Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and othersSteiner, Rudolf
Religion
Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and others
Steiner, Rudolf
Mysticism
In the light of these considerations, some of the views which natural
science has developed during the nineteenth century appear for the
first time in the right light. The supporters of these views tell us
that we hear, see, and touch the objects of the physical world through
our senses. The eye, for instance, transmits to us a phenomenon of
light, a colour. Thus we say that a body emits red light, when with the
help of the eye we experience the sensation “red.” But the eye can give
us this same sensation in other cases also. If the eyeball is struck or
pressed upon, or if an electric spark is allowed to pass through the
head, the eye has a sensation of light.
It is thus evident that even in the cases in which we have the
sensation of a body emitting red light, something may really be
happening in that body which has no sort of resemblance to the colour
we sensate. Whatever may be actually happening “outside of us” in
space, so long as what happens is capable of making an impression
on the eye, there arises in us the sensation of light. Thus what we
experience _arises in us_, because we possess organs constituted in
a particular manner. What happens outside in space, remains outside
of us; we know only the effects which the external happenings call
up in us. Hermann Helmholtz (1821-1893) has given a clearly outlined
expression to this thought:
“Our sensations are simply effects which are produced in our organs
by external causes, and the manner in which such an effect will show
itself depends, naturally enough, altogether upon the kind of apparatus
upon which the action takes place. In so far as the quality of our
sensation gives us information as to the peculiar nature of the
external action which produces the sensation, so far can the sensation
be regarded as a sign or symbol of this external action, but not as an
image or reproduction of it. For we expect in a picture some kind of
resemblance to the object it represents; thus in a statue, resemblance
of form; in a drawing, resemblance in the perspective projection of
the field of view; in a painting, resemblance of colour in addition.
A symbol, however, is not required to have any sort of resemblance to
that which it symbolises. The necessary connection between the object
and the symbol is limited to this: that the same object coming into
action under the same conditions shall call up the same symbol, and
that therefore different symbols shall always correspond to different
objects. When berries of a certain kind in ripening produce together
red colouration and sugar, then red colour and a sweet taste will
always find themselves together in our sensation of berries of this
form.”[14]
[14] _Cp._ Helmholtz, _Die Thatsachen der Wahrnehmung_, p. 12 _et
seq._ I have characterised this kind of conception in detail in
my _Philosophie der Freiheit_, Berlin, 1894, and in my _Welt- und
Lebensanschauungen im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert_, vol. ii., p. i., etc.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account