwillingly is subject to beforehand. But this appears in earlier considerations.
How's it going so far? The spirit of the earthly, a unified spirit, always gains new
views in the birth of new people, yes ways of viewing the world, these are just as
many new beginnings of its inner development. The origin of these spirits lies in a
higher, more general context than we can follow in this world. Behind this world of
spirits of this world there is still a world of spirits of the hereafter, which emerged
from the spirits of this world, like the world of our memories and everything that has
consequently grown out of our memories, behind our world of perception, from
which it plays first emerged, but the two are not separate from each other. The spirits
of the hereafter weave and still work in our life on this side, like the world of our
memories in the world of our perceptions; only just as we can no longer distinguish
individually in perception what is woven in from memories, so we are all the less
able in our present life of perception to distinguish individually what from the spirits
of the hereafter weave into us and work into it ; but the spirits themselves are able to
differ. This work of the spirits of the hereafter in us helps to educate us down here
and to make us something more than mere sensual beings. So we step into the
hereafter with a little more. We begin with the life of visualization, and end with the
life of ideas. But the deceased made a major contribution to the development of these
ideas in us. Conversely, we always remain a basis for the further development of the
spirits of the hereafter. The spirits of the hereafter, however, neither sink nor rise in us
or we in them. Because we feel their work in us according to the measure when they
express it in us, only as receiving; but they feel it as generating in us. We grasp and
process their effects in our sense, they express them in their sense. Many spirits from
the hereafter work into each of us from all sides; and every spirit of the pre-world
works into many of us and experiences our counter-effects in the process. According
to the measure, when they enter us, they also experience further determination
through our views. The whole world of the senses on earth is generally open to the
spirits of the hereafter to gain new perceptions from it; they are no longer so tied up
by spatial barriers as we are, but they are not relieved of these barriers, and the
general possibility is more closely determined by the way in which they have hitherto
led their perceptual life. You are also involved in the workshop of the higher spirit,
where the future of this world is woven, in the foresight and predetermination of what
will happen here below; although here too there is no limit.
After the reality of the present world of perception, as it can be grasped with our
sense organs on this side, with our hands, lies behind the spirits of the hereafter, they
begin to dwell and weave in a new reality, which is related to the previous one, but
which is higher includes the memory images of the past, the continuations from the
present, the models of the future reality of this world, and is subject to ongoing
expansion and reconstruction through the freelance activity of the hereafter,
comparable to our fantasy activity, but weaving structures of a higher reality. And
indeed, not only the world belonging to the individual spirit, but the whole world
falling into the higher spirit, becomes this world partly reflecting, partly reflecting
off, partly pre-reflecting the world, including those, which arise, exist and cease to
exist only in the higher light of the hereafter, count as reality beyond; but each
individual can only have an active part in this reality in a different way. And this
higher reality, which at all times is, as it were, the higher flower of this worldly
reality, will nevertheless continue to develop in connection with its roots to an even
higher perfection.
With such a conception of the relationship between this world and the hereafter, we
will no longer be able to mistake a concern that some people have been wrong, as if
we must one day perish again because we came into being once, only that which has
been eternal can remain eternal. If everything were to return to the same state from
which it first emerged, the world and the spirits working in it would never
advance. Only because the higher spirit lifts us up in itself does it raise itself
higher. If we extinguished again and again, he would always start over again. In
contrast, in minds that are constantly awakening to self-consciousness, he always
gains new beginnings in the higher development of his self-consciousness, but
without giving up again the gain he has made through the earlier ones,
XXIII. From the physical basis of future life.
Up to now we have preferably directed our gaze to the spiritual side of our future
existence and more soothed the question of the bodily than answered or settled it. Let
us now take a closer look at this bodily side. Indeed, let us first consider how it
appears from our point of view on this world, then how it appears to the spirits of the
hereafter itself. It will be seen that the two modes of appearance are very
different. How should they not? Although it is both the same thing that appears, the
point of view of the contemplation on this side and the other is very different, and no
less so is the mode of apprehension of those who stand on it. So, of course, the
appearance must be very different in both cases. So let's not be surprised from the
start when our future corporeality initially, that is, for our point of view on this side,
presents itself in a form or formlessness that appears to be very disadvantageous
compared to the mode of appearance of our present corporeality. In fact, the only
disadvantage lies in our current position against it. How would it be if a small being,
instead of standing opposite us as we stand opposite one another, were outwardly
surrounded by our body, would it see our figure just as we see it? It would not see
anything of our shape, but rather a clumsy and indefinite expansion of cells, tubes,
currents, etc. But we have a shape, but in order to see it, man has to look at man
under the conditions under which man is now are intended to look at each other. So
now the corporeality of the spirits of the hereafter also appears to us from this
worldly standpoint in an awkward, indefinite form, because we find ourselves under
analogous unfavorable conditions of their conception of it. But if we then rise to the
otherworldly standpoint to the conditions under which the spirits of the hereafter
regard one another, which are of course different from those of the confrontation in
this world, we will also see a shaped appearance of the future corporeality. However,
for us, who are still on this point of view, the mode of appearance is almost more
important for this point of view than the other, and from this point of view it is to be
seen as the essential basis and condition of the mode of appearance itself, which
becomes the spirits of the hereafter for it, so,
The general consideration that the future corporeality must necessarily appear to us
in an inadequate form because we cannot yet grasp it from the standpoint and with
the apprehensive means of the hereafter also serves to explain in advance why we are
now at all about the beings on the other side do not believe to see anything, regardless
of how they live and rule around us, and how the opinion could arise from this that
they are transported to distant heavens, distant worlds, since they still share the same
house on earth with us, the same rooms in it inhabit us, yes we cannot see or touch
anything without seeing and touching the bodies of otherworldly spirits. But what we
see and touch of it now, and how we see and touch it, does not seem to us at all
A. On the otherworldly corporeality as it appears from this point of view.
In the following considerations, let us first be guided by the analogy that has
always led us up to now. But in future we will approach what we find under their
guidance from other points of view.
While there is a picture in your eye, it works through nerves and veins into the
larger body, which itself has only given its juices and forces, especially your brain,
back, somehow creating a new change, order, arrangement in construction and in
movement , be it what it is, we can follow it, if not with our eyes, but to a certain
extent with the end; a change, order, arrangement that does not pass as the picture
passes, that persists and has an effect, and to which the memory of the picture is now
attached, as far as it still needs to be attached to the body. And whether all changes,
orders, arrangements, produced and abated by different images, intermingle in the
same space of the brain, but disturb, they do not confuse each other, any more than
waves around drops or stones in the pond; the brain only works out richer, finer and
more perfect with it, and memories thereby enter into the freest intercourse. Every
new view creates its new circle of effects in the brain, with which a new increase of
development comes into it and the spirit carried by it. And no matter how
indeterminate these effects left by the perception appear to us, so little externally
traceable and tangible, the memory takes hold of itself in it, and its spiritual essence
attaches itself to it.
But man works no differently, while he is in the perceptual life, through a thousand
ways into the larger body, which itself first gave sap and forces to him, especially the
upper part of the earth that carries brain power, creates one in it in effects and works
new change, order, arrangement in construction and in movement, which does not
pass away as man passes, which lingers and throws, and to which his future spiritual
being is now linked, as far as the connection to the material is still required. And
whether all changes, orders, arrangements, produced and abated by different people,
intermingle in the same space; but they do not disturb or confuse each other, any
more than waves in the pond; the upper space of the earth only works out richer, finer
and more perfect with it, and the spirits thereby enter the freest intercourse. Every
new person strikes a new circle of effects into the world, with which a new increase
in development comes into the same and the spirit carried by it. And whether the
effects left by his life of perception appear to us so indeterminate, so little externally
traceable and tangible, but one day he will definitely take hold of himself when the
life of perception changes into the life of memory, and his spiritual essence is
attached to it.
If this analogy were specifically developed, we would have to take into account again the
inadequacy which every analogy has from a certain side. What basically does not apply, will also
not be able to happen here in the aftermath. But we will not go into the further discussion of
this. The above analogy only serves as a first starting point for more direct considerations.
But in order to anticipate or to counter some objections which could be raised from the
physiological side against this analogy, the following should be added.
It is usually represented as if the sensation of the image in the eye itself comes about only
through the effects which it extends into the brain. But what is factual is that it cannot come about
without the connection of the retina and therefore of the image with an active brain and through this
with the rest of the body; just as man can exist alive and full of feeling only in connection with the
greater whole, and in this especially the upper space of the earth to which he initially belongs, but
not only becomes alive and full of feeling through the further effects that pass over from him. It is
undisputed that the connection of the retina with the brain and the rest of the body is essential, the
retina is active and its changes in connection with the changes in the brain and the rest of the
body, to preserve what a more general consciousness is linked to; but that the changes in the retina
in the picture itself, as long as they are related in this way, contribute nothing to the sensation,
cannot be shown in any way. The image in the eye will be just as necessary to maintain the
sensation at a certain level as the active connection with the brain and the rest of the body, to relate
it to the general consciousness, and if without this relation there is no question of sensation at all
could be, therefore what enters into this relationship is not indifferent. It is strange in itself to
believe that seeing only begins behind the eye; and one might say that the brain sees, but it sees
through the eye how the higher being to which we belong sees through us. The retina itself can be
grasped as a part of the brain and recently it has often been grasped in this way even by
physiologists. The matter can be presented more closely as follows: As long as the image is in the
eye, its effects in the brain do not produce any sensation that can be perceived independently or
separately from the effects of the image; everything merges into the same perception, and if the
perception changes continuously, preoccupation with the perceptual change itself prevents the
further effects of the previous perception from asserting themselves clearly as memories; only when
the whole intuition disappears can the further effects of their previous existence and their changes
appear independently and clearly as memories; although only with the help of the general brain life,
which is by no means to be regarded as a result of perception, what our general spiritual life is
linked to. The consequences must be grasped from this, how to intervene in it. In the same way, as
long as man stands on earth, his effects in the world around him do not evoke a perceptible
consciousness of the same independently and apart from the consciousness that belongs to his life
of perception; Everything goes into the consciousness of this life of perception, and even if no life
of perception changes, the outward effects of the previous life still remain submerged in the
unconscious, in that the changes in the life of perception occupy his consciousness; The life of
memory awakens only with the extinction of the life of perception; although this life of
remembrance only with the assistance of general life, which is by no means to be regarded as a
consequence of its previous life of perception, which is subject to the general spirit, can arise; the
consequences that his life of perception leaves behind must be grasped by this general life, as we
must intervene in it.
Is that to which our spirit attaches itself in the hereafter, the circle of effects and
works that everyone on this side has struck, no longer a body like the present one; in
the same way, future existence should no longer resemble the present. The spirit
should become freer in the hereafter, therefore the body must also become; he can no
longer limit himself to such a narrow heap of matter as he is now; but so that the
spirit can freely walk and rule through the earthly, the bodily carrier must also have a
corresponding freedom.
You say something like: But my brain is a wonderfully developed and developable
structure, from how many thousands of threads artfully tied together, with a thousand
rivers of blood in between; what may not go on its white streets, and what goes on
leaves its mark there too. For this purpose, its arrangement is so matched with that of
the eye that what goes on in the eye can actually also be reflected in the brain through
its further effects. The table of the brain is specially prepared for this. And that alone
makes memory possible. Without such a wonderful device of the brain that is
wonderfully matched with the eye, memories could never arise, and no matter how
many effects would come from the eye. But what does the world in which I put the
circle of my effects and works have that I should hope A life of memory of mine
could just as well be justified in it, and on top of that a more developed and in a
higher sense develop-able life of memory than I now lead in myself? That also
requires more developed institutions to do so. What represents, what surpasses the
artful organization of my brain in the world around me; what makes it capable of
absorbing an equally vivid reflection of my perception life, like my brain of my
perception?
But how, is the world around you, especially the earthly upper world, into which
the circle of your effects and works initially goes, a less wonderfully developed and
developable realm than your brain, which itself is only a small part of it, and perhaps
less with you fitting and arranged to receive the imprint of your being in actions and
works; and perhaps less alive than you, whose life only came out of hers, depends on
hers? In your brain nothing but white threads, one like the other, with red currents
between them, one like the other; but outside a world with countries, seas, inside with
gardens, forests, fields, cities, inside with flowers, trees, animals, people, inside with
leaves, veins, sinews, nerves; the expansion goes into detail, and yet everything is
interwoven into a whole that is full of life, linked partly by the general basic
relationships of earthly nature, partly by the higher relationships of people in state
and church, trade, change; what doesn’t all work in one another, what doesn’t
exchange with each other, what’s not there for a thousand-fold winding paths, for a
thousand-fold means of traffic. We used to look at it a lot. Into this lively whole you
draw the circle of your effects and works, an organization that includes a thousand
million human brains with all the living intercourse of human beings, since your
brain is only about as many threads. And everything inside is free and wide and big,
while in your brain everything is small and tightly bound and tied up. And this big
organization should be able to do less than your little one; the sublime whole less
than its tiny little part? Should it be incapable of receiving your being reflected back
in effects and works, since this your being first came out of her, she herself first made
you into her image?
If one wanted to stick to the common view, the whole earth would of course only
be a dead being, and one would have to ask how it, the dead itself, can support my
future life. Now you see that it is good to know that it is different with the earth, it is
not an inorganic dead, but rather a higher organically living being than yourself. Now,
belief in your future life is not in vain, what you have learned from the life of the
earth. Yes, if the earth were really a dead being, how should your future life be able to
take root in it, when your present life is gone? Of course, you could not create any
conditions for its future maintenance and further development into a stone, any more
than an intuition could create the conditions for its continued maintenance and further
development as a memory in a brain of stone. But if the earth is a body with a higher
soul than you are now, then a higher development of your life can also be rooted in it
and itself serve its own development. This reveals the deepest connection between the
life on earth and our own future life, both spiritually and physically. In both we see
complementary expansions of our life in this world in that one expansion already in
the present beyond us, in this one into the future. The life of the earth already reaches
beyond your here in the present, as does your future life in the future. what is here not
excluding, but including. But your future life also belongs to the earth again, and so
your present life is basically only a part of the whole life of the earth in the present as
in the future. The life of the earth, to which you will belong in the future, in which
you will participate yourself, is, however, a higher aspect of your whole life than that
in which you are now caught. Your future higher life and your current higher life
condition and vouch for each other in general. If the earth were dead beyond your
soul, as you mostly think, then this life would be over with you too, everything would
be reduced to your current, mostly sensual, perceptual life; but with this the earth
would have nothing higher than that as we have already considered it earlier. that
you're caught up in now. Your future higher life and your current higher life condition
and vouch for each other in general. If the earth were dead beyond your soul, as you
mostly think, then this life would be over with you too, everything would be reduced
to your current, mostly sensual, perceptual life; but with this the earth would have
nothing higher than that as we have already considered it earlier. that you're caught
up in now. Your future higher life and your current higher life condition and vouch
for each other in general. If the earth were dead beyond your soul, as you mostly
think, then this life would be over with you too, everything would be reduced to your
current, mostly sensual, perceptual life; but with this the earth would have nothing
higher than that as we have already considered it earlier.
Everything that we always work around us on air and light and earth, in humanity
and individual people, in family, state and church, in art and science, in deeds belongs
to the circle of our effects and works and thus to the bearer of our future , Words,
writings, everything that comes through us and what comes out of us, in silence and
in sound, in visible or only infer-able effects. Only all of this does not count
individually, but it is the connection of everything that carries the unity of the same
soul that was first active in the development of this connection.
No effect can radiate abstractly from us into space; however spiritual or physical it
may be called, it will always have to transfer itself to some matter, regardless of what
kind of matter, how distant. What we spiritually produce in others can only convey
itself through material mediation as well as the coarsest material movement, and still
needs the material support in the other as well as in us. The most philosophical ideas
only transfer themselves to the outside world through writing and word, hence light
and sound, and, by being communicated through hearing and seeing, excite physical
processes in their brains which involve matter. The idea does not penetrate anywhere
where its material carrier does not penetrate, and it is always an enthusiasm for matter
in the other, which takes place with every communication of ideas, just as our own
psychic always appears only as the excitement of matter. So our bodily continuation
into the hereafter lacks the material base as little as the present body itself.
If Plato's spirit still lives on today in ideas that circulate among us (although it is
not only ideas in which it lives on among us), then these ideas can in fact lack so little
of a material support in their circulation in and among us, when they were still
running around in his own brain, they now attach themselves to processes in our
brain, to words, writing, to everything that goes in art and science and life, inspired
by these ideas, and all of that now belongs to it to the bodily carrier of Plato's
spirit; only all this, not individually, but the totality of the effects which proceeded
from an idea of Plato, still belongs to the bearer of the same one idea; and so the
totality of the effects that have emanated from a soul in general through the mediation
of its body,
To the superficial gaze it may seem as if the effects and works that pass from us to
the world, soon dispersed indifferently, lose the connection between themselves and
with us; there could be no question of agreement and unity in it. But to a more in-
depth look it seems quite different. As coherent as man himself is, the circle of his
effects and works is coherent in itself and so does he remain coherent with him; so
that it really only appears as the growth, the further expansion of its narrower bodily
system itself.
See a swan furrowing the pond; as far as he likes to swim his orbit is
connected; but not just the path that it initially draws, also all waves that one sees
going out from this path all around, - and every point of the path gives a wave, - all
still hang together like the path itself; yes, overlap each other, only the more intimate,
more intertwined the connection becomes, the more they expand. Just as coherent,
however, as the swan's path in water, is the course of life of man, and all the effects
that emanate from him during his course of life are equally coherent and
intertwined. He travels over land and sea, the beginning of his path is connected with
the end, and so are all the effects that emanate from there; he travels from youth to
the grave, it is no different.
The swan can of course fly up out of the water and settle in another place in
it. Then it seems there are two separate wave trains. In the water, yes, but they are
linked by a system of waves in the air. Man, however, can no more than the swan get
out of the connection with earth, water, air, and whatever of the unpredictable enters
the earthly. So wherever he may go, run, jump, how he may stand and pose, whatever
he may say, write, manipulate, the system of effects and works or movements and
institutions that emerges from the totality of all of this can never disintegrate; merely
expanding in the course of life, sometimes enriching moments with a greater
variety, in that the earlier movements are always reassembled with the later ones and
always produce new changes in the arrangements that have already been made, just
as this also takes place in our narrow bodies. Every new movement that passes over
from man to the outside world, every work on whose creation he uses his strength
and activity, so to speak a new contribution to the development of his wider body on
the other side, which partly builds on the earlier and partly reaches back to it in a
determining way. If we could see all the movements and institutions, in short effects
and works, that a person emanated during his lifetime, with eyes at once so that
nothing escaped us, we would not find them just as entangled, interlocking as The
matter, movements and institutions of our body, but the matter on which these
movements have transplanted, which is the carrier of these institutions, would also be
shaped into a perfect continuum, as is the matter of our present body, without any
other to have a definite limit than the matter of the earthly realm itself.
The same connection, that through the spatial, can also be traced through the
temporal. You may not believe it at first sight, but it is certain that all the effects that
went out from Christ into the world and that have been propagated to his confessors
and through his confessors, not only through a perfectly continuous chain of material
consequences up to have come to us, but also that these material consequences still
form a completely continuous, coherent system, that they are, so to speak, only
distant but coherent wave propagation of the path that this swan drew during
life. What he worked through word and example, worked through sound and light on
his disciples, organized something else in them, spurred them on to new
actions; through word, example, and action the effect was propagated, not only into
people, but also beyond them; for in the sense of the effects experienced they now
also acted out into the outside world. In church, state, art, science and the whole life
of Christians, new institutions arose everywhere, new ways of taking, looking at and
treating things, and all institutions and relationships of the whole of Christianity
necessarily remain linked by middle links. Nowhere can they be lacking where there
are Christians. The path itself that a Christian takes, even if he goes into the most
distant regions, is a connecting link. Christ's work took place in context at all during
his life, now it is impossible that anything that depends on and if it were in the most
distant and divergent consequences, out of connection with other things, which also
depends on how the leaves and flowers of a trunk that are furthest from the root and
most divergent among one another all remain connected to one another. And it should
be noted that it is not a mere external connection of the side by side, it is a connection
of action, of mutual modification, interlocking, an active connection, such as it is now
demanded in us, the bearer of a spiritual action be. How would it also be possible if
the spiritual after-effects of Christ, which are borne by those material ones, rested in
incoherent, inactive moments, to speak of a Christian community, Christian
church. Only that, of course, because we are not the spirit of Christ ourselves,
What now emerges here with Christ clearly and in splendid appearance, applies just
as much to the most insignificant human being. Not the type of persistence, only the
meaning of the persistent and the value of the relationship with the higher spirit are
different. No person's life is without lasting consequences forever and
ever; Everything that has changed in the world because he was there and would not
have been so if he had not been there belongs to these consequences, and the whole
wide range of these consequences remains as coherent for every person as the
narrower circle of causal life was connected.
How in our present body some institutions and processes are in a more direct and
meaningful relationship to our conscious spiritual life than others, which only count
in the context of the whole and as a lower basis, only in a general way belong to the
bearer of our soul, but to that extent are still to be included in the body, it will then
also be with our future corporeality. If everything that continues to exist in the world
as a result of our current physical, spirit-bearing existence will also contribute in the
context to support our future spiritual existence and in so far it will be part of our
physical existence, it will undisputedly only become that which is particularly
spiritually significant carry along here, especially spiritually significant consequences
there. The step of my foot, like an indifferent hand movement, It is much easier to
roughly follow through, to subside, than a look, an act in which man lays his whole
soul, than the doctrines and works by which he transplanted his ideas into others; but
those consequences will one day be much more indifferent to him than these. Yes, a
lot of things may go on in us externally imperceptibly and quietly, which is just as
silent and externally imperceptible consequences, but which may one day be more
significant for our spiritual future than the visible consequences of our most visible
actions. Because the effects are based on the causes in their manner and
significance. but those consequences will one day be much more indifferent to him
than these. Yes, a lot of things may go on in us externally imperceptibly and quietly,
which is just as silent and externally imperceptible consequences, but which may one
day be more significant for our spiritual future than the visible consequences of our
most visible actions. Because the effects are based on the causes in their manner and
significance. but those consequences will one day be much more indifferent to him
than these. Yes, a lot of things may go on in us externally imperceptibly and quietly,
which is just as silent and externally imperceptible consequences, but which may one
day be more significant for our spiritual future than the visible consequences of our
most visible actions. Because the effects are based on the causes in their manner and
significance.
A mother who has crossed over into the hereafter will still live on in her child who
has remained behind on this side; it belongs to what came out of it; but only that
which has become and become different in the child through its consciousness, what
its care, care, and upbringing has contributed to ensuring that it is alive and
developing, will affect its consciousness again in its consequences. The fact that the
child was unconsciously a part of her body and life here also makes it only a part of it
that is unconscious for her in the hereafter. However conscious the child may be of
itself, it only shares with the mother what it has of the mother. The difficulties that
might seem to lie in the fact that the same matter can be subject to different spirits as
bodily carriers at the same time will be even more thoroughly explained in the
following section (XXIV,
The whole character of a person is transplanted from the small circle of his body to
the great ones of his effects and works, so visibly that we involuntarily believe that
we already see in it the expression of his spirit. The effects and works of a person
have a physiognomy like that of his face. Indeed, if we could suddenly overlook the
whole connection between the actions and works of a person, which we certainly
cannot, the spirit of the person would indeed seem to emerge from it as vividly as it
does now from his face; but this will only be the case in the following life.
"On the face we read the character of man, in the rest of his body there is little trace of it; but in
his surroundings, in his way of dressing, in the furnishings of his room, in the places he visits, in
people, with whom he enters into relationships, and especially in the way in which this happens, in
all these things we get to know a person better than in his body itself; all this together in a broader
sense forms the body of his soul. " (Schnaase, History of the Fine Arts I, p. 67 f.).
"We do not only work on the future through writings; rather we can do it through
arrangements, speeches, deeds, through example and way of life. Through this we press our picture
alive into others, they accept it and continue to plant it." (Herder, Destr. BI. 4th collection, p. 169).
"If the body now breaks and dies, the soul retains its image as its will; now it is indeed away
from the body image, because in dying there is a separation; then the image appears with and in the
things that it has here in taken so that it has become infected (which it has formed into itself), for it
has the same source within itself. What she loved here and was her treasure and in it the spirit of
will entered (imagined); according to this, the mental image now figures. " (Jack. Böhme, here
borrowed from the leaves from Prevorst, 1st collection, p. 81.)
"Friedrich's procedure (in the battle of Leuthen) was artistic in the fullest sense of the word;
like the organ player who lets the flood of tones sound with the slight pressure of his finger and
guides them in majestic harmony, he had guided all the movements of his army in admirable
harmony. His It was spirit that became visible in the movements of the troops, that dwelt in their
hearts, that steeled their powers. " (History of Frederick the Great von Kugler. P. 364).
But we do not have to worry that the circle of our activities and works does not
reflect the external shape of our body (although such a reflection will occur for the
otherworldly point of view); that doesn't matter. The large herb that comes out of the
small seed does not reflect its round shape outwardly either and, as its growth, still
carries its whole nature within itself; every different seed gives a different herb. But
the big herb is the mirror image of a small plant that rests in the seed completely
invisible from the outside and represents its real and driving essence. So the circle of
our effects and works is the reflection not of our outer, but of our inner
being. Outwardly we cannot do anything else than we did before inside;
Man holds what he has worked around him down here, outside of himself, as it
were, now lost to himself, but it is only apparently lost to him, it is always a
continuation of himself, always unconsciously belongs to him. And death is now not
there for nothing, it is there just to be powerful as it is, also to bring with it a
tremendous difference from now life, that from the moment of death on with the
disappearance of consciousness for its previous, narrower physical sphere, there is
now a consciousness for the further awakens, which started out from the narrower
itself. But even in our closer body we see such an antagonism that, according to the
measure, one part becomes inactive and falls asleep for consciousness, while others
wake up for it; the same antagonism then exists on an even higher scale between our
present narrower body and the wider body driven out of it. We will only consider this
more thoroughly in the following section (XXIV, D).
So after all we can say briefly: Even in his present life, without, of course, thinking
about it, man creates a further body in effects and works around his narrower body,
which, when the narrower passes, does not pass with it, but in which it lives on and
continues to work, yes, which will only just wake up with the death of the narrower
to become the bearer of the consciousness that was previously bound to the narrower
and, in the narrower sense, so-called body. Yes, death is the natural condition of this
awakening.
Of course, there is always only a short and in a certain respect improper expression
that we use when we want to call something that seems so dissimilar to our previous
body; But why shouldn't we, if this further body continues the work that hitherto
belonged to our closer body, to serve our spiritual life as a carrier as far as it may still
be needed: only for the sake of this achievement, not for the sake of its special form ,
we call our present narrower body a body.
Our present body is itself only a narrow circle, a narrow system of effects and
works, and the life of this world consists merely in translating it into the next. Death
is only the solution of the last knot that keeps consciousness bound in this
world. Now the other takes the place of the narrower place with which it was already
unconsciously connected.
We are wrong when we think that our current life is aimed at nothing but
preserving our current life. No, it aims at the same time to enrich and develop a larger
life than ours and to secure a share in it for the future in precisely what we contribute
to its enrichment and development. Because what everyone creates in the larger body
and life, that he will have in it. Instead of a narrower share now, he will only receive
one more in future; and the narrower part now was only there to create the other for
the hereafter. And all consciousness that was active in this creation will one day also
be active in the continuation of creation in the wider circle.
It is peculiar that when dealing with the question of immortality one always only
pays attention to what emerges from the destruction of the body in death, and since
one sees nothing but horror and mold emerging, one is embarrassed about the new
bodily carrier of the soul. Not on what comes out of the body in death and
consequently from the dead body, but what comes out of the living body, during its
entire life, not only comes from matter, but also comes from effects, namely on the
totality, the one has to respect the full coherence of everything that comes out of it in
order to have a living body again. It is the living body that creates the physical
prerequisites for the whole life of the future during and by means of the whole of life
now. This narrow body is finally disappearing. Now nothing more needs to come out
of him in death. In his life he has already done what is to come, and the last duty that
he fulfills is to perish, because this is itself a condition for the awakening of man in
the new body and life. Because the fact that consciousness no longer finds a
foundation in the old body and life is itself the reason that man awakens to the
consciousness of the new body and life, in which everything is found again that was
of matter, movements and forces in the old. That is why the substances, movements
and forces move so restlessly through your body down below, the life in you works
so tirelessly, if it is continued for so long, you should try to keep it as long as possible
so that your body and life beyond are great and rich and become powerful. Your little
body down here is only the little loom that pulls the threads of the wide fabric from
which the body and life of the hereafter is spun, through which it can flow. But this
wide weave is itself only a new thread into the organization of the great weaver, of
which the small, living loom is only a part. Because in this area everything is internal,
not external.
For the most part we think that death only gives the body back to nature, then it
decomposes and loses itself in it, perishes; and we are afraid that our soul may pass
away with it. Why don't we rather fear the life in which that unspeakable happens
more than in death? Life is a process of decomposition which constantly throws us
into nature; Death is not the beginning, but the end of this decomposition process, but
one from which the materials only pass into a larger new building, and the same
forces that are disappearing from the current building serve to create this new
building, indeed they do not take hold only the matter that ran through our body, this
is rather just like the procreative matter, the fermentation matter, the leaven from
which the forces gain the point of attack to grasp the whole body of the earth,
"One must not believe that the process of destruction and decomposition of life only takes place
to the extent that we become aware of it on the corpse, the atoms of which only very gradually fall
back into general natural life; no! This decomposition process of life goes on proceed far more
rapidly than death, in such a way that one can calculate, for example, that of the total mass of blood
flowing through the veins, about a fourth part is decomposed and excreted in various ways in the
course of a day. " (Carus, Physis p. 228).
Much more important, however, than this hustle and bustle with which man influences the
matter of his body in the outside world and now continually scoops new things out of it in order to
influence it anew, is the completely related activity with which he influences his
activities. Consumption of material and energy consumption go hand in hand. And what amount of
living power is converted into effects on the outside world during a person's life! Indeed, the effects
that pass from man to the outside world, as will be discussed in more detail in the following, affect
the whole earth, while only a limited quantity of substances can pass directly through his body to
the outside world.
You may ask, but how does the child get on if it dies soon after birth, before it has
had time to act out of itself? Will it be lost? But if it only lived a moment, it will have
to live forever. For the substances, movements and forces to which his life and
consciousness was linked cannot dwindle again in the world, but must find
themselves in some further effects in the world after his death, even if we cannot
trace them. Now, of course, there cannot be a system that is as developed as when an
adult dies; but as well as the child on this side could develop from the weak
beginning, so well it will be able to be the case on the other side as well; but it will
begin as the child in the other world as which it died.
We can present the view of our future corporeality in a somewhat different form
than before, which, although in essence agrees with the previous one, but allows
some points of view to emerge more strikingly. If we really take into account the full
connection of the effects and further effects emanating from us, then basically every
person is absorbed into the whole earthly world during his present life, because the
effects which proceed from him penetrate the whole realm of the earthly in their
further effects . Every footstep shakes the whole earth, every breath in the air shakes
all the air; no coarser or finer, visible or invisible impulse and movement of its
ponder-able and imponderable parts can extend from it to the outside world, without
extending to the whole in continuation; the connection of the earthly system itself
brings this with it. In this respect it is no different than within our narrower bodily
system, in which no effect can take place without extending through the whole (cf.
Vol. I. Chapter III). So we can now also say that every person extends his limited
earthly physical existence in the hereafter to the kingdom of the whole earth, acquires
the whole earth for his body in death; but he only acquires it according to the
relationship, in the sense in which he has incorporated himself into it, in which he has
changed it, and so does every person according to a different relationship,
direction; all these relationships and directions cross without disturbing each
other; rather interweave to form a higher system and traffic; how all memories have
the same brain, indeed the same whole person to whom the brain belongs, as part of
their communal body; the changes that are subject to them intersect, also interweave
into a high system and traffic without disturbing or getting lost in each other. It is all
the easier for something analogous to be possible in the much wider realm of the
earth. We will, however, take up the consideration of this circumstance again in the
future (XXIV, C.).
If we now say once that the circle of effects and works that man turns around and
leaves behind him, another time that the whole earth forms his future body sphere,
this is not contradicting itself, it forms him just after Direction, relationship,
according to which he has incorporated himself into it through his effects and works
here. The matter of the earth in itself is only the common, relatively indifferent
document for all. Also, if we want, we can already count the whole future body of
man as part of his present corporeality, since there is no separation from it, but only
then as a now unconscious co-bearer of his soul who will one day become conscious
in death. One must be careful if, with various turns of our contemplation, this soon
that phrase in the formulation of our corporeality is preferred to see factual
incongruities in it. The language is just not rich enough to sharply denote and
differentiate all relevant factual relationships at the same time. However, the context
will always serve to maintain the objective understanding. In the truest sense of the
word, the body is just what everyone now calls the body, but how could we explain
many relationships that the future bearer of our soul shares with the present one and
through which it is related to it, if we do not soon include the name body soon
transfer this in that sense. to clearly designate and distinguish all relevant factual
relationships at the same time. However, the context will always serve to maintain the
objective understanding. In the truest sense of the word, the body is just what
everyone now calls the body, but how could we explain many relationships that the
future bearer of our soul shares with the present one and through which it is related to
it, if we do not soon include the name body soon transfer this in that sense. to clearly
designate and distinguish all relevant factual relationships at the same time. However,
the context will always serve to maintain the objective understanding. In the truest
sense of the word, the body is just what everyone now calls the body, but how could
we explain many relationships that the future bearer of our soul shares with the
present one and through which it is related to it, if we do not soon include the name
body soon transfer this in that sense.
So the spirits of the future have a compact body or have none, as one will. In a
certain way they have the body of the whole earth to their body, and this is still much
more compact than your current closer one, but they each have the earth only after a
certain relationship to their body, and this particularity in which the earth of everyone
is , cannot be shown out for itself just as particularly in compact form as its present
corporeality. And it is precisely on this that something depends on the greater
freedom which the future existence has over the present one.
From what has been considered so far, it is easy to overlook, if only in a very
general way, how the main relationships of the future spiritual existence of man
considered earlier are related to the bodily existence now considered.
A memory in our spirit belongs to the material consequences which an intuition
leaves behind in our body, and thus a memory in the larger spirit will belong to the
material consequences which our intuition life leaves behind in the larger body.
The narrow body to which our present consciousness is linked only hangs on the
larger body like something external, if not truly separate; but one day we will enter
into it completely and on all sides with the bodily that our consciousness carries. So
one day we will also enter into the conscious life of the greater spirit, which is
supported by the greater body, in a more inward way and in a more all-round manner,
than now, with our consciousness itself.
Insofar as the consequences that we have slackened into the world around us
continually generate new consequences, partly develop further in themselves, partly
are determined by the rest of the world, and partly also serve to develop them further,
our spirit, carried by the circle of these consequences, will also partly to develop
further within oneself, partly to receive further determinations from the higher spirit,
partly to contribute to its further development.
Since in a certain way we will have the whole earth to our body in the future, the
bearer of our consciousness, we will also be more consciously involved in the
conditions that involve it as a whole; Their relationship to heaven, their intercourse
with other stars will intervene more in our consciousness, and we will intervene in it
more consciously.
Since the earth has not only become the body of a single otherworldly spirit, but the
common body of all, each only in a different direction and relationship, all spheres of
activity with associated consciousness meet and cross each other in the earth, there is
also an easier and freer conscious intercourse for all be possible with all; though no
indifferent equal to all; because the type of encounter with everyone will be
different; for how the after-effects meet depends itself on the way in which the causes
met.
Insofar as in the future we fill the same world with our existence in which those
who have been left behind by us will live in it, but will only live in it in a different,
more extensive way, an extended intercourse with these will also be possible towards
now.
B. On the otherworldly corporeality as it appears
from the otherworldly standpoint.
Undisputedly, one would not be satisfied if the mode of the future bodily existence,
which has arisen from the previous considerations for our point of view on this side,
should also apply to the point of view on the other, if we still get lost in an indefinite
circle of effects and works appear or should only present a body shaped and no longer
human shaped together with the other spirits. Rather, in the hereafter as in this world,
we would like to confront one another independently, form against form. Yes, a kind
of instinct, even if it just depends on getting used to, seems to demand the human
form again everywhere. And if we go a little deeper to the bottom of our view, let's
move from this point of view to the other, so we will have what we want, will have an
individual form as we do now, even the human form, even the earlier form, only no
longer the crude physical, heavily appearing, slowly moving, rigid form from the
past, which needs ship and wagon, To get over the earth, rather, as we have already
indicated, a light figure, incomprehensible with physical hands, which goes and
comes like the thought and at the call of the thought. But did we want it to be
different from the following life? a light figure, incomprehensible with physical
hands, who goes and comes like the thought and at the call of the thought. But did we
want it to be different from the following life? a light figure, incomprehensible with
physical hands, who goes and comes like the thought and at the call of the
thought. But did we want it to be different from the following life?
Indeed, let us not imagine that the corporeality of the spirits on the other side will
appear so extensive and indefinite under the conditions of existence on the other side
as it appears to us on this side from an almost entirely external point of view. Because
although we ourselves are included in it from a certain point of view, most of it
reaches beyond each and every one of us, remains external to him. But if we
ourselves first fulfill the sphere of future existence, if we live in it consciously, then
the simplifying power of the soul also asserts itself for everything that enters into its
bearer and stimulates it because of the inner standpoint (cf. vol. II. Chap. V), and
hereby draws the physically expansive in the appearance into a corner. In future,
however, our entire bodily existences will intervene in a mutually stimulating manner
through one another, and so everyone will also pull the appearance of the other,
which is given to him through this stimulation, into simpler form. The only question
is in what form.
In short, we can now say: The figures in which we appear in the life on the other
side relate to the figures in which we appear in the life on this side, as the memory
images relate to the images of these figures, since the future life is related to the
present itself how a life of remembrance relates to a life of visualization. The
appearance of the figure essentially remains the earlier one, only it assumes the
lighter, freer essence of the memory image.
Because in us now, too, a memory image of the same shape as the visual image to
which it owes its origin is attached to the widespread physical consequences that the
limited visual image has left in us. From every point of the image there was an
extensive progressive effect through the optic nerve and brain; but in its entire extent
it does nothing but to subside the feeling of the starting point in the memory, and the
sum of these further effects, which proceeded from all points of the visual image,
gives the entire memory image, or at least the possibility of its appearance, rather
than to the actual appearance it still requires applicable conditions. So also the sum of
the extended further effects that proceeded from your figure below, into the
otherworldly realm of memory only the appearance of the figure from which it
proceeded, or at least the possibility of this figure appearing under necessary
conditions diminish. The spread of these effects, however, will only have the success
at every point where it comes to establish this possibility that your form will appear,
just as the same limited form can now also be seen everywhere where light waves
(which also something very extensive) propagate from it, the same limited sound can
be heard wherever vibrations from the audible body reach, provided only that
someone is also in that place who has eyes, ears, to see, to hear that he really opens it,
and directs his attention accordingly; otherwise it is in vain;
Insofar as we now all fill the earthly world with our existences on the other side,
and each one is everywhere, so to speak, only in a different way than the other, then
the perception of the shape of each other will not immediately be given for everyone
everywhere; in so far as subjective conditions of perception must still be fulfilled
there, but the possibility and opportunity for this perception, as well as every
memory, although not every other consciously encountered at every moment, but the
possibility and opportunity for this is offered precisely by the after-effects on which
they are based all meet in the same brain. The external difficulties and obstacles that
the distance of space opposes to our intercourse in this world will no longer exist for
us in the hereafter, which does not prevent us from
Care must be taken that the special conditions which are necessary so that our figure clearly
appears to others in the hereafter are not necessary so that a spiritual self-appearance takes place for
us in the hereafter.
Nothing prevents us from appearing objectively to one another beyond,

notwithstanding we appear to each other through effects that intervene in the
other. Even now, when I see someone across from me, it is only effects through which
he intervenes in me, by means of which I see him. The figures that meet in our little
realm of memory also appear opposite one another, like the vivid figures themselves
that they recall, in spite of the fact that the effects on which these memory images are
based cross each other in the same brain. (For it is impossible that the after-effects of
all the innumerable things we can remember should exist side by side in the brain.)
And so our memory forms in the memory realm of the higher spirit will also appear
to be opposite to one another, like the vivid figures on which they depend, regardless
of the fact that they are based on effects that overlap one another. The memories of
what appears objective in our present world of intuition, with the determinations that
they receive from it, will form what appears objective in the future world of memory.
How all this and the like is possible in the hereafter does not need to concern us. If
we do not know, we do not already know how the corresponding and connected with
it is possible in this world; but it really is there. We don't draw our conclusions from
possibilities, but from realities. One day there will come a theory that explains both
the otherworldly and this worldly in connection, and only the theory will be the right
one that can explain both in connection. Here, however, it is not a question of a
common explanation of the facts of this world and the hereafter, but of the inference
from facts of this world that are still accessible to observation to those of the hereafter
which they exceed but are in traceable connection with those.
Even now everyone can in his mind, without being hindered by spatial barriers,
visualize the shape of the other in his memory; a distance from the other is no longer
considered after he has once absorbed the effects of the same on which the memory is
based henceforth based on its shape, it only needs a special direction of attention, be
it stimulated from within or without, so that the memory really becomes awake and
alive. Even now the memory or phantasy picture that we make of another can appear
to us with the character of objectivity and reality, if only one of the two points occurs
which appear united in the hereafter; that either the memory or fantasy image
increases to liveliness, which it may have in the hereafter, as in the case of
hallucinations, or that, because our body falls asleep, the world of the senses recedes,
as in dreams. So everything that we here demand from the hereafter can be
substantiated by facts of this world itself, in that we only trace the circumstances of
the hereafter back to those of this world.
The memory images in which we can already appear on this side can be seen as the
premeaning or the germ of the memory forms in which we will appear in the
hereafter, just like our entire present memory life, which we still carry closed within
us the premeaning or the germ of the higher memory-life is to which we will one day
unlock ourselves in the hereafter, or what the same thing, which will unlock ourselves
to us in the hereafter. The memory image that we make for ourselves on this side of
another already arises as well as that which we will make for ourselves on the other
side of him, through further effects which his perceptible existence has extended into
our conscious corporeality, further effects which already his body on the other side
belong, be it also, that he has not yet awakened to the consciousness of this body in
the hereafter. So he is already present to us in the image that we make of him on this
side, according to the same principle as one day in the hereafter, so to speak in the
sense of the hereafter itself. Only the difference between the conditions and
relationships of its appearance in the memory image of this world and that of the
other takes place, that the memory image of this world comes about merely through
the few further effects which its perceptible existence has been able to extend into our
narrow conscious body and leave behind in it, while we shall in the future with ours
further conscious body of the totality of the further effects of its perceptual existence,
how this worldly existence will meet in general; therefore you will also be able to
gain a much lighter and more lively appearance from him than now, and conscious
intercourse with him will be able to connect to his appearance. Because the totality of
the further effects that his form has left in the hereafter and through which this
appears to us there, is linked to the totality of the effects that his whole conscious
existence has left behind in the hereafter, and in which he appears conscious there a
whole. And so it will be sufficient on the Beyond to recall another image, so he
himself is also present with his conscious being in such a way that a conscious
intercourse with him can begin, if only the necessary inner connecting points are not
missing. In the realm of memory, the memory images are no longer just empty pale
notes, but life and weaving, The spirits of the hereafter are called and encountered in
such, but bright, vital appearances, which not only fall into the consciousness of the
other, but are related to their own consciousness of what is appearing. Yet the
appearance of the figure of the other in the realm of memory will as little as when one
is present to the other in the realm of intuition in this world, but can only be seen as a
point of contact to which more inner communication must come.
As I come closer, the conscious intercourse with him, whose figure I recall and who is herewith
immediately with me, will arise in that I now link the memory of his figure to the memory of the
consciousness relationships in which I live I stand with him from elsewhere, for which I must have
the effects of his earlier conscious life (through language, writing, action, or somehow mediated)
that I bring to life through this. I will then be able to spin this further with him, develop it
further; yes this will be able to happen even in the language in which I spoke to him on this
side; because language will also reach into the realm of memory and there it can be spoken without
a mouth and heard without an ear, how it is already spoken and heard inwardly in the realm of
memory and imagination, without mouth or ear, and how it conveys the intercourse and the further
development of ideas that we have drawn from the realm of visualization into the realm of
memory; if we think almost only in words. But if one person had no conscious relationships with
the other before, he will still be able to gain such through new mediation; for since we are all
beyond the same spirit and the same body, there will always be spiritual and material middle links
for this as well. But if one person had no conscious relationships with the other before, he will still
be able to gain such through new mediation; for since we are all beyond the same spirit and the
same body, there will always be spiritual and material middle links for this as well. But if one
person had no conscious relationships with the other before, he will still be able to gain such
through new mediation; for since we are all beyond the same spirit and the same body, there will
always be spiritual and material middle links for this as well.
It is undisputed that in the realm of intuition someone else does not appear to be
merely called to us, but also to approach without being called out of our own
intention and we can both meet each other unexpectedly, the other is not only called
to us in the otherworldly realm of memory, but also appears uncalled according to our
own intention , and we ourselves can unexpectedly encounter one another, depending
on the circumstances of the life of remembrance on the other side. If it will suffice to
call up someone else's image so that he may come, it will also suffice to want to
appear to him in order to stimulate his recalling faculty so that he may see us; and
besides, the higher spirit can bring about relationships by virtue of which one appears
to the other without one or the other having thought of it beforehand. It is true that
there will also be limitations in all of this, analogous to those that take place in our
small memory realm for reciprocal calling and meeting of memory images. But it
would lead too far to discuss these relationships in detail. The foregoing suffices to
provide the general point of view for it and to allow the circumstances as a whole to
be overlooked.
So, taking the standpoint of the hereafter, we can say: Man takes his previous
physical form with him into the hereafter, without the burden of his previous body
matter. It appears easily wherever one's own and other people's thoughts call it; yes it
can appear here and there at the same time. In order for it to be able to do this,
however, even a widespread material base is necessary for this world in such a
manner as we have considered it earlier.
"Everyone who thinks of someone else in that life visualizes his face and at the same time
some things that strike his life, and as soon as he does this, the other is there too, as if attracted and
called; this appearance of the spiritual world This is because the thoughts communicate there; hence
the fact that everyone, as soon as they enter the other life, is recognized again by their friends,
relatives and other acquaintances, and also that they talk to one another and immediately join forces
, depending on their friendly connections down below. I sometimes overheard those who came out
of the world rejoicing that they were seeing their friends again, and mutual friends that they had
come to them. " Schwedenborg, heaven and hell. Section 494.
The somnambulist Auguste Kachler answered the question: "Is the germ of life for the
transfigured future body (1. Cor. 15, 42-44) already present in the minds of people?" as follows:
and Christ himself gave much only in examples. I believe that the spirit will receive a visible
form, not a physical one, but one that is only visible to the spiritual eye. "(Communication from the
magnetic sleep life of the somnambule Auguste K. in Dresden, p. 297.)
The somnambulist Bruno Binet answered several questions put to him about the mode of
appearance of the spirits in the hereafter as follows:
Question: "You also told me that a spirit (in the hereafter), at can appear in several places at
the same time. How does that work? - Answer: It is only images of the spirit that appear; it can send
out as many of them as it wants. - Q. Okay, but are these pictures talking? - A. Yes. - Q. So there are
that many individuals? - A. No, it's always one and the same. - Q. Since, as you say, all these
images appear in different places at the same time and speak to different people, one should think
that it is a mass of ghosts rather than a single one. - A. It is very difficult to explain this mystery, but
I will try to do it for your teaching. The spirit that guides me and is in heaven can, through a kind of
radiation, pull out a multitude of threads that expand and serve as rapport with those who wish to
interact with him. The spirit can convey the similarity and the sound of its voice to each thread,
although little is spoken among spirits, since thought is the essential medium of
communication; then he can send out his thought at the same moment, which by means of those
sympathetic threads answers the questions of those who are in rapport with him; it is only one thing
whether he multiplies himself into infinity as required, and he is seen by all at the same time as the
audience in the theater sees the actor. One thinks that he is in a hundred places at the same time,
while on the contrary only a hundred spirits are in a condition to see him, to perceive him in the
place where he is; his image can do the same service, and this leads one to believe in the existence
of a hundred individuals. This image radiating from him is in rapport with his thoughts and can
communicate them like he himself, because the thoughts are immutable. I'm tired. "(Cahagnet,
dealing with the deceased by magnetic means. 1851. p. 41.)
If, in abnormal states of this world, echoes of the hereafter seem to sometimes appear, then
the appearances of the dead could also be included here, insofar as anything is valid about them. At
least they automatically enter into the foregoing views, which, moreover, were certainly not
developed in order to form a commentary on these phenomena, and in such a way that the two
seemingly opposite views which exist on the nature of the ghost phenomena, that it is subjective
phantasms of those who see them, and that they are real appearances of the spirits of the hereafter,
which are linked in the most natural way.
Basically, every picture that we make of someone who is absent is a ghost of the same, which
is based on the presence of the same in the sense of the hereafter; but as long as he walks in this
world, he does not yet belong to the bearer of his conscious life on the other side. If we make a
picture of a dead person, he is already physically present with the bearer of his conscious life, but
only with a small part of it does he intervene in the bearer of our conscious life, the picture is only
faint and pale, and we find it there is no reason to think of the objective presence of the dead as long
as it is used in this weak formation of the same in us, which still falls within the norm of this world
itself. And so it will always be as long as our life process in this world is in full swing, who lets
everything appear to us in the proportions and relative intensity, just as the norm of our life in this
world brings with it and tolerates it. But abnormal conditions can arise where this intrusion of the
hereafter, which is natural in itself, becomes stronger. Conditions that are favored at night by the
receding of sensory stimuli on this side. The image of the dead can begin to confront us with a
similar power and objectivity as it will confront us when we have really passed over into the
hereafter and will connect our intercourse with it. And the dreadful feeling, which with the
occurrence of such circumstances, we are already half stepping out of the warm life of this world
that has grown dear to us, is naturally connected with it; how then undisputed the events that arise
in us here, really grab something of us in the sense of the hereafter. A person with a healthy mind
and body who has properly grown into this world will undoubtedly never have ghost
appearances. But one can also add (which agrees with popular belief) that a spirit of the hereafter,
which has grown into the relationships of the hereafter in the right way, will never be able to appear
again as a ghost on this side, because the abnormal state cannot be one-sided here. For the spirit of
the hereafter, the objective appearance of this world is just as much an abnormal relapse into this
world as its perception is an abnormal anticipation into the hereafter for the spirit of this world. who
has grown into this world in the right way will undoubtedly never have ghostly appearances. But
one can also add (which agrees with popular belief) that a spirit of the hereafter, which has grown
into the relationships of the hereafter in the right way, will never be able to appear again as a ghost
on this side, because the abnormal state cannot be one-sided here. For the spirit of the hereafter, the
objective appearance of this world is just as much an abnormal relapse into this world as its
perception is an abnormal anticipation into the hereafter for the spirit of this world. who has grown
into this world in the right way will undoubtedly never have ghostly appearances. But one can also
add (which agrees with popular belief) that a spirit of the hereafter, which has grown into the
relationships of the hereafter in the right way, will never be able to appear again as a ghost on this
side, because the abnormal state cannot be one-sided here. For the spirit of the hereafter, the
objective appearance of this world is just as much an abnormal relapse into this world as its
perception is an abnormal anticipation into the hereafter for the spirit of this world. will never be
able to appear again as a ghost on this side, because the abnormal state cannot be one-sided
here. For the spirit of the hereafter, the objective appearance of this world is just as much an
abnormal relapse into this world as its perception is an abnormal anticipation into the hereafter for
the spirit of this world. will never be able to appear again as a ghost on this side, because the
abnormal state cannot be one-sided here. For the spirit of the hereafter, the objective appearance of
this world is just as much an abnormal relapse into this world as its perception is an abnormal
anticipation into the hereafter for the spirit of this world.
If a rapturous person believes that he sees saints or angels as something objective, this is
indisputably mainly a self-created fantasy image, which, however, could not be created without
memories of real beings having contributed to it, and in so far as it is the case, In such phenomena
the presence of all these beings will also be active in the sense of the beyond, but only in
accordance with the extent to which they actually contribute to the emergence of the phenomenon
through effects that have propagated from their existence into the ecstatic, and so that theirs
Participation can be more or less absorbed in the unconscious even for them. If, however, the
uniform main formation of the appearance only depends on the raptured person himself, it will also
mainly be only his own being, what thereby becomes creatively active in a special way and is
objectified in its structure. In the meantime we see that both cases, although clearly distinguishable
in the extremes, can merge into one another through intermediate degrees. Something subjective
and objective is present everywhere at the same time; the only question that arises is what asserts
itself more than that which uniformly determines the main phenomenon.
It is remarkable that the state of somnambulism, which from so many other sides seems to
offer approximations to the state of the hereafter, comes to the fore again here too. One can say that
all somnambulists without exception, in whom the condition has developed to a certain
development, see spirits, guardian spirits, angels and the like like something objective, also deal
with it, speak, receive inspiration from it and the like; This is because the life of memory and
fantasy life in the somnambulists is either at the same time, or in some this this, in others that is
heightened and modified in a way that already offers an approximation of the memory and fantasy
life of the hereafter, or half an entrance it may mean, even if the double character applies here, more
of an objective existence of otherworldly personalities, which extends its effect into the
somnambulists and in the manner of the Beyond asserts, others seem to depend more on the
somnambula's own fantasy activity, which asserts its productive power in the manner of the
hereafter with the same intensity. Many somnambulists (e.g. the seer of Prevorst, the somnambulists
of Cahagnet's in the above-mentioned writing) believe to see certain deceased persons known to
them or others, of whose objective existence they are convinced, and whose appearance they
describe in the most individual way; Others see angels, guardian spirits and the like with the same
vivacity, of which they themselves recognize with higher reflection that they are only self-created
structures, objectifications of their own spiritual creations (according to the Kachler in Dresden, in
the cited publication). It is undisputed in this so unclear With the conditions of the hereafter
somnambulistic conditions only touching each other very abnormally, the two cannot be properly
separated, and one should in no way hope to come from here to pure information about the
hereafter. In relation to this subject, I was interested in what is reported by the somnambulist
Richard Görwitz in Apolda (in the cited publication), where in two periods of the somnambulistic
state, appearances of both kinds followed each other in very decided contrast. A more detailed
discussion of the various ways in which these phenomena develop in different somnambulists and
how they are perceived by them is of general interest, but would take up more space here than I can
after the casual position I can only give to this whole subject. and the ambiguity
In general, I have only developed this theory here on the assumption that its subject is not
entirely null and void. Our teaching compels us to admit the possibility of ghostly appearances,
provided that one wants to keep an abnormal umbrella concept of the hereafter in this world at all
possible. It then gives us a closer look at the modality of this encroachment. But she cannot prove
this possibility herself; and it is not essential to it to prove such.
Even now one is perhaps not yet completely satisfied, and of course it is difficult at
all to satisfy in a definite and unanimous way the indefinite and contradicting
demands that one makes on the hereafter. In a certain way one would like to have the
old back completely, in a certain way something completely new, unheard of. Our
view really gives both. But maybe you still want or miss something. One would like
to take off a worn, torn or badly made skirt from the start; one also likes to change
clothes from time to time. But aren't we much worse off with the body than with the
clothing, if we are to take the appearance of the old body over into the hereafter, even
into eternity? The old man will ask: As? Should I appear again in my shrunken
shape? The hunchback, should I never get rid of my deformity? The ecclesiastical
and the common view easily remedy this by promising a rejuvenation and
embellishment of the figure; and for them it is enough to promise, they do not allow
themselves to be asked for reasons. But on what basis should we think of such
things?
I mean, it goes like this:
First and foremost, what counts in the afterlife for those who have died as an old
man is not just his shrunken old figure, with which he died, but just as much his child
and youth figure. In the hereafter he surely meets him in the form of a child, who
only got to know him as a child, in the form of an old man, with whom he only
associated as an old man, but to whom he was known at different stages of life, to
whom he can appear in child or old form, according to circumstances; All that
matters is in which of the known forms he wants to recall him, in which he appears to
him, or in which known memory form he wants to present himself to him. In any
other than a well-known one, he would not be recognized by him at first. But by
themselves the other will be most inclined, to look for him in the shape and most
easily recognize him in the shape in which he has seen him most often or most
often. The figure in the hereafter will therefore no longer be as solid as it is here, but
just as it can easily appear here and there, yes in different places at the same time, so
also easily one way or the other. The concept of all visual images in which a person
has ever appeared before another will, so to speak, be the source of all possible
memory images and thus forms of appearance that the latter can initially have of him,
only in such a way that the tendency towards certain prevails. yes, it can appear in
different places at the same time, so easily one way or the other. The concept of all
visual images in which a person has ever appeared before another will, so to speak,
be the source of all possible memory images and thus forms of appearance that the
latter can initially have of him, only in such a way that the tendency towards certain
prevails. yes, it can appear in different places at the same time, so easily one way or
the other. The concept of all visual images in which a person has ever appeared
before another will, so to speak, be the source of all possible memory images and
thus forms of appearance that the latter can initially have of him, only in such a way
that the tendency towards certain prevails.
In the meantime only the first encounter, the first cognition, will necessarily have to
take place under one of these forms in order to connect the further intercourse, which
does not exclude the possibility that new modes of appearance can emerge from there
by virtue of that transformative power of the perceptual relations of the hereafter, of
which we spoke earlier , to develop. Even the memories in the memory of our mind
are often rearranged in their intercourse under the rule of our mind, they adorn
themselves or are distorted by fantasy, and so there will not be a lack of such
rearrangement in the memory of the higher mind either; it will certainly rule there
even more powerfully and lively than in our little realm of memories, which is only a
small, poor, pale, indistinct image of it; only through this, too, no fixed forms will
arise, but only a change in the forms, which are always subordinate to the
relationships in which the spirits appear to one another and to the higher spirit. Only
that which asserts itself as an expression of our own being through all relationships
with others will be durable in our form, but this will nevertheless be able to
experience the most varied changes in our interactions with others, such as the way in
which we appear to others, will depend as much on how others perceive it as it is on
our own being. So we will change the body there much more than here the dress; only
that, as the dress with all changes, depending on our circumstances to the outside, still
retains the essential shape of our body, so the body one day, with every change in our
relationships to the outside, a shape that always allows it to appear as an expression
of the unchangeable in our spiritual being. And in the realm of higher truth our
appearance will rather be the mirror of our inner being and its constant relationship to
the outer than this side. So then the otherworldly spirit will appear differently to those
who only come over from this world, differently to those with whom it has been
associated for a long time in the hereafter, differently to the good, differently to the
bad spirits, and will also appear differently depending on its own conditions. And in
the realm of higher truth our appearance will rather be the mirror of our inner being
and its constant relationship to the outer than this side. So then the otherworldly spirit
will appear differently to those who only come over from this world, differently to
those with whom it has been associated for a long time in the hereafter, differently to
the good, differently to the bad spirits, and will also appear differently depending on
its own conditions. And in the realm of higher truth our appearance will rather be the
mirror of our inner being and its constant relationship to the outer than this side. So
then the otherworldly spirit will appear differently to those who only come over from
this world, differently to those with whom it has been associated for a long time in
the hereafter, differently to the good, differently to the bad spirits, and will also
appear differently depending on its own conditions.
According to Schwedenborg, in the first time after death (during the so-called state on the
outside), people still appear exactly as they appeared here, so that feelings and attitudes are not yet
manifested purely on the outside; but later enters another state (the state within) where its external
appearance becomes the perfect expression of its spiritual interior.
It is undisputed that we cannot wish for anything better than what is offered to us in
this view, which flows in the simplest consequence from our basic assumptions. So
the mother who steps into the hereafter will certainly first seek and find a child that
has gone before her under the form in which she knew it, cared for it and loved it; it
will not face her like a stranger; but this form, in which it first recognizes it, will only
be the starting point for recognizing it again through the change in other forms, the
development of which the new life itself brought with it. In the same way, the wife
will meet the husband and the beloved will meet the beloved in the hereafter first in
the form that is most vividly before them in their memory, in that in the realm of
memory the memory image itself becomes a real life-filled form. However, the longer
the intercourse between them in the hereafter, the more the mode of this worldly
appearance will recede and designs such as those in the hereafter will assert
themselves.
It may well be that in this development of the relations of our future formation we
went a little further than the obscurity of the object allows. Here, too, we are only
offering probabilities. Meanwhile, the objection that arises from the apparent
formlessness of our future existence seemed too important not to show how its
elevation lies in the consequence of our view itself. The indeterminacy and
shapelessness of our future existence, which appears from this point of view, then
only changes into an indefinable multiformity of the same from the point of view on
the other.
XXIV. Difficulties of various kinds.

Every human being, so we said and saw, incorporates himself in a peculiar way in
the present life through his work in the outside world, wraps around him a circle of
effects and works, which one day will grant him the material basis for his future
spiritual existence, so far he still needs one. Let us not forget this at first if he still
needs a physical record. There are many who already in this world half elevate the
spirit above being conditioned by the bodily, and the higher the spirit rises, the more
it frees itself from it. Even if the body, especially the brain, with its life process
always remains necessary as a base for the spirit in general and for the sensuality in
particular, the higher activities of the spirit can still proceed in their special
way, without such special activities of the body or the brain going with it. Those who
hold this view will of course, since they place the demands of the spirit on the body
so low even in the present life, have even less reason to make them make high
demands on a corporeal in the following life, where sensuality is supposed to recede
even more, especially if it is for this reason that he mainly makes these demands so
low for the now that he has to satisfy even less for the future, when he would know
how to satisfy them even less. For such a view, the exposition of a physical document
of the future spiritual existence in the general public, as it was given in the past, can
appear to be more than sufficient. However, there are more decisive demands for the
future, if already in the now the highest and most developed spiritual functions are
still in the bodily, but only in the highest and most developed bodily functions, in
terms of expression or with them, if one considers the fine instrument of the brain to
be so finely worked out just for that reason To accompany or justify the fine
intellectual game here below with a correspondingly fine physical one. Then one will
have to demand the same or an equivalent of what is essential here also from the
following life and ask where it can be found. We have already pointed out that the
world into which we put the circle of our effects and works is worked out and
developed in a much higher sense than our brain itself, the small part of it; but it
wonders what can we attribute to ourselves as our effect, our work one day? Isn't
everything that is transplanted into the outside world in our actions and works,
through which we incorporate it into it, but something comparatively simple and
crude compared to the extremely fine elaboration of our brain and the development of
the movements in it? Does this not mean that the physical carrier of our hereafter,
which is supposed to be given in the circle of our effects and works, remains at a
disadvantage compared to that of this world? but something comparatively simple
and raw compared to the extremely fine elaboration of our brain and the development
of the movements in it? Does this not mean that the physical carrier of our hereafter,
disadvantage compared to that of this world? but something comparatively simple
and raw compared to the extremely fine elaboration of our brain and the development
of the movements in it? Does this not mean that the physical carrier of our hereafter,
disadvantage compared to that of this world?
Now that the first view, for which this is not a real disadvantage, since it has
nothing to do with the spirit, can already keep itself satisfied with the previous
considerations, it will be necessary to show that it does not apply to the second either,
for which the physical one Disadvantage would translate into a spiritual one; since we
ourselves are of this second view. Some hints have been given earlier in this regard,
but it will be necessary to elaborate them more clearly in relation to the misgivings
which, from the more developed claims, might be raised against our teaching. For
this purpose, we will soon be looking to deal with the following two questions, which
will also deal with these concerns: First, how can a person, in the manner we have
assumed, How the existence on the other side grows out of the existence on the other
side, how its spiritual formation and development, supported by such a fine inner
organization, can be carried over into the beyond? Secondly, how do the experiences
which show that the soul is suffering and aging with the body, and thus threatening to
cease with death, with our hopes? To this I shall then add the discussion of two other
questions which so far have been more rejected or touched upon in passing than seem
settled: firstly, how so many existences on the other side can have the same space
undeterred by each other, and furthermore, what death Basically it has the awakening
of the further body, which is still slumbering in the unconscious, to become the bearer
of consciousness. to carry over his spiritual education and development, supported by
such a fine inner organization, to the hereafter? Secondly, how do the experiences
of consciousness. to carry over his spiritual education and development, supported by
such a fine inner organization, to the hereafter? Secondly, how do the experiences
of consciousness. and thus threatening a cessation with death, with our hopes? To this
I shall then add the discussion of two other questions which so far have been more
rejected or touched upon in passing than seem settled: firstly, how so many existences
on the other side can have the same space undeterred by each other, and furthermore,
what death Basically it has the awakening of the further body, which is still
slumbering in the unconscious, to become the bearer of consciousness. and thus
threatening a cessation with death, with our hopes? To this I shall then add the
discussion of two other questions which so far have been more rejected or touched
upon in passing than seem settled: firstly, how so many existences on the other side
can have the same space undeterred by each other, and furthermore, what death
Basically it has the awakening of the further body, which is still slumbering in the
unconscious, to become the bearer of consciousness.
A. Question, how man his inner education and

development into the afterlife
could take over.
The most important and most valuable thing a person has is his inner culture; the
actions outward are merely isolated offshoots of it, which neither exhaust nor cover
up the inner wealth. Someone can quietly carry the most beautiful and best education,
the most lofty thoughts, the richest knowledge, the noblest will, but he may not have
the opportunity to express all of this in action, yes, the greater, nobler, richer the
person is inside, a relatively smaller part of what he carries within himself can only
be revealed externally. If our view is now roughly grasped, it seems that this inner
main thing would have to be lost to man for the following life, provided that only
what is outwardly revealed from him is to remain of him;
But at the outset one is mistaken if one thinks that only a fraction of the human
being speaks out in the individual actions of the human being; Everywhere the whole
person expresses himself, only now from other sides or according to different
relationships than another time. The noble behaves differently in every action than
the mean, the stupid in each different than the clever, the trusting in each different
from the timid; it is just that we cannot follow the nuances as precisely as they take
place, although we refine our view of the indefinite more and more so that we can
find the whole human being in every smallest activity of human beings. Each of our
voluntary actions is in fact a product of our entire inner formation to date, and each
individual moment of this formation certainly contributes something to the individual
nuance of the action. If this becomes indistinct for our gaze, it is only due to the
indistinctness of our gaze, and partly also in our inattentiveness. When it comes to
our actions, one is only too inclined to consider only the general trait and individual
main points of view, and in this respect two actions of two people can look as similar
as one egg to the other. But this picture also reminds us that gross similarities must
not deceive us. A different system of effects served for the formation of one egg than
for the formation of another, that is, it was laid by a different bird or the same bird in
a different period of life, and this is expressed in subtle internal differences in the
eggs, which we cannot see but none the less there are, there must be, otherwise
different birds would not be able to creep out. The actions, effects and works of
people are also eggs to which the whole person makes his contribution and from
which, not individually, but as a whole, a whole person will emerge again, from all
the moments of his inner being carry something within. The action, the word, the
gaze of the one, through which he is incorporated into the outside world, is composed
of other fine moments than that of the other, we just cannot follow it in detail. Just as
the playing of a musical instrument emerges from many small, for the rough look, but
not for the analyzing consideration and in the end, indistinguishable vibrations,
tremors that are transferred from the instrument to the outside world, so is the totality
of the actions, yes, every single action of a person emerges from the interaction of
many small things, for the rough look, but not the analyzing contemplation and the
conclusion, indistinguishable activities of his inner being, which also cannot fail to
extend their consequences into the outer world. Every nerve, every muscle fiber,
every cell of a person expresses its special, special kind, specially directed activity,
and how innumerable many such activities work together in every human action. In
order for an arm to stretch willingly, a thousand brain and muscle fibers must tremble
in a special way, and these tremors can no more be limited in their success to the
body than the playing of the strings on the instrument, but must come through from
the acting body the action itself is propagated to the outside, imperceptibly to us, of
course, how the cause was. But one cannot ask for a coarser reminder of the
consequences outside than inside of the cause. Incidentally, if you compare only one
word uttered with intimacy and the same word with mockery according to the
different impressions they make with each other, you will probably be able to
conclude that, since they can arouse so completely different, delicate interplay of
feelings in us, too that which over-plants the impression upon us must be subject to a
very different fine game. So one has no reason to conclude that the fine inner culture
that we have acquired cannot propagate any material traces outward and leave them
behind; even if we do not intentionally express it in particular actions, it expresses
itself in every action. as was the cause. But one cannot ask for a coarser reminder of
the consequences outside than inside of the cause. Incidentally, if you compare only
one word uttered with intimacy and the same word with mockery according to the
itself in every action. as was the cause. But one cannot ask for a coarser reminder of
the consequences outside than inside of the cause. Incidentally, if you compare only
one word uttered with intimacy and the same word with mockery according to the
itself in every action. But one cannot ask for a coarser reminder of the consequences
outside than inside of the cause. Incidentally, if you compare only one word uttered
with intimacy and the same word with mockery according to the different
impressions they make with each other, you will probably be able to conclude that,
since they can arouse so completely different, delicate interplay of feelings in us, too
that which over-plants the impression upon us must be subject to a very different fine
game. So one has no reason to conclude that the fine inner culture that we have
acquired cannot propagate any material traces outward and leave them behind; even
if we do not intentionally express it in particular actions, it expresses itself in every
action. But one cannot ask for a coarser reminder of the consequences outside than
inside of the cause. Incidentally, if you compare only one word uttered with intimacy
and the same word with mockery according to the different impressions they make
with each other, you will probably be able to conclude that, since they can arouse so
completely different, delicate interplay of feelings in us, too that which overplants the
impression upon us must be subject to a very different fine game. So one has no
reason to conclude that the fine inner culture that we have acquired cannot propagate
any material traces outward and leave them behind; even if we do not intentionally
express it in particular actions, it expresses itself in every action. Incidentally, if you
compare only one word uttered with intimacy and the same word with mockery
according to the different impressions they make with each other, you will probably
be able to conclude that, since they can arouse so completely different, delicate
interplay of feelings in us, too that which overplants the impression upon us must be
subject to a very different fine game. So one has no reason to conclude that the fine
inner culture that we have acquired cannot propagate any material traces outward and
leave them behind; even if we do not intentionally express it in particular actions, it
expresses itself in every action. Incidentally, if you compare only one word uttered
with intimacy and the same word with mockery according to the different
impressions they make with each other, you will probably be able to conclude that,
since they can arouse so completely different, delicate interplay of feelings in us, too
that which over-plants the impression upon us must be subject to a very different fine
game. So one has no reason to conclude that the fine inner culture that we have
acquired cannot propagate any material traces outward and leave them behind; even
if we do not intentionally express it in particular actions, it expresses itself in every
action. since they can arouse so completely different, delicate interplay of feelings in
us, and that which overplants the impression on us must also be subject to a very
different, fine interplay. So one has no reason to conclude that the fine inner culture
itself in every action. since they can arouse so completely different, delicate interplay
of feelings in us, and that which overplants the impression on us must also be subject
to a very different, fine interplay. So one has no reason to conclude that the fine inner
culture that we have acquired cannot propagate any material traces outward and leave
them behind; even if we do not intentionally express it in particular actions, it
expresses itself in every action.
However, we can go further and deeper. We do not have to reflect on our external
actions alone, what we call that. If our thoughts are carried by quiet movements,
which we have to assume in the sense of the more developed claim to the physical
base of the spiritual, then we will also add the invisible consequences and the
visibility of the cause, which is always invisible to us, only inferred Consequences no
more than what is required of the cause. The fine tremors, waves, or whatever fine
movements it may be, which silently accompany man's thinking, will of course only
be able to propagate just as silent movements outwards, but also have to propagate
just as surely as the violent arm movement, the loudest Scream. May they concern the
ponderable or unpredictable in us; the ether, which propagates the movements of the
imponderable, surrounds man everywhere so well1)like air and ground, which
propagate the movements of what can be weighed, and we do not need to decide what
is more to be considered. Suffice it, the reasons for the existence of the finest bodily
effects in us as carriers of our spiritual ones are at the same time the reasons for the
existence of corresponding further effects beyond us. Be it also that they are first
circling in us; finally they have to go beyond us. But if one wanted to deny the
existence of such fine physical movements as carriers of our spiritual in the present
life in the sense of the less developed demands on the corporeal, since one cannot
show them palpably, one would of course have to deny their further effects as well as
those one just as little but you don't need it for the following life either, because you
don't need it for the present life,
1) In fact, according to the view of physicists, the ether fills and penetrates air and earth itself, since
without it light and warmth cannot propagate through. But if one did not want to accept ether in it,
as some do, the air and soil themselves would have the ability to propagate light and warmth, and
there would then also be no need for ether to propagate the nerve effects.
In fact, it would be strange if, given the impossibility of

experimentally demonstrating nerve vibrations or ether vibrations
as the basis of the spiritual for this world, one wanted to demand
experimental proof of such a basis for the hereafter, and, because
it cannot be guided, believed that it was lacking a foundation for
our spirit in the hereafter that it has and needs in this world.
If he has such a thing in this world, then he will certainly also have it in the hereafter as a
consequence of this world; if he does not need it in this world, the same applies to the hereafter. It
makes no difference how one wants to place oneself in this relationship; in any case, there is only
this alternative.
Without wishing to lay particular emphasis on it, I would like to mention that one can find a
kind of proof of the silent emanation of subtle effects or the emanation of a subtle agent from the
person in a known fact of somnambulism, if such facts are accepted at all . It is stated in great
generality 2) that the somnambulists often see a luminous glow emanating from living persons and
especially from the magnetizer, and that the fingertips of the magnetizer in particular shine all the
more vividly, the more active he is in the act of magnetizing.
Even Stieglitz, who in his counter-argument against animal magnetism

2)
endeavors to belittle the significance of the phenomenon, admits that this

agreement is remarkable. Kluge has a couple of twenty quotations on it.
Passavant says (p. 90 of his work): "Many somnambulists saw

all living things shining. The light was to them the expression of
life, and not just symbolic, but real. They also saw the living
beings and their organs shine in different ways. ... Somnambulists
often saw a similar glow in their magnetisers, even in everyone
around them, out of the eyes, the fingertips, and sometimes the
epigastric region. "
One can remember here that light phenomena depend on undulatory movements, and that the
visibility of undulatory movements depends on various circumstances. The rays at the limit of the
solar spectrum are visible to certain people, not to others, heat vibrations only become visible at a
certain temperature, etc. So the negative experience that we do not perceive that light emanating
under normal circumstances is not yet a counter-evidence against its permissibility.
In our body, of course, it is not just a matter of fine movements, but also of fine
organization as a basis for the spiritual. Now, however, the fine movements that we
produce around us as true as we produce them in ourselves do not go into the void
and are not only effects, but also carriers of effects; they intervene in connection with
the entire visible activity of man organizing a living world around us, which is
actually originally calculated to receive further determinations of its organization, of
which we can of course only follow the rough outline. We only have to want again
what the subtle movements we have started to contribute to the elaboration of the
organization of the earthly world, not more palpably outside of us than we have the
corresponding within us, and are we able to demonstrate clearly what the fine
movements that are subject to our thinking contribute to the elaboration of our
brain? We merely conclude, in the sense of the more developed claim from the higher
development of the intellectual faculties, which grows through our intellectual
activity itself, that the physical instrument must have attained a correspondingly
higher level of elaboration through this activity; but also the earthly world works out
its spiritual faculties through the work of men beyond itself in an ever higher
sense. So we can make the same conclusion. But if someone wants to explain the fine
organization of the brain indifferently to our spiritual organization, or if he does not
accept any retroactive effect of the spiritual activities on the organization of the brain,
now he has everything easier again, although in our opinion not more relevant; so he
does not need to ask about the contribution of the fine activities that go beyond us to
the fine elaboration of the organization of the world around us.
If, by the way, every person down here has an impact on other people and can only
develop himself higher in accordance with the intercourse with them, and insofar as
he also lives on in the hereafter in the effects that he has produced in others, an
essential part can be left here himself find the fine organizational conditions that are
required for the afterlife. Instead of one human body, a thousand are at our command
in the hereafter, but we do not live in the individual, but in the organization which
concerns and binds them all.
To sum up the above: If, according to the presuppositions of the more developed
view of the relationships between the spiritual and the physical, everything that we
see externally in our present body and its movements, which, however, can just as
little be recognized by us in any other way than in the end, and which completely
escape the rough, superficial consideration. It turns out that the assumption of such
fine determinations and movements in us and in what remains of us are in fact so
connected that we can only accept or deny both in connection; and what we demand
of this world in this respect must also be presupposed in the hereafter as a
consequence of this world.
In support of the above, a few general considerations:
It can be expressed as a general proposition that no movement can permanently cease to exist
without either being converted into movements of a different type or permanent devices which
influence movements again, which cannot be rougher and coarser than the causal
movements. Perhaps the blow of the hammer seems to have ended when it falls on the anvil; we say
the effect is canceled; It is not true, it has only dissolved into a shaking of the anvil and the earth,
into the finest vibrations, which cannot disappear without dissolving into even finer vibrations, in
some cases it has also been used up, the hammered iron in another form bring; but that does not
mean canceling the effect, but giving it a permanent form; because in everything that will be done
with the hammered tool in the future, the effect of the hammer blow is still preserved; how could
the tool be worked the way it is done if it has not been hammered as it is done? And the finer the
work on the tool, the finer effects can be created with it. Every different cause produces a different
consequence in general, and to the same extent as a process is differently individualized and shaped,
it must also apply to its consequences down to the finest nuances.
A multitude of complicated activities often seem to combine to form a very simple result, in
which all the differences in the initial effects are lost; hence the composite sequence to be simpler,
more crude, than the composite of the causes which contributed to the result; But the thing is that it
is impossible for our senses to distinguish or recognize in the composite result the ongoing fine play
of the components or the fine combination, arrangement, which has been created thereby, as well as
we distinguish the causes, as long as they still seem separate; although this fine game, this fine
arrangement still reveals itself to be really present through certain nuances of the resulting process
or structure or the development of the consequences. So in the case of the seemingly simple egg laid
by the entangled hen, so when several waves meet in the sea from different sides. A single wave
seems to engulf them all; they seem to be drowning in it; but in the ripples of this great wave the
play of the small waves is still revealed, and as they were devoured by it they emerge again from
it. The great wave is only the crossing point, the crossing point of the small ones, not a result of
their abolition or annihilation. and as they are devoured by it, they emerge again from it. The great
wave is only the crossing point, the crossing point of the small ones, not a result of their abolition or
annihilation. and as they are devoured by it, they emerge again from it. The great wave is only the
crossing point, the crossing point of the small ones, not a result of their abolition or annihilation.
It is true that movements cannot be canceled out by counter-effects without leaving a lasting
effect behind in some changed circumstances, e.g. B. when two bodies in opposite directions of
movement collide and mutually cancel their movement? So won't the movements that our spiritual
be able to carry also gradually be neutralized in their continuing effects by counter-effects? But only
the same applies to what is said about the apparent cancellation of the effect of the blow of the
hammer by the anvil. So when two balls meet, the movement is partly converted into a shock of the
balls, by which they are elastically driven back, and which is also communicated to other bodies
with which the balls come into contact; partly the movement as long as the elasticity is not
completely related to a change in shape, a new permanent device on the balls, which in the future
extends its influence on everything that happens to the balls. Often, of course, one sees movements
slowing down for a while; but, unless the result is a permanent change in shape, it is always only to
change over to faster movement over time. So the movement of the earth slows down in one half of
the year and begins to speed up again in the other. So much in us may slow down in sleep that goes
faster again when we are awake. In the long run, no movement is exhausted except in permanent
effects that continue to have a determining effect on other movements. And we have every reason to
close that even the permanent effects or arrangements turn into movements again in the course of
time or, in the context of the whole, give rise to such causally through their existence, because the
quantity of movement as a whole does not decrease. The ax that the blacksmith hammered has
consumed some of its moving power due to the change in shape it undergoes; but this ax may strike
the same wood that will one day melt its iron again and release the so-called bound moving force
again. All bound warmth will be released once again, and so on. Whatever the physical body may
carry the spiritual in us, insofar as the spiritual has a physical carrier at all, because the quantity of
movement does not decrease as a whole. The ax that the blacksmith hammered has consumed some
of its moving power due to the change in shape it undergoes; but this ax may strike the same wood
that will one day melt its iron again and release the so-called bound moving force again. All bound
warmth will be released once again, and so on. Whatever the physical body may carry the spiritual
in us, insofar as the spiritual has a physical carrier at all, because the quantity of movement does not
decrease as a whole. The ax that the blacksmith hammered has consumed some of its moving power
due to the change in shape it undergoes; but this ax may strike the same wood that will one day melt
its iron again and release the so-called bound moving force again. All bound warmth will be
released once again, and so on. Whatever the physical body may carry the spiritual in us, insofar as
the spiritual has a physical carrier at all, we do not have to worry that it will ever be extinguished in
its effects; only the form of these effects may change; How little danger, however, of the greatest
changes in form of the effects, if the causal connection of the effects persists, to our spiritual
persistence, will be shown by later discussions.
B. Questions related to the destruction of the brain in death, the suffering and
aging of the mind with the body.
The answer to the questions that arise here leads back, only from a different starting
point, to the previous and earlier points of view. In the meantime we take it up with
particular diligence, since this is the point of departure for the most common
objections against immortality, and some of what has been said earlier can be suitably
supported and reinforced by related considerations.
Anyone who comes to the point again easily raises the question: How should I
understand that my brain, which I needed for all my conscious activities down here,
should suddenly become superfluous with death? Was it for nothing down here that it
could be thrown away in death? Does not my mind suffer when the brain
suffers; How should he not suffer even more, even be able to survive alive at all, if it
ceases to exist entirely?
I answer: The brain was not in vain down here, if it fulfilled a purpose just for the
down here; but must it also be necessary for a new way of being that goes beyond the
hiding place, can it still be useful for this? With the old brain we remained the old
people. The brain was also not in vain for the hereafter, when it served in this world
to develop activities that help build our hereafter.
Or will you also say: The seed was therefore in vain because you see that it bursts
and dissolves in order to give room to the free development of the little plant in the
light? On the contrary, it first had to be in order to form the plant of the plant in a first
life, was absolutely necessary for this, but it couldn't always be, otherwise it would
have always had to stay with the plant. So your brain and the rest of your body
always remain absolutely necessary for this first, in relation to the following only
embryonic life, in order to create the following, disorders of the brain then of course
disturb this life, but the destruction of it can only destroy this life, not that following,
because the destruction of this life is precisely the condition that the disposition of the
following life awakens and grows into the real following life.
You say: But if I destroy a seed, the system of the plant is destroyed with it. Very
true, but not when nature destroys it, as it is in the course of its destiny. And man's
natural determination is everywhere to die, regardless of the way, early or late.
If you looked around among the things that are in front of your eyes every day and
looked at them a little more closely, you would probably find many examples which
taught you how little to trust the appearance that so easily causes you to believe in the
destruction of the Brain to tie the death of the soul, because you find the brain so
necessary for the game of the soul down here.
How about playing a violin? You also think that if a violin is smashed that has only
just been played, its playing will be over for ever; it decays so as to never sound
again, and thus the self-conscious string-playing of the human brain decays when
death smashes the instrument to do so. But when you smash the violin, it is
something that you neglect, as you do with the death of a person, in which you only
pay attention to what is closest.
The sound of the violin echoes in the open air, not just the last note of the game, the
whole game echoes into it. Now, of course, you think that when the tone is beyond
you, it has died down; but someone who is distant can still hear him; so he must still
be there; someone who is too distant finally no longer hears it either, but not because
it has disappeared, the sound only spreads too far, becomes too weak for a single
narrow spot; but imagine that your ear always goes along with the sound or the shock
that carries it and spreads out as it goes on hearing as it does in the wide area, so you
would always hear it. It never goes out; basically he always stays. He not only
communicates to the air, in that the shock that bears him does so to water and soil,
whatever he encounters; he goes through thick and thin, sometimes always thrown
back, but not extinguished, and always remains the same, yes, the tones of the whole
game follow each other always and everywhere in the same order, the same
context. The narrowly defined violin has only expanded its playing to the widest
possible extent.
Of course, who could really follow the sound everywhere to hear it? But something
really follows him everywhere; he follows himself everywhere. What if he could hear
himself? Wouldn't he always hear himself like an ear that follows him exactly and
spreads out with him? A futile assumption, of course, when playing the dead violin,
but whether it is also in vain when playing the living violin? The dead is played by
others, and so their play is only heard by others, where they are, does not hear
itself. The living violin of our body, however, plays itself, so now its playing also
hears itself and only needs to run after itself in order to hear itself; as well as the
movements, it is probably vibrations themselves, which in our perception out of the
eye, this light violin, spreading into the brain, first our light sensations, then in their
aftermath our memories carry them, no longer needing an external ear or eye, but
hearing themselves in their full extent. Why? The eye is alive, the brain is alive. Well,
that's how we are alive, and wherever the game of our lives echoes, the earth around
us is also alive.
In any case, we see in the violin that the same complicated conditions on which the
first generation of an effect, in this case the sound, essentially depended, need not
necessarily continue to exist if the same effects are to be maintained. They can be
omitted and the effect is retained even under the simplest of conditions. So, after all,
the first genesis of the melody of our spiritual life may be very essentially tied to the
existence of our brain, but it does not follow from this that it is also necessary to
maintain it; Indeed, a medium as simple as air, just as when playing the violin, would
like to be sufficient to support our spiritual life in the future, instead of the so
complicated brain which, of course, was first necessary to generate it; if for us, as
with the violin, it was only a matter of continuation, not also of further
development; according to which our effects shine not only into the smooth air, but
also into the whole realm of the earthly, where they find all-round opportunity to step
under new conditions, produce changes from changes, and with the movable ones
also produce lasting effects, as we already do considered above.
Incidentally, here, too, it is important to consider the side of the unequal with that
of the same in the picture. Playing the violin is completely passive in its beginning
and accordingly also its progression, only reproduces the line of the foreign bow,
does not determine itself from itself. affecting body and mind at the same time, and
there is a law of antagonism in it, which makes it understandable how the starting
game must first be extinguished before the game continues into consciousness. We'll
talk more about this soon.
In addition, the image of the violin appears to be quite appropriate insofar as our
body in general affects the outside world through vibrations that spread like sound in
waves. Every footstep shakes the earth in vibrations that are gradually propagated
through the whole earth; every progress, every movement of the hand, every breath,
every word evokes a wave that strides through the whole circle of air; the warmth that
you radiate goes in fine vibrations, every look from eye to eye is propagated by light
vibrations, even while you are standing still, a thousand waves of light emanate from
you, which paint your picture into the room; and in connection with these more easily
recognizable vibrations that come from your exterior, as it were as a fine core or
content thereof, If they exist, the finer, imperceptible vibrations will then also be
propagated from within you, which may be even more meaningful for your soul than
all these coming from outside. The inner movement of your narrow body is itself, as
it were, only an intertwining of countless waves that go from there into the distance.
But it is not just a matter of floating and floating, as with the violin, what passes
from you to the outside world, you also influence the outside world in fixed works
that are connected with the creation of the movements themselves, and of course you
do that too only perceive the rough outline. Indeed, if we had a violin which through
its play would at the same time open new strings around itself in the outside world to
build a larger violin which would continue playing after the small one was broken,
the picture would be even more striking.
So you can look at yourself in your present life like a blacksmith who is
hammering his future body into shape for himself. What everyone pounds on earth
will one day be part of it. When the new body is finished, the old tool, i.e. the old
body itself, is thrown away, and even if the person may die, the new body is finished
to the point that he can start the work of life in a new way from that point can
continue to which the old body has brought it. This is a picture that only fits into the
fixed in your future corporeality, like that with the playing of the violin only on the
movable. A picture cannot cover everything at once.
It is very understandable that if your brain does at some point in the service of your
spirit for this life, yes, the main condition is to bind it to this life, it must feel
disadvantage for this life, if the brain is damaged, is very understandable; but nothing
follows from this in any way against the dispensability of the brain in a future
life. Damage it only to the extent that the present life ceases, then with the present life
the damage to the present life will also cease; But the damage cannot extend into the
following life, because the greatest damage to the old body, that is, its destruction, is
what makes the new life possible. Only that a person should try to get as far as
possible in the present life, as much as possible, in order to step into the hereafter as
developed as possible, as a made being; for it would benefit neither this world nor the
hereafter if all people should die young, just as little if all should die old. But for
those who will one day develop on a child or youth basis, death takes enough
anyway; So man must work to the best of his ability to ensure that there is not a lack
of those who will one day develop on the basis of a whole, full life in this world.
If you consider destruction of the brain to be worse than damage, you are only right
in so far as the damage could perhaps still be lifted, so that you could stay a little
longer in the old life and continue to prepare for the future. Destruction takes away
this organ of preparation from you once and for all; Now it is a matter of budgeting
with the basis that has been gained; but it also just takes away the organ of
preparation from you, which is immediately followed by preparation, which is always
something higher than the current state; in that way you always win against
now. Destruction of an organ is worse than damage only if there is nothing to replace
what has been destroyed; but if something is there, the complete destruction of the
injured party can be profit as the elimination of the disturbance. You amputate a sick
limb and gain even without anything to replace; How should you not win all the more
when your whole sick body, your sick brain is amputated, when there is no lack of
conditions that replace you for a new existence.
It is a fact that a small disturbance in the brain often does much more damage than
cutting away an entire half of the brain, which harms the soul as good as nothing, as
is well known from experiments on animals and even pathological experiences on
humans; yes, which perhaps, if it were that easy, could serve to lift some soul
disorders that arise from an evil in the relevant hemisphere. 3)One can find this very
paradoxical, but with this it is just like a wagon drawn by two horses. If one of them
is lame or wild, the whole wagon goes badly, and it is best to unhitch the sick horse
completely; then he walks properly again, only a little more dully, just as the mind is
more likely to feel tiredness when one half of the brain is omitted; but if you unhitch
both horses, the carriage stands still, that is death. But what is happening? The
coachman gets out of the narrow carriage and walks through the wide space of his
home. Only the car was willing to lead him there. Yes, if there weren't a coachman
who had his own legs.
3)Longet reports of a 29-year-old man whose mental powers showed no noticeable deviation, despite the fact
that the entire right hemisphere of the great brain, with the exception of the basal parts, was absent. (Longet,
Anat. Et Physiol du syst. Nerv. 1842. I. 669.) - Neumann cites a case in which a bullet had destroyed an entire
hemisphere without depriving one's consciousness. (Neumann, From the diseases of the human brain. Koblenz
1833. p. 88.) - Abercrombie reports of a woman in whom half of the brain was dissolved into a pathological
mass, and who nevertheless accounted for an imperfection of vision, all of them kept her intellectual faculties
up to the last moment, so that a few hours before her death she attended a happy company in a house of
friends. (Abercrombie, Inquiries etc.) - A man, of which O'Holloran mentions, suffered such an injury to the
head that a large part of the cranium on the right side had to be removed; and since there was severe
suppuration, a large quantity of pus, with large quantities of the brain itself, was removed from each bandage
through the opening. It did so for 17 days, and it can be calculated that almost half of the brain, mixed with
matter, was ejected this way. In spite of this, the patient retained all his mental powers up to the moment of his
dissolution, as well as during this entire state of illness his mood was uninterruptedly calm. and since there was
severe suppuration, a large quantity of pus, with large quantities of the brain itself, was removed from each
bandage through the opening. It did so for 17 days, and it can be calculated that almost half of the brain, mixed
with matter, was ejected this way. In spite of this, the patient retained all his mental powers up to the moment
of his dissolution, as well as during this entire state of illness his mood was uninterruptedly calm. and since
there was severe suppuration, a large quantity of pus, with large quantities of the brain itself, was removed
from each bandage through the opening. It did so for 17 days, and it can be calculated that almost half of the
brain, mixed with matter, was ejected this way. In spite of this, the patient retained all his mental powers up to
the moment of his dissolution, as well as during this entire state of illness his mood was uninterruptedly calm.
Ferrus reports of a general who had lost a large part of the

left parietal bone as a result of an injury, which resulted in
considerable atrophy (stunting) of the left cerebral hemisphere,
which was manifested externally by an enormous depression of the
skull . This general still showed the same liveliness of spirit,
the same correct judgment as before, but could no longer indulge
in intellectual pursuits without soon feeling tired. Longet says,
on sharing this experience, that he knew an old soldier who found
himself completely in the same case. (Longet, Anat. Et Physiol. Du
syst. Nerv. I. 670.)
In any case, if half the brain can often fall away with less harm to the soul than
suffer a mere disturbance, why not possibly the whole? The only difference is that as
long as we keep half the brain, we still stay in this life, because one half represents
the other in the service, but if both halves fall away, we fall over into the other life by
now a higher representation takes place.
If one takes a closer look at the physiological and pathological observations of the
brain, one is astonished at how significant injuries the brain can endure at all,
sometimes even on both sides at the same time, without any noticeable disadvantage
to the soul. One would like to believe that it is really of no use. And some have drawn
such conclusions. At other times, mere disturbance seems to do a lot of harm. If you
combine everything correctly, you find that it depends on the fact that the principle of
representation, which is very well developed in our organism, is particularly effective
in our brain. One eye can be destroyed, one can still see with the other, one lung can
be destroyed, one still breathes with the other; if there is even a piece of lung left, it
works; If veins have become inaccessible, the blood runs through others; Clutter does
more harm than destruction almost everywhere. It's the same with the brain. The parts
are represented from right to left, and even up to certain limits on the same side. If it
doesn't work with one fiber, it works with another; how, if it doesn't work with one
vein, it works with another. It will be like a piano, only to a much more developed
degree, where several strings belong to the same tone. "There is," says Abercrombie,
and others agree, "no part of the brain that has not been found, and to any degree,
destroyed without mental development noticeably suffering." But far from proving
that all these parts are superfluous, it merely proves that all, more or less, in
solidarity, find a representation by the other parts, which has its limits for life in this
world. Because, while you can take both the right and the left cerebral hemisphere
from an animal, without any detriment to its mental activities, you cannot take both
of them together; it then becomes quite stupid, even if you leave the basal parts of the
brain over because they are are no longer sufficient for representation. Well, if the
principle of representation has already been carried so far in our body, it should not
extend beyond our body into the larger body to which we belong; and not, if our
whole brain, our whole body is destroyed, something should already be there to
represent it? I mean,
The difference is that our death cannot be viewed as such abnormal destruction as
when we cut away a piece of brain; but as one that falls into the normal course of the
larger life to which we belong. Destruction that occurs in the normal course of life,
however, characterizes new development epochs everywhere.
On this occasion one can recall cases in which even an approach to the complete destruction of
the body in death brought about a restoration of the mental functions which were destroyed in
life. Such cases are not exactly rare, and without being able to prove for themselves that death can
do more in this respect than approaching death, but favorable to this idea, and at least worth
mentioning in support of our other conclusions.
One finds numerous cases of this kind in Burdach, Vom Bau und Leben des Kirchen III. P.
185, Treviranus, Biol. VI. 72. Friedreichs Diagnostic p. 364 and 366 ff., Friedreichs Mag. H. 3, p.
73 ff., Jacobi's Ann. Pp. 275-282 and 287-288. Froriep, daily report. 1850. No. 214 communicated
or mentioned. Burdach says, adding the supporting cases: "When the fire breaks out in an inflamed
intestine, not only does the pain cease, but the activity of the soul is sometimes exalted. With other
diseases, too, one sometimes notices a higher one shortly before death If the brain is abnormal, it is
not uncommon for insane people to use their intellectual powers again before death.
Here are some specific examples.
"That man in his innermost depths possesses a higher, indestructible property, a spirit that
even madness does not touch ... of this is the story of a woman in the Uckermark who had been mad
for 20 years and who died in November 1781, a remarkable proof. In the individual lucid moments
of her condition one had previously noticed a quiet submission to a higher will and pious
composure. Four weeks before her death she finally awoke from her long dream. Whoever saw and
knew her before that time had, she now no longer recognized, so heightened and expanded were her
powers of spirit and soul, so ennobled was her language. People crowded to her strange sick bed,
and all who saw her confessed that if she had been among the most enlightened people even during
her madness, her knowledge could not have become higher and more extensive than they are now .
"(Ennemoser, Gesch. Der Magie. IS 170 f.)
"In a man who had been mad for 3 years, the more a hectic fever that had arisen as a result of
a lumbar abscess got the better of him, until the patient finally died using her mental powers to the
full Dura mater with the bone. Madness was left behind as a secondary disease of scarlet fever.
" (Vering in Nasse's Zeitschr. 1840. I. 131-140.)
"A 30-year-old, robust, married Maniaca (Mania errabunda without certain delusions, and
without lucida intervalla) succumbed to a gastric-nervous fever after a 4-year stay in an institution,
after violent and stubborn resistance to drugs and drinks heralded the impending dissolution of the
body through the loss of strength, the soul began to become free: in the last two days before her
death, the patient spoke perfectly sensible and even with an expenditure of understanding and
clarity that was associated with her earlier education she asked about the fate of her relatives,With
tears regretted her rebellion against the medical orders and finally succumbed to the bitter struggle
of the reawakening lust for life with inevitable death. "(Butzke in Rust's Man. Volume LVI. H. l.)
You might say: All of these are far-reaching images and conclusions. I see, as my
body ages, my spirit also ages, how should the spirit not be completely over when the
body is completely over, you can already see clearly where it is headed.
But how; aren't those conclusions you are making? The conclusions appear to be
because they hit what is next, which is not at stake after all; but they only hit the next
thing, nothing more.
You close because body and spirit decrease with age, so both must cease with
death. You could just as well close, and would apparently just as correctly and in
truth just as incorrectly close: Because the pendulum becomes sluggish, dull when it
approaches the end of its oscillation, yes at the end of an, admittedly only
imperceptible, moment like still stands, its vibrations cease completely. But if this
conclusion is wrong, why should that be more correct? After all, an oscillation begins
from the fresh.
The example is of course of little use other than to show the error of your
conclusion in the simplest possible way; as a picture it would be far too poor and did
not show the right thing at all, or only with laborious interpretation. For the vibration
of our new life will, we conclude from other things, not simply be a retrograde
repetition of the old one, but an extension of the same in a new sense. But, if we do
so, we can find this again according to the principle of inequality in the picture,
without which no picture can be properly interpreted. Our life is not as simple as that
of the pendulum or the string. The old man is said to be a child again; yes, in a certain
way he will; but in another respect he is the opposite of a child, our life goes on and
on from youth to old age; even the oldest old man still has new experiences; only
everything becomes duller, even what has been newly experienced; instead, the
pendulum, the string, experiences exactly the same thing on the second half of its
oscillation as on the first. But if it is so different with us than with the pendulum in
the oscillation of the first life, well, this will also be so different in the second; the
new experiences will go on with the new body, just as they left here, continuing to
build on the old ones, but with a new freshness, a new vigor. on the second half of its
oscillation exactly the same as on the first. But if it is so different with us than with
the pendulum in the oscillation of the first life, well, this will also be so different in
the second; the new experiences will go on with the new body, just as they left here,
continuing to build on the old ones, but with a new freshness, a new vigor. on the
second half of its oscillation exactly the same as on the first. But if it is so different
with us than with the pendulum in the oscillation of the first life, well, this will also
be so different in the second; the new experiences will go on with the new body, just
as they left here, continuing to build on the old ones, but with a new freshness, a new
vigor.
If we leave aside all the picture with the pendulum, the string, then, if anything, the
consideration of the periodicity and continuing development of our present life
should guarantee that old age is just the end of a period in this progressive
development is naturally heralding the beginning of a new period that brings
something new in a new sense. We do not even know mathematically any progression
in periods that would find a goal somewhere; but the concept of small periods, as we
see them e.g. B. in sleep and wake, which are built into larger ones, a common
one. This consideration leads to the view of death itself only as a birth to new life,
which closes an earlier epoch of development by beginning a new one. We'll talk
about this in a later section.
C. Question how the existences of the hereafter can persist in confusion.
What a mess, they will say, in the hereafter! The spheres of activity which the
various people here below all reach out into the same earthly world and must
therefore meet and cross each other in it; How can it be conceivable that the spiritual
existences linked to it one day still feel as separate and cannot be confused with one
another?
We have already encountered this difficulty incidentally; but let's take a closer look
at the matter.
If we do this, we shall immediately find that the future does not place us worse in
this respect than the now; yes, that it brings essentially nothing else with it than what
we already endure without any damage, even quite necessary for intercourse with
others and for our own further development. But if she brings it with her in a slightly
different way, then she only brings new advantages.
For already now, the broader spheres of activity of other people intervene in the
narrower bodily system of man, the bearer of his waking consciousness in this world,
in the most manifold, most complex, indeed in a completely inextricable
manner. What we hear, read, experience from other people, what changes in us at all
because other people are there, forms such an interference in their wider spheres of
life in our current, narrower system in exactly the same sense as it later takes place in
our wider system itself becomes, and already takes place in it, while it does not yet
form the carrier of our waking consciousness. But instead of our individuality being
somehow impaired, disturbed, blurred, torn apart by that intervention, our intercourse
with others is based on and do we need such intervention for our own
development; each such intervention enriches us with a new purpose. The difference
between the future life and the present is based on nothing else than that after the
narrower inner spheres of activity that are represented by our present bodies have
disappeared, all that remains is the interference of the other spheres of activity which
originated from them; but there is no longer a reason that the individualities should
lose and disturb one another through this intervention of the broader spheres than is
the case with the intervening of the broader spheres in the narrower ones; at that time
that intervention was only a continuation and further development of this. Rather, this
explains in the best way how the connections and relationships between men and
women established in this world endure into the hereafter and can be spun on there
with consciousness, since the other interlocking spheres in the hereafter become
carriers of consciousness; yes, how a more intimate intercourse of consciousness can
awaken through this in the hereafter than in this world; for while on this side
everyone only intervenes with an unconscious expansion of his life sphere and to a
small extent in the other conscious life sphere, in the hereafter everyone intervenes
with his whole conscious sphere in the other conscious sphere; and therefore thoughts
and feelings can meet there in a more immediate way than here, although there are
also limitations to this encounter in the greater mind as in our mind, as discussed
earlier. yes, how a more intimate intercourse of consciousness can awaken through
this in the hereafter than in this world; for while on this side everyone only intervenes
with an unconscious expansion of his life sphere and to a small extent in the other
conscious life sphere, in the hereafter everyone intervenes with his whole conscious
sphere in the other conscious sphere; and therefore thoughts and feelings can meet
there in a more immediate way than here, although there are also limitations to this
encounter in the greater mind as in our mind, as discussed earlier. yes, how a more
intimate intercourse of consciousness can awaken through this in the hereafter than in
this world; for while on this side everyone only intervenes with an unconscious
expansion of his life sphere and to a small extent in the other conscious life sphere, in
the hereafter everyone intervenes with his whole conscious sphere in the other
conscious sphere; and therefore thoughts and feelings can meet there in a more
immediate way than here, although there are also limitations to this encounter in the
greater mind as in our mind, as discussed earlier. In the hereafter everyone intervenes
with his whole conscious sphere in the other's conscious sphere; and therefore
thoughts and feelings can meet there in a more immediate way than here, although
there are also limitations to this encounter in the greater mind as in our mind, as
discussed earlier. In the hereafter everyone intervenes with his whole conscious
sphere in the other's conscious sphere; and therefore thoughts and feelings can meet
there in a more immediate way than here, although there are also limitations to this
encounter in the greater mind as in our mind, as discussed earlier.
The earlier asserted image of the stone making waves in the water can serve us well
to explain some of the relationships that come into consideration here.
When the stone is thrown into the pond, the water sways up and down several times
in the same place, rises and falls, and each such oscillation creates a circle of waves
which, as it spreads, runs through the whole pond. Similarly, the more precise bodily
process of man fluctuates up and down, if we only think of sleep and waking, pulse,
breathing, the alternation of rest and movement in general, and in so doing, in partly
visible, partly invisible effects, creates fine circles of waves in the earthly outer
world, the to walk right through it in its more distant consequences. It's basically just
another form of the picture with the violin. As long as the movement process at the
point of origin of the shock, i.e. in the innermost circle of the pool wave, is lively, one
can easily be induced to consider it alone, neglect even though they actually
exist. Thus we usually neglect the continuation of the more narrow bodily process in
the further, although such a continuation actually exists. In the meantime the force of
the movement gradually diminishes in the innermost circle, that of the most
primordial excitement, and finally disappears completely; then all that remains is the
system of further circles that started out there, in which all the moving force is found
again, which was only contained in the innermost circle. In this way our wider body
will be animated by all the life force that came to the narrower body during its life.
No matter how many stones are thrown into the pond, the wave system extends
around each as well as that around each other through the whole matter of the pond,
so to speak, has the whole pond as its body, just as each of us will one day have the
whole Earth; Every point of the pond belongs to all wave systems at the same time,
but to each one in a different way and with different strength and direction of the
movements; all movements of the various systems are always reassembled at new
points with one another; and in spite of this, each system as a whole remains
individually differentiated from the others, one stepping through the other with
unalterable independence. But as well as the eye can objectively see the totality of
these diverse origins, Lets effects break down into different discrete systems, it can
just as easily be subjective for a sense of self; Indeed, not just as well, but if the
objective distinction has its obvious limit, we can, on the other hand, expect that the
subjective has no limit, since the spheres of activity that will support our future
existence are systems, each of them From the outset, even in the present, despite all
interventions from outside circles, nothing feels but himself and what is happening to
him from others.
Regardless of the fact that the whole pond belongs to each wave system, each one
has a different local relation to it; The starting point of the waves is different for each
one, and so everything that follows from them is different in location from the
pond. And this is how it will one day be with our corporeality. The same space will
belong to all of us in common, but each will have a different relationship to it.
Of course, the system of effects emanating from a person during his life is not as
simple as the system of waves around a stone in a pond; and if we are to think that the
systems of action of different people not only at the beginning, but also in their most
distant further effects, not only the systems of action of all people who are now
living, but also of all people who died earlier, should exist undisturbed, undisturbed
with and through each other in the same world , the idea is dizzy and it seems to be
expected to do something impossible. But nothing real can be impossible; but real
examples of such dizzying ideas can really be given which compel us to recognize
their legitimacy as well-founded.
First and foremost, it is certain that every wave in the pond which crosses itself for
the first time with another without disturbance, will cross with it undisturbed even
after any further advancement and any number of repulsions, i.e. in the most distant
further effects. In this respect, the continuing effects are no longer able to bother each
other, more confusing than the beginnings. But if it were difficult to carry out
experiments with water to prove that the waves from any number of centers remain
undeterred by one another; so it does not even require special experiments with
another medium, that of light. Space is crossed by as many waves of light as there are
visible points in it, that is, by innumerable ones; and each of these light waves crosses
not just once as it progresses, but at every point, which it traverses, always anew and
in a new way with all other light waves, is made up of it, the red with the green, the
blue with the yellow, the strong with the weak waves. Here, too, the idea of this
entanglement is dizzying, and yet every wave reaches the eye undisturbed, as if it had
advanced lonely and alone through a pure, smooth space, and draws and paints the
correct proportions of the objects in it in connection with the others . It would be
thought impossible if it weren't for real. According to such examples, one can also
believe that the systems of effects emanating from innumerable different people can
intersect with innumerable systems of other effects without disturbing or confusing
one another. In accordance with,
Perhaps one asks: But what is true of waves of water and light, which are
propagated by a calm, uniform medium, can also be transferred to the effects which
are propagated from man to the outside world, where every effect meets other effects
in an irregular manner ; Doesn't all order and all original character have to be
completely disturbed, even abolished, by the irregular entry of other effects? If a
stone falls into a wildly agitated sea, the shape of the waves it creates will not soon be
completely destroyed by the accidental movements with which it meets; her
character, her peculiarity will soon be completely blurred, and what will be left of her
is a disorderly nature?
But this objection is based on false assumptions. Man's effects do not radiate into a
world in which things are orderly, irregular, random, which can be compared with a
wildly agitated sea; Rather, there is an expediency, a legality, a progress towards
certain goals as a whole, which we can also quite well recognize as a whole, even if it
is too grand or of too high order for us to consider the way in which each individual
contributes to it , so easily could be followed individually. But since our effects
radiate into the outer world with full legal and purposeful co-operating movements,
they can neither disturb this legality and expediency nor be disturbed in their own
legality and expediency thereby; because both arise, work, Continuation of working,
working together from the beginning, lies offset in the same general higher
legality; our activity as a moment in the development of the whole must already be
included in the law of this development. Should the systems of action disturb each
other randomly through their crossing; so this should also be visible as a whole, what
emerges from the intersection, and the more such systems intervened in one another
in the course of time and the further their effects extended, the more the confusion
and confusion would have to increase. Instead, we see the world gradually ordering,
organizing, shaping, connecting what is scattered; without the individual
blurring. Church, state, art, science, trade are evidence of such increasing
organization, which is in fact a success of the interlocking of human spheres of
activity, and not only of the spheres of activity of the living, but also of those who
have been. Who can speak of disturbance, error, confusion here? But does not show
on the whole the error of why they search in detail?
In addition, of course, not everything in the picture can be adequate. Our bodily
process is not awakened by a stone thrown outwardly into the sea of life, but rather
by a self-shaking, not numb, not incapable of development, not limited to monotony
of uniform movements, like the wave of the pond; In all of these relationships there
will also be other consequences for the sphere of activity that our narrow bodily
process wraps around than for that which the narrowest wave circle in the pond
spreads around it.
There is nothing to prevent us from saying that, in general, all such expressions are
more or less improper, that we all already have the earth as our common body; it is
one body, and we are all members of this same one body; but each member can count
the whole body as part of itself; only that it has a different meaning for each, just as
each has a different meaning for it; all these meanings already cross each other for us
in the earth without disturbing each other. In the meantime, in our life now, there is
only a small part of the earth's body for everyone, the narrower body of each, bearer
of waking consciousness, the rest of the earth body, yes, basically the rest of the
world body, is in a more unconscious relationship to it; how even in our closer body
there is a part, the brain, which is preferably a bearer of wakeful consciousness, while
the rest of it is more unconsciously related to it. With death, however, we win the
whole earth as a common carrier of our consciousness, each one according to the
direction in which he has established a conscious relationship with him here below,
and these consciousness relationships now develop further.
If the foregoing considerations imply some unfamiliar things to the imagination,
which on closer inspection and in fact only enter into the most common processes of
the world. in this way, on the other hand, they make things easier for her from the
start, which she would otherwise find difficult to grasp and which is therefore usually
preferred to be left aside. If one wants to let the souls appearing again and again and
passing over into the following life, when a body is taken up again, to be divided into
space and matter next to one another, then the difficulty of the Chinese cemetery
arises, where (allegedly) the corpses are only allowed to be buried next to one
another. Where will the place for the living and for the dead come from in the
end? They say God will do it. Certainly; only allow him the means to do so and do
not ask that he turn two times two into five. How is the difficulty of the Chinese
avoided in our churchyards? By always burying the corpses in the same room,
believing that the corpses will not harm each other after death. Now, just in this way,
our view avoids the difficulty for the spirits, since it lets them all wake up into the
same room, in the belief that the spirits will just as little harm each other after death,
and instead of narrowing the space and arguing to make, in which common
possession of the same will find the best means for common use of it. It seems to me
that it is a nicer idea, instead of always placing the spirits of the future spatially next
to each other, that is, to bind them to piles of matter that are next to each other and to
limit them therein.
We see, however, that a unity of the psychic can be linked to a composition of
discrete materials, provided that the movements of this matter represent a coherent
system, as our present body itself proves; But if material discretion does not hinder
psychic unity, then, conversely, there can just as well exist a psychic discretion with a
material community, that is, one and the same body, the body of the earth, can be the
residence of several souls, provided that this body includes different systems of
movement at the same time; because it turns out that material and psychological
discretion are not essentially connected.
D. Question how far the death of our present body could lead to an awakening of
our future one.
One can ask, what does death have in itself that could one day raise the wider body,
which our closer around it has driven out, to be the bearer of our consciousness, or let
it awaken to consciousness while it is now slumbering? If this wider body, which we
call this, is already to be regarded as a continuation of the narrower one, as belonging
to us, then the question arises as to why it does not already take part in our conscious
life; or, if this is not really the case now, what is justified in assuming that it will be
the case with death, yes, what is justified in considering it as a continuation of our
present corporeality that is somehow meaningful for our soul? The effects which go
out from us into the world are felt as ours only in the starting point; what we once did
seems lost to us; what it continues to work through its consequences, how it reaches
more and more into the distance through the consequences of the consequences, what
co-effects and counter-effects it encounters, affects our consciousness no longer or
only accidentally, and then no differently than any foreigner. Now, however, our
effects and works with their continued effects in the external world are to form a
continuation of our present narrow corporeality that is still meaningful for our
spiritual existence. But in our narrow body we feel what is going on; its changes and
the effects of these changes are not alien to us, not lost, even in their most distant
conclusions we always encounter our feelings, provide determinations for our
consciousness. To that extent does our narrow body concern us, but to what extent is
ours further? what it continues to work through its consequences, how it reaches
ours further? what it continues to work through its consequences, how it reaches
ours further? How it reaches more and more into the distance through the
consequences of the consequences, which co-effects and counter-effects it
encounters, affects our consciousness no longer or only by chance, and then no
differently than any foreigner. Now, however, our effects and works with their
continued effects in the external world are to form a continuation of our present
narrow corporeality that is still meaningful for our spiritual existence. But in our
narrow body we feel what is going on; its changes and the effects of these changes
are not alien to us, not lost, even in their most distant conclusions we always
encounter our feelings, provide determinations for our consciousness. To that extent
does our narrow body concern us, but to what extent is ours further? How it reaches
more and more into the distance through the consequences of the consequences,
which co-effects and counter-effects it encounters, affects our consciousness no
longer or only by chance, and then no differently than any foreigner. Now, however,
our effects and works with their continued effects in the external world are to form a
ours further? and then no different from any stranger. Now, however, our effects and
works with their continued effects in the external world are to form a continuation of
our present narrow corporeality that is still meaningful for our spiritual existence. But
in our narrow body we feel what is going on; its changes and the effects of these
changes are not alien to us, not lost, even in their most distant conclusions we always
does our narrow body concern us, but to what extent is ours further? and then no
different from any stranger. Now, however, our effects and works with their
continued effects in the external world are to form a continuation of our present
narrow corporeality that is still meaningful for our spiritual existence. But in our
does our narrow body concern us, but to what extent is ours further? But in our
does our narrow body concern us, but to what extent is ours further? But in our
does our narrow body concern us, but to what extent is ours further?
In the meantime, what should we do with our narrow body itself if we no longer
feel anything of what is going on in it when we sleep? To that extent it still concerns
us when the sleeping body is a continuation of the waking one, immediately spun
from the waking one, which promises to awaken again. The sleeper who has come
out of wakefulness can nevertheless, as we can see here, wake up again and then
continue the previous life. So our further body, which is still asleep, will one day
wake up as a continuation of the waking, narrower body, immediately spun away
from it, and be able to continue the life of the one from which it came. What we see
in the succession of our closer physical life, alternation of sleep and waking, why
shouldn't that also be possible in the juxtaposition of our closer and wider ones; why
a connection like a sequence of a sleeping and waking body is not possible; which
connection promises to turn out again in a sequence, provided that one day the
narrower body falls asleep, the wider one will wake up. We have of course said that
death should not be confused with falling asleep, that is, only with not falling asleep,
which only temporarily sinks the old body into unconsciousness in order to wake it
up all the more vigorously later; but it can be regarded as falling asleep, which lowers
the old body forever into the unconscious, in order to allow a sleeping body
connected to it to awaken, which had gathered the strength for a new beginning
waking life in its slumber. For everything that escaped the old body of strength while
waking was absorbed by the new body in slumber. which connection promises to turn
out again in a sequence, provided that one day the narrower body falls asleep, the
wider one will wake up. We have of course said that death should not be confused
with falling asleep, that is, only with not falling asleep, which only temporarily sinks
the old body into unconsciousness in order to wake it up all the more vigorously
later; but it can be regarded as falling asleep, which lowers the old body forever into
the unconscious, in order to allow a sleeping body connected to it to awaken, which
had gathered the strength for a new beginning waking life in its slumber. For
everything that escaped the old body of strength while waking was absorbed by the
new body in slumber. which connection promises to turn out again in a sequence,
provided that one day the narrower body falls asleep, the wider one will wake up. We
have of course said that death should not be confused with falling asleep, that is, only
with not falling asleep, which only temporarily sinks the old body into
unconsciousness in order to wake it up all the more vigorously later; but it can be
regarded as falling asleep, which lowers the old body forever into the unconscious, in
order to allow a sleeping body connected to it to awaken, which had gathered the
strength for a new beginning waking life in its slumber. For everything that escaped
the old body of strength while waking was absorbed by the new body in slumber. We
the old body of strength while waking was absorbed by the new body in slumber. We
the old body of strength while waking was absorbed by the new body in slumber. but
it can be regarded as falling asleep, which lowers the old body forever into the
unconscious, in order to allow a sleeping body connected to it to awaken, which had
gathered the strength for a new beginning waking life in its slumber. For everything
that escaped the old body of strength while waking was absorbed by the new body in
slumber. but it can be regarded as falling asleep, which lowers the old body forever
into the unconscious, in order to allow a sleeping body connected to it to awaken,
which had gathered the strength for a new beginning waking life in its slumber. For
everything that escaped the old body of strength while waking was absorbed by the
new body in slumber.
This appears even more plausible if, in the sense of the imagination, instead of
simply looking at the abstract circle of our effects and works as our wider body, we
grasp the whole earth outside of us as such, but according to the relationship
according to which we incorporate it into it , or how we perceive it as a great body,
the members of which we are already now, which belongs to us as we do to it, only
with regard to the fact that its meaning for our conscious beyond will depend on our
conscious intervention in it on this side, what are basically all just different turns of
the phrase for the same thing. Then we can see it as if our present overall bodily
system were composed of the small, wakeful, narrow body and the larger, wider body
that sleeps for us, ie the rest of the earth; for however much there may be awake in
the earth outside of us, for our consciousness on this world it sleeps except for the
small part that our narrow body forms of it. In death, however, where our conscious,
narrow body perishes, this wider body awakens for our consciousness precisely on
the side of the further effects which our conscious life has produced in it. Everyone
like the other can already count the earth as his body down here; it is unconscious
body common to all of us here below, and in the hereafter it becomes common
conscious body to all of us. This is all the difference. It is no longer necessary to
consider the possibility of this co-ownership, which we have done enough in the
past; But it flows from the fact that the consideration that we can make for each
individual person in particular does not go astray as a result,
But, one can reply, does the assumption of such a relationship, that one part of our
corporeality are now asleep while the other is awake at the same time, have anything
to do with it? In the current sleep of our narrow body, which must be based on our
views of sleep, the whole body sleeps at once and wakes up again at once; Here,
however, the strange state is assumed that the bodily system wakes up to one part, the
narrower inner part, and at the same time sleeps after another outer part, which is to
be regarded as belonging to it. Where is there something in the present life that
suggests such a possibility?
In the meantime, if one demands examples that a body can partly wake up and
partly sleep, it is in fact not lacking in our closer body itself ; One just does not have
to turn to the word sleep, which in common parlance is simply used for the total
waning of consciousness and for a particular form of this waning, and insofar as it
can of course not be applied to partial eclipses of consciousness; Instead, keep in
mind the thing denoted differently, which is under consideration here, to which in the
meantime, in order to emphasize some relationships more easily, it may at least be
permissible to apply the word sleep in an improper generalizing sense.
When someone looks at an object with the utmost attention, he hears almost
nothing of what is going on around him, feels nothing of the state of warmth and
coldness of his skin; Hunger and thirst are silent for the moment; all real thinking is
extinguished, provided only that he immerses himself as purely as possible in sensual
perception; In short, his consciousness is awake to a noticeable degree only in
relation to those activities which have their preferred location in the eye and what is
connected with it in the brain, and which in its entirety we may at least sum up as the
eye, without merely referring to the external Eye to mine. The fact that there really is
a special part in us that serves the purpose of seeing rather than other parts is proven
by the fact that we can still see as well as before, if the leg, arm, nose, ear is cut off,
some parts of the brain are destroyed, but no longer if the external eye, optic nerve or
the parts of the brain in which it is rooted are destroyed. So here we really have a part
that is watching for consciousness in a body that is currently relatively sleeping. Now
it is correct that the sleep of the rest of the narrower body is not as deep as we assume
it to be from our wider body; it is not even as deep as our ordinary sleep; While we
are looking at something attentively, an overall impression also asserts itself of what
otherwise affects us; it is also not as firm as the sleep of our rest of the body; every
violent noise, a pinprick, etc., interrupts it; but since our narrower body already has
the most varied degrees of relativity and partiality in this respect, from dead sleep or
apparent death to ordinary sleep; From the ecstatic immersion in a sensation, where
everything in us sleeps deeply except a small sphere, to a distraction, where we are
really attentive to everything and nothing, nothing prevents the wider body itself from
being included in the category of this relativity to grasp, and, if we never perceive a
sign of waking in him in the now life, to look for the extreme of the depth and
firmness of sleep in him. Moreover, the sleep of our wider body may not even be
absolutely deep, as will be shown; and if the whole or partial sleep of the narrower
body can be interrupted by a pinprick, so the further can be interrupted by a stab in
the back, which lets us awaken to another life. The sting just has to go a little deeper
because sleep is a little deeper. For each of our parts there has been a time when it has
not yet felt anything, or when we have not yet felt anything by means of it, its
sensation was still slumbering. The whole time before the birth is such a time when
the whole narrower body was still sleeping; our now life is the time during which the
whole wider body is still sleeping for us; but every moment can add sufficient
conditions to wake up for the first time, just as our narrow body has awakened a first
time, in that we can die at any moment. The sting just has to go a little deeper
time, in that we can die at any moment. The sting just has to go a little deeper
time, in that we can die at any moment. The whole time before the birth is such a
time when the whole narrower body was still sleeping; our now life is the time during
which the whole wider body is still sleeping for us; but every moment can add
sufficient conditions to wake up for the first time, just as our narrow body has
awakened a first time, in that we can die at any moment. The whole time before the
birth is such a time when the whole narrower body was still sleeping; our now life is
the time during which the whole wider body is still sleeping for us; but every moment
can add sufficient conditions to wake up for the first time, just as our narrow body
has awakened a first time, in that we can die at any moment.
If we look closer, we find that there is even in our closer body a part that, although
belonging to us, is almost as constant, if not quite as deep in the darkness of the
unconscious as we are want from our wider body.
Who will not count his abdomen, his stomach, his entrails as part of his body? but
what does he feel about the changes in it? If he swallows a plum kernel or some other
bite, he can still feel up in his throat how it slides down, whether it is big, small,
rough, soft, hard, pointed, slippery, cold, hot; deeper down he no longer feels any of
this; the stomach writhes around the bite, moves it back and forth, sucks it out, drives
it out, blocks its way back; all of this is done by a part of the body that we call
ours; and yet we feel none of this activity. And so we usually feel nothing at all,
neither from the special changes in our digestive system, nor from the vascular
system, not the wonderful play of the heart, not the pulse that permeates our whole
body. Everything that happens under the rule of the so-called ganglia system,
according to the usual views, is withdrawn from our waking consciousness, if not
lost, because a general contribution to our community feeling, feeling for life always
takes place from this side, yes, this has its main reason in this. So we can even divide
our narrow body into two parts, one within which consciousness wanders, alternately
waking in time and space (brain and sensory sphere), and another, in which it does
not even enter, for that it sleeps constantly. What now prevents us from looking at the
changes in our wider body from a point of view quite similar to those in our narrower
body. which fall into the sphere of the ganglion system? In fact, nothing new is
required for the rest of the body to sleep like this; and if it seems new that one day he
should be able to wake up, which the ganglion system cannot, then other parts of the
human being can alternately sleep and wake, and even in the ganglion sphere, or
whatever one is accustomed to reckon with4) , sometimes a kind of awakening does
take place, which I will come to immediately.
4)There is still great uncertainty about the division of the brain or cerebrospinal and ganglion spheres in
physiology, which we do not have to worry about here.
As we have already observed, the difference between the waking and sleeping parts
is by no means strict or absolute; Even what we call unconscious or, for the
conscious, asleep, is therefore not without an influence on the conscious, not to be
confused with unconscious; only nothing is separated in it for consciousness, but
merges into a general influence. Anyone who goes for a walk in a beautiful area and
thinks deeply does not know what kind of birds sing around him, what kind of trees
he comes across; the sun warms and shines; he doesn't think about it; but his soul is
in a different mood than when he sat in the dark, cold room and thought about the
same; yes, the surroundings themselves will have an influence on the form and
liveliness of his train of thought; so everything that unconscious is not without
influence in his consciousness, is called unconscious only because consciousness
does not distinguish it according to special determinations. We have already looked at
this elsewhere. As it is now here with our brain and sensory sphere at times, it is
always or almost always with our ganglion sphere. The changes that take place in it,
and which we call ourselves unconscious, are therefore not without influence on our
consciousness. How we digest, how our blood flows, has an impact on our physical
well-being, even on the way we think and how we think. Everything that goes on in
the cycle and nourishing process contributes, although not separately, but in
connection with the other in the most essential way, yes as the main one, to our
general feeling for life; but this goes into all determinations of our consciousness
itself as a basic moment, forms that, so to speak, over which the special
determinations of consciousness first rise, only that in it, as a rule, nothing is
differentiated. But it is sufficient that an excitement in the sphere of the ganglion
system asserts itself in an abnormal way, the stomach becomes inflamed or
spasmodically affected, the heart contracts strongly, so special changes in pain, fear
and the like can also be very vivid. to come to consciousness; though never so clearly
as changes in the sphere of the brain system. Now we can look at our further body in
the external world again from the point of view of the same relativity. We can believe
that its changes are not without influence on our consciousness even now, but that
this influence in the normal course of life is even more absorbed in the general basic
feeling and feeling of life, and that it is even more difficult to become conscious in
special determinations than the influence of the changes that take place in the sphere
of our ganglion system. Indeed, if such an influence, which we feel unconsciously,
and therefore think we do not feel at all, could one day disappear, we would probably
notice that it is also there now; how you don't think you can taste the salt in the quite
salted dishes, but you can taste it when it is missing. But this influence can never be
removed from the part of the wider body than from the part of the ganglion system,
from which we also accept what it does to us in all our determinations of
consciousness without being particularly aware of it. yes, almost without believing in
it. But if particularly strong excitements and disturbances in the sphere of the
ganglion system can assert themselves in our consciousness through special, more or
less definite or indefinite sensations, we will have to expect such cases for our further
body even more seldom, since it is even deeper sleeps for our consciousness. If those
are exceptional cases, these will have to be even rarer exceptional
cases. Nevertheless, one might ask that they not be entirely absent, in order to have
any direct proof of the psychological affiliation of the further body we have assumed
to us. can assert more or less definite or indefinite sensations, we will have to expect
such cases for our further body even more rarely, since it sleeps even deeper for our
consciousness. If those are exceptional cases, these will have to be even rarer
exceptional cases. Nevertheless, one might ask that they not be entirely absent, in
order to have any direct proof of the psychological affiliation of the further body we
have assumed to us. can assert more or less definite or indefinite sensations, we will
have to expect such cases for our further body even more rarely, since it sleeps even
deeper for our consciousness. If those are exceptional cases, these will have to be
even rarer exceptional cases. Nevertheless, one might ask that they not be entirely
absent, in order to have any direct proof of the psychological affiliation of the further
body we have assumed to us.
Perhaps this desire cannot be fulfilled; What is certain, however, is that as long as
certain phenomena, admittedly viewed with doubt by many, cannot be shown to be
decidedly erroneous, it cannot be said that there are no signs of what is
desired. According to the previous considerations, they can only be rare; and they are
indeed rare, and precisely because of this rarity and the impossibility of tracing them
back to well-known phenomena of our closer corporeality, people have always
distrusted their legitimacy; in our view, however, we find the principle of explanation
for this rarity of the fact and the fact at the same time, in that we recognize in it the
trace of an abnormal awakening of our wider body, the kind that changes that
otherwise completely blur into the unconscious,
I will give a few examples that will show what I mean; Incidentally, as in general with this whole
class of facts, leave it to everyone to accept them or not; since, although they serve our teaching,
they are not a necessary support of it.
A young lady I know, of an otherwise cheerful disposition, the daughter of one of my
colleagues, in whose story I cannot put the slightest doubt about her thoroughly reliable character,
got during the preparations for a family celebration, where everything about her was cheerful, and
without having the slightest cause to be in a fear that was quite inexplicable to herself and which
she could not give up, she wept, separated herself from the company and could not calm down at
all. Soon afterwards the news arrived that a distant relative to whom she had been very fond had
died in an accident at the same time.
I take the following examples from other writers:
Lichtenberg recounts in his estate: "Once in my youth I lay in bed at 11 o'clock in the evening
and woke up very brightly because I had just laid down. Suddenly I was afraid of fire, which I could
hardly control, and I thought I felt an ever increasing warmth on my feet, as if from a nearby fire. At
that moment the storm bell began to sound and it was burning, but not in my room, but in a rather
distant house. I have this remark As far as I can now remember, never told because I did not want to
take the trouble to protect it by assurances against the ridiculous it seems to have and against the
philosophical disparagement of some of the present. " (Seer of Prevorst. II. P. 55.)
"Once upon a time, when it was already quite late at night, a rich landowner felt compelled to
send all sorts of groceries to a poor family in his neighborhood. Why today, his people asked,
shouldn't that have until tomorrow morning?" - No, said the gentleman, it has to happen today. The
man did not know how urgently his charity was for the inhabitants of the poor hut. There the
householder, the provider and breadwinner, suddenly fell ill, the mother was frail, the children had
been crying for bread in vain since yesterday, and the youngest was on the verge of starvation; - "So
another gentleman who, if I am not mistaken, lived in Silesia, was disturbed in his nocturnal rest by
the irresistible drive, to go down to the garden. He gets up from the camp, goes down, the inner
urge leads him out, through the back door of the garden into the field, and here he comes at just the
right time to become the savior of a miner who, while getting out of the drive (ladder ) had slipped
and, while descending, held on to the bucket of coal that his son was just pulling up on the winch,
but could no longer cope with the increased load on his own. "-" A venerable clergyman in England
once felt himself, still late at night, forced to visit a melancholy friend who lived quite a distance
from him. As tired as he is from the work and exertions of the day, he cannot resist the urge; He's on
the way, in fact comes to his poor friend as called, because he was just about to put an end to his life
by his own hand, and was rescued from this danger forever by the visit and the comforting
persuasion of his nocturnal guest "-" Professor Böhmer in Marburg once felt, as he was in intimate
company, that he had to go home and move his bed from the place where it was to another. When
this was done, the restlessness subsided and he was able to return to society. But that night when he
slept in the place he had now chosen for his bed, the ceiling collapsed over the part of the room
where he used to sleep. "(Schubert, Spiegel der Natur, p. 24.) to put an end to his life by his own
hand, and was rescued from this danger forever by the visit and the comforting persuasion of his
nightly guest "-" Professor Böhmer in Marburg once felt inwardly forced to follow suit To go home
and here to move his bed from the place where it stood to another. When this was done, the
restlessness subsided and he was able to return to society. But that night when he slept in the place
he had now chosen for his bed, the ceiling collapsed over the part of the room where he used to
sleep. "(Schubert, Spiegel der Natur, p. 24.) to put an end to his life by his own hand, and was
rescued from this danger forever by the visit and the comforting persuasion of his nightly guest "-"
Professor Böhmer in Marburg once felt inwardly forced to follow suit To go home and here to move
his bed from the place where it stood to another. When this was done, the restlessness subsided and
he was able to return to society. But that night when he slept in the place he had now chosen for his
bed, the ceiling collapsed over the part of the room where he used to sleep. "(Schubert, Spiegel der
Natur, p. 24.) and was rescued from this danger forever by the visit and the comforting persuasion
of his nightly guest "-" Professor Böhmer in Marburg once felt, because he was in intimate
company, inwardly urged to go home and here his bed from the place where it stood to move away
to another. When this was done, the restlessness subsided and he was able to return to society. But
that night when he slept in the place he had now chosen for his bed, the ceiling collapsed over the
part of the room where he used to sleep. "(Schubert, Spiegel der Natur, p. 24.) and was rescued
from this danger forever by the visit and the comforting persuasion of his nightly guest "-"
Professor Böhmer in Marburg once felt, because he was in intimate company, inwardly urged to go
home and here his bed from the place where it stood to move away to another. When this was done,
the restlessness subsided and he was able to return to society. But that night when he slept in the
place he had now chosen for his bed, the ceiling collapsed over the part of the room where he used
to sleep. "(Schubert, Spiegel der Natur, p. 24.) to move away to another. When this was done, the
sleep. "(Schubert, Spiegel der Natur, p. 24.) to move away to another. When this was done, the
sleep. "(Schubert, Spiegel der Natur, p. 24.)
Let it suffice with these examples, several of which can easily be collected.
All of this can be explained as coincidence or fiction, and I do not claim that such narratives
should be regarded as reliable in all directions in the sense of exact research. But it couldn't be a
coincidence either, everything couldn't be invented and lies either; and in many cases it doesn't look
like it. And so one will never be able to say that it is absolutely certain that man everywhere merely
draws sensations out of his closer body in the usual way, because in all these cases a special
determination of consciousness took place through something far outside the narrower body.
The remark can be made here that the events mostly concerned something that concerned the
suspect and his sphere of activity particularly closely, the danger or distress of a dear relative or
person to whom the helper was undoubtedly used to being helpful; so really something that entered
the special sphere of activity of the person concerned very specifically. It was also always
particularly strong, urgent occasions that evoked the premonition; just as in the sphere of our
ganglion system fear and pain are only revealed as a special feeling in the case of particularly strong
stimuli.
Of course, the cases of distant vision and the related foresight of the somnambulists can also
be drawn here, of which we have already spoken. I shall add a few remarks on this shortly
afterwards.
What has been said so far has only been intended to show that the assumption of a
deep sleep of our further body during the now life with the possibility of a former
awakening not only does not contradict the facts of this now life, but finds support in
them itself. Let us now consider more closely the question of why he is still asleep
just now, and what death can bring with it that makes him wake up. All that is
necessary for this is a more specific examination of the legality of the same facts
which have already guided us in the foregoing.
We find that in our closer body there is an antagonistic relationship between the
wakefulness of various organs, so that the relative wakefulness of one part is linked
to the relative sleep of others for consciousness. Yes, this seems to be a general law
that is deeply rooted in the nature of our organism. The preferential awakening of one
part can itself be regarded as the cause that others relatively fall asleep, and the
falling asleep of one part as the reason that others begin to wake up
relatively. According to the measure, when someone begins to be completely eye, to
say his consciousness is absorbed by the activity of this organ, he falls asleep for the
ear and other sense organs; and according to the measure, when he ceases to be all
eyes,
If we now assume, which is the natural consequence of our view, that this law,
which is particularly valid for our narrower body, is also valid for the entire system of
our narrower and wider body, then the falling asleep of the narrower body itself
becomes one Furthermore, carry along the disposition for the awakening, yes, the
same person really must become relatively more awake than before. But in ordinary
life the sleep of the narrower body is not so deep that the other, who sleeps
disproportionately deeper, could be woken up considerably. (Traces of it, of the
nature of the dreams noted earlier, namely in meaning dreams, really do show up
more often, and would probably show themselves more often if we had more
recollection of our dreams.) But now the deepest, The sleep of our narrower body,
which no longer leaves room for awakening, is death, where all consciousness for it
is completely and irredeemably lost. But this must be the most powerful condition for
it to awaken in the wider body. What seems to us to be the destruction of our entire
system is, according to this, merely a complete abandonment of one part of the life
activity that carries the consciousness and a permanent transition of consciousness to
the other. If we want, we can really think of this as driving the soul into another
body; but basically it is only the awakening of another part of the body, which we
already have in us, to consciousness, as we often see such things in the life of the
narrower body within it itself. In truth, the soul never actually leaves its body in such
a way;
One can say, but destruction of the narrower body does not mean falling asleep. In
the meantime, experience itself teaches that the same laws actually apply here, as far
as we are concerned here with them. The only difference is that a part who has fallen
asleep can, so to speak, again seize consciousness when waking up, but not a part that
has been destroyed; the eye that is now asleep, perhaps because another mind or the
thoughts are busy, can once again gain supremacy for its part. But if the eye is
destroyed, it can never be the case again. Rather, other sense organs become more
and more active, ear and fingers begin to replace the eye; the consciousness that had
previously been divided, as it were, between the occupation through the changes of
the eye and the other senses, now turns exclusively to the latter. When I speak of the
division of consciousness and the like, I need somewhat palpable expressions for
facts that are perhaps capable of very subtle consideration, but all that matters is to
designate the factual. And they are sufficient for that.
In the previous considerations, we tried primarily to establish
and explain corresponding relationships in the overall system of our narrower and
wider body through the actual relationships of partial sleep and waking (what we
called it) in our narrower body , from the point of view that in the laws of our
narrower body reflect only in a special way more general laws of our entire body, of
which the narrower only a part. But the relationships between the actual or full sleep
and waking of our narrower body also provide clues for appropriate explanations.
Just as the life of our narrower body is divided into an epoch of waking and
sleeping, so the whole system of our body is simultaneously divided into a waking
and a sleeping part. That the narrower body, this the wider. We have already
presented it that way. This sleeping further body, however, only arose because all the
effects which earlier contributed to waking in our narrower body sink into sleep as
they go beyond it; and all finally get beyond it. The whole waking person on this
world goes to sleep little by little in the wider body. But as well as the narrower body
awakens again from the short daytime sleep into which it periodically falls, when it
has gathered strength enough for the new awakening either after the natural
arrangement of the course of life, or is awakened by force, the wider body awakens
from the longer sleep in which it has sunk when, according to the natural arrangement
of human life, it has gathered strength enough for awakening into new life, or is
forcibly awakened into new life. And with this the whole person of the previous life
awakens again. In any case, the wider body awakens at the moment when the
narrower body becomes incapable of further strengthening it with new moments
which can one day serve the consciousness, whether this point in time brought about
by natural or violent death; and in general (through which this consideration is linked
with the previous one) the wider body stands in such an antagonistic connection with
the narrower body that the deeper the narrower body sinks below the threshold of
consciousness, The more the disposition to awaken further arises, in abnormal cases a
temporary partial awakening of the wider body can also take place if the narrower
body only partially falls asleep very deeply, but a full and irretrievable awakening of
the wider body can only then occur, when the reawakening of the narrower in general
has become impossible in all parts and sides. If the sleep of the wider body was much
deeper in the present life than that of the narrower, then its waking in the new life will
be correspondingly much brighter, and if on this side in the wider body everything
has gone to sleep that has ever been awake in the narrower, everything becomes
beyond what ever went to sleep here, wake up again. Although this is not to be
understood in this way, as if, when the wider body wakes up, we should suddenly
become conscious of everything that has gradually passed through the consciousness
of our narrower body; only partly the general possibility of taking it back into
consciousness with its further determinations, partly the general impression of it will
thus be given. Consciousness will undoubtedly wander in our wider body and the
world of memory that is included and founded in it in a similar sense as it is now in
our narrower body and than in the small world of memory that is included and
founded in it, only with a lighter one larger area at once clearly illuminating light,
larger steps, greater lightness and freedom, greater objectivity and reality of what
appears than now consciousness wanders through the circle of memories at its
command; and even if everything is not listed in the otherworldly consciousness in
individual pieces at once, what has been counted one after the other in consciousness
on this side, the whole conclusion, the whole weight, the whole value of our previous
content of life becomes one and at once can assert in consciousness.5)
5)
The seer of Prevorst says: "In this moment (of full death) the spirit also has the past life in a number and
word, and it is at the place of its determination according to this number and word."
Since in this subject we are again vividly reminded of the phenomena and
relationships of somnambulism, yes, a kind of theory of the same is linked to the
previous considerations by itself, I take the opportunity here to say a few words about
the relationship that so many have in general Unsolicited sides between the
presupposed states of the hereafter and the states of waking sleep, as they are
described, imposed, and not only imposed on us, but on the most varied of observers
and performers, and even seems to impinge on the somnambulist by itself, insofar as
it appears very often assert this reference.
Schubert expresses himself in the following way about the subject in question:
whose eyes are tightly closed, an inner life which transforms the traits of pain or indifferent
calm into those of delight and the most alert consciousness. Indeed, it often has that appearance
which the moments of the highest enthusiasm spread over the human face, or it is like the
transfiguration which sometimes rises over the face of the dying in the last hour of life. "
"The body is now even more paralyzed and bound than in the deepest sleep, sometimes so
much as in stubbornness and in apparent death, in the direction in which the brain otherwise acts on
the sense organs and limbs, and these act backwards on the brain It already shows the position and
appearance of the eyeball staring upwards like a dead man, an observer who forcibly pulls the
eyelids of the magnetically sleeper from one another, that the assurance of such sleepers is based on
which they do not look with this ordinary eye The complete deafness of somnambulists to all
voices, no matter how loud, except those of the magnetizer and other beings magnetically connected
to them, also proves that the usual way of hearing does not take place with them,and so it is with the
activity of all other senses. "(Schubert, Gesch. d. Seele. II. p. 39 f.)
Justinus Kerner says: "And this is how you see, my dear, the magnetic human being, while he
is still bound to the body and thus to the world of the senses, protruding with extended threads into
a world of spirits and from there into you We see such an endeavor, such a projecting into a world
of spirits, more or less in all magnetic people, but in this case of ours (seer of Prevost) to such an
excellent degree that none of the same is known up to now . " (Justinus Kerner, seer of Prevorst II.
P. 6.)
If we assume that the states of somnambulism are as reported, at least in part, the explanation
given above could be that the partial, very deep asleep of certain spheres of the narrower body,
namely the whole external sensory sphere, which takes place everywhere in somnambulists,
antagonistically promoted a partial awakening of the wider body, and that the more limitless
perceptions thus gained can be communicated to this world because the clairvoyant is still rooted in
the waking world through one side of the narrower body (since he yes otherwise could not speak to
us). Instead of death causing the narrower body to fall asleep completely or to fall asleep, the wider
one to wake up completely, somnambulism would only partially let the narrower body fall asleep
deeply, the others only partially awaken; and so we now have a system which, according to its
waking side, belonged half to this world and half to the hereafter; consequently, of course, did not
really belong to either of them, and therefore, of course, did not really know how to perform the
services which both belonged to. With regard to this world, there is no doubt about it; but it would
now also explain how the achievements that actually belong to the hereafter can only be exercised
in a disturbed, incomplete, or clouded manner. The clairvoyant somnambulist can no longer find
himself right in the present life; he does not see some things that others see; he sees some things
that others do not see; he sees and feels some things differently than they see and feel
others; because a way of seeing and feeling already plays into his now life, which is actually no
longer a matter of now life. But the reverse is also true; just as in some respects he no longer finds
himself right in this state of affairs, so he does not yet find himself right in the state of the other; he
looks at everything more or less with the glasses of now life; sees everything more or less from
narrow viewpoints in this world, which no longer have any truth for the hereafter or gain another
meaning; Imaginations of the present life mix and confuse themselves all the more easily with
realities of the future life, as memories and fantasies themselves will develop a more real meaning
for the hereafter than they have here below, although a real existence in the hereafter will only attain
a real existence in the hereafter as they do are compatible with those of the other spirits.
It is well known that memory extends from the usual waking state to somnambulistic, while
the reverse is not true. Rather, after awakening from the somnambulistic state, all memory of this
state is extinguished. In this way, one can say, the memory of the state of this world will indeed
reach over into the other world, but there is no way backwards to reflect the state of consciousness
on the other side in a reminiscent of this world. He who is completely dead remains completely
dead, and what someone has done and thought in a somnambulistic state remains dead to his
memory on this world; however, when awakening into the hereafter, the memory of it will probably
come back to life.
In fact, I am inclined to apprehend the wonderful phenomena of somnambulism from this
point of view, as far as they are at all correct, for which I leave the limit undefined; because this is
how the totality of these phenomena is best laid out for me.
It seems to be much simpler to remove the somnambula's peculiarly modified and in some
respects heightened perceptual faculty, which, generally speaking, is nowhere denied, from an
antagonistic increase in just this or that ordinary sense, this or that sphere of brain activity when the
person is asleep remaining to explain; and so it is generally done by those who recognize the
strange but not the wonderful in the phenomena of somnambulism (e.g. from Forbes in a small, in
itself very noteworthy work); however, this cannot explain the peculiar phenomena of clairvoyance,
if something of them should remain correct; all somnambulists also testify, as much as they have
said about it, unanimously, that their perceptions, even of their surroundings, do not take place in
the ordinary sense. And that seems to me to have some weight compared to the rather compelled
evidence that it can still be done in such a way. According to the somnambulists, however, it does
not take place in such a way, and the inner experience must mean more here than the outer
experience. I am assuming that not all somnambulists are liars, which of course all are certain who
first lie about the somnambulistic state themselves; but also all really somnambulists? That would
be a strong assumption. The general agreement of the same on the point in question (while they
often differ greatly on other points) proves itself against the general lie, if not everything should
only be a repetition of one and the same basic lie;
One mother did not want to give her child any more to eat and claimed that it had a stomach
ache, since it was more of an assurance that it would still have an appetite. The child could only
refer to his invisible inner feeling and the fact that he wouldn’t talk about appetite if he didn’t have
it; but his mother experimentally proved his stomach ache by feeling it externally on his
stomach; and so she was right. Thus we prove through external experiments that the somnambulists
see and hear in our minds, notwithstanding they themselves assure the contrary, and we are right,
because the somnambulists can no more than the child prove externally what they feel internally.
In the meantime we always admit that in addition to the deliberate deceptions in this area,
self-delusions, bad observations, unsuitable representations, exaggerations, concealment, post-
prayer, involuntary reconciliation in the sense of preconceived notions on the part of the observer as
well as the somnambulist themselves can occur, and all of this indisputably has one big, critically,
unfortunately, inextricable game played here. In any case, one does not have to want to accept new
miracles until the principles that have so far correctly guided us in the explanation of the ancient
miraculous world of nature let us down completely. There are sufficient external and internal
reasons here, which rightly determine the exact researcher to consider the whole field of these
wonderful phenomena with strong doubts, although in my opinion they cannot entitle him to
anything more. Certainly not all gold that is spent on it in this area is; but there would hardly be so
much counterfeit and fake gold if there were not also a little real gold. This view of the matter,
which does full justice to doubt and even shares it to an indefinite degree, is in any case the reason
why I always approach this area with caution, and, as much as it suits our teaching, it is not a real
one May seek support in it.6)Rather, I search for this only in clear facts and points of view, which
are taken from the waking world and which are used again, but at the same time serve to guide the
consideration beyond it. But this way of justifying our doctrine itself leads to points of reference to
that area, the consideration of which was all the less to be dismissed as the probability of the
phenomena in question grows because we consider their legitimacy in an area other than the world
of being through the laws of this world Be guided by oneself, and an abnormal overlapping of the
relationships of the two in one another according to their interrelationship may well be allowed to
be possible. If in normal conditions only the liver secretes bile, in abnormal conditions (jaundice)
the skin does too, only weaker and less complete, in the same way, what happens in the normal state
only in the hereafter can happen imperfectly in this world in the abnormal state; if the connection
between the hereafter and the hereafter is at least as organically intimate as that of two areas in our
body. But then also the other way around, if the demands that we make on the hereafter appear to be
actually fulfilled in abnormal conditions of this world, we can no longer doubt the possible
fulfillment of these demands for the hereafter, and the doctrine, those who make these demands, in
turn, gain in probability. Two dark areas, which are dubious in themselves, are able to mutually
contribute something to their support and explanation, as two crooked beams hold each other by
leaning against each other.
6)In spite of a conflicting theoretical interest, I find myself all the more
compelled to stand still on the standpoint of objective doubt with regard to the
miracles of somnambulism, since my own, admittedly not very extensive,
experiences favor a mood in this direction. A somnambulist (the Hempel),
which caused a stir in Dresden for a while, gave me the opportunity (for about
eight days) to make various observations and tests on this subject; but I have to
admit that I only got negative results. No trial was successful; although she
agreed to the rehearsals and her magnetizer (Dr. N.) agreed to it with great
courtesy, although he did remind that the faculty of clairvoyance is not always
immediately certain. She guessed neither correctly what her magnetizer did in
the other room on my orders, what was still contained in locked packages that
were placed in her hand, nor what was missing from the distant patients, about
whose condition I asked her; although her main occupation was to provide
information on the suffering and healing of distant patients; yes, she could not
even guess the wound I happened to have on my arm when I asked her about
the condition after I got in touch with her. In doing so, I convinced myself that
others, whom she consulted about the conditions of distant patients, often
helped her on the jumps themselves, and that there was a great inclination in
her surroundings to look for and touch everything that was true in her
statements or the appearance of correctness would have, but not to take into
account the inapplicable, so that the reports about her that touched it seemed to
contain a lot of wonderful things, and some of them might be really
wonderful; only I myself have not been able to state anything. She also saw
angels and made wanderings through the stars, but what she reported about
them were absurdities. At the same time I cannot doubt that it was a real
somnambulist who we were dealing with here; The peasant girl, who looked
very ordinary in the waking state, assumed a kind of transfigured appearance in
the somnambulistic state, showed a nobler expression in speaking, especially a
great fluency in speaking in rhymes, and in general a quite different nature than
in the ordinary waking state; Circumstances which at least struck me as very
strange, so that I
Even in Siemers' handwriting, which is rich in simple facts: Experiences about
the magnetism of life, Hamb. In 1835, the most varied cases are cited (pp. 148,
149, 161, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 189, 192, 193, 196, 274 ff.) That
somnambulists are partly concerned with the assessment of the pathological
condition themselves, partly others, as well as in predictions and distant views
erred; while other things were remarkably true.
As little as the previous negative experiences speak in favor of the miraculous
phenomena of somnambulism and justify an uncritical belief in them, on the
other hand so many negative experiences can on the other hand not suffice to
invalidate the evidential value more positively, if they are of the kind that one
really does can thereby keep something stated; But I cannot help but attach as
much weight to some experiences of others, at least subjectively, as to my own
negative ones, even if I cannot yet find any exact objective proof of them. But
how difficult is it anyway to lead one that meets the old requirements; how
difficult even in physics; Much that is now everyday has had to wait for
millennia, let alone in an area so fluctuating by nature.
Some somnambulists (like the Kachler in many passages of the p. 242 cited
text, admit the great ease of deceptions in the somnambulistic state, but they
insist that there is also a true far-sightedness and foresight which the usual
barriers of this world exceeds, give in increased degrees of this state.
The change between the main seat of our consciousness usually happens quickly
during life in our closer body without boring transitions. From the attentive use of the
eye to the attentive use of the ear we usually pass not by slow but short mediation;
two completely different states follow each other almost suddenly. Likewise, it only
takes a moment for the sleep of the narrower body to be transformed into
wakefulness and vice versa. If, in death, consciousness passes from the narrower
body to the wider one through a similar rapid change, the sleep of the wider body
hereby changes into wakefulness; so this occurs only under laws that we can already
follow in our life and body on this world.
In the meantime everything in general that we borrow from the consideration of the
small changes and turning points undercutting in our now life and present closer body
is not as meaningful and valuable for the support of our view as what we get from the
consideration of a similar large, rapid change and turning point, how death itself can
be found at the beginning of life; for one must admit that on the whole our life flows
in a river in which all changes, however varied, are to be called almost vanishingly
small against the total upheaval of all conditions and relationships that must suddenly
occur with the awakening to future being; and it might seem daring to suppose that
something like this could happen to us without destroying us if we had no example of
it. But if something like this has already happened to us without danger, even with
profit, it can happen a second time. This leads us to the considerations of the
following section.
XXV. Analogies of death with birth.

It is birth that has given every human being the example of a sudden upheaval in all
of his circumstances, of the apparent breakdown of all of his previous living
conditions. But at the same time she gave him the example that when this means
ending a life, it also means beginning a new life on a higher level. All human beings
are already leading a second life, having emerged from an earlier, lower, more
imperfect one through a violent event. A one-time upheaval, instead of contradicting
a second, rather promises one. Thus nature builds one member of the plant over the
other with nodes lying in between, each higher one grows out of the lower one and
transcends the lower one; and in this way it builds one level of human life on top of
the other with nodes in between; each later grows out of the lower and transcends the
lower.
We usually regard birth and death as something opposite in meaning, and of course
we have to regard them as so long as we, as usual, only consider the side of them that
is turned towards our now life, that is, from birth the side of awakening to new life,
from Death the side of the extinction of the old; and it is no wonder we pretend that
we stand between the two. But if birth has its reverse side in the decline of a previous
life, death can also have its front side in the rise of a new life. With this, however,
birth and death, of opposite significance as they appear for our present life, assume an
analogous significance for our whole life. In both an earlier life is extinguished, a
new one awakens by virtue of the fact that the former is extinguished,
In truth, why should we fear our death more than the child fear its birth, since in no
way did the child fear its birth less than we fear our death? The child knows as little
as we do what it will gain in its new life; there is still no bridge to find out about it; it
only feels what it is losing in the moment of birth, and at first it seems that it is losing
everything. It is suddenly torn out of its warm womb, from which it sucked all the
conditions of life; All organs through which it was related to the mother's body and
drew food from it (velamenta and placenta) are cruelly torn, and immediately rot as
well as our body rots in death, yes, they wither even before birth, like our body in old
age wilts and thereby prepare the birth themselves; Certainly the child may mostly
not be born without pain, just as we usually pass over to the other life with pain. But
it is precisely the death of a part of his system that is linked with the independent
awakening of another part to life, the part that used to be less the driving force than
what was driven out, with the awakening to a new, brighter, freer life. So the death of
a part of our system as a whole will also bring with it the awakening of another part,
which is now less the driving force than the driving force; the awakening to a new,
brighter, freer life. who used to be less the driving force than what was driven out,
with the awakening to a new, brighter, freer life. So the death of a part of our system
as a whole will also bring with it the awakening of another part, which is now less the
driving force than the driving force; the awakening to a new, brighter, freer life. who
used to be less the driving force than what was driven out, with the awakening to a
new, brighter, freer life. So the death of a part of our system as a whole will also bring
with it the awakening of another part, which is now less the driving force than the
driving force; the awakening to a new, brighter, freer life.
Whether the child's educational process is perhaps accompanied by sensual
instinctual feelings can understandably neither be proven nor denied by experience,
since, if such were present, a memory of them would reach even less into the present
life than of the first states after birth into old age, because a purely sensual existence
does not yet include the faculty of memory. Be that as it may, such feelings could at
most be linked to the way in which the organs were expelled and formed (if at
all); The child cannot, however, feel the eyes, ears, arms, and legs, which it sprouts
from the bud, as its own before birth in the same sense as after birth, because it
cannot yet need them that way. They are still just as they are now when our works for
us, like works that have become alien, Educational products there for the same,
which, although it is always increasing with new increments, continually working
out, just as the same thing now happens to us with the circle of our effects and
works; but without ever being able to feel more than (at most) the activity of driving
forward, creating as one's own, as is the case with us. But now, when it is born, the
previous driving force is extinguished, it suddenly realizes that this world of external
creations has become its own body, that everything that seemed to lie outside and
behind it, in it and in front of it, i.e. appears as a condition of its future. It now
recognizes the use of these limbs, these sense organs, and is happy about them if it
had previously formed them well. We may expect the same from our birth to the
following life. which it is true that it always increases with new increments, continues
to work out, as the same thing now happens to us with the circle of our activities and
following life. which it is true that it always increases with new increments, continues
to work out, as the same thing now happens to us with the circle of our activities and
following life. continues to work out how the same thing now happens to us with the
circle of our effects and works; but without ever being able to feel more than (at
most) the activity of driving forward, creating as one's own, as is the case with
us. But now, when it is born, the previous driving force is extinguished, it suddenly
realizes that this world of external creations has become its own body, that everything
that seemed to lie outside and behind it, in it and in front of it, i.e. appears as a
condition of its future. It now recognizes the use of these limbs, these sense organs,
and is happy about them if it had previously formed them well. We may expect the
same from our birth to the following life. continues to work out how the same thing
now happens to us with the circle of our effects and works; but without ever being
able to feel more than (at most) the activity of driving forward, creating as one's own,
as is the case with us. But now, when it is born, the previous driving force is
extinguished, it suddenly realizes that this world of external creations has become its
own body, that everything that seemed to lie outside and behind it, in it and in front of
it, i.e. appears as a condition of its future. It now recognizes the use of these limbs,
these sense organs, and is happy about them if it had previously formed them
well. We may expect the same from our birth to the following life. but without ever
being able to feel more than (at most) the activity of driving forward, creating as
one's own, as is the case with us. But now, when it is born, the previous driving force
is extinguished, it suddenly realizes that this world of external creations has become
its own body for it, that everything that seemed to lie outside and behind it, in it and
in front of it, i.e. appears as a condition of its future. It now recognizes the use of
these limbs, these sense organs, and is happy about them if it had previously formed
them well. We may expect the same from our birth to the following life. but without
ever being able to feel more than (at most) the activity of driving forward, creating as
one's own, as is the case with us. But now, when it is born, the previous driving force
is extinguished, it suddenly realizes that this world of external creations has become
its own body for it, that everything that seemed to lie outside and behind it, in it and
in front of it, i.e. appears as a condition of its future. It now recognizes the use of
these limbs, these sense organs, and is happy about them if it had previously formed
them well. We may expect the same from our birth to the following life. the previous
driving force disappears, it suddenly realizes that this world of external creations has
become its own body, that everything that seemed to lie outside and behind it appears
in it and before it, ie as a condition of its future. It now recognizes the use of these
limbs, these sense organs, and is happy about them if it had previously formed them
well. We may expect the same from our birth to the following life. the previous
driving force disappears, it suddenly realizes that this world of external creations has
become its own body for it, that everything that seemed to lie outside and behind it
appears in it and before it, that is, as a condition of its future. It now recognizes the
use of these limbs, these sense organs, and is happy about them if it had previously
formed them well. We may expect the same from our birth to the following life.
And so we may well take courage when the feeling of death wants to frighten us
with the certainty of everything we will lose and the uncertainty of what we will gain
for it. We have seen this case before; we expect from the second trap that lies ahead
of us what we have already experienced in the first. Basically, death is just an old
acquaintance who returns, not to push down the life shoots that it used to lead us up
to, but to reach out our hand to ascend to a higher one by crushing the lower one so
that we never can can descend again. The shattering of our bodies is just like the
shattering of the ship behind us that first drove us to a new country so that we can
never go back; we have to conquer the new land. This new land is our new life.
The child lives lonely in the womb, cut off from its peers, completely
unsociable; With the first birth it comes out into free communion with other people,
but in a certain way again closed off from them by its, even if only apparent, physical
boundary. In the second birth this barrier will also fall; after that we will all have one
and the same body, the common body of the earth, only everyone will have it in a
different sense. As a result, our intercourse will gain a completely different freedom
and ease than now, as we have already considered it earlier.
How nice it would be, I heard someone say, to be able to combine the freshness of
youth with the maturity and fullness of the developed spirit. Well, death will grant us
this advantage, set us as children into a new life with all the treasures of our spirit that
we have gained so far, where we will use what we have gained and matured here with
new youthful strength and under new circumstances.
The comparison of death with birth could be elaborated further; but here again, as
in the earlier comparisons, we must not forget that it cannot be complete, and we
must take into account the side of inequality. Indeed, this page depends on a situation
analogous to the comparison that first and mostly concerned us. The perceptual life
that we now lead in a higher being is already heightened compared to that which the
perceptions lead in us because the higher being itself is increased compared to
us. And so the life of remembrance that has grown out of that higher life of
perception must increase against the life of memories in us. Well, the life that we are
now leading is already an enhanced one, and indeed a highly enhanced one compared
to that which we led before birth, and so in the life we will lead in the future we will
have to expect not just a repetition, but an increase in the previous increase. But I
don't want to go into detail here on the point of view of difference any more than I
want to go into similarity.
It is undisputed that it depends on the neighbor and is safest to base the foresight in
our future on retrospectives in our own past development history rather than that of
other beings, because it is undisputed that every other being is in a different peculiar
way according to a special, only internally consistent plan developed; but there will
also be something common in the laws of all development; and so we find the general
fundamentals of what we see in ourselves in the broadest range of living
creatures. All plants first develop quietly in the seed and then awaken with the
breakthrough and destruction of the cover in a new realm of air and light; all animals
develop quietly in the egg, be it in or outside of a mother's womb, like us, and enter
into the same kingdom with us and all plants, breaking through and destroying their
shell. Yes, we already see step upon step building in many creatures, from which we
have always drawn images for a future life. So, after the plant has stepped into the air
and light, a whole new life opens up for it later, in that it opens the flower to the
enjoyment of the light. After passing through its egg state, its caterpillar and pupa
condition, the butterfly breaks through the pupa shell and gains wings for the lazy
feet, a thousandfold eyes for the stupid face of the caterpillar. after the plant has
stepped into the air and light, a whole new life opens up to it later, in that it opens the
flower to the enjoyment of the light. After passing through its egg state, its caterpillar
and pupa condition, the butterfly breaks through the pupa shell and gains wings for
the lazy feet, a thousandfold eyes for the stupid face of the caterpillar. after the plant
has stepped into the air and light, a whole new life opens up to it later, in that it opens
the flower to the enjoyment of the light. After passing through its egg state, its
caterpillar and pupa condition, the butterfly breaks through the pupa shell and gains
wings for the lazy feet, a thousandfold eyes for the stupid face of the caterpillar.
It can be observed that even the period of embryonic life, and indeed, as far as we know, in all
animals as in man, is still an earlier period. So to speak, an earlier life which precedes the formation
of the egg itself, and the transition from the state of unfertilisation to that of fertilization, from
where a new development begins, is likewise designated by the destruction of what was called in
the first period the most noble and essential when the main central nucleus appeared, namely,
through the destruction of the germinal vesicle. This forms a larger part of the egg the younger the
egg is, but it is destroyed at the time when the egg leaves the ovary in order to develop into an
embryo. We do not yet quite know how and whether at the moment or just before the time of exit
from the ovary.
Some things that we have already seen in humans, we now see more generally:
The same material world in which the seed is conceived and then saved is also in
which the plant shoots up and takes root. In the same material world in which the egg
lies and the caterpillar crawls, birds and butterflies also fly; In the same material
world which encloses the human fetus, the born human also lives; the womb itself is
only a part, a narrower part of this world. The seed is not laid in the earth here, and
the plant shoots up on another planet, the egg is not laid here, and the bird is found in
a place above the Milky Way after breaking through the shell, but seeds and plants,
Eggs and birds, human embryos and humans live between, next to, even in one
another. Everywhere the later stage of development still has the same spatiality of the
world in common with the earlier one; the higher stage of development recognizes
this too; only the lower one does not recognize it.
So we shouldn't think that our death will drag us out into a completely different
world; but in the same world in which we now live we will live on, only to grasp it
with other new means and to measure it with greater freedom. It will be the old world
that we will once fly in and that we crawl in now. Why create a new garden when
flowers bloom in the old garden, for which a new perspective and new organs of
enjoyment open up in the new life. The same earthly plants serve caterpillars and
butterflies, but how different they appear to the butterfly than to the caterpillar, and
while the caterpillar attaches to a plant, the butterfly flies through the whole garden.
We now see nothing around us of the beings who have preceded us into the future
existence, or believe that we see nothing of their existence; but let us ask ourselves
whether the caterpillar knows anything about the life of the butterfly, the chicken
under the vault of the egg anything about the life of the bird under the sky, the human
fetus in the narrow womb knows anything about the life of man in the great world
organism. The butterfly flies past the caterpillar, brushes against it; he seems to her a
strange body; she would first have to have the butterfly's own eyes to see it as one of
her own. The eyes are already formed in the chicken of the egg; it does not yet know
their use; it would have to open it first and get rid of the shell that encloses it, to see
the bird with itself under the same sky. Will it be different with us? May we not also
expect that with the breaking of the shell of our present body, means of perception,
which our present life has already formed in us, will open up, with which we can only
now see those who were born into the new life before us if after all they already live
and work between and around, yes in us?
After the breakthrough, the seed itself becomes a plant similar to the one it was
borne by, the egg a bird similar to the one who once carried the egg, the human fetus
once a human being similar to that is the one who carried the man's egg or
fetus. What is it that, according to the analogy that now guides us, carries man
himself like an egg; it is the totality of the earthly nature surrounding him; and so we
can expect that after our breakthrough our spirit will also find a body similar to the
surrounding nature, which it will penetrate with knowledge and move actively. We
will one day grow up to a nature similar to that which now surrounds us.
It is not true that in terms of matter a different nature is made for every human
being after his breakthrough; In terms of matter and the extent of space, only one
nature always remains, but this one nature will be different for everyone, depending
on whether he recognizes, pervades, or pervades it in other ways, in other
relationships, in other forms. The way in which he will do this in the future will,
however, be conditioned by the way in which he now relates to her.
Of course, the flower wilts last, the butterfly dies last. Should we finally wither and
die after our future life?
But let's rather reverse the view. Shouldn't that withering and dying be as apparent
to the souls of plants and animals as ours are to us?
Will not ordinary belief one day leave us in a garden of paradise? But where do the
flowers, butterflies and birds come from in the garden? I think where the people in
the garden come from. Man is not raised to a higher kingdom only with death; but the
whole connection of animated beings according to a coherent plan. The upper is
populated by the lower. Such is the belief in nature of the peoples.
Indeed, it seems to me very unfortunate for the belief in immortality to make human immortality
an exceptional thing, or even, as some people do, to link it to special higher virtues of human
beings, so that only spiritually or morally preferred people participate in immortality would. The
rudest races seem to me to have met the right people here. The Lapp thinks his reindeer will find his
reindeer, the Samoyed his dogs in another life, and whoever of us has a loyal dog will be happy to
find him again one day. Should there be no creatures in the other life at all, lower than man? If,
however, it is only natural that these creatures that man meets there grew out of those he met
here. So everything stays in a natural context.
XXVI. About the common attempts to establish the doctrine of immortality

.
It is undisputed that there is no more certain, indeed no other tenable conclusion
about the future than from its present and past conditions. Up to now we have
explained the relationships and conditions of our future beyond, whether always in
the field of facts, but more in related cases and drawn our conclusions from analogies
than attacked our task with direct conclusions. And it is undisputed that it can make a
significant contribution not only to the explanation but also to support our teaching if
it knows how to subordinate the relationships that it demands between our now and
then to actual, more general relationships of the now and then, to make our case
comparable with other analogous cases in which not only the now, but also what was
once still under observation. From this point of view we compared our future life of
memory in the higher spirit with the life of memories in our spirit; the sleep and
wakefulness of our future further body with the sleep and wakefulness of our present
narrower body; our birth in the new life with our previous birth in the present life,
and compared not only both, but also showed how both are related in a higher and
larger sphere of being and working. The consideration of this connection and the
position which both members of the comparison occupy in it gave us at the same time
the means, the analogy of both and the deviation of both from the analogy, insofar as
it takes place, to explain and to take the latter into account according to the principle
of the inference from the unequal reason to the unequal consequence. But the
consideration, the conclusion can certainly also be more closely related to our
subject, directed more directly towards it. Every day changes in us, but we still feel
and in so far keep our individuality through all the changes as the same. Death will
change us even more; So if we want to conclude whether we will still save our
individuality through this change, then we will see what our individual continuation
through all changes depends only on in the now life. What keeps us going through all
the attacks of life as the same, lets nothing of our essence get lost, in spite of the fact
that our body is constantly dissolving, one moment of consciousness after the other
disappears, we will have to survive and save us even through the only greater attack
of death than the same; if we can be saved otherwise. The only question is what this
is basically. In this investigation, which remains to be done, which takes the most
direct path available, just as with the earlier analogical ones, let us consider facts and
only facts, and do not satisfy or deceive ourselves with words and puns, as is the case
happens too often. Not only do we have to pay attention to the facts, but also to the
demands of now life; but first of all it is a question of the theoretical foundation of
our doctrine; We will come to the practical one later (XXVIII), and properly
understood the two can never come into conflict (XIX, A). will have to keep us
going, to save us even through the only greater attack of death than them; if we can
be saved otherwise. The only question is what this is basically. In this investigation,
which remains to be done, which takes the most direct path available, just as with the
earlier analogical ones, let us consider facts and only facts, and do not satisfy or
deceive ourselves with words and puns, as is the case happens too often. Not only do
we have to pay attention to the facts, but also to the demands of now life; but first of
all it is a question of the theoretical foundation of our doctrine; We will come to the
practical one later (XXVIII), and properly understood the two can never come into
conflict (XIX, A). will have to keep us going, to save us even through the only greater
attack of death than them; if we can be saved otherwise. The only question is what
this is basically. In this investigation, which remains to be done, which takes the most
direct path available, just as with the earlier analogical ones, let us consider facts and
only facts, and do not satisfy or deceive ourselves with words and puns, as is the case
understood the two can never come into conflict (XIX, A). if we can be saved
otherwise. The only question is what this is basically. In this investigation that
remains to be done, which takes the most direct path available, just as with the earlier
analogical ones, let us take facts and only facts in the eye, and do not satisfy or
deceive ourselves with words and puns, as is the case happens too often. Not only do
we have to pay attention to the facts, but also to the demands of now life; but first of
all it is a question of the theoretical foundation of our doctrine; We will come to the
practical one later (XXVIII), and properly understood the two can never come into
conflict (XIX, A). if we can be saved otherwise. The only question is what this is
basically. In this investigation that remains to be done, which takes the most direct
path available, just as with the earlier analogical ones, let us take facts and only facts
in the eye, and do not satisfy or deceive ourselves with words and puns, as is the case
understood the two can never come into conflict (XIX, A). which takes the most
direct path that is available, just as with the earlier analogical ones, facts and only
facts in the eye and do not satisfy or deceive us with words and puns, as happens all
too often. Not only do we have to pay attention to the facts, but also to the demands
of now life; but first of all it is a question of the theoretical foundation of our
doctrine; We will come to the practical one later (XXVIII), and properly understood
the two can never come into conflict (XIX, A). which takes the most direct path that
is available, just as with the earlier analogical ones, facts and only facts in the eye and
do not satisfy or deceive us with words and puns, as happens all too often. Not only
do we have to pay attention to the facts, but also to the demands of now life; but first
of all it is a question of the theoretical foundation of our doctrine; We will come to
the practical one later (XXVIII), and properly understood the two can never come
into conflict (XIX, A). but first of all it is a question of the theoretical foundation of
understood the two can never come into conflict (XIX, A). but first of all it is a
question of the theoretical foundation of our doctrine; We will come to the practical
one later (XXVIII), and properly understood the two can never come into conflict
(XIX, A).
In the meantime, before we close the circle of our theoretical considerations with
this most direct consideration (in the following section), we first briefly walk through
the paths on which our subject has hitherto been grasped; Our deviation from it will
then be all the easier to explain and justify at the same time.
Has anyone taken the path that we consider to be the only right one in this
regard; that is, sought to justify the facts and laws of the following life through the
facts and laws of this world? Unconsciously undisputed everywhere; for in the
widespread belief in immortality, in addition to practical motives, silent analogies and
inductions of what is everywhere have certainly played their part; but just as one
consciously tried to take this path, the hope for a hereafter seemed to contradict
almost more than serving it; and so one has mostly taken the opposite path, basing it
on contradictions with the present reality, even with the possibility of present
thinking. What wonder then, of course, when such a mode of contemplation, instead
of illuminating and safeguarding the future, threw mad sparkles into the present
itself. In order to maintain a dim hope in the hereafter, we give up the clearest
viewpoints of this world, we put shackles on free research. What did the doctrine of
body and mind not have to put up with in order to only meet the demands and not go
beyond the demands that were believed to have to be made of them in the interests of
the belief in immortality, regardless and in spite of experience?
I am not saying that everyone has gone the wrong way that I now have to talk
about, but the usual, most familiar paths that one treads are so common that even
most of them seem to be wrong, even if they deviate from them led to the goal
itself. Because whoever considers his path to be the right one, only calls the goal
what lies at its end, and if it were just an empty appearance, it would be nothing. So
many have come to the bill and many to the nothing that they still call
immortality. And if some have thought more sensible or suspected more correct
things, the fruit did not flourish when it was ripe or used.
Some believe that the fact that the soul is chained to a body does not mean that it
will always be. Rather, in death she would strip it off like a dress or a sheath, get rid
of it like a fetter or a burden, and henceforth lead a purely disembodied existence. It
is easy to say this, in vain, to look for a clue in this worldly experience for the
possibility of such an existence, impossible to form an idea of it. Every attempt at
such an idea still involuntarily leaves a faded bodily shape, or the idea of soul
existence itself disappears into nothing, indeed it already fades as that shape becomes
paler.
It is true that this opinion is only one extreme, to which one does not now easily
take refuge in all seriousness; but one approaches it from different angles.
Some say: After all, the soul built its body from the start; what can they care if the
body falls apart; it will build a new one for itself again, gather the matter anew
around it and imagine it. But where has one ever seen, or from what has one ever
been able to infer, that a soul has built a body, except with bodily means that are
already or still at service; so one should not want to take her body first in order to
have a new body built afterwards, but one must have her build the new body by
means of the old one. But that is just our view, which one does not have in mind.
Here is an example of this way of thinking:
"Just as life is spiritual in its origin and essence, the soul does not grow out of the brain, but
rather it forms it as its persistent spatial expression, and so its destruction is by no means the
necessary consequence of the destruction of the brain and the other organs. Just as the power of
independent life during reproduction is communicated to the formless germ that it develops into an
organic structure, so the soul is also able to create a new organ after death; and it can do this without
a specially organized matter to need, merely through fixation in some spatial existence, because we
know that organic beings can also be generated from elementary substances or the general forms of
matter.in which it asserts its individual existence, imprint its character, how life everywhere realizes
its type through the formation of organic parts from alien matter, and how in procreation the
character of the father's life is transferred to the future child's life without a material transition,
rather through a merely dynamic act. "(Burdach, Physiol. III. p. 735 f.)
One of the most common views is that if the body is destroyed in death, something
fundamentally essential for the soul remains undamaged from it, which continues to
give it a connection. From a general point of view it seems that one can take away a
lot of things from the body without taking anything away from the soul, arms, legs,
etc. So it only seems to matter if the soul cannot exist entirely without a body, to find
the essential part that still has to remain so that the soul remains, and to save this into
the following life. Only that one can, of course, gradually remove all parts of the
body, even those of the brain, if one only does it individually; now the right, now the
left side of the brain as seen earlier. Though, if you come to the transition part of the
brain to the spinal cord (the so-called elongated marrow), which serves to maintain
the respiratory functions, violates it, the person dies of shortness of breath, which,
however, undoubtedly does not want to be taken as proof that there is a part here rest
that makes people immortal. The whole brain, indeed the whole nervous system
without the rest of the body, can just as little serve the soul on this side as the whole
body without the nervous system and brain. What attempt, then, would prove that
there is more in one than in the other that is important in maintaining the soul? The
integrity of the one shows itself only in small parts more essential than that of the
other to hold back the soul in this world. man dies out of shortness of breath, which,
however, undoubtedly will not be taken as proof that a part rests here that makes man
immortal. The whole brain, indeed the whole nervous system without the rest of the
body, can just as little serve the soul on this side as the whole body without the
nervous system and brain. What attempt, then, would prove that there is more in one
than in the other that is important in maintaining the soul? The integrity of the one
shows itself only in small parts more essential than that of the other to hold back the
soul in this world. man dies out of shortness of breath, which, however, undoubtedly
will not be taken as proof that a part rests here that makes man immortal. The whole
brain, indeed the whole nervous system without the rest of the body, can just as little
serve the soul on this side as the whole body without the nervous system and
brain. What attempt, then, would prove that there is more in one than in the other that
is important in maintaining the soul? The integrity of the one shows itself only in
small parts more essential than that of the other to hold back the soul in this
world. Indeed, the whole nervous system without the rest of the body can just as little
small parts more essential than that of the other to hold back the soul in this
world. Indeed, the whole nervous system without the rest of the body can just as little
small parts more essential than that of the other to hold back the soul in this world.
In consideration of these circumstances and in consideration that the whole body
crumbles palpably in death, i.e. the connection of the soul's integrity to the integrity
of a particular part of the brain would not even be of use to us, even if it were
allowed, one looks for that part of the body that to remain undestroyed in death,
usually in something intangible.
So many are inclined to relocate the soul into a preferred atom or an indestructible
core, clearly or unclearly presented, which defies the putrefaction and to which the
soul clinging to find the way into new life. The philosopher's stone, which has long
been sought as an external means of immortality, is hereby, as it were, relocated into
the body itself. But this does not diminish superstition. For what magic could attach
the life of a soul to a rigid atom?
Others hold the view that a finer, ethereal body is contained in the coarser one,
which, when the coarser one is destroyed, frees itself and floats away from us
invisibly into new life. Perhaps this view is the most common of all. Many pagans
already cherished it, assuming a fiery nature of the soul, which allows it to fly away
to heaven after death; but especially among the Christians it has found multiple input
and development on the basis of partly the Pauline conception of the transfigured
body of the hereafter, and partly of many physiological ideas about what is active in
the nervous system. The church father Origen is one of their representatives, and later
she is from Burn, Priestley, Jani 1) , Töllner 2) , Schott 3), Leibniz 4) , Sulzer and many
others protected and recently developed by Ms. Groos in a few small writings.
1) Jani, Kleine theolog. Auff. of a layman. Stendal, 1792. pp. 109ff.
2) Töllner, Syst. theolog. dogm. p. 708th sq.
3) Schott, Epit. theolog. chr. dogm. p. 125. Schott considers it probable: "corpore humano subtilius
idemque nobis invisibile contineri animi nostri involucrum. Organon, cujus usum animus et in hac
vita terrestri faciat et statim post mortem libertate majori sit facturus."
4) See below.
It should not be without interest to find Leibniz's view on this subject
communicated here in his own words (according to Schilling, Leibniz as a thinker).
"Why should the soul not always be able to keep a fine body, organized according to its own
way, which one day, at the resurrection, will be able to take up what is necessary from its visible
body, since one ascribes a transfigured body to the blessed, and also to the old fathers Angels have
admitted a transfigured body. This doctrine, incidentally, agrees with the order of nature, as it is
known through experience, for how the observations of very good observers lead us to the insight
that animals do not begin when the great crowd believes this, and that the seed animals or the
animate seeds have already existed since the beginning of things, order and reason want that what
has existed since the beginning does not end either, and that, therefore,just as procreation is only an
increase in a transformed and developed animal, and death is only a decrease in a transformed and
folded animal, and the animal itself will always remain during the transformation, just as the
silkworm and the butterfly are the same animal. "(Aus Leibniz, Reflections on the Doctrine of a
General Spirit.)
In the text: "My doctrine of the personal persistence of the human spirit after death", Fr.
Groos tried, for physiological reasons, to make it probable that in our physical organism as core and
germ, which is only ( how the plant nourishes, grows and develops through the forces of the soil, an
"incorruptible, probably light-material body" is implanted, and in death at the same time as the
spirit through "progressive energy" more actively than passively in a manner similar to the fetus
from the The womb to detach itself from the physical organism in order to serve as the sole
covering for the spirit from now on. As a continuation of this work has appeared: "The twofold, the
outer and the inner man." Mannheim 1846.
The above view can find an apparent clue in the fact that, according to numerous
indications, even if they do not go beyond the hypothetical, our nervous system may
really be the container for a subtle, ethereal, imponderable agent which plays a
particularly important role in the physical activity of our soul and to a certain extent
the mediator for which it seems to be to the coarser corporeality. Now nothing
prevents the idea of thinking of this ethereal being as a body of light or a transfigured
body, even after its rough base has been removed.
But apart from what is hypothetical about the assumption of such a nerve agent,
nothing in reality indicates that an unpredictable body, even separated from a
ponderable body, can continue to exist and develop and work. As far as we look into
nature, we see the organization of the unpredictable linked to that of the
ponderable. To want to accept an etheric body existing for itself does not only mean a
new existence, of which we see nothing, but also to accept new conditions of
existence, of which we see the opposite. It is different if, as in our view, the
imponderable body is formed in connection with a ponderable body. But that's not
how you mean it.
All previous views have in common that they only take something away from the
means of present life, by means of which we draw from an external world and act on
an external world, without giving us new means for making our future life poorer
compared to the present to enrich it. But can a blacksmith do more than before if you
simply do nothing but take away his tools? Now one can expect new means for the
future life. Then the question arises, in which way they expect. That, I think, leads
back to our view, which lets the old ones prepare the new means, and then drops the
old means not in part, but entirely, after they have already served to create the new
ones. The tool of our body is constantly being repaired throughout our life, until the
new to be created is ready for its purpose. Then a piece of the old tool is not retained,
but the new one is put entirely in its place. One should not put an old rag on a new
dress and fill the new must into old tubes. So do those who still want to save an old
piece of the old body into the new life.
Many believe that immortality has gained a great deal by admitting the soul's
dependence on the body only for its lower functions; mean, on the other hand, that
with regard to the higher (the spiritual in the narrower sense) it rises freely above the
physical; the self-confident spirit, whose salvation we actually have to do, instead of
being subject to the body, is rather the ruler of the body and therefore also not
involved in its destruction. After all, a certain part, a certain side of the mind, so to
speak the shell of it, may succumb to the destruction with the body, but not the core,
the essence of the mind.
Even among the ancient philosophers this idea occurs many times; here is an example of how this
subject has recently been grasped.
Hüffell in his letters on immortality (in which, by the way, a very respectable disposition is to
be recognized) tries to counter the objection that mental powers decrease with age, that is, probably
completely extinguish in death, by saying what decreases and disappears , be just the outer side of
psychic life, memory, imagination, understanding, sagacity, wit, talents, etc; what will live on is the
core of the soul or the inner man, consisting in self-consciousness, in reason. That outer side is
calculated more for this earthly life, therefore more or less with the body, especially with the nerve
force, in connection and dependent on it, could also increase and decrease quite well with the body,
without the inner being of the spirit being changed.
Here one has two unnatural separations at once, first that of the spirit from the body, then that
of the spirit within itself, against the possibility of which this worldly experience fights in the same
way.
Now, of course, one can admit that the higher spiritual rises above the sphere of the
sensual and symbolic, which is certainly linked to the physical; But if we do not stop
at the ambiguous comprehensibility of the word elevation, but watch how it takes
shape in reality, we find, in order to recall what has been discussed earlier, that the
higher spiritual itself is only in developments, relationships, and active relations of
the Lower exists and rules, abstractly of which it does not really exist at all. The
melody is higher than the sensuality of the individual tones; but what is it without the
sensuality of the individual tones? The most philosophical spirit of man needs
sensuality in order to exist here, it does reflect on the sensual, yes on itself, but it
can, to reflect on the sensual, not to leave it; there are only relationships of
relationships that become active and strong in it, but the lowest basis of it always
remains something strong and active in itself. Wherever we see higher spiritual
development, it does not transcend the lower sensual like a soap bubble that is blown
from the top of a pyramid into the blue, but like the top of the pyramid itself, in
which all its sides are linked, but only that Tip can remain by means of the base; not
like a butterfly that rises above the flower, but like the flower itself rises above the
root and stem, processes all the juices and forces of the same, but, instead of being
able to exist independently of them, needs them necessarily in order to keep up with
the nourishing Ground to stay in relationship. This way of looking at the relationships
of the higher to the lower spiritual is not drawn from the word, but from the
perception of the spiritual life itself, and we can only base ourselves on this. If we
never see the higher spiritual being detached from the lower, but only transcending it
in the manner indicated, always remaining chained to the corporeal by the lower
itself, then it is again an assumption into the void and blue, contradicting experience,
yes, clear reflection the experience that it can free itself from it in the transition to
future life or persist in the decline of the lower; and if it did happen, the difficulty
remains as to how it can be thought without a body, or how it can create a new body
after having renounced its earlier bodily means,
Even among rude peoples the view of a divisibility of the soul with reference to the
transition into the hereafter occurs; only that they then already assert such for this
world, more consistently in this respect than we do, insofar as they at least obtain a
correspondence between the nature of the soul in this world and the hereafter. So the
pagan Greenlanders believed in themselves two souls, the shadow and the breath, the
last of which always remained in the living body, while the first emigrated from it,
went for a walk, went hunting, to dance, visit or fish, or even if the rest of the person
went away, could stay at home; Likewise, the Canadian and other American savages
believe in two souls, one of which emigrates in death and dreams, while the other
remains with the body, except when it enters another body. We let the soul, including
the higher in it, the spirit of the narrower sense, always stay at home down here; But
what use is our entire asserted independence of the same from the body for the
hereafter, since it is not an independence of the kind that allowed a separation from
the body? We try to fool ourselves with a play on words. Independence of the mind
from the body can be understood in different ways. First we grasp it in one sense,
then in another. which allowed separation from the body? We try to fool ourselves
with a play on words. Independence of the mind from the body can be understood in
different ways. First we grasp it in one sense, then in another. which allowed
separation from the body? We try to fool ourselves with a play on
words. Independence of the mind from the body can be understood in different
ways. First we grasp it in one sense, then in another.
Nowadays philosophers will no longer easily deal with a real separability of the
soul into a reasonable and sensual part, but they will gladly find a guarantee of
immortality in reason, self-consciousness, whereby the human spirit in particular
differs from the animal soul. Only with reason awaken the condition and entitlement
to immortality.
In the meantime, since the animal soul can pass from a first to a second stage of
existence without reason, as the butterfly proves, I do not see why not also into a
third. The question of the duration of the individual soul seems to me to be
independent of the question of the level it occupies. But this does not have to concern
us any further now.
One of the most common ways, already taken by the ancient philosophers, but still
popular today, to save the immortality of the soul, is to declare the soul to be a simple
being. Now it is true that a simple being cannot be destroyed; but only because there
is nothing in it to destroy. But in the soul there is a great variety of determinations,
sensations, feelings, instincts, motives, the unity of which the soul comprehends in
itself, which is in open contradiction with the idea that its unity is that of a simple
being. And unity and simplicity are two different things. It is just not a multiplicity in
the sense of the physical composition that occurs in the soul as such, but a
multiplicity of the spiritual coexistence and succession.
When looking at the face, I certainly have a distinguishable multiple in my consciousness. I can
even speak of a coexistence in the perception, although one would rather apply this expression to
the material object than to the spiritual subject. But this doesn't matter; In any case, it is only
through spiritual coexistence that we know of material coexistence; one represents us the
other. Now one should consider that even our most abstract concepts are always thought of with a
certain visualization or symbolization and can only be thought in this way if they are to be thought
for themselves. If, therefore, one wanted to extend the manifold togetherness originally only to
sensual perceptions (which would be enough to refute the simplicity of the soul) so it also carries
over to higher levels. No one will deny from the outset that temporal successions contain something
manifold; and if the soul is essentially a temporal being, then if it contained manifold things only in
this direction, it could not be called simple; just as I cannot call a line something inherently simple,
because it is not composed according to the dimension of the surface.
It is true that one is inclined to imagine the soul in its temporal continuation to the manifold
as a movement that always takes new directions through ever new impulses that are composed with
the effect of the earlier ones, but it always remains a movement in every moment simple
direction. Or so: The simple quality of the soul changes through ever new determinations from
outside and through self-determination; but it is always only determined by this to a new, simple
quality. But apart from the fact that the fact of our visual perception contradicts this, a manifold
succession of the soul cannot at all be imagined without a manifold coexistence from which it
emerges. A point must, in order to assume manifold directions in space one after the other, are
subject to manifold impulses, to which at least one point outside belongs; but if a being is also to be
inwardly active through and in itself, like a soul, then the simultaneous multiplicity, on which the
multiple successions depend, must be thought in itself, for I absolutely do not know according to
which scheme a simple quality could be thought of as being determined by itself to something
new. That is simple in itself according to which scheme a simple quality could be thought of as
defining itself as something new. That is simple in itself according to which scheme a simple
quality could be thought of as defining itself as something new. That is simple in itselfeo ipso
inherently unchangeable.
Of course, one can always say that this is precisely the peculiarity of the simplicity of the
soul, to include a multiplicity of moments, determinations, but one cannot think of it; in the end the
concept of simplicity and inner multiplicity remain utterly contradicting one another. Usually one
does not care about this contradiction, but now reflects on the simplicity when it is a question of
proving the eternal life of the soul and on the multiplicity when it is a matter of representing its
temporal life; but it is in the interest of clear thinking to be able to present both in context and in
connection; which does not allow contradicting concepts. Least of all did I know how to get along
with Herbart's contradicting ideas in this regard.
Usually we base ourselves on the following consideration: In all the diversity and
all alternation of the phenomena of consciousness, the feeling or consciousness of our
ego remains something simply identical, which cannot be further analyzed. And this
is the most essential part of our soul. If this remains undestroyed, but as a simple
thing it is indestructible, we are safe.
But this simplicity, not of our soul, but of an abstraction of our soul, for what is
simple consciousness without the concrete multiplicity of its determinations, in fact
guarantees us nothing. Indeed, if the whole concrete soul consisted of nothing but the
simple sense of self or self-consciousness of our ego, then, because simple, it would
like to be indestructible. But the self-feeling or self-consciousness of the ego is only
something immanent to the whole soul content and activity, abstractly not existing
without the multiplicity of its determinations. Even if we reflect on the simplicity of
our ego, this is only a single thought of our ego, a special determination of our
concrete ego, not the whole, concrete soul-ego, rich in so many determinations. But
every abstract simplicity disappears,
What about the center of the circle, the center of gravity of a body? Here we also
have something simple, inherent in a concrete manifold, abstractly conceivable
without it, but not existing abstractly without it. Just like the ego in relation to the
multiplicity of determinations which it unites. Even if the whole concrete soul were
really something simple; so it would only exist in and with the concrete manifold of
the body. How often has the simple soul being really compared with the center or
emphasis in a bodily manifold? (Waitz actually calls them central beings in relation to
this. Carus depicts them as the center of the body in his physique.) The simplicity of
the center of the circle, the center of gravity, prevents the circle, the body is falling
apart? And where is the center, the focus itself? I do not see how the simplicity of the
abstract ego or self-consciousness or even the whole soul, thought abstractly from the
body, can make us in the least safer than the simplicity of the abstract circle center or
center of gravity itself the circle itself cannot disintegrate so that its center may exist,
or that the center is able for other reasons to maintain its circle, since nothing follows
from its simplicity in itself in this respect.
The same can be explained in another way. Isn't the soul unity a relationship
between all moments of the soul? Is not the ratio 5 / 6 , a relationship between the
numbers 5 and 6? This relationship is also a simple one, inherent in a manifold. But
does this simplicity prevent the break from being thought of as breaking up into its
parts?
So there is nothing to be gained in such a way. The whole concrete soul is not the
simple thing that it is pretended to be; But the abstract, in which the essence of the
soul is centralized, may be so simple, no matter how simple the whole soul may be,
there is no guarantee that the concrete, the manifold, in which the simple is inherent,
and herewith the simple itself persists.
Here is an example of the argument in the previous sense:
"Death does not destroy man, but - what does it do? As far as
the human body is concerned, this is shown by appearance. It is
broken down into its elements, from which it has gradually formed
itself. But the human spirit - can it also be dissolved,
decomposed? The spirit of man is an identical, simple being. He is
I = I. His self-consciousness is the proof of his simplicity. If
he also has a multiplicity in himself, this is simply nothing but
the manifold The identical simple, however, cannot be dissolved,
for it has no parts from which it would consist and into which it
could be broken down again. The spirit thus continues; the spirit
is the substance of man; consequently remains this also after what
we call death. "(Wirth in Fichte's magazine XVIII. P. 29),
The simplicity of the mind is asserted here in spite of the multiplicity that it has in itself,
because this multiplicity is merely "nothing but the manifold manner of its self-relation to itself". In
the meantime I do not see how a multiple way of inner self-relation should be compatible with the
inner simplicity of a being, since in a being thought of as simply there is no cause and support for
self-relations, but only for relations to other things. That is, hide the thing behind the word. There
are many inner self-relationships in the bodily organism. But they all depend on the fact that he is
not a simple being, in that this relates to that, or the individual to the whole in him; but a relation of
the simple whole to the simple whole would always only remain the same simple identity.
Perhaps one would have insisted less on the concept of the simplicity of the soul if
one had made the following considerations everywhere. Just as something can be
quite simple in terms of a concept and yet really ephemeral, as we have seen, so,
conversely, something can be composed according to the concept and yet really
indestructible. Not everything that can be thought happens. The question arises
whether the conditions for this lie in the nature of things. There can be conditions in
the world to produce certain connections, but not to dissolve them, rather only to
develop them further, in that the conditions of production include those of continued
maintenance and further development themselves. So it is according to us with our
present corporeality, which creates a new connection out of its living connection. But
is it so with the body
A similar consideration has been made earlier. In: Knappii Script. varii argumenti, Ed. 2. 1828.
p. 85 sqq. can be found e.g. B. the following position:
"Sed fac animum ex pluribus esse naturis seu partibus concretum: concedas tamen necesse
est. Deum pro summa potentia sua etiam prohibere posse, quo minus partium dissipatio atque
interitus consequatur."
What has been said so far is probably the most common way of dealing with the
question of immortality. I am not speaking of those who have only been struck by
individual philosophers and theologians and who have not found widespread
recognition. There are a few ways of looking at things here with which we may be
friends; I come to this in a following section (XXIX.); only that they did not progress
to full development and, because of incomplete or too absurd reasons, did not gain
any influence.
If one looks at what has been said so far, it seems to me that we, the most educated
peoples, have risen above the rudest peoples in terms of the theoretical foundation
and shaping of the belief in immortality by little else than by a more artificial
entanglement and concealment of contradictions and ambiguities, which in the faith
of those lies simply and openly to the day; yes, that some things have been made
more correctly by them in a coarse form and just tapping, than by us with our subtle
inferences.
But why all the writhing and toil and denial of the same principles on which we
otherwise base our conclusions on the future? All in order to satisfy a practical
interest which is in itself very just, which, since the views of nature and spirit now in
force have obstructed the path by which it alone could be fully and easily satisfied,
cannot seem otherwise to be preserved than by such theoretical inadequacies. Man
wants to continue to live beyond the present life and needs the prospect of the future
life as one of the most important normative points of view for the present. And for the
practical gain from this, he does not shy away from any theoretical loss. Without this
he would neither have fallen into the temptation to tear the mind away from the body
nor to tear the mind apart,
It is now understandable that many do not like such methods of justification. And
then what wonder if they either give up hope of immortality, preferring the theoretical
over the practical interest, and try to manage and organize themselves in this world
without it as well as possible; or, in reverse preference for the practical over the
theoretical interest, to reject on principle all grounds for the belief required in
practice. But both have their bads. The unbeliever says: The view of the hereafter
only disturbs the right attention and activity for this world; but in truth the right
foresight into the hereafter is the true, prosperous and comforting guide through this
world. The religious believer says: why infer at all; do we not have the divine
revelation? It would be, if it were not in the nature of things, that the revelation of
God in Scripture itself can only earn and generate firm, secure, general faith in
accordance with the standards than it can also through the revelation of God in nature
and life, through the eternally factual supported therein, does not appear contradicting
it. And if one does not know how to use the facts of nature and life for the belief in
the highest and ultimate things, then they turn against the same of their own accord,
instead of going hand in hand with the effectiveness of the practical points of
view. Not everyone manages to close their eyes completely when, in old age, in
asylums and in the experiments of the physiologists, the soul and the body see
themselves weakened or erred at the same time, and nowhere sees the soul without a
body. Not everyone is able to command his reason to remain silent as to the
conclusions which it is at once inclined to draw from it; not everyone calms down
with the superficial rejection of these conclusions, which of course have become
equally common in life and in science; since the more the facts impose themselves in
the context, the more deeply they are pursued, the more definite the radical, deep,
fundamentally essential connection between the spiritual and the physical turns out to
be. But then also the apparent destruction of the body in death imperatively demands
its interpretation, and doubt can only be overcome by defeating its reasons. not
everyone calms down with the superficial rejection of these conclusions, which of
course have become equally common in life and in science; since the more the facts
impose themselves in the context, the more deeply they are pursued, the more definite
the radical, deep, fundamentally essential connection between the spiritual and the
physical turns out to be. But then also the apparent destruction of the body in death
imperatively demands its interpretation, and doubt can only be overcome by
defeating its reasons. not everyone calms down with the superficial rejection of these
conclusions, which of course have become equally common in life and in
science; since the more the facts impose themselves in the context, the more deeply
they are pursued, the more definite the radical, deep, fundamentally essential
connection between the spiritual and the physical turns out to be. But then also the
apparent destruction of the body in death imperatively demands its interpretation, and
doubt can only be overcome by defeating its reasons. emphasizes the fundamental
connection between the spiritual and the physical. But then also the apparent
destruction of the body in death imperatively demands its interpretation, and doubt
can only be overcome by defeating its reasons. emphasizes the fundamental
connection between the spiritual and the physical. But then also the apparent
destruction of the body in death imperatively demands its interpretation, and doubt
can only be overcome by defeating its reasons.
This is not intended to detract from the value of a conviction that is based on
sources other than scientifically developed reasons. The practical point of view,
which demands certain convictions independently of all theory, and which even
demands belief in authorities other than the particular reason of the individual, is just
as right as the theoretical point of view. But whatever motives other than scientific a
belief are based on, it will not be able to be the right one, even have to suspect the
source from which it has flowed, if it has to shy away from the clear gaze of science,
as science does not could be the right one, which led us to conclusions which go
against our practical interests. So it is in the supreme combination of good and
truth, which we have considered earlier (XIX, A). It is therefore a matter of looking
over and over, and whether we now make the theoretical or practical point of view
the guiding principle, not to allow any deviation from the path that is offered by the
other.
If the theoretical path has so far led so little to results that are satisfactory in itself
and at the same time unanimous with the practical requirements, in my opinion the
reason lies in the basic prerequisites that have been cherished about the relationships
between body and soul, human and divine spirit , in the fact that one has shied away
as the cause of perdition which, rather, can most firmly support the hope of our
preservation.
Thus it was already shown with regard to the view that the human spirit belongs to
a higher and supreme spirit; so it is also true of the view of a firm and continuous
connection between body and spirit.
I give you a picture: Anyone who only considers a column here and there from the
Dome in Cordova, in which "thirteen hundred giant columns support the mighty
dome", would of course have to see him fall in his mind and see himself buried under
the columns. Now, if he were foolish enough, he would probably rather have the
dome floating in the air, the pillars, which seem threatening to him, to have torn away
completely; and the more he sees such pillars in isolation, the more he fears. But how
calmly and safely he will walk when he, opening his eyes wide, soaring all the pillars
at once, and seeing the dome sweeping safely and gloriously over it. The more pillars,
the safer he will feel. This dome is immortality, but the pillars are the relationships
between body and soul.
I mean to say: One believes that the more ties the spirit is chained to the body, the
more strictly and thoroughly its connection with it is grasped, the more the danger
threatens our future continued existence; only in the legacy of this severity, in the
loosened form of this bond, is there hope and salvation; while, in my opinion, it is
precisely in the most ruthless severity and strict enforcement of this link that the
safest, indeed the only sufficient way to fully establish our belief in immortality lies,
without which it will always remain more or less built into the air. It is only
necessary, for the sake of absolute consistency, to decide not to carry out anything
halfway, only to really allow everything spiritual to find its way and its punt in the
flow of bodily determinations, consider that which changes like the cause, we are
transferred in the most natural way from this life as the cause to the following life as
its proper consequence; and the contemplation of the corporeal supports that of the
spiritual in every way; we can no longer find a reason for a future life in one area that
does not find its help or its equivalent in the other. Indeed, the whole view of the
radical connection between the physical and the spiritual would remain mutilated and
unfounded without the assumption of a future life, while the half-carried out view
does not know how to get beyond death.
Once you have gained the broad foundation so that I can point out here, it is not
difficult to see how everything that has been introduced into the doctrine of body and
soul for the sake of the question of immortality, of contradictions and inconsistencies,
is in fact not demanded by the nature of the matter, but only by its own
untenability. If it is the case everywhere that an inconsistency can only be corrected
either by another inconsistency or by giving up all inconsistency, the required result
should appear. What can be achieved in the first way, however, is only the stability of
a top that holds itself for a while by swaying and turning in all directions, by
repeatedly canceling the falling movement in one direction by an opposite one. In the
end it has to fall.
XXVII. Direct justification of the doctrine of immortality.

Let us now ask ourselves more definitely the question that must ultimately be
important when considering our subject in the most thorough manner: What is the
reason that man remains himself even in this world through all the alternation of
external and internal relationships? What keeps it going through all external and
internal attacks in this world as the same, will also have to keep it going into the
hereafter through the greater attack of death as the same, if it is to be kept going in
any other way.
But first and foremost, how wonderful is the fact itself which we are dealing with
here. Everything in man seems to change down here, and yet he believes in certain
respects, and especially in the main point of view, to have remained exactly the
same. Something seems to be contradicting itself here. The mind of an old man and
the mind of a child, how different are they in every respect? And yet for every ghost
of an old man there is the ghost of a child with whom he considers himself to be
exactly the same. One can turn from the most ignorant to the most knowledgeable,
fall from bright lust into gloomy melancholy, once completely drowned in sins, turn
completely to God, and still consider himself to be the same person. Nothing, it
seems, has stayed the same, and yet the old self has remained, and that is what has
remained in which man seeks himself. It seems impossible and yet it is.
What makes it possible Something really has to remain unchanged in the end,
otherwise it wouldn't be an apparent one, otherwise it would be a real contradiction.
That makes it possible, that's where it lies, at least we express it in such a way that
behind all the change in the spiritual determinations the unity of the spirit, in which
every human being is summarized, still remains unchanged, unharmed, unaffected,
yes, even in the change of the Determinations and actuated again and again by the
same. Only we would be wrong to grasp this unity of the soul as a dead core, a simple
concrete being in the midst of its determinations and detachable from it; Rather, it is a
living unity of activity, equal to the totality and the flow of all determinations of the
soul, which connects all among itself, by virtue of which everything
contemporaneous in the spirit is mutually determined and every later state grows out
of the earlier, bearing its continued effects in itself.
When I see tree, house, mountain, lake at the same time, each one looks different in
the landscape composition than when I see each one individually, their impression
mutually affects each other, and that each affects each one, I feel in the Total
impression of the landscape. One thing cannot appear differently in the landscape
without everything appearing differently in a certain way, and an overall impression
depends on this, which is reflected back on the individual from the whole. Of course,
one cannot really describe it, only show it in one's consciousness. But as it is here
with the moments of one and the same intuition, so is it with all the moments of the
soul which one may assume to be simultaneous in it, conscious and unconscious at
the same time. One thing cannot appear differently in the soul without everything
appearing differently in the soul, and this is where an overall impression depends,
which is also reflected in the whole in detail. With the feeling of this alternation of
everything that is in our soul, the feeling of its unity is given at the same time. The
soul feels the manifold moments of its self-appearance in active alternating
determination, and the active alternating determination of everything that is in the
soul can only exist with the feeling of unity of the same.
Now, however, there is not only an alternation, but also a consequential
determination of what is and goes in the soul, which, however, is related to the
alternation itself. The determinacy of change expresses itself not only through the
overall impression that is immediately given, but also through the consequences that
arise from it. Through the active reciprocal relationship in which the structure of the
soul stands, a new structure of the soul emerges as a consequence of the previous
one. And just as it is connected with that alternating determination that man feels the
simultaneous manifold bound in a soul unity, not disintegrated in the manifold, so
with the consequent determination that he also feels the successive manifold bound in
such a way that he remains one in the manifold one after the other. The later spirit
still feels one with the earlier one and is in so far still the same as earlier, when it still
has the further effects of the earlier in it. Everything that I saw, thought, felt as a
child, whether I no longer remember it, no longer distinguish its consequences
individually, was not in vain for my latest age. Yes, nothing, not even the smallest
thing that I encounter in my earliest youth and what I encounter in me is free for the
latest age; small as it is, it only makes me different in something small, but only the
nothingness does not entail anything in me. In this way the old spirit can completely
change its state; he even has to change it; for the life of the spirit consists in
changes; but insofar as there are changes arising from the earlier unity of the spirit,
Basically there are only different expressions, but not different things, if we say:
The spirit remains the same in the flow and change of its determinations, because the
spiritual unity is retained unchanged through all the flow and change of
determinations, or say it maintains itself as the same because the interrelationship of
all earlier determinations of the spirit continues into the later through a coherent
series of effects. For it is precisely the action of the earlier into what follows that
which unites the two in time; it is an active unit, that of the soul; abstractly
comprehensible, but not existing abstractly.
Our sense of identity in relation to the sequence of times is itself essentially
identical to the sense of identity in relation to the simultaneous; it is the same ego that
brings different things together in a present, and what unites the different in
succession, and it cannot even be thought that this identity could ever be dissolved,
since the active sequential relationship itself is only a result of the active reciprocal
relationship , and the active reciprocal relationship is essentially characterized as such
by the fact that it turns into the active subsequent relationship.
The human spirit continues from the earlier into the later, not purely of itself, of
course. He would only remain a thin thread if what he began with as a child were to
remain the whole basis of the further effects in his mind. Rather, he always creates
new determinations through the senses as new increments, which are not themselves
the consequences of what was in him before, inexplicably rather are in him through
everything earlier, but certainly generate new conclusions in him and enrich him
more and more. When something new comes to us that did not flow out of our
previous possessions, we then also have the feeling that something external comes to
us; but we never lose ourselves in what is new. But because everything that comes to
us anew preserves the conclusions of what was previously gained and of the
innate, We still feel the old through everything new, we feel the new only as a
continuation of the old. Through the consequences of the earlier in us we maintain
and develop, but through what is new to us we always gain new beginnings of
development, because the development itself happens in us, through us.
In short, the identical continuation of the ego through all internal and external
changes depends on the continuation of the causal or causal connection between our
spiritual phenomena. In so far as something flows as a spiritual consequence from
what belonged to our ego before, it also belongs to the same ego of its own accord,
the ego maintains itself in it, even if the appearances themselves change so much. We
can make the most general application of this to God himself. If our spirits, as it is
admitted everywhere, really emerged causally from God, then that is sufficient to
keep them in God as well. The causal connection itself maintains it in his
ego. Anyone who means it differently leaves the empirical basis of the conclusion
that is at our command.
But what does this mean for our future life? This: To deny the continuation of our
spirit into the hereafter would mean nothing else than to deny the permanent validity
of the causal connection in the spiritual area beyond this world, to deny that the
spiritual causes which now lie in us also have spiritual consequences beyond this
world will have. But nothing in the whole world tells us that causes can ever cease to
produce effects appropriate to them; We even see enough of the spiritual after-effects
of people, of course only in the effects that we receive, which, however, presuppose
effects that are expressed. Everywhere the spirit appears as such only to itself, and we
cannot want to see the spirit of another in his otherworldly existence more directly
than in this world,
All worries that the consequences of our spirit would only benefit a higher spirit,
but no longer our individuality, are herewith eliminated. Of course they also benefit
him, but no differently than our current spiritual causal factors benefit him, with
which our individuality exists. As a result of ourselves, they remain ours, and his only
insofar as we are and remain his already now.
Or should one demand that special conditions for the preservation of the basic
character, the individual peculiarity, be preserved? But they are already preserved in
the fullest and most real sense, that the spirit continues through its consequences. For
the nature of the causes determines the nature of the consequences everywhere, and
something would not be the result of another cause if it did not take place otherwise,
and something would not be a different cause if it did not produce other
consequences. As individual as our spirit is now, as individual and indeed individual
in the same sense, it must also remain in eternity, provided that it only continuously
gives rise to consequences from consequences. (See Vol. I. Chap. XI. B)
While all the consequences of what the spirit had now remain its, it also grows, as
we have seen, through something that it did not have, and that what might seem most
to disturb or destroy it is the effects of the Outside world, only serves most to develop
him richer and higher. Whatever new external world the spiritual consequences of our
now may enter, as consequences of our ego they always remain our ego, and all
interventions in the new external world can do nothing but carry new enrichments
with this ego.
So we remain secure from both sides: No change that comes from within ourselves
can change our ego, but only maintain and develop it; no change that comes through
anything outside of us can change our ego, it can only enrich it with new beginnings
of development. Then where should danger come from?
Couldn't the consequences of our present conscious mind be unconscious? How
much have I learned as a child and it only continues to have an effect on me in
unconscious consequences. Certainly, but as we have already considered earlier, only
because its consequences entered and absorbed the later phenomena of
consciousness; they are not those that no longer touched your consciousness, only
those that no longer touch it separately for themselves; but contribute to maintaining
your conscious self in a certain way. So much of what touches you consciously now
may get lost again in later consciousness phenomena in the hereafter; but only in
consciousness phenomena which in turn belong to you; because all the further
determinations of your consciousness that could lead to this downfall have come
from you or have come to you from outside, yes also belong to you. Your earlier
consciousness can only be extinguished in your later consciousness, but not in a
general consciousness that no longer concerns you. Because if you were to continue
to be determined by the whole general consciousness at death, this would only mean
an enrichment of your consciousness through the whole wide sphere of its
determinations, not a loss of your consciousness to the general
consciousness; Otherwise you would have to at least begin to lose yourself down here
in the flow of determinations which your consciousness receives from outside. so this
would only mean an enrichment of your consciousness through the whole wide
sphere of its determinations, not a loss of your consciousness to the general
in the flow of determinations which your consciousness receives from outside. so this
would only mean an enrichment of your consciousness through the whole wide
sphere of its determinations, not a loss of your consciousness to the general
in the flow of determinations which your consciousness receives from outside.
Indeed, we have to believe that our relationships with general consciousness will
expand with death; but it will be a gain, not a loss to us; and just as we receive
expanded determinations through general consciousness, this such is received
through us.
This remains true, since a change in the strength and level of consciousness, even
with temporary suppression of consciousness, already affects our mind as a whole, is
in its nature, so generally speaking every possibility is also free in this regard for the
future; just not that consciousness ceases for us from now on. The alternation in the
rise and fall of consciousness down here may in eternity be followed by an
alternation in the rise and fall, so it is the nature of periodic functions; but with a
permanent extinction of consciousness the consequences of the spiritual itself
extinguished, the spiritual cause ceased to produce consequences at all, the causal
connection in the spiritual would have broken off because a spiritual without
consciousness would in eternity no longer be spiritual. The spirit can only sleep or lie
in a swoon temporarily in order to still count as existing. Then the consequences of
the earlier conscious cause are not extinguished, but it is only in the nature of the
periodically rising and falling conscious cause to produce corresponding
consequences.
But, one can ask, must the effects of the spirit also be spiritual again? Can't the
spirit also generate material effects, movements, and be extinguished in these
material effects?
Certainly it can be so when, as one usually thinks, the spirit always alternately
drives bodily and the body spiritual effects before it, without one at the same time
essentially carrying the other with it. Then the spiritual movement is now transformed
into material, now material into spiritual; and at any moment we can expect spirit to
perish in matter just as much as to see spirit emerge from matter. But it turns out
differently when, as we think it, all spiritual effect itself is borne by material ones,
there is no thought and will without bodily impulse. Then the spiritual sequence will
also be supported by a material sequence, but cannot be replaced by it; and the
evidence of the material consequences will prove not the absence but the existence of
the spiritual. here we have one of the main fruits of the recognition of a
thoroughgoing connection between spirit and body. And the deeper we go into the
facts of now life, the more we are really pointed out to this connection.
So with regard to the conditions that the spiritual has to fulfill for itself for its
continued existence, we are as secure from all sides as we can ever wish for the facts
and thinkable things of our present life. Not only is it nothing that threatened us with
the cessation of our spirit in the now life, but nothing that would make it appear
possible to us at all. We would have to assume that causes cease to produce
consequences, or that spiritual and physical can change into one another in order to
believe that we will cease to exist as spiritual individuals.
In the meantime we are not only required to consider the conditions which lie in the
spiritual itself. But since our spirit here below actually needs a physical carrier, a
physical support to work, we have to consider not only the spiritual but also the
physical conditions of our existence here below, and should these be destroyed, then
all regard to the spiritual alone would not be sufficient appear. In our view that all
spirit is borne by something bodily and exists only on the basis of this bearer, the
question of the continuation of this bearer arises all the more urgently. But the answer
is all the more ready. As little as the spiritual can be without consequences by which
it perpetuates, just as little can the bodily as well, from which it is sustained; and
whatever the consequences of the corporeal that is now bearing our spirit, they will
also have to adequately carry the cause of the continuation of the spiritual that is now
being borne by our body. But let us come to this general conclusion by directly
considering what makes our body appear to us in this world through all changes in it
continuously as the identical bearer of an identical soul, in order from there, as
before, to answer the question for the hereafter, to see if the same survives the
catastrophe of death.
Everywhere we find conditions analogous to those on the intellectual side. Our
body includes a great variety of parts and movements, but the organic context allows
us to summarize it as one; the unity of our soul finds its expression or support in the
organic unity of our body, in which everything is also determined by changes; And
just as we believe that we always keep the same spirit over time, despite the fact that
it is constantly changing, we always believe that we are keeping the same body,
despite the fact that it is constantly changing; what is factually related; for what the
old soul still bears is still considered to be the old body, and the question is the same:
What makes us keep the body as the same in spite of all changes, and what enables it,
despite all changes,
In some things it cannot lie: Not in the restraint of the same matter; because this
changes continuously during life; the old man consists of totally different matter than
the child, and yet believes he has kept the same body and soul. Not in the same
form; for this also changes continuously from youth to old age and basically nothing
is still completely in the same form in the body of the old man and child, while the
old man still considers himself to be exactly the same person. Not in the preservation
of any particular part of the body, since one can gradually take away any part of the
body without, as far as we can observe it in this world, the identity of the individual
suffers as a result. Let us consider the old man against the young in general. He is a
different heap of matter, in a different space, in a different time, of a different size, a
different form than the young one, be it with any similarities to the earlier form; but
the self carried by it has remained exactly the same. What is left that stamped the
body as the bearer of the same self? Only one thing remains, and that which shows
itself quite correspondingly to the circumstance which we recognized as the condition
of the continuation of the ego in the spiritual realm, so that it can be used again as an
expression or bearer of this condition in the body. Just as the later spirit must grow
out of the earlier in order to still feel the same, the body that bears the later spirit must
also have grown out of that which bears the earlier, in order to still be regarded as the
bearer of the same spirit and thus as the same body. Everything can change and really
changes between the structure of the previous body and the spirit, only the causal
connection must be constantly maintained, and really is constantly maintained. What
worked in me as a child continues to have an effect on me, the adult, in its
consequences, physically as well as spiritually. No matter how different the shape of
the old man is than that of the child, the definite shape of an old man could only grow
out of a definite form of the child. Every movement that has ever been in the
organism extends, even if never reappearing in its original form, its influence through
everything later as well as the movement of a planet at any moment extends its
influence through all eternity; what is later carries within itself the further effects of
what was earlier, and would be different from what it is if it did not contain them. The
entire present state of the bodily organism has grown out of the earlier in the same
way as the spiritual state out of the earlier. Just as little, to be sure, purely from within
itself. Here too the outside world gives new determinations going away. But through
all the new determinations the effects of what was earlier are retained.
So we see the most perfect analogy between the conditions of the continuation of
our individuality on the spiritual and physical side. But it's more than analogy; both
are interrelated in interdependence, indeed essential unity. The spiritual processes
themselves flow out of one another only according to the measure in which the bodily
processes flow out of one another, by which they are sustained; the flow of the
spiritual is only the self-appearance of the bodily flow.
What follows from this for our future again if we want to keep the facts of the now
authoritative?
That the body of our future, in order to be able to serve the continuation of our
present ego, must have grown out of the body of the now just as causally as the body
of the now grows out of the one who previously carried the ego.
The further body fulfills this condition in the sense in which we have considered it
earlier, and fulfills nothing else than this further body. You will look for something
different in vain. So if we do not want to accept immortality into the void, we will
only be able to find it on this basis.
Let us take another look at the whole relationship that comes into consideration
here.
The causal continuation of the activities of the earlier body, to which our earlier
ego was linked, lies only partially in the present body. Part of it lies in the outside
world. Everything that is active in us at any given moment divides, so to speak, into
two parts, one of which continues to work internally, the other reaches outwards. The
former serves to maintain our current, narrower bodily system as the carrier of our
present conscious life and thereby to be enriched and further developed by the
influences of the outside world; of our future is canceled and is now still in the
unconscious for us. But also everything that throws away inside us, at times circles in
it, after all, sooner or later it is converted into effects on the outside world, to which
the last of us is thrown at death; in this way we gradually pass over to the outside
world, completely converting ourselves into the further system of the outside
world. The knot of the narrower body never loosens, because the entanglement of the
causal movements must continue through all the consequences, as has been discussed
several times, but the loops tightened in the narrower body are so to speak pulled out
far. If the narrower body finally disappears completely, then, according to the laws of
antagonism and periodicity that we have discussed, the wider one awakens for
it. convert us completely into the further system of the outside world. The knot of the
narrower body never loosens, because the entanglement of the causal movements
must continue through all the consequences, as has been discussed several times, but
the loops tightened in the narrower body are so to speak pulled out far. If the
narrower body finally disappears completely, then, according to the laws of
antagonism and periodicity that we have discussed, the wider one awakens for
it. convert us completely into the further system of the outside world. The knot of the
narrower body never loosens, because the entanglement of the causal movements
must continue through all the consequences, as has been discussed several times, but
the loops tightened in the narrower body are so to speak pulled out far. If the
narrower body finally disappears completely, then, according to the laws of
antagonism and periodicity that we have discussed, the wider one awakens for it.
One can clearly see that the basic point, which is important in the continuation of
the individual, is understood here essentially differently than usual. If in most of the
views that we have got to know in the previous section, only something identical is to
be retained of spirit and body, in which the essence of spirit and body lies, on the
other hand, it is in the essence of the previous view that the whole body and spirit
continues to be identically in the same sense as it is already happening now, in that
the essential for identity is placed here in the causal relationship and dependent and
continuing causal relationship of the entire physical-spiritual organism,
It would be wrong to expect the causal relationship to maintain an ego where there
is none. Only insofar as an I is there can it persist through its causality. Much can thus
take place causally in a special way in the world without a special ego being retained
in it; but this causality will at least contribute to the maintenance of the most general
divine ego, the existence of which is linked to the causal connection and the
continuation of which is linked to the subsequent connection of all things in the
world. Where there is no special ego, it cannot persist as such even through its
consequences. But the emergence of particular I's of lower levels can be based on a
causal connection of a higher order.
Of course, our view also differs very much from those who seek the most essential
and most peculiar of the spirit in a kind of freedom that allows it to emancipate itself
from the laws of the causal connection, since rather, according to us, the continuation
of spiritual identity is in the causal connection of spiritual phenomena itself depends,
and what would fall out of the causal connection of a spirit would fall out of the spirit
itself. Whether a freedom takes place in that sense or not, everything that is
encountered in the spirit by means of such a freedom is not at all to be seen as having
occurred through the spirit, not as its continuation, continuation; encounters the spirit
like something alien. So it is with the influences he experiences from an outside
world, and one can cheaply doubt whether there is anything else of the kind. But this
does not deny man's freedom, because nothing prevents, as shown earlier (XIX. B),
from including in the causal law itself the basic principle of freedom, about which
man is concerned. But we shall not pursue this subject any further here.
XXVIII. Practical considerations.

In the previous one the question was what can we conclude from our present life
for the future; Let us now ask ourselves what effect can the ideas of the future life
established in this way on the present. It is the practical side of the question that now
has to concern us after the theoretical one; and only the unanimous satisfaction of our
theoretical and practical interests can ensure, according to our views, that we are on
the right path.
First of all, however, the preliminary question: will our teaching ever be able to
gain practical effectiveness in life? Isn't it much too vague and faded for that, too
extensive and difficult to represent and understand? With a practical inability to gain
entry, however, according to us, it also proves a theoretical inadequacy. Because a
doctrine of the highest and ultimate things is not only intended to be beneficial in a
narrow circle, but also to be beneficial in the broadest circle, but for this it must also
be accepted and believed in the broadest circle. And if it couldn't, theoretically it
couldn't be the right one. So it lies in our most general principle of the connection of
the good and the truth (XIX. A).
In the meantime, whatever our point of view may be with regard to
comprehensibility, definiteness, and representability, it is in any case not at a
disadvantage compared to previous views. And could these still find their place,
should ours be less able to do so? For what can be more indefinite, faded, harder to
fix than the usual ideas about future existence? Can one even speak of certain ideas
here? Aren't there just floating and foggy, dreamlike thoughts that cannot be properly
grasped or left behind? Will the soul still have a body in the future or will it not have
one? Does it leave the old one entirely or does it keep some of it and what does it
keep from it? Or how and where does she get a new one, and what is it like? Does she
sleep after death or does she go straight to heaven? How does it get there? What kind
of new conditions are there? What is one to think of under heaven? a place on a world
body, or the space between the world bodies, or a space above all world bodies, or
does the relationship of the soul to space stop at all? Is only the slightest part of all
this fixed in the ordinary imagination? And it is in vain to try this fixation; since the
more one goes into it, the more glaring incongruities and contradictions of this whole
range of ideas emerge. On the other hand, I think that our view becomes more fixed
and more definite the more we delve into it. or a space above all world bodies, or
does the relationship of the soul to space cease at all? Is only the slightest part of all
and more definite the more we delve into it. or a space above all world bodies, or
does the relationship of the soul to space cease at all? Is only the slightest part of all
and more definite the more we delve into it.
Every view of the divine and otherworldly things will ultimately have to be brought
closer to the crude view through anthropomorphism and symbolization; But it is
precisely our view that offers the most varied starting points, such that the picture
rather expresses the truth than conceals it; yes, it can do without this aid more than
any other, because it does not cut through the real relationships of the future life with
the present, but pursues it; and thereby paves the most natural way for the conception
of the conditions of the hereafter.
And in this I am looking for a main advantage in our view of a practical
relationship, even apart from the content of the same, against the usual conceptions
and representations of the doctrine of immortality. What can a view of the hereafter
do for this world, how can it have a directional effect, develop guiding points for it, if
it does not allow any conclusions to be drawn from what applies here to what will
apply there, or if it breaks off any real context, let alone the hope of the future based
on contradictions with the facts and possibilities of the now; if we are placed in an
indefinite sky or on distant planets in relationships that no longer touch the
present? You don't see, and so it doesn't touch our hearts, like what everyone does
here with what everyone will have and will experience one day is related. Wages and
punishments appear threatened or promised for no reason, alienated, and where one
does not see how something must, indeed can come, it is all too easy to doubt that it
will come. One thing depends on the other. Like the real references for knowledge,
the knowledge references for action are lost. And no matter how valuable the
assurances and hints may be that we can draw from the sources of our religion and
some foreboding feelings, yes, how much they themselves form the necessary
prerequisite for all theory, the theoretical blindness and confusion in which we find
ourselves threaten in relation to the connection between the present life and the life to
come, we always find ourselves to be weakening what is offered to us on these
pages. Yes what help
If, on the other hand, we see clearly that and how our future life grows out of the
present, after an expansion only grows out of the same principle according to which
every later state of life already now emerges from the earlier, then everything that we
are and in the now life appears quite automatically to act as just as essential and
meaningful for our future existence as it appears to be my being and doing today for
tomorrow, my youth for my old age; and this gives rise to the strongest motives to act
in the way that is best for the following life. If the same view now includes as a
necessary and planned conclusion that the same action that is most beneficial to the
future is also that which is most beneficial to the now, in this way the most beautiful
and best agreement will come into the whole of our practical interests. And so it is to
be found in our teaching, as the following will show by itself.
Furthermore, one need not confuse the cumbersome, arguing form in which our
doctrine has appeared here with that in which it would have to appear in front of the
crowd. A preacher does not bring the studies for his sermon before the people,
because nobody would stay in the church; but these studies were necessary. Only
studies are given here, not preaching, or little preaching with much study. How much
would it have taken to develop all the reasons why belief deserves what the Bible
says of the highest and ultimate things; she renounces it and the people only believe
her all the more if they are not diligently led to disbelief. But the thinker also asks
about the reasons. Do we understand by people in general the large number of those
who, rather, through others, than are guided by their own reason, then belief in
general is rarely implanted in the people by reasons, every reason is good for the
same, mostly it does not ask for it, it believes a thing by giving a scripture or a person
that has authority over it acquires known, believes, it believes what it is used to
believe from childhood, so often believes the most absurd and most harmful, but most
easily believes the most graphic and promising. So all the great apparatus with which
we have tried to introduce and justify our view will not be able to confound the
people, but also not be able to err, but rather can and must fall away from
them. Before him and before the world of children, it would be important to bring the
matter forward without a reason, simply and simply, but in the most vivid form, so
that the salutary of belief in it becomes evident, with parables and images that even
Christ did not disdain when it came to the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven (Matt.
13, 34). And form and content are up to our teaching to do so; it is entitled to the
form of Christ's teaching itself Commandments because their content is that of
Christ's teaching; she knows no other conditions of salvation than these; its novelty
does not lie in the fact that it deviates from Christian doctrine, only in the fact that it
openly shows what is still closed in it and opens a path of knowledge to the path of
faith.
What we have to demand of the future life, above all in the practical interest, is
justice, the prospect of which is intended to contribute to driving us towards good and
to holding us back from evil. Already now such a righteousness is visible in the
disposition, in general the good man drives better, the bad man worse, because of the
consequences of his actions that affect him; but our life does not exhaust the cycle of
consequences; most of the consequences of our actions reach too far beyond us to
arrive at a just reaction on our conscious part here below, considering the brevity and
narrowness of our life in this world, and this is often the case The reward of the good
is just as withheld as the punishment of the wicked is withheld; this is especially true
for the greatest of good and evil. Therefore all religions have who deserve this name
are looking for a complement in the following life, where the good is just as fully
weighted as the reward as the evil is fully weighed down, which is here shortened for
him. But most of the time it is put this way: while good and bad are now worthwhile
and punish by consequences, which naturally strike back at us after the natural chain
of things and the human order based on them, what is still lacking in righteous
retribution should in the future Life like being added to or outbid by someone else's
hand. According to us, however, the addition of wages and punishment in the
following life falls under the same principle as wages and punishment in the now life,
since future and now life themselves form a connection; yes, only then does the
fulfillment and full implementation of this principle become apparent. In the future
life, too, it will only be the consequences of our present doing and leaving that
naturally rebound on us from the context in which we exist, which will reward and
punish us. But while the consequences of what we consciously work in the now life
only partially impact our conscious part in this world, after death the totality of the
consequences of our conscious now life hits back on our conscious part, in that the
whole sphere of the consequences of our conscious part now From now on forms the
sphere of our new conscious life. If the consequences are good, we will feel them as
good, if the consequences are bad, we will suffer from them. Instead of our previous
works, we are paid by our previous works. the consequences of our current actions,
which naturally rebound back and which reward and punish us. But while the
consequences of what we consciously work in the now life only partially impact our
conscious part in this world, after death the totality of the consequences of our
conscious now life hits back on our conscious part, in that the whole sphere of the
consequences of our present conscious part From now on forms the sphere of our
new conscious life. If the consequences are good, we will feel them as good, if the
consequences are bad, we will suffer from them. Instead of our previous works, we
are paid by our previous works. the consequences of our current actions, which
naturally rebound back and which reward and punish us. But while the consequences
of what we consciously work in the now life only partially impact our conscious part
in this world, after death the totality of the consequences of our conscious now life
hits back on our conscious part, in that the whole sphere of the consequences of our
present conscious part From now on forms the sphere of our new conscious life. If
the consequences are good, we will feel them as good, if the consequences are bad,
we will suffer from them. Instead of our previous works, we are paid by our previous
works. Only incompletely hitting back on our conscious part in this world, after death
the totality of the consequences of our conscious now life hits back on our conscious
part, in that the whole sphere of the consequences of our present conscious life
henceforth forms the sphere of our new conscious life. If the consequences are good,
we will feel them as good, if the consequences are bad, we will suffer from
them. Instead of our previous works, we are paid by our previous works. Only
incompletely hitting back on our conscious part in this world, after death the totality
of the consequences of our conscious now life hits back on our conscious part, in that
the whole sphere of the consequences of our present conscious life henceforth forms
the sphere of our new conscious life. If the consequences are good, we will feel them
as good, if the consequences are bad, we will suffer from them. Instead of our
previous works, we are paid by our previous works. we will suffer from it. Instead of
our previous works, we are paid by our previous works. we will suffer from
it. Instead of our previous works, we are paid by our previous works.
No view can establish a stricter, more complete, more inviolable, more natural
justice; none better correspond to the words that everyone will reap what he has
sown; he now sows himself in his activities and works and one day reaps his self
from them; no better warning not to bury your pound; everyone is himself the pound
that is doing himself, like what will one day be repaid to him with his interest. In no
one better interprets the word that our works will follow us, yes, they will follow us
as the child's limbs follow at birth, that is, while our works now appear to be behind
us, they only appear to have been made outwardly by us we recognize with death that
we have thereby made ourselves. Because from now on we live in the circle of our
effects and works, as if it were our own body, consciously. The future life will thus
fulfill everything that the conscience now threatens and promises from afar, even
more justly than it threatens and promises the conscience. Many a person now closes
his eyes to the distant threatening scourge of evil which he has conjured up against
himself through his work, and finally forgets that it threatens; but on awakening in
the following life he will feel them raging in his flesh and blood and will no longer be
able to forget them. and finally forgets that it threatens; but on awakening in the
following life he will feel them raging in his flesh and blood and will no longer be
able to forget them. and finally forgets that it threatens; but on awakening in the
following life he will feel them raging in his flesh and blood and will no longer be
able to forget them.
What everyone has sown internally he will also reap internally, what everyone has
sown externally he will also reap externally; But what he has reaped internally will
also be able to give him new seeds externally; and what he reaps from without, he
will reap into himself. That is, what we work down here for the world around us will
in future be able to equip us in conditions of a more external existence, what we work
in ourselves in conditions of a more internal existence; that in cooperation and
counteraction, which we feel to be encountering from outside, will be our external
goods in the future, this in such consequences that we feel developed directly in
ourselves; in the future these are our inner goods, as far as they are really good. In the
future it will not be money and lands that are still considered external goods, We
leave that behind, but rather good repercussions of our good actions that have gone
out to the outside world, the rebound of the blessings that we have created around us,
on us, who from now on we consciously dwell in the circle of the beneficial effects
we have created; It will not be the perishable joys of our inner being that will
henceforth be regarded as an inner good, but a good shaping of our inner self and thus
a good position to the inner of the higher and highest spirit, which carries its blessing
in itself and evokes it again on the outside. If someone has only taken care of his
inner culture here below, and has done nothing for the world around him, he will also
be rich in internal goods of the spirit and poor in external goods in the following
world. Has someone done a lot for himself, but educated little in himself, in this way
he will pass over into the next world outwardly rich and inwardly poor. Then there
may still be an addition to what he has missed here; but the more harmonious his
striving in both directions has been for him, the better it will be for him. So there, as
here, there will be a side of external happiness and unhappiness, which we will be
related to one another here, not necessarily related to one another as here, but on the
whole related to the local merit.
In fact, the circle of our effects and works intervenes in the rest of the world, in a
bad or good sense, and experiences corresponding repercussions, which will affect
our consciousness beyond as further determinations from this world, according to the
extent to which the effects emanated from our consciousness on this side ; for our
consciousness beyond is attached to the consequences of our consciousness on this
side. According to the nature of good and evil, however, good is only that which is in
the sense, and only bad that which goes against the sense of the highest will and
aspiration that dominates the world order, and so good action with its consequences
must be supported by the beneficial co-operation, that The poor encounter the
inhibiting and punishing counter-effects of this will, striving and the world order
ruled by it; it is not immediately, but surely sooner or later; because righteousness
does not come all at once, but only over time. In this way, the circle of what we have
improved or made worse in the world around us will secure us a favorable or
unfavorable external position in life through the cooperation and counter-effects
brought about in the world order.
In the near future, however, we will also take over and further develop our
disposition, our inclinations, our insight and spiritual strength as internal effects of
our conscious being in this world. Our inner position in life will depend on this and,
depending on whether our inner being as a whole and in the main direction in the
sense or against the sense of the higher and highest spirit, we will also have an
immediate feeling of attunement or conflict with it when our conscious relationships
with it have become lighter carry as a feeling of inner bliss or damnation, and in this
find an inner retribution for outer retribution, which with the outer will at the same
time become fuller and more striking than this side. Because with regard to the
external, what has long since seemed to be the consequences of our actions beyond us
strikes back on us,
But finally, and that is the third thing, we will work from within, as good or badly
as we bring it with us into the hereafter, also beyond, as we do on this side, and so the
hereafter will work actively for us through our own actions, depending on it in the
sense of or against the sense of the higher and highest order is to make heaven or hell
completely. Sometimes we still work back from the beyond on the relationships of
this world of perception with which we have grown together, and thereby change its
re-determination on ourselves in the beyond; sometimes we weave and work on
relationships and works that only apply to the higher world of phenomena Beyond
itself have meaning, as we have already considered it before.
How, then, here below our happiness and unhappiness depend on three
circumstances, firstly the external position in which we find ourselves placed at birth
and the fate that naturally develop from this position, secondly on the good or bad
internal dispositions that we have bring with us and further develop in us, and thirdly
from our actions out of this our inner being, whereby we change our external position
in life even further, by partly working on the nature from which we originally
emerged, partly creating works and relationships, which are only valid and relevant
for the sphere of human life; so it will be in the future. Our inner being, that is, our
disposition, inclination, energy, insight into this worldly life will, however, remain
the basis and driving core of all of this. For in accordance with the nature of our inner
being here, we will also act here externally, whereby we prepare the starting point
and the basis of the future external position in life; this interior will also follow us
into the inside, and out of the same interior we will also act in the hereafter and
further change this position in life. So it is above all a matter of shaping this interior
well on this side; so the good shaping of our inner and outer state on the other side is
at the same time the natural consequence of it. and from the same interior we will
also act in the hereafter and further change this position in life. So it is above all a
matter of shaping this interior well on this side; so the good shaping of our inner and
outer state on the other side is at the same time the natural consequence of it. and
from the same interior we will also act in the hereafter and further change this
position in life. So it is above all a matter of shaping this interior well on this side; so
the good shaping of our inner and outer state on the other side is at the same time the
natural consequence of it.
Of the external conditions of happiness that we create for ourselves through our
work on this side into the hereafter, some things may remain independent of our
worldly disposition, our will, and some may appear at first as a coincidence or even
as injustice; Often we cannot follow our best intentions outwardly down here; the
sick, prisoner, what can he do for the world around him; the repercussions of the
world against the good and the bad are not always just immediately. But chance and
injustice vanish when we look at the other side and the progress of the retribution at
the same time; in it everything is balanced to full justice in the highest sense. So
neither should we pay attention to that one side and that beginning of retribution
alone.
In general, according to our teaching, wages and punishments in the future life do
not appear as something that has to be paid out and agreed once and for all favorable
or unfavorable starting conditions for the new life. But someone who was able to do
little for his future external position in life in this life can, in his disposition, his
energy, his will, accept such internal conditions that ensure him the most favorable
change in external relations, provided that he does so now further determined from
within.
Many people mistakenly think that the good and the evil of man down below will
be weighed against each other in the last judgment on a general scale, and only paid
out for the pure surplus of one or the other wage or punishment in equally general
coins of bliss or unhappiness; So it is sufficient to do an equivalent of the good in
another sense for the bad in one sense, so we are herewith even before God, and if we
do a little more of the good, we enjoy the excess reward for it without complaint. But
it is not like that. Then many received nothing at all. Every good, the smallest as well
as the greatest, should it deserve this name differently, is, considered in the context of
the whole, a source of consequences or contributes to a source of consequences that
are pious in the world, and every evil just as of such , which bring her
disadvantage; but each one, insofar as it is of a special kind, also bears witness to the
good and bad consequences of a special kind. Whoever is good in one respect and
acts well, will one day enjoy the beneficial internal and external consequences of this
good without any deduction, provided that he does not limited even by bad
counteraction; but he will also have to bear the dire consequences of evil in full on
the side, what he did in addition to the good. Nothing is given to us, no wages, no
punishment, nothing weighed against each other but the consequence against the
cause. So don't calm yourself with the thought: It is becoming too difficult for me to
leave this evil behind, I will do it well in other ways; Evil can only be made good
through the self-compulsion of evil; if not, the punishment will one day compel it. but
each one, insofar as it is of a special kind, also bears witness to the good and bad
consequences of a special kind. Whoever is good in one respect and acts well, will
one day enjoy the beneficial internal and external consequences of this good without
any deduction, provided that he does not limited even by bad counteraction; but he
will also have to bear the dire consequences of evil in full on the side, what he did in
addition to the good. Nothing is given to us, no wages, no punishment, nothing
weighed against each other but the consequence against the cause. So don't calm
yourself with the thought: It is becoming too difficult for me to leave this evil behind,
I will do it well in other ways; Evil can only be made good through the self-
compulsion of evil; if not, the punishment will one day compel it. but each one,
insofar as it is of a special kind, also bears witness to the good and bad consequences
of a special kind. Whoever is good in one respect and acts well, will one day enjoy
the beneficial internal and external consequences of this good without any deduction,
provided that he does not limited even by bad counteraction; but he will also have to
bear the dire consequences of evil in full on the side, what he did in addition to the
good. Nothing is given to us, no wages, no punishment, nothing weighed against each
other but the consequence against the cause. So don't calm yourself with the thought:
It is becoming too difficult for me to leave this evil behind, I will do it well in other
ways; Evil can only be made good through the self-compulsion of evil; if not, the
punishment will one day compel it. also bears witness to the good and bad
consequences of a special kind. Anyone who is good in one respect and acts well will
deduction, unless he himself limits them by a bad counteraction; but he will also have
to bear the dire consequences of evil in full on the side, what he did in addition to the
punishment will one day compel it. also bears witness to the good and bad
consequences of a special kind. Anyone who is good in one respect and acts well will
deduction, unless he himself limits them by a bad counteraction; but he will also have
to bear the dire consequences of evil in full on the side, what he did in addition to the
punishment will one day compel it. Anyone who is good in one respect and acts well
will one day enjoy the beneficial internal and external consequences of this good
without deduction, provided that he himself does not limit them by a bad
through the self-compulsion of evil; if not, the punishment will one day compel
it. Anyone who is good in one respect and acts well will one day enjoy the beneficial
internal and external consequences of this good without deduction, provided that he
himself does not limit them by a bad counteraction; but he will also have to bear the
dire consequences of evil in full on the side, what he did in addition to the
punishment will one day compel it. as long as he does not limit it himself by a bad
through the self-compulsion of evil; if not, the punishment will one day compel it. as
long as he does not limit it himself by a bad counteraction; but he will also have to
bear the dire consequences of evil in full on the side, what he did in addition to the
punishment will one day compel it. So don't calm yourself with the thought: It is
becoming too difficult for me to leave this evil behind, I will do it well in other
punishment will one day compel it. So don't calm yourself with the thought: It is
becoming too difficult for me to leave this evil behind, I will do it well in other
punishment will one day compel it.
In the same way, those who were mainly of good heart and good deeds, but not yet
free from lack and faults, must first pass through purgatory in the hereafter to atone
for their sins and purify their being; That is to say, through the punishments which are
the result of their mistakes, they must bear the guilt of general justice and be forced to
reform themselves, if they do not force themselves or have forced themselves.
But how will it be for those who, inwardly and with evil deeds behind them, step
into the other world? You will have everything against you inwardly and
outwardly. Their lusts, their hatred, their selfishness, their envy, their anger follow
them into an order of things and want to be satisfied where no one finds satisfaction
but the virtuous, peaceful and just; what they have devastated in and outside of
themselves lies in and outside of them now desolate for them; they see themselves
surrounded by the joy of heaven and are unable to taste any of it; for heavenly lust is
only palatable to a heavenly mind; the consequences of their evil deeds now catch up
with them one after the other; now they are still happy as long as the conscience
sleeps, the punishment hesitates; where will her happiness come from from now
on, since the conscience becomes more alert, the deeper it slept, the more strength the
punishment has gathered, the longer it hesitated? In this way she now grips inner and
outer pain; an inalienable, yes, we say, an eternal torment, that is, which does not
leave them in peace for a moment, until the last penny of their debt has been paid, the
evil spirit is fundamentally broken. The worm keeps gnawing until it has completely
consumed its bad food. But heaven is above hell, that is, greater and more powerful
than hell, and it forces hell through hell itself. In this way, in the end, no malice will
be able to resist. which does not leave them in peace for a moment, until the last
penny of their debt has been paid, the evil sense is fundamentally broken. The worm
keeps gnawing until it has completely consumed its bad food. But heaven is above
hell, that is, greater and more powerful than hell, and it forces hell through hell itself.
In this way, in the end, no malice will be able to resist. which does not leave them in
peace for a moment, until the last penny of their debt has been paid, the evil sense is
fundamentally broken. The worm keeps gnawing until it has completely consumed its
bad food. But heaven is above hell, that is, greater and more powerful than hell, and it
forces hell through hell itself. In this way, in the end, no malice will be able to resist.
But are we able to portray the joys of the good and just? We can only guess at this
and that. The good and righteous will, when they have atone for what still to atone,
are purified from errors and mistakes in the most general aspects, because no finite
being becomes perfect down to the last detail, feeling how the power of the higher
and highest spirit is with them, they will feel a calm, a security and clarity and unity
in themselves and with the other blessed spirits, as they are never a matter of
confused life on this side; They will help the Most High to build and organize the fate
of this world itself, gaining a share in the general and higher points of view of it, so
that even in evil they will recognize the germ of good from the outset and help to turn
evil into good; they will help the Most High to fight against everything that goes
against his mind, already happy and certain of the future victory, but knowing that he
will only succeed through their strength, and always retain a spur of activity in
it; they will help bring the wicked to atonement with heaven; and will develop the
conditions of heaven itself more and more beautifully, in that they now work around
them with the forces, knowledge, abilities, and attitudes that they have acquired down
here. And all the fruits of good that they sown in this world will grow up into their
heavens and fall into their laps by themselves. they will help bring the wicked to
atonement with heaven; and will develop the conditions of heaven itself more and
more beautifully, in that they now work around them with the forces, knowledge,
abilities, and attitudes that they have acquired down here. And all the fruits of good
that they sown in this world will grow up into their heavens and fall into their laps by
themselves. they will help bring the wicked to atonement with heaven; and will
develop the conditions of heaven itself more and more beautifully, in that they now
work around them with the forces, knowledge, abilities, and attitudes that they have
acquired down here. And all the fruits of good that they sown in this world will grow
up into their heavens and fall into their laps by themselves.
Heaven and hell are, as we have already said, not to be viewed as different
localities, but only as essentially different, indeed opposing conditions and
relationships to the higher and highest spirit in which the spirits of the hereafter are
located. There can be no longer any question of the actual spatial separation of the
existences on the other side in the sense of this world. But that difference or
opposition of the states and relationships of the good and bad spirits in the hereafter
may be sensualized in the simplest and most comprehensible way through a spatial
separation and opposition such as from above and below, from a place of bliss and
pain. We also know that, although in the future we will all penetrate and fill the same
world with our existences, but there will not be an indifferent relationship between
everyone and everyone; rather, very diverse relationships of appearance and
encounter can emerge from it. It is now undisputed how now the good lives
preferentially in good, the bad preferentially in bad company, regardless of the fact
that both live with and between each other in the same world and enter into the most
varied of active relationships with one another, it will be in the future; yes, the spirits
of the hereafter may in future join and separate from one another even more
according to inner value relationships than now (cf. XXII. A); but a separation of the
places of residence of the good and the bad will no longer be necessary for this than it
is now, and a relationship between their lives will be just as little annulled as a
result. An opposing relationship can be as powerful and lively as the relationship of
attunement. Heaven should subjugate hell; but so that he can do it in the fullest,
highest and best sense, he does not have to be outwardly opposite to hell, but rather,
in the sense of earlier considerations, grasp its disharmony as a moment of its
sublimity and beauty, so that the abolition, dissolution of this disharmony is possible
contributes to this grandeur and beauty. The same fire in which the wicked burn will
shine for the good and warm the good, not as the highest, most beautiful heavenly
fire, but as here also the earthly fire burns to the higher heavenly fire. But the wicked
burn only that the wicked burn on them; then they go out to the good guys; so the
good cannot torment their torment. The means, through which the punishment and
correction of the evil are accomplished, and through which the good is rewarded and
brought up higher, are themselves so connected that they cannot be thought of as
being transferred to two different places. That the evil one lives in an overpowering
heaven, against which he wills and cannot, is his greatest torment; and one of the
business and means of further education of the blessed spirits of the hereafter is to
maintain the order of heaven against the wicked and to bring it back to order. Only
that they will succeed better in the hereafter than in this world; because the hereafter
is the higher perfection of this world. In this respect, the small realm of memory in us
also stands above the realm of visualization in us. What is still raw,
contradicting, seems stubborn to the order of our memory realm, must, having
become memory itself, nevertheless finally submit to order; the mind does not rest
until it has been able to put everything in order in the sense of its general order, and
what appeared to be the most contradictory often provides the most valuable
enrichment in the end. How much more can we expect the corresponding from the
order of the higher and highest spirit.
One sees how, in addition to the manifold real separations that exist according to the usual views,
but have already been canceled for us (cf. XXII. B), that between heaven and hell also
comes. Whereas, according to the usual idea, hell opposes heaven like shadows opposed to light,
according to us, hell is included in heaven like shadows in a beautifully illuminated
landscape. What would the landscape be without shadow? If, according to the usual conception,
heaven above and hell below are spatially separated, according to us there is heaven above, hell
below in that sense of the upper and lower, which we often use, since the upper includes the lower
as a subordinate element.
One can say: What becomes of God's grace with such righteousness? Does she still
have space?
A grace that contradicts the righteousness of God comes to nothing; of course, one
often wants this contradicting concept.
But in righteousness, as it is presented according to our teaching, the best that one
asks of grace lies in much more than one usually asks.
All sin must be punished, this is just; but all sin is to be forgiven; this is what grace
demands. Well, we find this grace again in our view, only not outside of
righteousness, but by virtue of righteousness itself. It is not punished in order to
punish, but so punished that the sinner must reform himself; the wicked will be
punished hardest because most of them have to be overcome with him; but not out of
revenge, but precisely for the sake of recovery; then he is forgiven.
The course of this righteousness and grace is not the measured course of a
clockwork, is neither here nor on the other side determined in detail, rather it is
possible in a thousand different ways and with a thousand detours, and takes place
differently with each other, that is, all diversity and all change and everything Game
of Life has place, determined only in the direction of the ultimate goal and in the just
total measure of retribution according to the merits of each inviolable. As the wage
shifts, as the punishment is delayed, the conditions of the reward and the punishment
increase at the same time, and the better the bad, the worse the good, the greater the
upheaval one day. how it is distributed between this world and the hereafter is
uncertain, but in the end everyone has what is due; so whoever does not have it in this
world can certainly expect it in the hereafter; yes, the transition to the hereafter is
itself there to make possible under new conditions what cannot be achieved in this
respect under the conditions of this world. Death forms a section between this world
and the hereafter, like the evening between two days of a workman. The gentleman
stood sideways or was hidden in the house; The worker probably thought that the
master did not take care of the work: But the master saw everything and humbled the
returning worker in front of him and settled accounts with him; All of a sudden it is
made known to him what he still has to receive for his daily work; not that he also
received the reward, the punishment, in full at once; but at once he learns the total of
the amount. That is that feeling of conscience that becomes loud with death, that puts
the value of life up to now in a number, a number that counts in advance in inner joy
or pain what is to come; for according to the calculation of this number the more
distant retribution now begins to develop; the good from now on lives in the second
life on the wages of his earlier life, the bad in the punishment for his earlier life; but if
no one is really good and no one completely bad, everyone lives on the reward and
punishment of his previous life, and the diversity and change and play of life make
itself anew in the distribution of this justice and the interweaving with him, what is
newly earned and reimbursed in the new life, valid. for according to the calculation of
this number the more distant retribution now begins to develop; the good from now
on lives in the second life on the wages of his earlier life, the bad in the punishment
for his earlier life; but if no one is really good and no one completely bad, everyone
lives on the reward and punishment of his previous life, and the diversity and change
and play of life make itself anew in the distribution of this justice and the
interweaving with him, what is newly earned and reimbursed in the new life,
valid. for according to the calculation of this number the more distant retribution now
begins to develop; the good from now on lives in the second life on the wages of his
earlier life, the bad in the punishment for his earlier life; but if no one is really good
and no one completely bad, everyone lives on the reward and punishment of his
previous life, and the diversity and change and play of life make itself anew in the
distribution of this justice and the interweaving with him, what is newly earned and
reimbursed in the new life, valid.
Perhaps someone says: In all of this, God is out of the question; It is not God who
weighs reward and punishment according to merit; but everything follows by itself in
the natural course of events; there is no need to think of God at all. And shouldn't we
rather see in God the eternal reward?
But that which contradicts itself in other doctrines or does not touch itself carries
and demands itself in ours. The supreme law according to which justice is carried out
is, despite its inviolability, not the mechanical law of a dead natural process, but the
living law of a supreme spiritual authority itself. The natural course of things, of
events, is of divine consciousness according to us penetrated, and the uppermost
direction of the same follows the uppermost aspiration. Anyone who abstracts from
God's spiritual work does the same as he who, in the natural course of movements in
our body, our brain, abstracts from the fact that it only goes so naturally alive under
the influence of a soul, a spirit. It is precisely in our teaching that the justice that
waits for everyone appears, into the most intimate relationship to God's will and
essence, a much deeper and deeper one than in so many other teachings. Because in
other teachings this righteousness depends on God's will, with an appearance that he
could not want it either, but in ours it is connected with the nature of God's will itself,
he wants it because it is so in the essence of his will lies. Such an inviolable law of
our own spiritual life and striving it is, but precisely not a dead law that our spirit
strives to promote the conditions of what suits it, and in turn opposes the conditions
of what is opposed to it, so inviolable is the same thing Law in the higher spirit and
God, and is therefore not a dead one, but rather, like in us, a bond and a guideline of
his life, striving, will itself. The ultimate measure of good and evil in the world is the
pleasure or displeasure that God finds in it, but this is directly related to happiness
and unhappiness, the source of which is good and evil in the world borne by God and
sustaining God Connections. So God's cooperation and counteraction against good
and bad will also be measured according to the happiness and unhappiness, the
source of which it is on the whole. But just as good and bad develop their
consequences only gradually, and these interweave and shift each other in many
ways, so do the cooperative and counter-effects. Even we do not always go straight
for our goal when we overlook the fact that the detour is better on the whole, and that
some of the goal itself is probably on the detour. The less does God go straight for the
goal of his righteousness with his greater insight, only that he always goes for it and
on the whole is enough for her, that is inviolable. But if this inviolable of final
righteousness is something that is related to the nature of insight and the will of God
in terms of spiritual law, then of course all mediations of the same must also conform
to this law.
But it is also not a matter of indifference to our future retribution whether we
consciously refer to God in our thoughts and actions or not. Someone would like to
say: If my action is worthwhile through its consequences, it will only be sufficient to
act well at all, and the good consequences will be the same for me, whether I care
about God in any way or even believe in God. But somebody can speak like that who
considers the thought to be an empty, tracelessly fading breath, but not we, who also
pay attention to the consequences of the thoughts, probably someone who considers
God to be a being far removed from the world and the thought processes of his
creatures, not we, who acknowledge a God living in the world, a weaving and
working of our thoughts in God and God in us. Even the thought that we, the
individual, Addressing the whole of God is something real and has consequences that
reach into the hereafter, consequences that are more important for our salvation than
the thought itself, really more the direction towards God as the highest and last refuge
and source of salvation takes. Knowing that we do enough to God by doing good and
acting out of love for him, that is the highest thing that a person can achieve and will
be most rewarded when we one day enter into a more conscious relationship with
God as now, through a feeling of bliss and satisfaction of the highest kind, which no
one will be able to enjoy who does well for any other reason. He too will have his
reward; he will be paid as it is due; but whoever acted to love God,
The difference between doing what is commanded by having God in front of your
eyes and in your heart for the sake of his love, or only to meet the requirement of an
abstract compulsory commandment and for fear of falling victim to the punitive
effects of a dead world order if it is broken, it is the same whether one renders service
to a good master in and out of true love for him, or whether he acts as a slave to a
written contract and out of fear of succumbing to the punishment of his breach. The
last will receive what is due to him after the contract; But the first will receive the
love of his master through it, and not only have something in the feeling and
consciousness of intimate relationships with him, which the other cannot even
suspect, and therefore also cannot appreciate his true value; but also enter a favorable
external position through the intimate union with his master, which the other can
never win. The belief in a good God and the union in relationships with him hold
together the state of happiness in the world in the most general sense; So whoever
isolates himself from this belief, from these relationships in any respect, isolates
himself in some respect from the enjoyment of this state of happiness; this is already
noticeable here; but even more in the future. thus separates itself in some respect
from the enjoyment of this state of happiness; this is already noticeable here; but even
more in the future. thus separates itself in some respect from the enjoyment of this
state of happiness; this is already noticeable here; but even more in the future.
But how can Christ be called the mediator of our salvation and our judge in such
teaching? We want to take a closer look at this where we pay particular attention to
the relationship between our teaching and Christianity.
The foregoing points of view still permit a wide development in various
directions. However, we do not want to give a system here, we just want to discuss
some of the details.
The consequences of a single human conscious activity converge apparently
indistinguishably with the effects of the whole rest of the world, and in vain we
would want to calculate here below what specifically depends on each person; but
beyond that everyone will feel and experience it immediately without
calculation. The consequences of what everyone has thought and done here with
individual consciousness will affect the same individual consciousness again, not
blurring in the outside world, but being determined partly by their cooperation and
counter-effects, partly in themselves harmoniously or disharmoniously.
The pleasure and the suffering, the happiness and unhappiness that has arisen in
others through our conscious doing here, we will share as our own pleasure and as
our own sorrow, as our own happiness and unhappiness in the hereafter; just as we
still share the ideas that have been generated in others through us, so that pleasure
and suffering appear for us on the other side in other relationships than in them on
this side, but are felt by us as by them. Because according to the measure when the
human mind is affected by pleasure or displeasure, it works harmoniously with or
disharmoniously against that which makes him pleasure or pain, in proportion to the
size of the pleasure or the suffering; and the cause that has become conscious feels
this cooperation or counteraction in the same pleasure or the same suffering. All
blessings that go out from man one day falls back on him; but also all curse. Every
curse that is called after a dead person is felt by him; every blessing no less; but
whether nothing is called after him in special words - what works silently as a result
of his conscious action in happiness and suffering in others down here will just as
quietly work in happiness and suffering in his existence on the other side.
This also explains to what extent God still punishes the sins of parents in their
children. He punishes the parents themselves in their bodies and spirits. What the
parents have begotten evil in their children entails punishments which the parents
also suffer. Insofar as the evil in children depends on the conscious life of the parents,
the conscious life of the parents will one day also suffer from the evil consequence of
this evil. Admittedly, it would be bad for the children if the world order did not
contain the means to turn all evil into good one day. Each of us has to bear with the
mistakes of the past; everyone is supposed to do something to atone for and improve
them, and the world order drives them to do so. But it would be a strange
righteousness of the world order if others had to bear the punishments of our sins,
Some people think that this or that does not belong under the concept of their duty,
so they leave it because it costs them a sacrifice; but duty or not duty, if he does the
good work, he will one day enjoy all the good of his consequences, and if he does
not, he will one day feel the gap, if he does not take the time to do this good work and
has used funds to another.
In penetrating this certainty, man will find the most powerful drive to consider all
the consequences of his actions for others and for the future just as if he himself were
one with these others and this future would one day become the present for him, to
love one's neighbor as oneself, to make no distinction between his and her
happiness. But since the consequences of the individual actions cannot be precisely
calculated at all, he will at the same time receive the strongest reason to look around
for rules which will guide his behavior as a whole to good results as a whole; and in
this respect the basic moral rules will oppose him as the highest and most important,
as those which have the peculiarity, that their steadfast observance often brings
certain obvious disadvantages into the world, but on the whole certain and far-
reaching advantages. So he will learn to respect these rules no longer as an annoying
bond, but as a sure guide to his future and eternal well-being, as they have always
been valid. But now we also know why they are.
In general, only that which is of certain and lasting beneficial consequences can
definitely and permanently benefit man in the hereafter; He can count on fleeting and
accidental consequences only fleetingly and as a coincidence also in the hereafter,
and serious striving is therefore not to be directed towards such. A right action out of
a good disposition in steadfast adherence to the basic moral rules is, however, the
surest source of permanently more beneficial, that is, the consequences that preserve
and promote the happiness and peace of the world as a whole. Man cannot rely on the
fact that every single good act will one day be well paid for. Who can assert that
every good act, which is so called, taken individually the world, and consequently
himself, the doer, one day make you happier? Something is really good only in the
context of the whole and in view of all the consequences for the whole. And so an
action, even if taken individually, rather promises disadvantage than advantage, but
as an outflow, activity and maintenance of those attitudes, principles and rules which
are the most general, most secure and lasting foundations of the state of happiness in
the world, even more so for the acting person as a whole be a blessing when the
success of the action, considered individually, can be to the detriment of it. At the
same time, it must be taken into account that not only acting out of the mind, but also
the mind itself is something which, as a reality, will have its real consequences for the
hereafter, only, as we have said, more internal and towards the relationship God
related,
No view can be more suitable to urge us from one side to the calculation of the
most distant and special successes of our most individual actions, if we want certain
purposes and wishes to be satisfied beyond the grave, but none any longer warn that
we are not our highest and ultimate salvation based on the calculation of any
particular particular success, our whole hopes depend on such; We may only attach
them to the most general, highest, and ultimate conditions of salvation; Anything
particular that we strive for can fail, all the individual calculations that we make can
fail; only the calculation of the most general, highest and ultimate justice cannot fail,
cannot fail. But the special thing we strive for is all the less likely to fail the more
insight Care, caution, zeal, love we strive for, and the more it enters into the general
sense of the best; and even if it fails, we will still bear the fruits of the strength
exercised in the good sense in inner goods, which will ensure us another success.
One can object that the consideration made here for our own advantages, which we will one day
draw from acting for the good of the world, introduces an egoistic principle. But that is not egoism,
wanting to justify one's happiness by working for the greatest possible happiness of all, but rather it
is the meaning of the most comprehensive love. Selfishness is just wanting to base one's happiness
at the expense of other's happiness; but the very principle of this is completely eradicated by our
teaching. It is undoubtedly the most beautiful institution in the world that acting in the interests of
one's own and the common good can in fact not be separated if we take into account the
consequences of our actions that extend into the hereafter, and this is recognized by our teaching as
demanded as justified. It may be that the intellectual contemplation will initially want to distinguish
between the two, want to act for others and want to win for itself; but the consequent pursuit of our
view and penetration with it does not allow the divorce to exist. Anyone who, in wanting and
acting, puts the reference to oneself in the foreground and the intention to serve others in the
background, is not yet at the point of view on which our view must put it. Because putting oneself
first in this way will necessarily have such an influence on feeling, willing and acting that in the last
instance neither the world nor the agent himself is best served. but the consequent pursuit of our
instance neither the world nor the agent himself is best served. but the consequent pursuit of our
instance neither the world nor the agent himself is best served.
You can now see what importance the rule of action, which I put in my book "On the
Supreme Good" as the highest, not in contradiction but to the practical interpretation or addition of
the highest Christian commandment, is gaining for our future life. This rule is that we should try to
bring as much pleasure or happiness as possible into the whole of time and space, which by itself
includes the most possible preservation of the most general, highest and most lasting sources of the
state of happiness in the world. What the world gains in this respect through us, we will one day
gain from it; and thus serve us, the world and God at the same time best; because God himself
participates in the most general way in the happiness of his world. It always goes without saying
The rule that you love and practice virtue only for its own sake would be an entirely empty
one in vain if virtue did not know how to deserve it for us to love and practice it so. But it deserves
it precisely because loving and practicing virtue without any special calculating consideration for us
includes the most general consideration for ourselves, calculated by itself. Such love is at the same
time the greatest alienation of man from everything selfish and the sure preservation of the fullest
gain that he can make for himself in all eternity. But if someone understands the rule, practice and
love virtue for its own sake, then: practice and love it, despite the fact that you knew you would
have eternal disadvantages from it, then he gets into a theoretical and practical absurdity at the same
time; into a theoretical, because it contradicts the essence of virtue in itself to trace eternal
disadvantages for the virtuous into a practical one, because he asked for something impossible in
human nature. Regardless of this, the rule is not infrequently understood in this absurd sense.
Our teaching neither demands that man sacrifice himself to others, nor that this world should
sacrifice himself to the hereafter; The question is everywhere whether you will gain more as a
whole, whether you first serve yourself or others, seize the profit now or postpone it. If a person
wanted to neglect his duties towards himself, or if he were to deny himself the right joy now, then
on the whole it would only be lost. But man does not make a single arithmetic example out of what
can only be correctly obtained through a general calculation or rules that are intended to make them
dispensable. Not everything can be found by calculation. (Compare my work "On the highest good"
p. 32.)
I say that our rule above, only to bring as much happiness as possible into the world, from
which all of the above flows by itself, is merely the practical interpretation or addition of the
supreme Christian commandment, which is that God above everything and his fellow human beings
like himself even too love. Both commandments only come together from different sides,
demanding the same salvation conditions. Our commandment is directed in the most general way
and in the same sense to the end of action, as the Christian to the disposition from which we should
act, and only when one operates the disposition in relation to the purpose, the practical is actually
fulfilled Requirement. So either of the two commandments is inadequate without the other. But one
can consider the other to be included or included in each of the two.
Indeed, first of all, with the Christian commandment, what should we do for the sake of the
love of God and our neighbors? And there is no more general answer to this than that given by our
commandment. Because it is the nature of love to find happiness in promoting the happiness of the
one you love. But if one did not know how to promote it, one would still want to be at his will as
much as possible. But there is no other way to promote the state of happiness of God, to be at will
of God, other than by promoting the state of happiness in his world and the creatures it
encompasses, since God's consciousness includes all consciousness of the world and the creatures it
encompasses; and also, if one wanted to think of God above the state of happiness in his world in
this way, that he himself would not actually be affected by it, but his universal goodness himself
could not let him make any other command than ours or a command similar to it, so that if we
obeyed it, we would best obey his will. But if, in the endeavor to achieve the greatest possible in
promoting the happiness of the world, we put our own happiness on the same level as that of our
neighbors, preferring them or ourselves only to the extent that the happiness of the world gains
more as a result: Let us act at the same time as love for the other, like ourselves, in submission to
love for God, who wants the greatest possible happiness of the whole, can only always demand. So
our commandment speaks openly what is already hidden in the Christian one.
In the area of the changeable course, on which justice is carried out, belongs the
fact that when a person dies, soon more, soon less, of the consequences of his
previous life that go beyond him have already passed, and his consciousness only
now awakens for the rest. So it seems by chance whether he is really hit by some of
the good or bad consequences of his trade; some of them are already over by the time
of his death. But if certain consequences are over, further consequences will occur
which satisfy justice as a whole. If the punishment for the evil one in the hereafter
were not ready to the point that his evil will would be forced because part of the evil
consequences that could punish him had already passed, he would continue to sin
until the evil consequences do harm the evil one Will overgrow; and if the good did
not immediately find his reward, a longer persistence in the good would only further
increase the conditions of this reward. Now, however, the good consequences of
action continue all the more surely through all times, yes grow all the more with time,
the more in the sense of the truly good, the better it was in the whole context, and the
genuinely and truly good may therefore do not worry that when entering the future
life he will find his wages wasted and have to wait again. But nobody should count
on the reward of individual actions. In the meantime, however, the wicked are given
time until their death to atone for and heal the consequences of their evil deeds as
much as possible. Now, however, the good consequences of action continue all the
more surely through all times, yes grow all the more with time, the more in the sense
of the truly good, the better it was in the whole context, and the genuinely and truly
good may therefore do not worry that when entering the future life he will find his
wages wasted and have to wait again. But nobody should count on the reward of
individual actions. In the meantime, however, the wicked are given time until their
death to atone for and heal the consequences of their evil deeds as much as
possible. Now, however, the good consequences of action continue all the more
surely through all times, yes grow all the more with time, the more in the sense of the
truly good, the better it was in the whole context, and the genuinely and truly good
may therefore do not worry that when entering the future life he will find his wages
wasted and have to wait again. But nobody should count on the reward of individual
actions. In the meantime, however, the wicked are given time until their death to
atone for and heal the consequences of their evil deeds as much as possible. that
when he enters his future life he has already lost his wages and now has to wait
again. But nobody should count on the reward of individual actions. In the meantime,
however, the wicked are given time until their death to atone for and heal the
consequences of their evil deeds as much as possible. that when he enters his future
life he has already lost his wages and now has to wait again. But nobody should count
on the reward of individual actions. In the meantime, however, the wicked are given
time until their death to atone for and heal the consequences of their evil deeds as
much as possible.
Outer riches here below will come to equip us on the other side in outer riches
(which is namely true for them in the hereafter) when we unfolded a beneficial
activity in the acquisition or in the use of this worldly riches; and at the same time in
inner riches, according to the measure when we developed and formed mind, heart,
will, energy through acquisition or use in a good sense. And the acquisition and use
of riches in this world on both sides can also benefit us in the hereafter. The only
thing that matters is not the possession and the size of the riches themselves. And
whether someone can struggle to get through life with all his work and never has a
penny left, the more sour it gets for him to get through life, the more activity he had
to develop into the world, the greater the treasure he found in the consequences of
this activity, was it only an activity in a good sense, in that world where doing no
longer with external money, but with the consequences of doing is paid. Whether he
cannot follow these consequences here either, they are there and must be there. How
much richer he will be than the one who effortlessly and uselessly scattered inherited
treasures; the treasures that we inherit do not belong to our ego at all, so the
consequences of the existence of these treasures will not fall to our ego either. Only
the care, diligence and work with which we acquire them, and the intention in which
we use them, belong to our ego, and only with the consequences of this can the rich
man earn wages in the hereafter; But the poor have it in a certain way even better
than the rich, because the one has an invitation to diligence, care, mindfulness,
exertion of all spiritual and physical forces that the rich, who is only too easily
seduced, have their hands in To lay one's lap and to forget the misery of others while
having the opportunity to enjoy oneself. Some significant sayings of Christ refer to
the great blessing that the poor have over the rich in this regard. But if the poor here
use their strength in a bad sense, they will one day have to enjoy the bad fruits of it
just as well as the rich, and if there is a rich man who, despite the seduction that
wealth grants to indulgence, uses his strength and Medium in size and well and
industriously used, so he will also reap glorious and abundant fruits. So everyone can
make poverty a blessing for himself by following the spur to activity in the right
sense that lies therein, as well as wealth by following the means of activity with an
inner spur.
Profits in games and lotteries are almost always just a loss for our afterlife. Most of the time, such
profit melts away down below as it has been won, but certainly with death, and leaves a gap. Only
insofar as the winners develop an equally useful activity in the use of the profit as the acquisition
would actually have cost, does it become for him the same profit; but the effortless gain is usually
more apt to diminish the fruitful activity of man. Since, moreover, with every win in the game one
can only win what another or another loses, the state of happiness of the world as a whole is not
promoted by such a win (as would be the case through useful activity), and it can one on such profit
in this world does not base profit in the hereafter, where he obtains as a good fortune that which is
improved by him in the state of the world and is kept in good condition. Otherwise the acquisition
and management of a property generally presupposes a useful activity; since, according to the laws
of human intercourse, as a rule one cannot gain anything without others at the same time gaining
from another side in the exchange of means and activities; However, gaming, cheating and theft
make an exception. There is also a big difference in how a curmudgeon and how a person full of
humanity and love acquires and manages a fortune. Even the curmudgeon will not wither the
reward of what is good in him and what has become good through him. He will feel the reward of
his persistent activity and abstinence not only in good internal consequences, but also in good
external ones, as far as the world benefited from the activity with which he acquired his fortune, but
also felt the success of his hardness and lovelessness in bad consequences, and these bad
consequences will outweigh them; because if it weren't, he wouldn't be a curmudgeon, but at most a
thrifty man.
The weary and burdened, the suffering, may in general draw consolation from our
view, provided that he bears his body properly and draws courage and encouragement
to do it properly. The more we now have to struggle with adversity, and the more we
exert our steadfastness, our internal and external activity against it, the stronger and
stronger and the more secure internally and externally against all adversities in the
same sense, the happier and more courageous we become in this following lives
occur; in that all strength and power that we have expended internally and externally
in the present life to conquer the evil or even to bear it, will be won by us in the
future as reinforcement of our being, our internal and external means against further
evils, and, when the evil vanishes with death, a corresponding sense of wellbeing,
strength and strength will bring us to our way. It is true that the evil, of which there is
a permanent basis in our conscious willing being, will not vanish of its own accord
with death, since rather the evil that comes from the will can only be permanently
conquered by effects that compel the will ; but all the evils, whose points of attack are
only based on the special kind of our external being on this world, will disappear of
their own accord when this kind of being disappears, especially those evils that are
connected with physical illness and external poverty or hindrance. We have already
seen several times below, with the approach of death, that the greatest pains and
anxieties vanish when the organ is destroyed by fire, which has so far brought the
suffering; and so,
One might think that a diseased body on this side would also have to produce a diseased body
into the hereafter as a consequence. But even down here every disease produces critical strivings,
that is, tries rather to lift itself through its consequences. Often it does not succeed in such a way
that the present life can still exist. Then only death remains as the last crisis, which lifts all the
sufferings that are attached to the current form of corporeality by destroying this form itself and at
the same time transforming the present life into the future. Why nature pushes back this crisis as
much as possible has been touched on earlier (Chapter XXIV. B). What we call physical illness is
only illness for this world and cannot extend any pathological consequences beyond death, because
death is precisely that consequence of illness through which illness, if all else fails, lifts itself. If
someone has a bad lungs here and therefore breathes badly, this does not harm him in the hereafter,
where there is no longer any further breathing in the same way as it is now. As for the mental
disturbances, there is a difference. If everything spiritual is carried by the physical, then all mental
disturbances will also be carried by the physical; but the question arises whether we encounter those
who are connected with our reversal of will (moral disturbances) or involuntarily. The former can
one day only be lifted through the compulsion of our will, and death is nothing that changes the
direction of our will in itself. The crisis of such disturbances can only be brought about by the
punishments of the following life; but if a mental disorder z. If, for example, a head injury or any
other external disturbance occurs in the head, it will also be lifted by the destruction of the head in
death.
If someone suffers bitterly here, just tell himself that with the steadfast endurance
of this suffering, the tension of his forces and activity against it, he is putting on a
hard armor, as it were, which will keep him iron-strong against further, albeit in a
different form, threatening evil lets them appear in the future life, lets them look for
and find roses among thorns, even let roses be obtained as the fruit of the thorns that
have injured him here; on the other hand he who gave in to all suffering here weakly,
neglected to exercise his strength, did nothing but defend himself with complaints,
feel his weakness in the following life and, even if death first frees him from an
external evil, every attack of new evil the more easily it will be exposed, as he has
done nothing here, to counter attacks in this sense.
Even the sickest, who cannot do anything, can do this by keeping courage upright,
just keeping upright in the certainty that his courage will one day be credited to him
in its consequences. In his illness and suffering he is given an opportunity to acquire
something that cannot be acquired in any other way. If, because he is physically ill
and weak, he can now do nothing for the outside world and thus his future external
position in life, then he humbles himself that God has now only put him in a position
to do something for himself inside, which one day everything will easily be for him
lets catch up on what he has missed here; because the steely man no longer needs to
shy away from anything.
With this we also see the difference between the one who, giving way to evil, takes
his own life and the one who sacrifices it for the general good. The former, even if
escaping the evil for the moment, will soon succumb to such in another form; because
he has given up his power of resistance and now enters the other life with an
increased weakness. He will receive the good for the sake of which he sacrifices
himself with self-conquest, increased by the inner good of an inner strength as his
reward in the following life. Woe to you who loop the rope around your neck to save
yourselves from this life, hold out, hold out; that you endure in all misery that affects
you guilty or innocent, that you still improve, atone for what is in your powers, That
alone can compensate and prevent your misery one day, otherwise you will only step
out of a torture chamber into a larger torture chamber, in which you are nevertheless
forced to endure, because man is hammered until he has become hard to bear evil and
good do without complaint. What does not want to harden here is hardened there with
ever stronger blows.
It seems natural in the sense of our teaching that someone who has started a good,
great and beautiful work in the sense of or, be it a useful institution, a work of art, a
writing, the upbringing of a person or whatever, does not like to die before he
actually carried out what was intended or started; he loses a gain for the world to
come in the benefit or pleasure which the unfinished work cannot produce; and this
thought should really drive us to use our time down here as much as possible and not
to be indifferent to whether we just start or carry out something; If we do not bring it
so far that it bears fruit at all, it will one day not bear any fruit for us either. But we
also pay attention that through such imperfection we lose only one acquisition that is
important in external relations; but that the whole education, the whole disposition,
the whole practice of the activity which we put to the work, even if the same
remained incomplete and fruitless with our death, benefit us in internal consequences
and make it possible in the future life will acquire new goods in the same sense. Also,
this is only in the sense of what we are already seeing here. Important treasures,
which we have worked hard to acquire, can be lost here already; what can a fire
destroy! It is a pain for us, but only one more drive to exert our strength anew, with
which only our inner acquisition is increased and the external loss can be
replaced. The whole exercise of the activity that we set to work, even if it remained
incomplete and fruitless with our death, will benefit us in internal consequences and
in future life will probably enable us to acquire new goods in the same sense. Also,
replaced. The whole exercise of the activity that we set to work, even if it remained
incomplete and fruitless with our death, will benefit us in internal consequences and
in future life will probably enable us to acquire new goods in the same sense. Also,
replaced. will benefit us in internal consequences and in future life will probably
enable us to acquire new goods in the same sense. Also, this is only in the sense of
what we are already seeing here. Important treasures, which we have worked hard to
acquire, can be lost here already; what can a fire destroy! It is a pain for us, but only
one more drive to exert our strength anew, with which only our inner acquisition is
increased and the external loss can be replaced. will benefit us in internal
consequences and in future life will probably enable us to acquire new goods in the
same sense. Also, this is only in the sense of what we are already seeing
here. Important treasures, which we have worked hard to acquire, can be lost here
already; what can a fire destroy! It is a pain for us, but only one more drive to exert
our strength anew, with which only our inner acquisition is increased and the external
loss can be replaced.
Let us not expect any other principle of justice from the future than what already
prevails in this world, only this one which has led to its perfection. Even now, error
punishes itself as well as sin, albeit in a different way than sin, which does not
involve conscience so much, and is less incisive; but who would not really have to
bear the consequences of his errors, often difficult enough to bear; and as in the case
of sin, this penalty of error through the consequences is intended to correct and heal
error, and to prevent it in others and in other cases. He will never allow himself to be
completely prevented, and it may seem harsh to us that we must bear the penalty for
something that seems to us through no fault of our own; But it is not a question of
denying away at all that evil can hit people through no fault of their own, that is the
case, but rather to grasp this circumstance from the best possible point of view that
best fits the meaning of the world order, which, according to earlier considerations, is
precisely that evil lifts itself through its evil consequences and flips over into the
opposite good. But that it is so is shown in the whole course of the world order, and if
something is bad we cannot want anything better.
So even after the transition into the following world, people may still have to bear
the bad consequences of their errors; the heath z. B. who cannot help the fact that he
did not learn to recognize what is right as surely as the Christian will be less
favorably placed than the Christian 1), the poorly brought up or ill-disposed person
will still suffer from the harm brought into the world by his actions, notwithstanding
that he is not to blame for his poor upbringing and disposition. And this should
already be an impetus for us to mobilize all our strengths, to avoid errors as much as
possible and to lead other people to the correct knowledge of the good, to work
ourselves up through non-indebtedness into cleanliness and clarity and every damage
caused by error came into the world through us, if possible to remunerate before our
death. In this respect, too, our view is more stimulating than any other; for it is only
too easy for a person to sink into slackness when he believes what he does by
mistake, by mistake, is not counted towards him. Rather, he should learn to avoid
errors and oversights as much as possible. It is only too easy for someone to think:
Enough only if I am not mistaken; that others are wrong, what harm is it to me? But
what he fails to improve in others, he fails to improve in his own future condition. At
the same time, however, our view includes the best reasons for consolation for man
when he has to tell himself with honest zeal to find the best, that he cannot avoid all
error. For as long as his striving is constantly directed towards what is true and right,
it will have to follow him into the other life as a permanent character trait and there
fully enforce the elimination of the evils that his error brought with him, all the easier
since the Sources of knowledge expand there for him. Only if he also has the instinct
1) Christ says (Luc. 12, 47. 48): "But the servant who knows his master's will and has not prepared
himself, nor did he do according to his will, will have to suffer many strokes. But he does not
knows, has done that is worth the prank, will suffer few pranks. " So also pranks!
In our view, there are other aspects of practical interest and practical effectiveness.
Just as people's lives become siblings in the present, so it becomes siblings, as we
looked at earlier, after admission into the hereafter and further develop. What has met
here in love will meet there again in love, what has not fought out and appeased his
hatred here will still have to fight and appease it there, since hate is one of the evils
which one day self-destruct through its consequences have to. So now everyone tries
to acquire love here, so that he does not find himself lonely and fled from others in
the hereafter. So everyone should be careful not to part unreconciled with the world
from the world here below and to allow someone unreconciled to part from it; the
discord, which he has failed to make up for here, will echo into the hereafter and
there will still demand that it be corrected.
When we enter the hereafter, we will also come into closer contact with the spirits
of the prehistoric world, who now have an influence on our education; but it will be a
more conscious relationship than now, when we, having come to the same level of
existence with them, can now meet them as we will now our equals. So now everyone
chooses the best guides and friends among the dead with whom he would most like to
associate in the hereafter. He can do it by making friends with your ideas, acting and
working in your interests.
Those who have lived with us and passed over before us remain in relation to us,
for through what they have worked into us their existence is rooted in ours, and
through what we have worked into them, ours in theirs. We can no longer part,
although this connection can be and become a less or more conscious one. Every
thought of a deceased that arises in us is self; an aftereffect left in us by the
deceased; yes, even the possibility of remembering it, or the dormant memory
depends on an after-effect of its earlier existence in us, and if this possibility already
presupposes a silent, invisible presence of it, we can believe that the conscious
thought of it is still the same to us brings you closer in a more lively way. But there is
still a distinction to be made. If we only remember its externals, we will not have to
believe that we are also stimulating its consciousness with it, because this memory
itself is not a result of its conscious activity; he can be present to us like someone
whom we see without his knowing that we are seeing him; But if a memory of him
awakens in us, which was itself generated in us through his conscious action or its
consequences, we may believe that our consciousness and his consciousness cross in
the same act, and the more alive we become of his conscious work or Remember
what depends on it, the more vividly its effect in us, the more vividly its
consciousness will be awakened by us and will find itself determined according to the
relationships in which we think of it. that with this we also stimulate his
consciousness, because this memory itself is not a result of his conscious activity; he
can be present to us like someone whom we see without his knowing that we are
seeing him; But if a memory of him awakens in us, which was itself generated in us
through his conscious action or its consequences, we may believe that our
consciousness and his consciousness cross in the same act, and the more alive we
become of his conscious work or Remember what depends on it, the more vividly its
effect in us, the more vividly its consciousness will be awakened by us and will find
itself determined according to the relationships in which we think of it. that with this
we also stimulate his consciousness, because this memory itself is not a result of his
conscious activity; he can be present to us like someone whom we see without his
knowing that we are seeing him; But if a memory of him awakens in us, which was
itself generated in us through his conscious action or its consequences, we may
believe that our consciousness and his consciousness cross in the same act, and the
more alive we become of his conscious work or Remember what depends on it, the
more vividly its effect in us, the more vividly its consciousness will be awakened by
us and will find itself determined according to the relationships in which we think of
it. whom we see without his knowing we see him; But if a memory of him awakens
in us, which was itself generated in us through his conscious action or its
consequences, we may believe that our consciousness and his consciousness cross in
the same act, and the more alive we become of his conscious work or Remember
what depends on it, the more vividly its effect in us, the more vividly its
consciousness will be awakened by us and will find itself determined according to the
relationships in which we think of it. whom we see without his knowing we see
him; But if a memory of him awakens in us, which was itself generated in us through
his conscious action or its consequences, we may believe that our consciousness and
his consciousness cross in the same act, and the more alive we become of his
conscious work or Remember what depends on it, the more vividly its effect in us,
the more vividly its consciousness will be awakened by us and will find itself
determined according to the relationships in which we think of it.
So if someone remembers a dear dead person very vividly, he is also immediately
alive with him, and so the wife can lure the husband who went home before her back
to her and can know that he is all the more with her the more she is with him, and the
more consciously she is with her and thinks of herself, the more she thinks of his
conscious relationships with her; yes, the wish that he would like to think of her will
suffice to make him think of her, and the more vehemently she wishes it, the livelier
his thought of her will be; and if she devotes her life entirely to memory and action in
his sense, then his life will always remain in the most intimate and conscious
relationship to hers.
This gives us the most beautiful viewpoints about intercourse between the living
and the dead. The dead are not as far from us as we usually think, in a distant heaven,
but still below us, just no longer tied to individual places like we are, but free, as their
effects pour through the earthly kingdom, change they go this way and that, and if
one of the living here and the other there thinks of the same dead, this is with
both; thus, to a certain extent, has a part in the omnipresence of God.
"We believe we are alone and never are: We are not alone with ourselves; the spirits of other
decayed shadows, old demons, or our educators, friends, enemies, sculptors, deformers, and a
thousand intrusive journeymen work in us. We cannot but to see their visions, to hear their voices;
even the spasms of their deformities pass over in us. Good for him, to whom fate directed an
Elysium and no Tartarus to the heaven of his thoughts, to the region of his feelings, principles and
actions; his mind is founded in a joyous immortality. " (Herder in see Destroyed Bl. 4th collection,
p. 162.)
We can also think and act of someone who is still alive and in the sense of someone
who is still alive; but the difference, when we do this in relation to a dead person, is
that we cannot stimulate the living consciousness as directly as the dead one, because
the living consciousness is not yet awake in relation to what is of it as a result of his
conscious being in others. However, by occupying our consciousness with a living
person, by consciously absorbing the effects of his conscious existence, we can
develop points of contact for closer conscious intercourse with him one day.
It is evident what a more profound, living significance the commemorations and
monuments which are dedicated to the dead by the living now acquire, than we
usually attach to them. We regard them only as a means of keeping the dead alive in
memory of the dead and with them the consciousness of the effects they have
expressed in us, the living, but at the same time they are means of keeping the dead
themselves in conscious relation to the living. Through such mediations, this world
and the hereafter solemnly join hands, and it is not the pressure of a living and a dead
hand, but of two hands that come together from different spheres of life. We can
believe that when the feast of a great dead is celebrated by a people, or a worthy dead
person is celebrated by a family, he is in the middle of it, and think of those who
think of him and enjoy the gratitude and love they show him. And the more people
think of a dead person and the more vividly they think of him, the more his existence
proves itself under, even in them, and the more vividly his consciousness is
stimulated by them.
With many peoples the memory of the dead is celebrated much more than with us, and with
some the service of the dead even surpasses the service of worship, at least it is closely related to it
everywhere. A natural instinct seems to prevail here, which only nowadays has receded most of all
among the most cultured peoples, as is the case with so many instinctuals.
One of the most widespread notions is the view that the postmortem can still do
something for the dead, and it may perhaps be said that it is only in our Protestant
teaching that this notion has been completely abandoned; on the other hand, the
Catholic priest still reads his masses for the souls of the deceased, and relatives and
friends pray for their salvation. Similar, indeed much more, can be found in many
other peoples; there is hardly any where at the burial or in subsequent customs in one
way or another the care of the deceased for the salvation of the departed soul is not
expressed. All this absurdity, if it were what we usually think. What can all
atonements, sacrifices, foundations, and prayers do to the pious who is unrelated to us
in a strange heaven? But if it is As we think, all of this not only has its point of view,
but also its guiding, purifying, correcting and expanding principle. The deceased do
not only do a lot in us, but we can also do a lot for them and on the other hand against
them, unconsciously we do it anyway, but we can also do it consciously and
deliberately by continuing their works, continuing to act in their interest atoning for
and amending the evil consequences of their actions, or doing the opposite of all of
these; And as we do it with consciousness in relation to them, the consciousness of
the deceased will also be stimulated in relation to us, and on entering the hereafter we
will find them accordingly in tune with us. We can act for or against them according
to our will, only that our will itself cannot withdraw from the work in the sense of the
highest and ultimate justice and legality. Whose offense we atone for after his death
will somehow have earned it for us or others in this world or in the hereafter; but the
fact that we will make ourselves instruments of atonement for him always deserves
his thanks, and again agrees his will favorably against us. With a babbled prayer, with
gold in the offering box, we will of course neither pardon the good nor the evil in the
hereafter. These are aberrations from a right path, which up to now has not been
illuminated by any light of the understanding, and which a blind instinct has not let us
miss entirely. he will somehow deserve it for us or others in this world or the
hereafter; but the fact that we will make ourselves instruments of atonement for him
always deserves his thanks, and again agrees his will favorably against us. With a
babbled prayer, with gold in the offering box, we will of course neither pardon the
good nor the evil in the hereafter. These are aberrations from a right path, which up to
now has not been illuminated by any light of the understanding, and which a blind
instinct has not let us miss entirely. he will somehow deserve it for us or others in this
world or the hereafter; but the fact that we will make ourselves instruments of
atonement for him always deserves his thanks, and again makes his will favorable to
us. With a babbled prayer, with gold in the offering box, we will of course neither
pardon the good nor the evil in the hereafter. These are aberrations from a right path,
which up to now has not been illuminated by any light of the understanding, and
which a blind instinct has not let us miss entirely. with gold in the sacrificial box we
will of course neither pardon the good nor the evil in the hereafter. These are
aberrations from a right path, which up to now has not been illuminated by any light
of the understanding, and which a blind instinct has not let us miss entirely. with gold
in the sacrificial box we will of course neither pardon the good nor the evil in the
hereafter. These are aberrations from a right path, which up to now has not been
illuminated by any light of the understanding, and which a blind instinct has not let us
miss entirely.
If these ideas take hold, then with the awakened awareness of the relationships and
conditions of intercourse between this world and the hereafter, a new epoch will
begin for this intercourse, and our outer and inner life will experience the most varied
and deepest intervention from it. It's here how often. Many things only become
possible and real through the awareness of their possibility. The exchange between
this world and the hereafter has existed for a long time; but the fact that we know that
it exists and how it exists will be able to give it a new impetus and a certain direction
in the sense that is best for both this world and the hereafter. In fact, this upswing will
come into being not only in this world, but also in the hereafter. All the seeds of what
is known in the hereafter lie in this world, but in the hereafter the flowers, from
which new germinating seeds emerge again. In the same way, these ideas about the
intercourse between this world and the hereafter, which are presented here, will
blossom in their development and activity from this world into the hereafter; but it
only has this world itself from the hereafter. Because how many ideas of past spirits
live and continue to work in these ideas that are sown here!
XXIX. Comparison.
It is undisputed that our view can only come to fruition if it will be shown in what
follows that the apparently great, in some respects really great deviation which it
presents from most previous views on things to come is basically only that it rises
above the divergences of these, and hereby itself suffers the truth of all as far as it is
always possible with the contradictions of them among one another and within
themselves. Only by satisfying the truth of all, of course, cannot it also satisfy the
contradictions of all, and the shape of its bushel cannot fit into the shape of every
bitch.
In doing so, it gladly recognizes that it is rather in a relationship of servitude to the
Christian view, in that the basic core of the Christian view has become the basic core
of its own development, its ultimate guiding and driving principle is only from
Christianity, how much of the material it is has also excluded otherwise. But we
speak of this especially in the next section, and therefore expressly exclude the
Christian view from the present comparison.
l) It is an old speech and basically not a new assertion that man lives on in the
effects and works, ideas, memories that remain of him, that his immortality consists
in nothing else. Only that one does not mean it as seriously with this kind of
immortality as we do, so that those who merely want to acknowledge such a thing,
rather count as deniers of immortality and consider themselves to be it. But
indisputably there must be reasons which to a certain extent impose the concept of
immortality here. It is how often here, we are involuntarily led to the truth and
confess it, almost without wanting to be ourselves. With the life of nature, we saw, it
was no different either.
This involuntary knowledge of the truth is expressed even more decisively in the
deep feeling, which does not leave a person indifferent to what he leaves behind after
his death. But, according to us, he does not leave it behind after death, but gains it all
the more as property, and this, I think, is what we foresee in advance if we want to
leave behind great, beautiful, right things as our works. We suspect that we are
collecting our own treasures for the future, yes, that we are building ourselves for the
future.
"There is an immortality of name and fame that I would like to call historical and poetic or
artistic immortality. It seems to be of great charm. Noble, youthful souls like to make sacrifices in
front of their altar; some passionate people even have it as their only goal Thoughts chosen and so
to say you lived. In the youth of the world, however, the sweet dream was also allowed to pass on to
posterity with his name, in his person and form and to become a real god. " (Herder in see Destr. Bl.
4 te collection, p. 150.)
Insofar as some deniers of immortality believe that they see a semblance of

immortality just where we see real immortality, but also nothing more than an
appearance, in that they grasp dead and outwardly what we grasp alive and inwardly,
their own appearance arises that they deny and deny immortality with the same words
with which we assert and explain it; so that one would like to say that our view meets
the demands of the believers at the same time as those of the unbelievers. As far as
they still speak of immortality, they speak of it with our expressions.
As evidence, a few passages from Feuerbach's thoughts on death and immortality, who is known
to be one of the most determined deniers of immortality.
P. 279. "The phantasy (imagination, memory, - differences that are indifferent here - 1) is the
beyond of perception, in which man finds again, to his greatest surprise and delight, what he finds
on this side, that is, in the sensual, real world lost."
1) Activation of the original.
P. 271. "If the belief in immortality were really based on

human nature itself, how would man come to erect eternal dwellings
for the dead, as the Romans called the tombs, or at least the
mausoleums, and to have annual festivals to renew their memory
celebrate - festivals which, like the tombs and all other forms
and customs, of the service of the dead, ie apart from the
additions of superstitious fear, have no other purpose than to
provide people with an existence even after death .... The The
fearful care of the people for their dead is therefore only an
expression of the feeling that their existence depends on the
living. " (See p. 328.)
P. 263. Feuerbach seeks to show in detail how the rude peoples everywhere regard the image
that persists in them of the deceased or recurs in their memory for the real persistent person, and
continues (p. 268): "Unbelief The education in immortality differs from the alleged belief of the still
unspoiled, simple peoples in immortality only in that the former knows the image of the dead as an
image, but the latter imagines himself as a being, i.e. only because of what the educated person is or
distinguishes mature human beings from uneducated or still childish human beings, namely that the
latter personifies the impersonal, animates the inanimate, while the latter distinguishes between
person and thing, living and inanimate. "
P. 263 f. Of course, most peoples believe in immortality: "But it is important to see what this
belief actually expresses. All people believe in immortality, that is: you do not conclude a person's
existence with the death of a person, for the simple reason that when a person has really ceased to
exist sensually, he has not ceased to exist spiritually, that is, in memory, in the hearts of the
survivors absolutely destroyed, he has, as it were, only changed the form of his existence. "
2) The common view that the soul builds its future body for itself is entirely ours,
only that according to us the soul does not throw away the tools of the building until
it has built its new house. But then she throws them away. In this respect we can also
join the common notion that the soul emerges from the body in death, but it does not
emerge into emptiness or the desert, but into a body that has already been prepared.
Even the view, which from one side is exactly the opposite of ours, that the soul, as an
indestructible simple being (if not really, at least schematically) is to be thought of in one point, is
completely compatible with ours from another side. Because the soul, thought in one point or as a
monad, could always lead a self-ordered life only in relation to an ordered organic body. So if she
emerged from it unharmed after the destruction of the present body, she would have to find one
again, or create herself. In our opinion, however, it really does find it, created precisely by means of
the earlier body.
3) If one so often hears death explained as the liberation of the soul from the bonds
of the body and thinks that it must have a purer spiritual existence afterwards than it
does now, our view also comes as close as possible to this idea, without the soul To
put it in the void and to rob the means of external activity. In fact, the soul, the
consciousness, no longer appears to be bound to such a narrow body as it is now, and
we thus appear one step closer to the omnipresence of God and thus to God himself.
4) The ethereal body of the future, which so many want as the finest extract from
the present coarser body, is not lacking in us either. As true as we may suspect such a
body included in our coarser body in the now, so true we will have to expect one in
the following life, only not naked and bare and narrowly limited, as, to our
knowledge, no ethereal body can exist, but in a new one , only further, bodily weigh-
able document. But it will not burden us with this heavy physical document as it does
now, because we do not have to carry it away as we do now.
It must always be kept in mind that the view of an ethereal corporeal base for the soul in the
hereafter remains as hypothetical for us as in this world. However, our view is not based on this
hypothesis, but on the fact that whatever the soul may physically bear in this world and how the
relationship between body and soul is to be thought, that which applies in this relationship in this
world extends through its effects in the hereafter. Everything that is hypothetical in this world
remains that way for the hereafter. This is a great guarantee for our view that it is not based on
particular presuppositions of dubious validity.
5) The figure in which the spirits of the hereafter appear is, according to many
views, a light, freely floating image of the current figure. This is how it is also in our
opinion; as a memory image of the vivid figure.
6) Most of the peoples who still find themselves closer to the state of nature believe
that the deceased continue the same business, war, hunting and fishing that they have
done here; only in a slightly modified way. Our view corresponds to this idea as well
as possible. Man lives on in the same spheres of activity in which he lived here, only
in a different way than he lived in here. The philosopher lives on in the ideas he has
spread - through the hunter, fisherman, warrior much has changed in people and
things in relation to the sphere of hunting, fishing, the work of war, in which he lives
still working from the beyond into this world.
7) The view of a sleep before a new awakening also finds points of contact with our
view. We just do not assume that we will sleep for a while after death in order to then
wake up, but that we are spared this sleep by the fact that our future body is already
asleep during the now life in order to move into future life with death
awakening. Yes, we can regard it as a kind of resurrection, that everything that has
become unconscious in the course of our life, that has been sunk into sleep, regains
the ability at death to step into consciousness or to influence it. Just as something of
our effects is now beyond us, it sinks into the sleeping body, which only awakens to
consciousness in death. It is undisputed that this is not a literal resurrection; but who
still understands the resurrection in this way today? I will come back to this in the
following section.
Previously there was no reason to assume an actual sleep before awakening after death, and it is
known that even our church teaching asserts a sleep of our body rather than of our soul after
death; the soul reaches a place of reward or punishment immediately after death, and only later
reunites with the body at its resurrection. Admittedly one of the most contentious points when it
comes to deciding it according to the Bible.
8) One may miss Hades, the sky, in our view; it just seems to give an earthly
beyond; but in fact it puts everything together, and it is only because it gives
everything that one thing cannot emerge so one-sidedly as in the views that only have
one of these. We can say, and will explain it in more detail in a moment, something,
and something horrible, negative about us falls to Hades or Sheol in death, most of
the earth, the best and, provided that the earth itself with heaven, the whole of heaven
.
In connection with the different locations assigned to souls in Hades or heaven in
different peoples, there is the twofold view that the future life has a weakened, faded,
gloomy, or that there is a higher heightened, brighter, more beautiful hopes compared
to the present there will be space especially for the righteous, with many middle
views in between. According to us it will be both, the life of this world of sensual
perception will fade, the higher life of remembrance will increase; the loss of the old
life will have its side of sadness; the gain of new life soon outweighs the righteous in
joy. The different sides of our view appear separately only in the beliefs of different
peoples and times.
Indeed, may we look to the physical or spiritual side of our life before the gain of
the new life can be properly felt, the sacrifice of the old will have to be felt, the night
of death before the light of the new life. For the moment, so to speak, a gap arises in
the whole body, of which the narrower part was a part. Every loss of a whole part of
the body is felt, only that if it is a loss that belongs in the natural course of
development, the wound heals quickly and becomes the cause and outcome of new
positive development. But the void that death brings with it must initially be felt all
the more severely as it was the loss of that part to which the soul felt its whole
activity up to now, and only if the person dies of old age or weakness, consequently
nothing significant is lost in the fallen body, this feeling of loss may noticeably be
absent. On the other hand, in the case of types of death which affect a person with a
feeling of power, there may be a moment when the feeling of violent annihilation
completely captivates the soul, and all the horrors of death overtake us; yes, we really
feel such a thing as we approach it. Gradually or suddenly this feeling will turn into
the feeling of awakening to new life. But it is to be expected that it will take at least
as much time to reflect on the new life after death as to lose the consciousness of the
present in agony, and that the after-pains and pains of the wound that cause us with
death is beaten, only gradually, although very different according to circumstances,
will disappear, the faster the less we had to lose in the old life. Yes, whoever had only
one suffering body to lose, may immediately feel relief in death. But it will not come
to an end just with this sensual sensation of the loss suffered. Shouldn't the mother
and wife be tired of being torn from their old relationships with their own for a while
longer, the enterprising spirit should be tired of having to refuse to continue its
undertakings with the means up to now until the whole power and fullness of the new
life and the awareness that the broken relationships are reconnecting in another,
higher way, comes over us? But it will not come to an end just with this sensual
sensation of the loss suffered. Shouldn't the mother and wife be tired of being torn
from their old relationships with their own for a while longer, the enterprising spirit
should be tired of having to refuse to continue its undertakings with the means up to
now until the whole power and fullness of the new life and the awareness that the
broken relationships are reconnecting in another, higher way, comes over us? But it
will not come to an end just with this sensual sensation of the loss suffered. Shouldn't
the mother and wife be tired of being torn from their old relationships with their own
for a while longer, the enterprising spirit should be tired of having to refuse to
continue its undertakings with the means up to now until the whole power and
fullness of the new life and the awareness that the broken relationships are
reconnecting in another, higher way, comes over us?
That initial feeling that everything in us has become dull and powerless, which was
previously active and alive in us, is now linked to the fact that our current body can
no longer move itself, that it has to be passively laid under the ground and there is
exposed to the powers of corruption, or, if he is not buried, falls into his material after
it. Not that the decaying body could feel this for itself, as little as an already
destroyed part of our narrower body feels its own destruction, but the rest of the body
feels it, and so we also like through our wider body, even before it is right to itself in
positive personal activity feels the destruction of the narrow one, and everything that
is connected to it feels this to be his first conscious act of feeling, so to speak.
If one now pays one-sided attention to this moment, one arrives at the idea of the
sad life of the soul in Hades or Sheol, which was not only peculiar to the ancient
Greeks and invited, but is also found again in many other rude peoples. Just as the
narrower body is the bearer of our present waking life, and we look for our soul
where this body is, so if we consider nothing of the soul after death but that negative
moment, its place to be thought will be there where to look for the bodily condition of
that negative moment, that is, in or under the earth where the corpse decays; for as a
condition of this emotional moment the corpse still belongs to us; if he were still alive
as before, we would not have it.
It is of interest to see that the development of belief in a future life has taken the
same course as, according to this view, the development of future life itself. With the
belief in Sheol or Hades among Jews and Greeks, the formation of the belief in
immortality began, which in its further development will one day rule the
world. Only gradually did mankind come to reflect that the grave of this world was at
the same time the cradle of the hereafter, and the soul arose from Sheol. Now it
passed into heaven; yes, one forgets the short night of Hades and lets her find a place
in heaven right now. But what is heaven where according to the now common belief
she is going?
It remains indefinite. But we have our opinion about it. The whole sphere of human
life has expanded by one step in death. Instead of only a part of the earth representing
his body as the bearer of his conscious activity, now the whole earth has become his
body in this sense, even if it is that he has to share it with others. Accordingly, we
assume that he also takes a more conscious part in the relations of the whole earth to
heaven than he does now. It is not advisable to engage in many discussions and
conjectures about the detailed relationships and conditions of this intercourse with
heaven, which it shares with earth. Let us also leave the details indefinite. But not
only the special relationships with the closest celestial bodies will develop, but also
our general relationships with all of heaven and with God who fills it. So we will
indeed remain on earth, but in a different way than before, in that we now inhabit it as
a heavenly body, whereas earlier we only lived in an earthly body on and on it. In this
respect we can rightly say that we have been transferred from earth to heaven, but in
that the earth itself serves us as a step towards this ascent.
In such a way our view naturally includes the modes of representation according to
which the abode of souls on earth is sought; and there are enough of them among
rude peoples. According to some, they float in the air, in forests, on mountains, in
caves, under the sea, under the earth, drive into other people, in animals, in plants, in
stones. 2) There is hardly anything in which one has not sought the spirits of the
deceased. All of this, taken individually, is inadequate; everything together covers our
point of view. Future existence is no longer restricted to a single earthly place.
2) Cf. Simon's story of the belief that a spirit world protrudes into ours.
9) Lessing, Schlosser, Jean Paul, more recently Droßbach and Widenmann 3) have
put forward the view that after his passing, man returns to this earthly existence in
smaller or larger interim times in order to gradually go through the various stages of
development of earthly existence, for which a unique existence is not enough. It can
be seen that our view can only achieve the same purpose in a more complete degree
without comparison, since it allows the otherworldly man to participate continuously
in the development of this world, and to a greater extent than it can be in this life
itself.
3) Lessing in see education of the human race. All Fonts. XS 328. - Schlosser on the transmigration
of souls in see kl. Fonts. 3rd part. - Jean Paul in S. Selina. - Droßbach, rebirth or the solution of the
question of immortality in an empirical way according to the known laws of nature. Olmütz 1849. -
Widenmann, Thoughts on immortality as a repetition of earthly life. (Winning award script.)
Vienna 1851.
"Why shouldn't I come back so often when I am adept at acquiring new knowledge,
new skills? Am I taking away so much all at once that it is perhaps not worth the
effort to come back?" (Lessing.)
Jean Paul thinks that after long wanderings, everyone would like to find a new home to live
in, with the current earthly world collapsing.
Droßbach and Widenmann engage in far-fetched and sometimes absurd discussions to justify
their ideas.
10) The striking points of reference which our view has with the views of
Schwedenborg and the old rabbis have been set out in their place.
11) Ours comes in many ways with philosophical and theological views of the
modern age, and it goes against its general point of view that the general spirit is
determined by the human spirit and in death only absorbs it into a higher form of
existence in which the individuality of the human being As previously persisted, a
philosophical objection can hardly be raised except on the part of those for whom the
general spirit is rather one who swallows the individualities in death and thereby
annihilates them, rather than unfolds them higher in order to unfold themselves
higher with them. The only difference is that we are trying to develop the modality of
the whole relationship under consideration in connection with the relationships of
now life.
a) Schelling.
as difficult as they may be for an understanding who deals with mere abstract concepts. Every
day I recognize more that everything is connected far more personally and infinitely more vividly
than we can imagine. "(Schelling in a work communicated only to friends. 1811. SI Kerner, Seherin
Von Prevorst. P. 6.)
b) The older spruce.
"The one and the same life of reason 4)is only split up by the earthly view and in the same into
different individual persons, which persons are and exist no differently than in this earthly view and
through the same, but by no means in and of themselves and independently of the earthly view .....
The earthly view, as the basis and bearer of eternal life, continues at least in memory into eternal
life, thus everything that lies in this view, hence also all individual persons into whom one reason
was split up by this view; so far from the fact that my assertion (reason is the only possible, self-
based and self-supporting existence, etc.) follows something against individual continuity, this
assertion rather provides the only tenable proof for it. "
4)Reason itself is explained by Fichte (p. 23) as "the only possible, self-based
and self-supporting existence and life, of which everything that appears as
being and living is only further modification, determination, change and design
is. "
c) The younger spruce(in s. Idea of Personality).

Body is really only the organic identity that is sustained in it and conquering it - just as the spirit
is self-conscious - the duration of the individual in that uninterrupted metabolism; and the carbon
and nitrogen present in the phenomena of the hand or the foot remain originally just as alien to us as
the external matter which becomes food for us; this is first to be subjected organically, it is
already; but both escape ceaselessly and have become nothing of our own through the
transformation into which they have entered for the moment. " remains originally just as alien to us
as external matter which becomes food for us; this is first to be subjected organically, it is
transformation into which they have entered for the moment. " remains originally just as alien to us
as external matter which becomes food for us; this is first to be subjected organically, it is
transformation into which they have entered for the moment. "
P. 156. "Let us disregard the baseless opinion that there is a complete separation and gap
between the present and the subsequent state - an opinion which, although it is deeply intertwined
with the present religious ideas, nevertheless not both to refute, since it has no reasons for itself
other than simply to be rejected and forgotten. "
P. 157. We cannot even ask what is left of a person in death, because nothing at all is thereby
withdrawn from him, his essential self. The individuality gained as the inner result of life, the
realized individuality, remains intact for him in the indivisibility of the spirit, the soul and the inner
corporeality: only in the representational medium does he enter a new sphere, which, of course,
from the present state of affairs is absolutely different and may appear beyond, but for that reason
we cannot be less prepared in the most immediate reality. Just as here, too, there is no true
separation between the present and the future, just as in the future we can only belong to this nature,
which is everywhere one and divine, thus the future media of life are to be regarded as already
present in the present; they may surround us and penetrate us without our actually being able to
become aware of them, because, according to the analogy of the organic levels considered so far,
they are undoubtedly elements of higher, spiritualized materiality. The fact that we are not
immediately aware of its existence is no reason against this assumption; on the contrary, this factual
ignorance lies in the nature of the thing, because the living conditions of our present state must
exclude any receptivity and assimilation power for it. " spiritualized materiality are. The fact that
we are not immediately aware of its existence is no reason against this assumption; on the contrary,
this factual ignorance lies in the nature of the thing, because the living conditions of our present
state must exclude any receptivity and assimilation power for it. " spiritualized materiality are. The
fact that we are not immediately aware of its existence is no reason against this assumption; on the
contrary, this factual ignorance lies in the nature of the thing, because the living conditions of our
present state must exclude any receptivity and assimilation power for it. "
P. 159. In this way, our future condition will also retain its vital element, because we have
remained an absolute organizing power and are endowed with the power of corporation. But this is
not an etheric body with which the soul would have to clothe itself as with a stranger, externally
prepared: - this confused phantasm would absolutely contradict all analogy of nature. Rather, each
state of nature develops the following, not in leaps and bounds, but according to an even structure
out of itself. Thus, at the same time as the old media of life are dropped, the ability to draw new,
now homogeneous elements to itself in an organizing way develops, and the thus reborn
individuality no longer has to go into the old process, only gradually emerging from undeveloped,
physical and spiritual beginnings to build up and, as in this life, so to wake up there to a new
childhood: Rather, since his present corporation has at the same time become the development of
his spirit that has been brought about forever, it takes this whole stage of life, once won, over with it
completely and unreservedly into the new existence. It continues the present existence, only more
decisively and distinctly, in the following: A thought which, however, can only expect some
clarification when asked about the more detailed nature of the second life. "
As we have started the path of life here, so we must continue it there; be it in ever deeper
hardening perversity or in natural and godly development. Every individuality takes its judgment
with it in itself, to the rest of bliss or to increasingly unfortunate contradictions. "
P. 172. "There is no cause, and it is absolutely bare of inner probability, that the psyche, by
dropping its external corporeality through its own life process, at the same time now through some
force that is necessarily alien to it - into completely different regions of existence and should be
placed in heterogeneous living conditions. Our dead are certainly closer and more present to us than
we think; that the spaces around us should be condemned to absolute emptiness and insignificance
is not to be thought anyway; and so we are probably allowed to enter the realm of Imagining souls
in our invisible closeness embraces us in one nature, and enjoying the new conditions of life from it
as much as we enjoy ours. To be able to rest from the fought-through present and to clearly enjoy
what has been laboriously achieved here, which must become the highest promise of life for us, as
one tells of the reawakened that they retain an unquenchable longing for the blissful tranquility of
the spiritual realm whose threshold she touches: So there is something arousing confidence in the
imagination too, not to know dying in distant regions, but in the familiar, familiar, familiar world
only to develop new aspects of your own existence out of it. "whose threshold she touches: So there
is something arousing confidence in the imagination too, not to know dying out into distant regions,
but in the familiar, familiar, familiar world only to develop new aspects of your own existence out
of it. "whose threshold she touches: So there is something arousing confidence in the imagination
too, not to know dying out into distant regions, but in the familiar, familiar, familiar world only to
develop new aspects of your own existence out of it. "
S. 203. "So the universe is the scene of infinitely clothed souls; and just like the age-old
enthusiasm for nature after a symbolism that can hardly be denied, whether it be expressed in the
form of religion or poetry, the visible creation as the garment God saw that he was defeated for his
unfathomable glory; so every visibility is the trace of a soul, the symbol of some spiritual mystery.
In this alone the world, the land of souls, has its true destination; it is the highest law of spiritual
economy absolutely subject, for "the flesh is of no use." But as we already encounter high wisdom
from its high wisdom, this itself is only the image of that mysterious harmony which all created
spirits,from the highest down to the simplest plant soul, in which the primordial spirit unites. "
d) Martensen (Christl. Dogmatik p. 518).5)
cannot escape from knowledge of the world amidst the worldly hustle and bustle, the opposite
occurs in that realm. The veil that this world of the senses, with its colorful, constantly moving
diversity, spreads soothingly and soothingly over the strict seriousness of life, but which also so
often has to serve to hide from man what he does not want to see - this veil of sensuality tears up to
man in death, and the soul is in the realm of pure beings. The manifold voices of world life, which
in earthly life sounded together with those of eternity, fall silent, the holy voice now sounds alone
without being muffled by worldly noise, and that is why the realm of the dead is a realm of
judgment. "" It is man's ordinance to die once and then the judgment. "6)Far from the fact that the
human psyche should drink from the Lethestrom here, one must rather say that its works follow it,
that its moments of life, which have passed by and scattered in the stream of times, arise here,
gathered in the absolute presence of memory, a memory that must relate to temporal consciousness,
just as the true visions of poetry relate to the prose of finitude, a vision that can be as joyful as it is
terrifying because it is the own deepest truth of consciousness, and therefore not can be merely
blissful, but also judging and damning truth. But while their works follow the departed in this way,
they do not only live and stir in the element of bliss or unhappiness, which they themselves have
prepared or worked out in temporality7) , but they immediately continue to take up a new content of
consciousness and to process it, in that they spiritually determine themselves to the new revelations
of the divine will which confront them here, and so they develop into the last, the last judgment here
.
5)The author shows here how he imagines the state of the departed after death
in Hades up to the resurrection.
6) Heb. 9, 27.
7) The parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
If one asks where the asleep are after death, nothing is more
erroneous than to think that they are separated from us by an
external infinity, that they are in another universe, etc. In this
way the dead are kept within the conditions that sensuality that
they have just stepped out of. What separates them from us is not
a sensual barrier; because the sphere in which they are is too
genre different from this whole material temporal and spatial
sphere etc. "
12) Almost everyone who has dealt with the phenomena of so-called life
magnetism or somnambulism has come to the idea that there is a close relationship
between these states and those in the hereafter, just as the somnambulists themselves
often and gladly assert such a relationship do. Our teaching leads back to the same
relationship, and indeed from very different angles, as has been shown in several
places in this book.
XXX. Points of reference of our teaching to Christian teaching in particular.

The points of reference of our doctrine of the things of heaven to Christian
doctrine, which we considered earlier (XIII.), Are complemented by those to be
considered now, in which our doctrine of the things of the hereafter is related. And
these are of the kind that we can rightly say that our doctrine of these things is
nothing more than an attempt to come to the aid of the faith demands of Christian
doctrine with knowledge bases, to open the shrine of its mysteries to the
understanding, those lying in it to develop still dormant germs and to grasp what is
scattered in them in a uniform manner. It is not true that the development of our
doctrine has consciously proceeded from the doctrines of Christianity; but with
astonishment, after she thought she was going for a long time, she realized that what
she herself believed she had gotten completely new from the nature of things, could
just as easily be gotten from the mysteries of Christian doctrine, and that the mystery
of them does not lie in something that is hidden behind the word, but in the fact that
the understanding looked for something hidden behind the word instead of taking the
word at the word; and has finally become aware that it also owes its originally driving
and guiding principle to Christianity itself, from which we have so much that we
think we have from ourselves or from our understanding of the world. This driving
and guiding principle, however, lies in the practical demand for a hereafter in Christ's
mind, which precedes all of our theory and partly quietly and partly openly
cooperative in all of our theory. Without this demand in which we have all been
brought up there was no drive to develop this doctrine; without this sense, the path
that it has taken and followed could not be taken or not followed.
But, one wonders, what is the point of Christ's teaching? That it is possible to have
different views on it is proven by the fact of these different views itself. Indeed, there
is no part of Christian doctrine where there are so many divergent and controversial
views as precisely the doctrine of ultimate things, though not after all , but after many
points.
"Eschatology belongs to the parts of the New Testament theology which have been most
tormented, distorted, interpreted according to dogmatic prejudices and later assumptions. only to
remove the proximity of the presence, this stake in the flesh of a dogmatically biased exegesis! Not
even to mention the other dubious points, the judgment, the resurrection, the eternal punishments in
hell. " (Zeller in Baur and Zeller, Theolog. Jahrb. VI. P. 390)
I now mean that the ambiguities, yes, we always admit it, the real contradictions
that we find in the biblical presentation of Christ's teaching about the ultimate things
were not in Christ's original version, but in the conception of his disciples and their
followers Since it is evident from the Gospels themselves how Jesus spoke to his
disciples about it mainly only through images and parables, which nevertheless
always allow a different interpretation, and certainly his disciples themselves
determined some of what he left undefined differently in their different, not in Christ
some sense.
I also believe that everything that appears wavering, contradicting and possibly as
figurative clothing in the sayings of Christ and the Apostles communicated to us
should not be given any special weight, no foundation should be sought, but rather
the same in the sense of the more definite, clearer and that To determine, explain or
even drop down essential apt expressions yourself, if it contradicts either facts of
history or the nature of things. Christ and his disciples speak of a kingdom of heaven,
a hell, a resurrection, and a judgment in various turns and garments. Underlying these
ideas is a deep, essential content, certainly the best that we want and can wish for; but
this does not depend on the particular location of the kingdom of heaven and hell, nor
on the external modality of resurrection and judgment; the descriptive determination
of these outward appearances was not at all that why Christ should do it, and it is not
at all to be decided, nor is it worth trying to decide it exactly and to want to
distinguish, how much in the expressions he used, so far to relate to the external, was
figurative or not; how much to attach in particular to the use of the current ideas
about heaven and hell, resurrection and judgment in this symbolization, which is
required by the factual and time situation. But it would be impossible to take
everything literally, or to understand how it is said.
In this regard, every interpreter is accordingly left free to interpret the sayings of
Christ and his disciples, partly as it appears most appropriate in the context of the
overall understanding of Christian doctrine, partly from entering into it, partly from
consenting to them, if not essential points are thereby taken. One does not serve the
eternal cause if one tries to perpetuate the untenable and perishable accessories and
minor matters, but rather to preserve the main thing and the core and to make it
fruitful.
I have to take this free standpoint here because it is the task of this book; but I am not saying that
this point of view should also be the point of view from which one should interpret the Bible to the
people in public teaching and preaching. It is not necessary to consider the pros and cons, not to
distinguish between what is genuine, what is fake, what is the main and what is secondary, not
touching anything, not glossing over anything, but using the book as a whole, which is eternally
good, based on its good content and on its recognition as a divine source of faith as a whole,
without complaints about the individual, to walk and penetrate. At least it could be like that! But the
people are almost beyond that childlike faith which tolerates and demands this use of the Bible and
was truly more beneficial for it, than the criticism now exercised by himself. All sifting, even if it
properly eliminates the in itself insignificant ingredient, nevertheless destroys the whole for present
use; and religion is for current use. A better handle would like to be put on the vessel of religion,
this or that ornament may not be properly formed, but whoever breaks it away ruins and punctures
the vessel, all the more if everyone breaks something else; and from such a dishonored and
perforated vessel the so-called free people want to pour the wine of Christianity to the people, who
now prefer to completely disdain it; or pour the wine without a vessel; now it runs between their
fingers. But one day the vessel, as alive as the wine, may be redesigned as a whole from the
whole; who can calculate by which event, just as the human body is in death, it is not a true death,
reborn as a whole, and yet it is only a continuation of the old; but first you don't have to break his
joints. That this rebirth occurs all the sooner is contributed to by those themselves who spoil the old
vessel, the old body; But what Christ says is valid: Evil must come into the world, but woe to those
through whom it comes. But positive preparations for rebirth are also required, which, instead of
accelerating the decline of the aging life of religion, seek to cultivate and maintain it for as long as
possible, while at the same time creating conditions for a new life into the future in which this is
may rejuvenate the old again, as it has to rejuvenate one day. This company would also like to count
towards these preparations.
In my opinion, the core of Christ's teaching about the hereafter, with which we are
not allowed to hold clothing and shell of equal dignity and importance, lies partly in
the practical aspects of the same, partly in the teaching of the personal relationship of
Christ who has passed away to his congregation, to his presence in the sacraments,
the mediation of future salvation through Christ, his judicial office and in the doctrine
of the resurrection.
In all these respects, however, our doctrine interferes with that of Christianity; in
that, according to the most important relationships, she takes it so strictly literally as
hardly the most devout; but wherever contradicting ideas or ideas that still need to be
interpreted meet us, the basic meaning of Christianity with the basic demands of
human and all nature at the same time comes into view.
First and foremost the practical point of view, we have already recognized the
originally driving and guiding principle of the development of our doctrine itself in
the practical demand for a future life according to the meaning of Christ. And that it
remained true to this reason of its development, it is evident from the fact that the
highest and ultimate practical demands and conclusions of Christ's teaching have also
become theirs, indeed that it has not been able to find any more suitable words to
express its demands and conclusions than Christ's own words (XXVIII.). What it has
or seems to have different or more can partly only be regarded as an interpretation of
Christ's words, partly as an attempt to pursue the paths of mediation on the basis of
an earlier knowledge of the nature of things,
There is one point, of course, and one point of great importance, on which our
teaching deviates from the Protestant as well as the Catholic conception of Christian
teaching; although agrees with some older and more recent conceptions of the same,
which already shows that there is a point of dubious interpretation here. It is the
question of the eternity of the infernal punishments, which we are concerned with,
which Church teaching affirms and we deny. In my opinion, however, while the
sayings on which church doctrine is based also allow another interpretation, there are
some sayings of Christ and the apostles that can only be interpreted in the sense of
our view. And indisputably, if we are free to choose which interpretation we should
prefer as a whole, it will be
Of course, all the numerous and recurring expressions of eternal fire, eternal torment, the worm
that never dies, etc. seem to decide without further ado for the eternity of the punishments of
hell; but one can doubt whether they are to be understood literally, since eternity is very often only a
hyperbolic expression for us, from which one does not definitely disregard the end, or what
continues to work uninterruptedly in the present without thereby simply excluding an end (such as
when I say: it takes forever; or: I suffer from headaches forever). Most natural, however, is to
presuppose a simple reference by Christ to the already prevailing notions of eternal punishment in
hell in these expressions; Ideas that Christ himself had not in fact first established, but this was not
the place to be particularly refuted, where it was more important to emphasize the horrors of the
punishments in hell. But Christ himself really refutes them by pointing out several times and in
direct connection with the threat of these punishments to conditions and means under which and
through which a redemption of the damned can still take place. In addition, there are other scriptural
passages, in which quite decidedly and generally a finite overcoming of all evil, unification of the
evil with the good in Christ's sense, the destruction of hell through hell is stated, which is entirely in
accordance with our teaching that evil is finally eliminated through that Destroy evils, the
punishment will only serve to bring about the final improvement and former redemption. to
highlight the horrors of the infernal punishments. But Christ himself really refutes them by pointing
out several times and in direct connection with the threat of these punishments to conditions and
means under which and through which a redemption of the damned can still take place. In addition,
there are other scriptural passages, in which quite decidedly and generally a finite overcoming of all
evil, unification of the evil with the good in Christ's sense, the destruction of hell through hell is
stated, which is entirely in accordance with our teaching that evil is finally eliminated through that
Destroy evils, the punishment will only serve to bring about the final improvement and former
redemption. to highlight the horrors of the infernal punishments. But Christ himself really refutes
them by pointing out several times and in direct connection with the threat of these punishments to
conditions and means under which and through which a redemption of the damned can still take
place. In addition, there are other scriptural passages, in which quite decidedly and generally a finite
overcoming of all evil, unification of the evil with the good in Christ's sense, the destruction of hell
through hell is stated, which is entirely in accordance with our teaching that evil is finally
eliminated through that Destroy evils, the punishment will only serve to bring about the final
improvement and former redemption. by repeatedly pointing out, in direct connection with the
threat of these punishments, conditions and means under which and through which a redemption of
the damned can still take place. In addition, there are other scriptural passages, in which quite
decidedly and generally a finite overcoming of all evil, unification of the evil with the good in
Christ's sense, the destruction of hell through hell is stated, which is entirely in accordance with our
teaching that evil is finally eliminated through that Destroy evils, the punishment will only serve to
bring about the final improvement and former redemption. by repeatedly pointing out, in direct
connection with the threat of these punishments, conditions and means under which and through
which a redemption of the damned can still take place. In addition, there are other scriptural
passages, in which quite decidedly and generally a finite overcoming of all evil, unification of the
evil with the good in Christ's sense, the destruction of hell through hell is stated, which is entirely in
accordance with our teaching that evil is finally eliminated through that Destroy evils, the
punishment will only serve to bring about the final improvement and former redemption.
In the parable of the wicked fellow servant (Math. 18:34) there is the passage:
And his master was angry, and handed him over to the tormentors until he should pay all that
he owed.
Insofar as the handing over to the tormentors is understood here figuratively the handing over
to the infernal punishments, it emerges from this passage that a discharge of guilt is still possible in
hell, beyond which the punishment is not threatened.
The following similar passage can be found in Math. 5, 25. 26. (Also Lucas 12, 58. 59.)
Be willing to your adversary soon, while you are still on the way with him, so that the
adversary does not hand you over to the judge and the judge surrender you to the servant, and you
will be thrown into dungeon.
I tell you: verily, you will not get out of there until you also pay the last penny.
Here, too, the possibility of redemption from the dungeon, which here also symbolizes hell, is
presupposed.
In l. Petri 3, 19 the following passage:
In the same (spirit) he went and preached to the spirits in prison who did not believe.
Insofar as the term prison is understood here as the place of the damned, one can conclude
from this passage that an improvement and redemption of the wicked is still possible through
Christ's influence in the hereafter.
Finally, the following passages are particularly suitable to emphasize the view as biblical that
there will one day be a universal kingdom of God into which all, including the wicked, will be
incorporated after their wickedness has been overcome.
Col. 1:20 and everything through him would be reconciled to himself, whether on earth or in
heaven, by making peace through the blood on his cross through himself.
l. Cor. 15, 25. But he must rule until he put all his enemies under his feet.
Phil. 2, 10. That in the name of Jesus all knees should bow who are in heaven and on earth
and under the earth.
Ephes. 1. 10. When the time was fulfilled, that all things might be constituted together under
one head in Christ, both that is in heaven and on earth, through himself.
Apocal. 20, 14. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire, that is the other death.
Among the old church fathers, Origen in particular, on the basis of these passages, asserted
the final cessation of all hellish punishments in the so-called restoration of all things and assumed
that the wicked would one day improve and be saved along with the evil angels, in which many
older and newer followed him are.
The following passage from Diderot's Add may like which weapons against religion are given
to those who only consult the found common sense by setting up eternal punishments in hell. aux
pensées philos. show.
No. 48. "II ya long-temps qu'on a demandé aux théologiens d'accorder le dogme des peines
éternelles avec la miséricorde infinie de Dieu, et ils en sont encore la!"
49. "Et, pourquoi punir un coupable, quand il n'y a plus aucun bien à, tirer de son chàtiment?"
50. "Si l'on punit ponr soi seul, on est dien cruel et bien méchant."
51. "II n'y a point de bon pére qui voulut, ressembler à notre pére céleste,"
52. "Source proportion entre l'offenseur et l'offensé? Source proportion entre l'offense et le
chátiment? Amas de betises et d'atrocités! "
53. "Et de quoi se courrouce-t-il si fort, ce Dieu? Et ne dirait-on pas que je puisse quelque chose
pour ou contre sa gloire,
54. "On veut, que Dieu fasse brûler le méchant, qui ne peut rien contre lui, dans un feu qui durera
sans fin, et on permettrait à peine à un père de thunder une mort passagère à un fils qui
compromettrait sa vie, son honneur et sa fortune! "
,, O chrétiens! vous avez donc deux idées différentes de la bonté et de la méchanceté, de la vérité
et du mensonge. Vous êtes donc les plus absurd des dogmatists, ou les plus outrés de pyrrhoniens. "
The second main point on which our teaching agrees with Christian teaching relates
to the relationship of the passed away Christ to his congregation and to his presence
at the sacraments. According to us, Christ still lives on in the community and church
founded by him, and in it has his body on the other side. But the most numerous
sayings of Christ and his disciples literally agree with this; it is just a matter of taking
them literally. Other expressions allow us to transfer it to the way of existence of
other people in our sense. The literal Christian doctrine is precisely what may seem
so strange to many in our view at first sight, the afterlife in a sphere of activity that
contains a large complex of people and things of this world.
Indeed, according to the most decisive sayings of the New Testament, Christ lives
in his disciples, his disciples in him according to what they receive from him; it lives
in them until the end of the world, and through their mediation also passes over into
others. Yes, the congregation, the church of Christ is called the body of Christ, and
everyone who has made Christ's mind his own is called a member of the body of
Christ; Sometimes Christ is also represented as the head of the body which he has in
his congregation, just as we also seek the spirit mainly in the head, although with
regard to the whole body. In the sacraments, scriptures, and words the most important
material carriers of the spiritual after-effects of Christ's existence are designated,
through which the body of Christ always gains new members and perpetuates
itself. Short,
l. John 3:24. And whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. And from
this we recognize that he remains in us by the spirit that he has given us. (Similar to 1. Joh. 4, 13.)
Math. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.
Math. 28, 20. And, behold, I am with you every day until the end of the world.
Joh. 13:20 Verily, verily, I say to you: Whoever receives, when I send someone, receives
me; but whoever receives me receives him who sent me.
Joh. 15, 4. 5. Remain in me and I in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it
remains on the vine; So neither do you, you stay in me.
I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever abides in me, and I in him, bears much
fruit; because you can't do anything without me.
l. Cor. 4, 15. For even if you had ten thousand disciples in Christ, you still do not have many
fathers. For I have begotten you in Christ Jesus, through the gospel.
l. Cor. 12, 12-17. 20. 27. For as one body is and yet has many members, but all the members
of one body, although there are many, are nevertheless one body: thus also Christ.
For we are all baptized into one body by one spirit, whether we are Jews or Greeks, servants
or free, and are all watered into one spirit.
For the body is not one member either, but many.
But if the foot should say: I am not a hand, therefore I am not a member of the body; for that
reason should he not be a member of the body?
And if the ear should say: I am not an eye, that is why I am not a member of the body, should
it not be a member of the body for that reason?
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If it were completely audible,
where would the smell go? .....
But now the members are many; but the body is one. .....
But you are the body of Christ, and members of each one according to his part.
l. Cor. 6, 15. 17. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I then take
the members of Christ and make them members of a whore? Far be it!
But whoever clings to the Lord is one spirit with him.
Rome. 12, 4. 5. For in the same way as we have many members in one body, but all members
do not have the same business, so we are many One body in Christ, but one member of the other is
one of the other.
Epyes. l , 22-23. And made him head of the church over everything.
Which there is his body, namely the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Compare also
Ephes. 2 , 11-18.)
Ephes. 3, 20. 21. But to him who can exuberantly do about everything that we ask or
understand, according to the power that works in us. Glory to him in the congregation that is in
Christ Jesus, at all times, for ever and ever. Amen.
Ephes. 4, 11-13. And he made some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some
shepherds and teachers.
That the saints should be prepared for the work of office, through which the body of Christ
should be edified.
Until we all come into one faith and knowledge of the Son of God, and become a perfect man
who is there in the measure of the perfect age of Christ.
Ephes. 4, 15. 16. But let us be righteous in love, and grow in every part in Him who is Head,
Christ.
From which the whole body is joined, and one limb is attached to the other, through all the
joints; by doing this one does the other hand, according to the work of every member in its measure,
and makes that the body grows for its own improvement; and all in love. (Similar to Ephes. 5, 23.)
Ephes. 5, 29. 30. 32. For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cares for it,
just as the Lord also does the common one.
For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.
The secret is great: but I say about Christ and the congregation.
Col. 1. 24. Now in my suffering I rejoice that I suffer for you, and in my flesh I reimburse
what is still lacking in tribulations in Christ, for his body, which is the common one.
Col. 2, 19. And does not cling to the head, from which the whole body receives support
through joints and joints, and abstains from one another, and thus grows to divine greatness.
Gal. 2, 30. But I am alive; but now not I, but Christ lives in me. For what I now live in the
flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God.
Of course, if Christ really lives on and continues to work in his community, his place
cannot be sought in an indefinite, distant heaven, as probably happens most of the
time when one reads in the Bible that he is seated at the right hand of God. But
according to us the right of God is not above the earth, but rules on and in the earth,
and so the contradiction falls away if one goes into our doctrine of the things of
heaven; on the other hand, one does not see how the contradiction should arise in the
case of an extra-worldly God. Christ lives on in the same community in which God
also reigns alive, and in receiving Christ we receive God in a higher than the common
sense in which everyone already has him in themselves.
Christ himself speaks about it in the above-mentioned proverb John 13, 20: Truly, truly, I tell you
who receives, if I send someone, he receives me, but whoever receives me, receives him, who sent
me. You can also move here:
John 14:20. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
Joh. 17, 21-23. That they may all be one, like you, Father, in me and I in you; that they too
may be one in us, that the world may believe that you have sent me.
And I have given them the glory that you have given me, that they may be one just as we are
one.
I in them and you in me, so that they may be perfectly one, and the world may know that you
have sent me and love them just as you love me.
After all, our doctrine of existence on the other side only appears new in so far as
we expressly extend what the Scriptures expressly state about Christ's mode of
existence on the other side to include the mode of existence of all human beings. But
although Scripture itself does not do this, we find the right to do so in the scriptures
themselves, through which the otherworldly existence of Christ is represented with
that of other people in such relationships that one would set indissoluble
contradictions in Scripture if one wanted them Conceive the existence of other people
differently than that of Christ. For in general Christ is set up as an example and model
for other people with regard to the type of transition into the hereafter and the mode
of existence therein. Often we read that Christ's disciples and faithful after death will
be exactly where he is, and if those who do not want to know anything about Christ
are rather viewed as cast out, then they should also be after us by the community who
by entering into Christ's mind be established and excluded from the bliss that is
acquired through it, until the restoration recognized in the Bible itself incorporates it
into this community; But that does not prevent them from leading an unhappy mode
of existence in relation to the blessed mode of existence according to a principle that
relates both modes of existence to one another, as the relationship into which Christ
enters in the hereafter with the unhappy spirits is itself biblically designated by his
preaching in prison will. rather, if they are regarded as cast out, they should,
according to us, also be excluded from the community, which is founded on entering
into Christ's mind and the bliss that is acquired through it, until the restoration
recognized in the Bible itself incorporates them into this community; But that does
not prevent them from leading an unhappy mode of existence in relation to the
blessed mode of existence according to a principle that relates both modes of
existence to one another, as the relationship into which Christ enters in the hereafter
with the unhappy spirits is itself biblically designated by his preaching in prison
will. rather, if they are regarded as cast out, they should, according to us, also be
excluded from the community, which is founded on entering into Christ's mind and
the bliss that is acquired through it, until the restoration recognized in the Bible itself
incorporates them into this community; But that does not prevent them from leading
an unhappy mode of existence in relation to the blessed mode of existence according
to a principle that relates both modes of existence to one another, as the relationship
into which Christ enters in the hereafter with the unhappy spirits is itself biblically
designated by his preaching in prison will. until the restoration recognized in the
Bible itself incorporates them into this community; But that does not prevent them
from leading an unhappy mode of existence in relation to the blessed mode of
existence according to a principle that relates both modes of existence to one another,
as the relationship into which Christ enters in the hereafter with the unhappy spirits is
itself biblically designated by his preaching in prison will. until the restoration
recognized in the Bible itself incorporates them into this community; But that does
not prevent them from leading an unhappy mode of existence in relation to the
blessed mode of existence according to a principle that relates both modes of
existence to one another, as the relationship into which Christ enters in the hereafter
with the unhappy spirits is itself biblically designated by his preaching in prison will.
Luc. 22, 29. 30. And I will give you the kingdom, as my father has given me.
That ye shall eat and drink over my table in my kingdom.
Luc. 23, 42. 43. And (the wrongdoer) said to Jesus, Lord remember me when you come into
your kingdom.
And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.
Joh. 12, 26. 32. Whoever wants to serve me, follow me; and where I am, my servant should
also be there. And whoever will serve me, my father will honor him.
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw them all to me.
Joh. 14, 3. And whether I go to prepare the place for you, I will come again and take you to
me, that you may be where I am.
John 17:24. Father, I want those with me to be with me where I am, whom you have given
me, so that they may see my glory that you have given me.
Rome. 8, 29. For those which he provided beforehand, he also ordained that they should be
like the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
2nd Cor. 5, 8. But we are of good cheer, and rather we want to tumble outside the body and be
at home with the Lord.
Phil. 3, 21. Who will transfigure our vain body, so that it may become like his transfigured
body in terms of its effects, so that it can also make all things subservient to it.
Col. 1:18. And he is the head of the body, namely, the common one, which is the beginning
and the firstborn from the dead, that he may have precedence in all things.
Ephes. 2, 5. 6. Since we were dead in sin, He (God) made us alive with Christ (for by grace
you were saved).
And raised us with him, and placed us with him in the heavenly being, in Christ Jesus.
Ephes. 4, 8-10. Therefore he says: He ascended on high, and took prisoners, and gave gifts to
men.
But what is it that it ascended, for that it descended before into the lowest places on earth?
He who went down is the same who ascended over all the heavens, so that he might fill
everything.
What, it seems to me, must be decisive for the conception of the Christian doctrine
of the hereafter in our sense, is the meaning which is attached to the sacraments and
especially to the Lord's Supper by Christ and his disciples himself and which has
been kept as an inexplicable mystery through the centuries. Apart from this, it would
all be a superstition, a simile, a hollow symbol, and most consider it to be; but now
we can see the clear truth in it. What the scoffers of Christianity have accused of the
greatest absurdity for so long now shows itself, according to our doctrine, only as a
revealed secret, by which the understanding of all those scoffers must be put to
shame, since it can be revealed to the understanding. Yes, we enjoy Christ's body by
enjoying the mark He instituted as everything belongs to Christ's body in the
hereafter, through which his work is propagated to posterity in this world. The bread
and wine only become the body of Christ through the consecration of the priest,
which is pronounced over them, because these words are the last link in the chain
through which we can enjoy Christ's ministry through a long line of disciples and
priests of the Lord's Supper, and Christ really lives on in it, and indeed in a more
conscious and higher sense than in many other effects which his existence leaves
behind. For when Christ used the Lord's Supper in the most significant moment of his
life with the greatest consciousness, in which he summarized the whole content and
purpose of his life, as a reminder of himself, he also made the Lord's Supper the
mediator of one of the most important and conscious effects of his life. In every
memory of a dead person, however, the dead person is himself present as an effect
left by him; and the more significant and conscious the origin of memory itself is, the
more important a conscious part of its being it is present at; so that it is not a common
part of the body with which Christ enters us remindingly in the Lord's Supper, but
one that belongs to the bearer of his higher spiritual life. It is only necessary that we
receive Christ in the Lord's Supper also the will and faith to receive him; otherwise
only flour and earthly drink go into us. Whoever thinks that the bread and the wine in
the Lord's Supper are nothing as such, for him it is only such because he has the
effect, which Christ linked to the Lord's Supper, does not experience, and thus does
not learn anything about Christ. But whoever enjoys the bread and wine with the faith
of the presence of Christ and the reception of Christ with it, with him, or rather in
him, Christ will really be present, the more he will really enter into him, the more
alive that person is can make imagination and belief; for it is precisely with this that
the more lively effect of Christ's existence in him is shown. the more alive that person
can make imagination and belief; for it is precisely with this that the more lively
effect of Christ's existence in him is shown. the more alive that person can make
imagination and belief; for it is precisely with this that the more lively effect of
Christ's existence in him is shown.
In order to properly appreciate the full significance of the sacrament, a few more reflections may
be made.
The whole congregation, the whole church of Christ belongs to Christ's body in so far as it is
the living bearer of the effects proceeding from him; but as a living body it wants the same
nourishment, it wants to appropriate new members and to maintain and strengthen the old ones, and
if the former happens mainly through baptism, the latter happens by no means exclusively, but in a
preferred sense, through the Lord's Supper. Because basically every means by which the Church of
Christ expands and sustains, whether it is propagated into people or the cohesion of people in
Christ's Church is mediated and affirmed, is a means of nourishing, maintaining and vitalising his
body, but not each of equal importance and importance. The preferential significance that attends
the Lord's Supper does not depend solely on that by means of this only an effect at all extends into
us from the most significant and conscious moment in Christ's life, but also from the fact that Christ
himself expressly made it the bearer of the thought that he hereby incorporated himself into us; so
that we now become more conscious of it in the Lord's Supper, and can meet its own consciousness
that it enters into us more than in any other effect of it. It is the incorporation of Christ with the
awareness of this incorporation, which is justified for us and for Christ at the same time through the
act of institution of the Lord's Supper. Entering is conveyed here through the thought of entering
itself. And after Christ once willingly instituted the sacrament to we can no longer have another
ceremony replace the same place according to our will, because our entering into his will, his
conscious intention here is itself the mediating path on which we meet his consciousness that it is
entering into us with our consciousness. If Christ had instituted another ceremony instead of the
Lord's Supper for the same purpose, this would have become the bearer of the corresponding effect
instead of the Lord's Supper, for the simple reason that he wanted it to be so, and that this will had
been put into effect in the act of institution in such a way that he was also able to produce
corresponding consequences in other consciousnesses. But not everything was arbitrary, and it was
precisely the ceremony of the Lord's Supper that combined not only the most essential but also the
most favorable conditions for the purpose to be achieved. It is just like how someone can make any
word or any sign the bearer of any meaning or idea and by means of this can then transfer this idea
to others, as a certain spiritual effect, if he can only say so in a certain foundation act this meaning
fixed with them. He could probably have chosen a different word or character. But under all other
circumstances the choice of a word or sign is preferable, which in its sound, in its arrangement,
form or movement has such an analogy, affinity or symbolic relation to the object that by this alone
it helps to visualize it. This was the purpose here, where it was a matter of conveying the real
entering into us through the thought of Christ's entry into us, in this way it is most sufficient that
this thought is linked to the real enjoyment of bread and wine, the most necessary and precious of
food and drink. Namely to the enjoyment in the community of our fellow Christians. The most
essential part of Christ's teaching, his main significance for us, consists in the fact that, under his
mediation, we all have to form one community for higher purposes, one body in which Christ is the
Spirit; so the nourishing bread and fortifying wine must flow to the members of this body in the
most possible community. So now Christ immediately instituted the Lord's Supper in the
community from which all Christian community further grew; He first fed and watered the small
core of his body, from where the juice and strength continued to pour out. The broken bread and the
wine we drink remind us of the broken body and the shed blood of Christ for the love of this
community, and with this that we receive Christ only according to the measure, when we receive a
corresponding attitude as the effect of him in us, which we love the community to which we belong
does not shy away from death either. Finally, however, it also appears to be essential for the
meaning and effect of the Lord's Supper that it was only at the end of Christ's career and with
foresight to his death, at the most important turning point of his life, where the hereafter began to
come to the fore for him, and was instituted with regard to this turning point; so the importance that
this turning point had for Christ continues to have an effect on us in the Lord's Supper when we
remember it. How much less could the Lord's Supper have worked if he had used it at the beginning
of his career; since all his work was still ahead of him, nothing behind him, and therefore none of it
could be summarized in memory and the continued work of memory, since the gaze could only be
directed forward to this world. The wedding feast at Canaan leaves us with a hot picture; but
nothing more can be left in us. The wedding feast at Canaan leaves us with a hot picture; but
nothing more can be left in us. The wedding feast at Canaan leaves us with a hot picture; but
nothing more can be left in us.
l. Cor. 10, 17. For it is one bread, and we many are one body, because we are all partakers of
one bread.
l. Cor. 10, 16. 17. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread we break, isn't that the communion of the body of Christ? For it is one bread, so
we many are one body, because we are all partakers of one bread. (Compare the words of
institution: Matth. 26, 26. Mark. 14, 22. Luk. 22, 19. 20. 1. Cor. 11, 23.)
If, according to the above, the Lord's Supper is the sacrament through the
mediation of which we maintain our relationships with Christ, as members of his
body, in the most conscious way, then baptism is the sacrament through which we
first initiate and establish it. Whoever has not first become a member of Christ's body
above the Church cannot draw spiritual and physical sap and strength from it. And so
baptism first allows us to enter Christ's congregation or church, from which we then
also receive Holy Communion and the other means by which we are further to
appropriate Christ. Even without baptism, it seems, we could be brought up in a
Christian way by Christian parents and thus be incorporated into Christ. But the
foundation of Christ has made baptism the mediator of such an entry, that this entry
into the consciousness of the baptized person when he is grown up or of those who
have to educate the baptized person in a Christian way is able to enter into the
consciousness in its full power and according to its full meaning, which then again is
a conscious participation of Christ in this Presupposes acts and expresses
consequences that cannot be attributed to another approach, provided, of course, that
baptism is performed and received with the right mind. To overlook baptism, since
Christ instituted it as the means of incorporating oneself into him first, would be a
break in this incorporation itself. which then again presupposes a conscious
participation of Christ in this act and expresses consequences that cannot be
attributed to a different approach, provided, of course, that baptism is performed and
received with the right mind. To overlook baptism, since Christ instituted it as the
means of incorporating oneself into him first, would be a break in this incorporation
itself. which then again presupposes a conscious participation of Christ in this act and
expresses consequences that cannot be attributed to a different approach, provided, of
course, that baptism is performed and received with the right mind. To overlook
baptism, since Christ instituted it as the means of incorporating oneself into him first,
would be a break in this incorporation itself.
Gal. 3, 27. 28. For as many of you are baptized, they put on Christ.
There is neither a Jew nor a Greek here, there is neither a servant nor a suitor, there is neither
a man nor a woman, because you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Ephes. 4, 4-5. One body and one spirit, just as you are called on the same hope of your
calling.
One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
The washing of the feet (which H. Bernhard counted as one of the sacraments)
(Joh. 13, 6-9 and 12-15) was viewed by Christ himself in a similar sense to the Lord's
Supper and baptism. But while the Lord's Supper has to make the body aware of the
communal participation of the members in the body of Christ, the washing of the feet
is the service that the members of one and the same body are supposed to render to
one another, in view of and according to the example of the services that are offered
to them Christ himself works for all in common.
More recently, DW Böhmer in Breslau has published a treatise specially devoted to this subject in
the Theol. Stud. And Crit. 1850, vol. 4, p. 829, the sacramental meaning of the washing of the feet
is again emphasized, although, it seems to me, the specificity of this meaning is not emphasized
clearly enough. In conclusion, he says: "The fact that the Protestant Church has not recognized
Christ's foot washing as a sacrament is an offense against the Holy Scriptures, which is all the more
noticeable as this Church is the source of her Christianity and the only guideline of her faith in the
Holy Scriptures The Church can only to some extent atone for her offense by doing full justice to
the washing of Christ's feet, as portrayed by the Scriptures, ie
The continued existence of Christ's spirit in his congregation and church, the
presentation of Christ's congregation and church as the body of Christ, the meaning
which the sacraments assume accordingly, are also quite common things with older
and newer doctors of the church; and how should it not be the case? The words of the
Bible are unequivocal. Only one seeks partly an inexplicable mystery in it, like
Christ, who went to heaven but should also continue to live on earth in his
congregation, partly one looks for an exception in it for Christ, partly one does not
really understand the words of the scriptures.
The objection of the opponents, however, that the body and blood of Christ must therefore be
omnipresent, which is at odds with the nature of a human body, seeks to refute the formula of the
concord by referring to it on p. 752 ff. Luther ascribes omnipresence to the body of Christ in the
state of its exaltation, by virtue of the communicatio idiomatum, namely such an incomprehensible
and spiritual being (" Alicubi esse "), according to which it is not enclosed in any place, but
permeates all creatures and is also present in the evening meal . "(Bretschneider, Dogmatik II. P.
768.)
that this material sphere of time and space in which the human psyche leads its existence, this
sphere, which according to its whole concept has only a temporal intermediate meaning and is
intended to be torn down and used, cannot possibly be impenetrable for the higher celestial one
Sphere into which it is to be lifted up, and for him, who is the center not only of humanity, but of
the universe. This ongoing organic relationship between the Church and her invisible head is the
fundamental mystery on which the Church rests, and all the individual mysteries rested on this
one. On this rests the secret of edification in the assembly of the congregation - "" I am with you
every day "" and "" where two and three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst; unio
mystica ), which the Apostle John in particular describes with the whole inwardness of the Christian
mind. "(Martensen, Christl. Dogm. p. 365.)
"The absolute canon for all Christianity is now certainly none other than Christ himself, in his
blessed redeeming person, and if we now ask how we have Christ, our next answer is the same as
the Catholic: in the Church, the body and is the organism of Christ, whose living head he is always
present. In the Church, in her confession and proclamation, her sacraments, her cult, the exalted,
transfigured Savior is present and gives a living witness of himself for all those who who believe by
the power of the Holy Spirit. " (Same as p. 471.)
But on the one hand this membership, which is only mediated by the word accepted in faith,
is not something that we can safely recognize, and therefore not one that would offer us a firm
basis, on the other hand, according to God's order, we can only see it as one that needs perfect
completion. which she has to look for in the sacraments in the face of the congregation ..... I have a
part at the table of the Lord - that is why I can confidently join in the exclamation of the
congregation, which has its essence and life from Christ, like the woman from Adam: We are
members of his body, of his flesh and his bones! And I want to know whether this or that of my
fellow redeemed is a member of the body of the Redeemer; I do not need to throw myself up to
denounce the heart or judge the state of his soul. Whoever is only baptized and takes part in the
Lord's meal, is a member of the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the totality of all those who
are baptized into one body and watered into one spirit. "(From Delitzsch, Vier Bücher von der
Kirche.)
Even among those who have recently attempted to construct Christianity philosophically,
there are those who, according to the word, fully enter into our conception of Christ's future mode
of existence, even if not in terms of the subject matter. In: Gihr, Jesus Christ, according to the
description by L. Noak (Base I. 1849), it is said that the grave indeed received Christ's lifeless body,
but that his spirit was risen in each of his own and each dwelling constantly in heaven to God
transfigured human heart. But the celebration of the Lord's Supper is set in the thought of "the
transience of earthly life, which only in the twilight glow of later memory envelops people at
home." We mean that differently, of course.
Let us move on to the other main points of Christian doctrine of the hereafter.
There are numerous passages in the Bible according to which the path to life, to
salvation and to the Father should only go through Christ. Joh. 3, 16. 8, 12. 51. 10, 9.
14, 6. 15, 13. 17, 3. Mark. 16, 6. Luk. 19, 10th apost. 4, 12. Ebr. 7, 25.)
How can this be? One asks. How is it compatible with divine justice and mercy that
those who lived before Christ and who are still living apart from Christ, who could
not learn anything about Christ, should not be able to be saved?
It is undisputed that they can become so according to what they thought and acted
without knowing anything about Christ, in the sense of Christ, that is, in the right
sense, and many pagans acted much more in this way than many Christians or who
call themselves Christians. But in order to bring it to the fullness of bliss of which
man is capable in the hereafter, of bliss in the actual narrower sense, they will also
have to achieve the highest and best of which man is capable, and accordingly first
fully appropriate Christ's mind who goes towards the harmonious union of all with
everything in the love of God and for one another; because otherwise there will
always be something missing from their inner and outer peace. But in fact people can
only achieve this through Christ,
No matter how good and righteous a pagan may have been before, with and after
Christ, without acting out of this consciousness he will indeed enjoy the reward of his
virtues, but not the fullest and highest reward of the fullest and highest virtue that
only comes from this Consciousness out is possible, can attain. All action without this
consciousness is more or less blind and can indeed mainly hit the right path, because
man finds himself pointed towards this path from many sides; but without the clear
wise man over the path, who at once illuminates and rules it in one, man will always
deviate soon after this, now that side and feel the consequences of his error. But now
the heathen are that they could learn nothing of Christ down here and not the right
way through Christ, not forever excluded from salvation; because Christ's doctrine
and life and church is not just a matter of the lower world, but extends from this
world into the hereafter, and whoever has not yet been able to belong to him in this
world will one day be won over to him in the hereafter, and whoever belonged to him
only outwardly, will one day still belong to him inwardly, driven by the inadequacy
of bliss itself, which is apart from Christ, and the fullness of bliss that exists with and
in him; and according to the measure, when he becomes Christ's mind through Christ,
he will also partake of the salvific goods that depend on it. So everyone can, yes,
must finally get rid of the share of unhappiness that he still had and Christ will
ultimately be the Redeemer of all. because Christ's doctrine and life and church is not
just a matter of the lower world, but extends from this world into the hereafter, and
whoever has not yet been able to belong to him in this world will one day be won
over to him in the hereafter, and whoever belonged to him only outwardly, will one
day still belong to him inwardly, driven by the inadequacy of bliss itself, which is
apart from Christ, and the fullness of bliss that exists with and in him; and according
to the measure, when he becomes Christ's mind through Christ, he will also partake
of the salvific goods that depend on it. So everyone can, yes, must finally get rid of
the share of unhappiness that he still had and Christ will ultimately be the Redeemer
of all. because Christ's doctrine and life and church is not just a matter of the lower
world, but extends from this world into the hereafter, and whoever has not yet been
able to belong to him in this world will one day be won over to him in the hereafter,
and whoever belonged to him only outwardly, will one day still belong to him
inwardly, driven by the inadequacy of bliss itself, which is apart from Christ, and the
fullness of bliss that exists with and in him; and according to the measure, when he
becomes Christ's mind through Christ, he will also partake of the salvific goods that
depend on it. So everyone can, yes, must finally get rid of the share of unhappiness
that he still had and Christ will ultimately be the Redeemer of all. and whoever could
not yet belong to him in this world will one day be won over to him in the hereafter,
and whoever belonged to him only outwardly will one day still belong to him
fullness of Bliss that exists with and in him; and according to the measure, when he
that he still had and Christ will ultimately be the Redeemer of all. and whoever could
not yet belong to him in this world will one day be won over to him in the hereafter,
and whoever belonged to him only outwardly will one day still belong to him
fullness of Bliss that exists with and in him; and according to the measure, when he
that he still had and Christ will ultimately be the Redeemer of all. and according to
the measure, when he becomes Christ's mind through Christ, he will also partake of
the salvific goods that depend on it. So everyone can, yes, must finally get rid of the
share of unhappiness that he still had and Christ will ultimately be the Redeemer of
all. and according to the measure, when he becomes Christ's mind through Christ, he
will also partake of the salvific goods that depend on it. So everyone can, yes, must
finally get rid of the share of unhappiness that he still had and Christ will ultimately
be the Redeemer of all.
But just as he is the Redeemer of all in the highest and ultimate sense, so is the
judge. 1) For the demands that he makes on the world will be the ultimate yardstick
and rule by which we will one day be measured 2), and not as with a dead cubit; but
Christ himself, living on in his community, continuing his demands, will judge before
and about all whether the demands are also satisfied, and according to this, each merit
will be measured. Someone may have been found righteous after many individual
relationships that also made the Gentiles righteous, but in the end he will have to
come before Christ; - because no one will be able to avoid finally coming into contact
with Christ's demands - and as long as he cannot fully live up to them, he will not be
considered fully just before Christ either and will have to miss something of his full
bliss.
1) Math. 25, 31. Joh. 5, 27. Apost. 10, 42. 2nd Cor. 5, 10. 2. Thess. l, 7. 8. 2, 8. l. Petr. 4, 5, & c .
2) Ephes. 4, 7. But grace is given to each one of us according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Do not say that the same judgment would be exercised without Christ; for the
highest demands exist apart from Christ's personality, and the lack of fulfillment of
these demands will always, according to their nature, wither man's salvation. Of
course, the latter is true; but until the demands are consciously expressed as the
highest, man cannot be consciously judged according to them as such; the
consequences are self-evident; but only a conscious judge is a true judge. Indeed,
through Christ the highest judgment came over men, and Christ himself is the highest
judge; the judgment can only be exercised under his mediation, depending on him,
even if through so many mediators and representatives, because , where and how it is
exercised as a result of his previous existence on this side, on the other side, he
himself lives on in this sequence, continues to work, and, insofar as it is a conscious
consequence of his conscious life, consciously continues to live on. Whoever judges
in his own way judges with the knowledge of Christ, does it under Christ's
suggestion, and Christ feels himself to be the one who inspires; but if and to the
extent that someone does not judge in Christ's sense, Christ himself will still judge
and correct his judgment. and Christ feels himself to be the one who stimulates; but if
and to the extent that someone does not judge in Christ's sense, Christ himself will
still judge and correct his judgment. and Christ feels himself to be the one who
stimulates; but if and to the extent that someone does not judge in Christ's sense,
Christ himself will still judge and correct his judgment.
If one considers Christ's person indifferent to this judgment, then one has the right
only to the extent that the highest judgment could not fail at all to be imposed on
people, be it by whom it may be. But should Christ be less valid for us because that is
what he was chosen for? Rather, the very fact that he has become the bearer of divine
necessity must give him the highest dignity.
Belief in a resurrection of the body forms an essential part of the Christian doctrine
of the hereafter. But the modality of this is not specified in the Bible. Christ's own
sayings about it are not communicated, and it is difficult for him to definitely have
spoken about them. So, according to him, there was room for divergent ideas, among
which slightly coarse sensual ones might appear. We drop the last ones; hold on to the
nature of the resurrection in the sense mentioned earlier. Our narrow body here below
will one day arise again as a further body, which, having emerged from the narrower
itself, contains all that matter and forces that once belonged to the narrower, and
which in this world fell asleep or apparently dead. Now it is awakening again to new
consciousness.
We are not saying that this understanding of the resurrection has already been
developed in the Bible to the clarity and consequence to which we have been led. But
precisely the most refined views of Paul enter into it in mine, indeed cannot be
interpreted better than in the same sense, whereby it cannot be denied that Paul also
harbors ideas in several respects which are incompatible with them 3) , but at the
same time they become difficult to reconcile with themselves.
3)I reckon here that Christ is the first to be risen and that the resurrection of the rest of the people will take
place at the same time in a sudden general catastrophe. l. Cor. 15th
Paul explains that Body of this world for the seed from which the body of the
hereafter arises; the latter is to him something that essentially belongs together with
the first, naturally following from this, only of a more spiritual nature than the
former; man finds the house so that he should be clothed in the future already before
death, and that as a heavenly house after the earthly one. What now only appears to
the person as externally in the mirror and thus appears dark, incomplete, he gains an
immediate knowledge of it afterwards, he recognizes how he is recognized. All of
this, even if not expressly understood in our sense, for which our view itself should
first have been consciously developed, can nevertheless be related to it if we mean
the spiritual image under the spiritual body,
l. Cor. 15, 35-38. But if someone wants to say: how will the dead be raised? And with what kind
of body will they come?
You fool who sow will not come to life unless you die.
And what you sow is not the body that is to become, but a mere grain, namely wheat or the
other one.
1st Cor. 15, 44-46. It is sown a natural body and it is raised a spiritual body. If one has a
natural body, one also has a spiritual body.
As it is written, the first man, Adam, is made into natural life, and the last Adam into spiritual
life.
But the spiritual is not the first; but the natural, then the spiritual.
2nd Cor. 5, l. But we know, when our earthly house of this hut is broken, that we have a
building, built by God, a house, not made with hands, which is eternal, in heaven.
And above it we also long for our dwelling, which is from heaven, and long to be clothed
with it.
l. Cor. 13, 12. We now see through a mirror in a dark word, but then face to face. Now I know
it bit by bit, but then I will know it as soon as I am known.
In general, I do not think that in Christ and the apostles' teaching all ideas about the
hereafter were as clearly expressed and developed as they are presented in our
teaching; which rather first needed its previous reason for development. The secret is
great, says Paul (Epyes. 5, 32). But the basis for this development was given in their
teaching from the outset. There were fundamental ideas which, in the attempt to trace
them in relation to the real nature of things in their consequences, had to lead to these
developments, just as, conversely, the attempt to consistently develop the doctrine of
the hereafter from the nature of things led to theirs Had to lead back basic ideas. And
in this respect I do not consider our whole view of the future mode of existence to be
a repetition or mere exposition,
But insofar as the development already presupposes the germ that our doctrine
could only develop itself on the basis of Christianity, namely only under the guidance
of the highest practical points of view that Christ established, this is the ultimate
driving principle, which is all matter of ours Forcing reflections into its direction and
form, Christ himself was also involved. The conscious life of Christ and his disciples
on this side was itself only the germ of their higher conscious life on the other
side; but we feel their growth beyond this in this world and contribute to it ourselves,
taking into account the earlier developed relationships between this world and the
hereafter. Nobody thinks that he can do something by himself. As Christ's trunk
grows higher into the light of the hereafter, its roots in this world must also expand
and strengthen, and we ourselves must contribute and cooperate on this side; but we
do it through what we do in his teaching, in his sense.
Of course, one does not have to imagine that a thorough development of Christ's teaching about
the hereafter could further expand and correct his knowledge of the hereafter itself, which is an
immediate one after he has passed into the hereafter. But as the doctrine of the hereafter, which he
established on this side, through which he entered into relationship with us and is still in
relationship with us, continues to develop on this side, these relationships through which he is still
connected with us in the hereafter also continue to develop . We should not be surprised either that
his direct knowledge of the hereafter does not benefit us, despite the fact that he lives and works in
us; he lives and works in us only on the side of what remained in us from his work in this world and
continues to be determined on the paths of this world. The comparison with the plant, used earlier,
is very illustrative in this regard. The plant that grows into the light needs it still the roots in the
same soil in which it was once completely trapped, the tributaries from it, and the roots with which
it adheres in it still belong to it; But above the ground it leads a completely different life than below,
and what happens to it above cannot be felt in the same way below; meanwhile, what happens in
her above and below is always connected in active relationships. The fate, then, what Christ's
teaching experiences on this side is not indifferent to its existence on the other side; and a growth, a
development, an uplifting of his teaching on this side can always be seen as a sign of a
corresponding growth, a corresponding development, a corresponding uplifting of his life on the
other side, regardless of whether it only belongs to the lower part of this life and what happens
above,
Furthermore, we must not take it as though Christ's consciousness beyond is no longer
involved through what happens to his roots on this side, his roots in this world are only an
unconscious part of his life, his consciousness from now on only experiences determinations from
the higher light . Rather, it is the relationships of his consciousness that we consider here; it is
precisely his consciousness that is still rooted in the lower realm, takes up determinations from it,
but which are processed there in the higher light in a higher sense, in a sense that derives from the
determinations cannot be explained solely from below, but only from the relationships to the higher
general light that fills the world.
XXXI. Overview of the doctrine of the things of the hereafter.

l) When a person dies, his spirit does not become blurred again in the greater or
higher spirit from which he was first born or out of which he had individualized, but
rather enters into a lighter conscious relationship with it, and his whole previously
created spiritual possession becomes to him lighter and clearer. As a higher spirit, we
can focus on the spirit sphere of earth or God, which is above us, because one thing
enters into the other when we think that through the spirit sphere we belong to earthly
God (XXI. XXII).
2) The otherworldly life of our spirits is related to the life of this world in the same
way as a life of remembrance is related to the life of perception from which it has
grown. Indeed, we can see it as if the greater spirit itself, to which we belong, accepts
us in death with our entire content and essence from its lower life of perception into
its higher life of remembrance. But just as we already belong to it in the life of
perception, without our individuality and relative independence in it being
extinguished, so will it also be the case in the life of remembrance (XXI. XXII).
3) The kingdom of the otherworldly spirits is connected with the kingdom of the
spirits on this side in the higher spirit to form one kingdom through relationships that
are analogous to those that take place in our own spirit between the areas of memory
and perception. Just as the realm of our views receives a higher level of enthusiasm
from our memory, and conversely, our memories are determined by the views to
which they are associated, so the realm of the otherworldly spirits also intervenes in
that of the here and now, through its influence it already engages something higher
than it would be without it, and in turn receives further determinations from it. Plato
still lives on in the ideas he left in us and learns the fate of those ideas.
4) As little as a memory in our head needs such a circumscribed corporeal image as
a base as perception, it will be the case with us when we pass from the life of
perception into the life of memory of the greater spirit. From now on, our spirit will
no longer find itself bound to a single, special piece of earthly matter, although the
physical base is therefore not devoid of it, just as the memory in us still has one. But
how the bodily carrier of memory in us, whatever it is, has in any case grown out of
the bodily carrier of perception (from the image in the eye, effects extend into the
brain, which in the future justify the memory, but only arise after the perception has
ceased to exist let), bodily existence is also who will support our spiritual life in the
future, to be grown out of the one who supports it now. While we are still in the life
of perception, through our actions and works we incorporate ourselves into the larger
body to which we belong, above all the earth, and in this above all the upper realm of
it, in a peculiar way; it must in a certain context be certain Relationships take on the
imprint of our being, and now our future spiritual existence will find a carrier in
them, as far as it still needs one at all, according to the way it happened. To the extent
that the world has been determined by our being on this side, it will support our being
on the other side, namely our conscious being in the hereafter, insofar as it has been
determined by our conscious being in this world (XXIII). that it is wearing
now. While we are still in the life of perception, through our actions and works we
incorporate ourselves into the larger body to which we belong, above all the earth,
and in this above all the upper realm of it, in a peculiar way; it must in a certain
context be certain Relationships take on the imprint of our being, and now our future
spiritual existence will find a carrier in them, as far as it still needs one at all,
according to the way it happened. To the extent that the world has been determined
by our being on this side, it will support our being on the other side, namely our
conscious being in the hereafter, insofar as it has been determined by our conscious
being in this world (XXIII). that it is wearing now. While we are still in the life of
perception, through our actions and works we incorporate ourselves into the larger
it, in a peculiar way; it must in a certain context be certain Relationships take on the
imprint of our being, and now our future spiritual existence will find a carrier in
them, as far as it still needs one at all, according to the way it happened. To the extent
that the world has been determined by our being on this side, it will support our being
on the other side, namely our conscious being in the hereafter, insofar as it has been
determined by our conscious being in this world (XXIII). through our actions and
works the greater body to which we belong, above all the earth, and in this above all
the upper realm of the same, in a peculiar way; it must in a certain context, according
to certain relationships, take on the stamp of our being, and now ours finds its way
future spiritual existence precisely according to the way it happened, still another
carrier, insofar as it still needs such a thing at all. To the extent that the world has
been determined by our being on this side, it will support our being on the other side,
namely our conscious being in the hereafter, insofar as it has been determined by our
conscious being in this world (XXIII). through our actions and works the greater
the same, in a peculiar way; it must in a certain context, according to certain
relationships, take on the stamp of our being, and now ours finds its way future
spiritual existence precisely according to the way it happened, still another carrier,
insofar as it still needs such a thing at all. To the extent that the world has been
determined by our being on this side, it will support our being on the other side,
namely our conscious being in the hereafter, insofar as it has been determined by our
conscious being in this world (XXIII). In a certain context it has to take on the shape
of our being after certain relationships, and now our future spiritual existence will
find a carrier in it, as far as it still needs one at all, according to the way in which it
happened. To the extent that the world has been determined by our being on this side,
it will support our being on the other side, namely our conscious being in the
hereafter, insofar as it has been determined by our conscious being in this world
(XXIII). In a certain context it has to take on the shape of our being after certain
relationships, and now our future spiritual existence will find a carrier in it, as far as it
still needs one at all, according to the way in which it happened. To the extent that the
world has been determined by our being on this side, it will support our being on the
other side, namely our conscious being in the hereafter, insofar as it has been
determined by our conscious being in this world (XXIII).
5) Our future existences do not run, disturb or confuse each other because we all
incorporate ourselves into the same world, the same great body with our effects and
works. Even now, our existences are already effectively overlapping each other, and
that only justifies our intercourse, which, according to the way our existences will
overlap in the future, will only become more intimate, more varied, more
conscious. Even our memories are not lost or erred, in spite of the fact that what they
carry is confused in the same brain (XXIV, C).
6) If one misses a certain configuration of our future corporeal existence, it must be
remembered that the spirits of the hereafter will not see their corporeal existence
vividly dissolving and fading as it still appears to us from the point of view of this
worldly observation. But just like the memory of a perception in our small memory
realm, despite the fact that the limited bodily image in the eye is no longer subject to
it as it used to be, but still reflects the visual appearance of the image from which it
derives, our appearance in the memory realm of the higher becomes Spirit reflect the
this worldly perceptual appearance of our body, where it comes from; our forms on
the other side will behave as the memory forms of those on this side;
7) The conclusions that can be drawn from the analogy of life in the hereafter with
a life of remembrance find their support in those that the analogy of death with birth
grants (XXV).
8) Direct considerations speak no less in the same sense. Already in the present life
we see the body which carries our spirit at any time, grows out of the body which
previously carried our spirit, and we have to believe that this will continue to belong
to the same spirit. So the bodily bearer of our future spiritual existence will also have
to grow out of the bodily bearer of our present spiritual existence in order to be still
further bearer of our individuality. The circle of our effects and works, put together in
the right completeness and right context, fulfills these conditions in that everything of
matter, movements and forces is found in it that was active in our body during our
life in this world (XXVII).
9) The destruction of our present body is itself to be seen as the reason that the
consciousness that was previously linked to it passes over to that continuation of it; in
that there is a similar antagonism between the consciousness of our narrower body
and this continuation of it, as we already observe within our narrower body itself
between different spheres (XXIV, D).
10) The practical point of view of our view lies in the fact that everyone creates the
conditions of a blissful or unhappy otherworldly existence for himself in the
consequences of his this-worldly (inner and outer) doing and driving, provided that
the consequences of his this-worldly existence will form the basis of his
otherworldly. So whoever has developed himself here in the sense of the good divine
world order and acted in this sense, has promoted good in himself and in the world,
will win the predominantly salutary consequences of the same according to the nature
of the good as reward; But whoever has directed his thoughts and aspirations towards
evil, whoever has brought calamity into the world, will feel it in its consequences as
punishment, consequences that will grow until man turns around (XXVIII.).
11) The teaching presented here does not contradict the basic teaching of
Christianity; Rather, by dropping insignificant externalities, it is suitable to grant the
core of the same a new fertile ground for the most lively development, since it uses
the teaching of Christ, which has hitherto mostly only been understood and believed
in an improper sense, that man will reap this himself, what he sown, so that Christ
himself would have his body in his community and be present in the sacraments, to
grasp it in a more lively and authentic sense, also to allow his redeemer and judge's
office and the doctrine of the resurrection to be appropriately understood (XXX).
12) At the same time, our doctrine of manifold, partly pagan, partly philosophical
views connects as much as is always possible with the contradiction between them
and the Christian view , and enters into a mutually explanatory relationship with
some hitherto puzzling phenomena of this world (XXIX ).
XXXII. Beliefs.
Everything that is contained in this scripture about the highest and ultimate things
is directly unprovable in experience, unprovable through mathematics, and thus a
field of belief always remains here. I base my own belief in the validity of the views
presented here on the fact that the theoretical and practical interest, which compels us
to consider this area in general, is satisfied by these views in the best agreement. But
whether this is the case is again a matter of faith; and depending on whether one
agrees with me in this ultimate belief or not, one will also agree with the views of this
scripture, in which that connection and that agreement have always been considered
authoritative.
At the end of the whole text after its two sections, I shall now summarize that of the
content and the guiding points of view of the same, which is primarily related to the
now prevailing and prevailing belief in the highest and ultimate things, that is, that
this relationship comes out as clearly as possible. In this way it is easiest to see
whether something of that in which the value of the previous faith lies is rejected or
stunted by us, rather some things are expanded and deepened. Of course, there are
also some things that sound like the wording of what they are saying with what
everyone is talking about. Scripture itself must explain this sense. See if it's a worse
one.
l) I believe in one, eternal, infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good,
all-righteous, all-merciful God, through whom everything arises and passes away and
is, what arises and passes away and is, who lives and weaves and is in everything
how everything to him; who knows everything that is known and can be known, who
loves all his creatures as one, like himself, who wants good and does not want evil,
who leads everything in the course of time to just goals, who also defends evil
merciful, that is, that he himself only makes the punishment a means of his
improvement and final bliss (XI. XII. XXVIII).
2) I believe that God has given special parts or sides of his spiritual being to special
creatures, including the earth created by him, so that all earthly spirit unites in this
part of the divine being, which is again at work in a special way to the special earthly
creatures, so that all of us, people, animals and plants, are children of God from this
spirit, in this spirit and by virtue of this spirit, with whom God entered the earthly, but
men are those who are also Will of their Eternal Father and the union in a higher
spiritual community can and should become conscious (I-XI).
3) I believe that Christ is a Son of God out of that spirit, in that spirit and by virtue
of that spirit with which God entered the earthly, not just beside and below, but above
us all, because through his mediator we are still in one in a higher sense, we are
destined to become children of God in and out of a spirit than we were by nature and
birth (XIII).
4) I believe that nothing unnatural and supernatural happens in God's world order,
but that unusual and unprecedented effects occur through unusual and unprecedented
causes, so that Christ's entire appearance, existence and activity was neither
supernatural nor unnatural, but that he as an unprecedented and never recurring, so in
its kind the only cause of unprecedented and eternally continuing and ever more
spreading effects has appeared (XIII).
5) I believe that the only and true way of salvation for humanity lies in the right
and rightly active love for God and neighbor, as commanded by Christ, and that unity
in this love and action in accordance with it that is what makes us one spirit in a
higher sense (XIII. XXVIII. XXX).
6) I believe that Christ's teaching and church will not decrease, but grow, so that all
people will one day agree on it, and to whom it is not given here, it will be given to
him on the other side (XIV. XXX).
7) I believe that the congregation, and with it the Church of Christ, is the body in
which the Spirit of Christ rules at all times, and that the teaching of Christ, preached,
written, interpreted, received and followed in his spirit, carries out baptism and the
Lord's Supper in his spirit, receiving and working, the main mediations are to keep
Christ alive physically and spiritually in the community and with this the church, to
make people as members his own and as such to strengthen them and keep them fit
(XXX).
8) I believe in a resurrection and an eternal life of man as a result of this temporal
life, according to the model image of Christ, that is, that the present body and the
present life of man are only a small, dark seed of a freer and brighter body that will
emerge from them in the future Life be; since our soul will be covered with a larger
building, a house, not made with hands, that is eternal, in heaven, everything that is
now hidden will be revealed, since we will clearly see what we are here only in part
and how recognized through a mirror in the dark word that we will all find each other
face to face face to face with one another and with Christ Jesus, who we have here
with him and through him in the spirit. I believe that this temporal life is a
preparation for the eternal
9) I believe that the purpose of the divine commandments is not to wither human
happiness and joy, but to order and judge their will and their actions in such a way
that the greatest possible happiness for all can exist in harmony. I believe that in this
sense man has to develop his will and action according to all relationships, as by
which he will satisfy the meaning of the divine commandments even where they have
commanded nothing. I believe that man cannot act for the greatest possible happiness
of all without acting for his own greatest possible happiness (XI. XVIII).
10) I believe that evil produces consequences by which it punishes itself in the
course of time, good following by which it is worthwhile in the course of time. I
believe that the consequences of this world reach into the hereafter and that justice is
carried out there, which here is only raised or postponed. I believe that the longer
postponed the punishment of evil and the reward of good, the more forceful it will
finally come and grow until the evil one is forced to repent, the good person feels
himself to be in the eternal course of divine grace. I believe that human free will can
only change the path to that goal, not the goal itself. I believe that this is not the
meaning of a dead world order, but that it is the living dwelling of the divine spirit in
the world,
11) I believe that only good knowledge can exist before God, i.e. that every
knowledge is in vain, reprehensible and will one day be rejected that does not serve
the best, and that truth and good in the highest sense are one and the same (XIX. A. ).
12) I believe that the reason of the underage has to modest itself before a higher
reason, which has proven its right in history through the education of the adult. I
believe that the mind of those who have come of age should keep their own error in
mind and take care that they do not, wanting to improve on what has hitherto been
established, shake the foundations of the good itself, which above all and above
everything else. I believe that everything new that is supposed to exist can only grow
out of what has already existed, not through the overthrow, but the further training or
the rejuvenation of the existing or the existing. I believe that only skin that has grown
old can fall during rejuvenation, but the old core must drift fresher, higher, farther
(XIX. A.).

Zend Avesta 02 English.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zend Avesta 02 English.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zend - Avesta

about the things of heavenand the hereafter

From the point of view of nature

About the things of the hereafter.

XV. Appendix to the third section.

C. About the liquid earth.

E. About the imponderable powers.

XVI. Appendix to the fifth section.

XVII. Appendix to section eight.

XVIII. Appendix to the ninth section.

The ordinary obscure view is often terrified of determinism because of a

XIX. Appendix to section eleventh.

B. Addition on the supreme world law and its relationship to freedom.1)

In the realm of material as well as spiritual events we distinguish various laws; in

It cannot be overlooked that these considerations about the physical conditions

The ordinary obscure view is often terrified of determinism because of a

In the first order arithmetic series:

1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22 .... (A)

If one generally needs the higher numerical references to

In addition to the previous three ways of looking at things, the materialistic,

to take within the relevant limits.

16)Because waking and sleep correspond to positive and negative mathematical

Attention is a psychic faculty founded in the self-activity of our soul, which is

XX. Overview of the Doctrine of the Things of Heaven. 1)

About the things of the hereafter.

Of course, I can only give the following as reasonable possibilities, reasonable

XXI.About the meaning of human death and the relationship between

Let's briefly summarize what has been said so far.

§ 43. "Also the individuals in the same association are all

B. Relationships between the other world and this world of spirits.

Let us develop these general considerations a little more specifically.

what man knows; so also his languages. I spoke to angels about

About the Ibbur ofthe old rabbis.

P. 106. Q. "How do you know?" 5)

P. 135. Q. "Can you see?"

P. 119. Question. "The ability to know something specific

Question. "How do you mean the latter?"

XXIII. From the physical basis of future life.

Nothing prevents us from appearing objectively to one another beyond,

XXIV. Difficulties of various kinds.

A. Question, how man his inner education and

In fact, it would be strange if, given the impossibility of

Even Stieglitz, who in his counter-argument against animal magnetism

endeavors to belittle the significance of the phenomenon, admits that this

Passavant says (p. 90 of his work): "Many somnambulists saw

Ferrus reports of a general who had lost a large part of the

XXV. Analogies of death with birth.

XXVI. About the common attempts to establish the doctrine of immortality

2) Töllner, Syst. theolog. dogm. p. 708th sq.

XXVII. Direct justification of the doctrine of immortality.

XXVIII. Practical considerations.

Insofar as some deniers of immortality believe that they see a semblance of

P. 271. "If the belief in immortality were really based on

c) The younger spruce(in s. Idea of Personality).

XXX. Points of reference of our teaching to Christian teaching in particular.

XXXI. Overview of the doctrine of the things of the hereafter.

You might also like