Goethe comes to New York
Von Judith Krischik
Goetheanism offers a new approach to nature and science, even though during his lifetime Goethe could hardly have predicted the urgency for a renewal of science in our time. The form of natural science as established in the 17 th century by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes in its latest development shows procedures - like genetic engineering - which not only awaken suspicion, but which seem to require immediate action to counter them. Last May representatives from »both camps« met in New York with the common concern being the renewal of science.
A participant in the event, Kevin Dann, professor of history of science at the University of Vermont, expressed clearly why he had come to this gathering in New York: it was his interest to »Americanize« Goetheanism. In the same breath, it should perhaps be added that there is a need to move Goetheanism out of the » anthroposophical camp«. This was certainly a central motive of the sponsor, namely the Teacher’s College of Columbia University, represented in Professor Douglas Sloan.
Doug Sloan tries to build bridges between personalities - including anthroposophists -who are in search of ways to renew science and gain a holistic understanding of their specific areas, regardless whether the issues deal with Goetheanism, computer technology, child development, or ecology. To serve these tasks, Doug Sloan, who is professor of history and pedagogy at the Teacher’s College, and who also heads the accredited program in Waldorf Education at Sunbridge College in Spring Valley, N.Y., created his own organ, the »Center for the Study of the Spiritual Foundations of Education «. The sponsor is the Fetzer Institute in Michigan. The cream of American intellectuals with an alternative touch come to these gatherings, as for example, the computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum, the expert on religions, Robert Thurman, and the historian on culture and chairman of the Lindisfarne Association William Irwin Thompson, to name a few. Charles Sing, professor of human genetics at the University of Michigan Medical School confessed freely at the beginning of the Goethe event that within the group here are a half dozen of his »secret heroes«.
Within the last few years Doug Sloan changed his concept of such events. In place of public conferences, attended by up to two hundred people, he initiated so-called »research consultations«. In a smaller circle of twenty to forty persons it is possible to more intimately get to know each other and to exchange ideas in greater depth. The event titled » Goethean Science in Holistic Perspective « , held from May 20 th to 22 nd, 1999, was the first addressing the theme of Goetheanism.
Heading towards the Precipice
The dilemma of natural science, which also dominates the humanities and reigns over our thinking, is easy to describe. It races towards the precipice at high speed, characterized in expressions like genetic engineered food, Dolly the clone, terminator genes, and germ-line manipulations. Calls for a holistic science become more frequent and louder. But how should a new science be structured? The approach to natural science as suggested by Goethe is little known and finds its supporters mainly among anthroposophists. Their representatives, however, find it very hard to see beyond their own horizon and, even harder, to build a bridge to the prevailing positions of science. The latter was represented at this meeting by Charles Sing, for one. He without question recognizes modern science’s problems, but is at a loss to suggest solutions and even admitted that he would be hesitant to tell his colleagues about his participation at this event.
Another type of participant at the discussions were those individuals » who are Goetheanists without knowing it« - to use Doug Sloan’s expression - represented by the noteworthy Wes Jackson of the Land Institute in Kansas. Wes Jackson declared right at the beginning that he had no idea what Goetheanism stood for. He belongs to America’s most radical supporters of alternative agriculture and is attributed with coining the expression »sustainability«. In the seventies he purchased a deserted town in the prairies of Kansas for a small amount of money and ever since has striven to create a prototype for a sustainable community of the future. Sustainability in agriculture and nature is his motto.
The anthroposophists were certainly the majority in this circle. But then again, where else does one find Goetheanists? Arthur Zajonc, professor of physics at Amherst College and chairman of the Anthroposophical Society in America, was surely the most qualified moderator of the meeting. Ron Brady, professor of philosophy at Ramapo College in New Jersey, was equally at home in »both worlds«. He just finished writing a foreword to the upcoming American publication of Rudolf Steiner’s Epistemology . Molecular biologist Johannes Wirz from Switzerland introduced himself with the confession that he originally was convinced that microbiology could answer all his questions about life until he, having learned otherwise, happened to get stranded at the Natural Science Section at the Goetheanum in Dornach.
The only person who decidedly declared he does not belong to any group or does not embrace any theory was another guest from Europe, the physicist Henri Bortoft. The Englishman and author of the book The Wholeness of Nature is at present possibly the most accomplished thinker among Goetheanists. During a coffee break he expressed the danger that there is always the possibility of being swallowed. He recently decided not to accept invitations any longer from anthroposophical groups. Only thus could he avoid, he declared with a wink, to spend the rest of his life doing nothing other than giving lectures to anthroposophists.
Why the Giraffe does not have a long Neck
It might sound ignorant, but giraffes don’t really have long necks. This image characterizes quite well a fundamental cognitive aspect of the meeting in New York. Using the popular example of the giraffe, Henri Bortoft pointed to the necessary transformation of our visual interpretation. Just because we see the long neck of the giraffe, we believe the giraffe has a long neck. In reality we don’t see the whole giraffe, we see only part of it. If we would look more closely, we would notice that the length of the neck formed by the cervical vertebrae is harmoniously related to the length of the legs. The human being describes the neck of the giraffe as long, because he, in comparison to the giraffe, has a short neck, a view indicative of having lost a living relationship to nature due to immersion in modern natural science. These thoughts lead us straight to the question of subject-object-separation, one of the fundamental evils of natural science in its present form.
The modern habit of seeing needs to be changed in order to truly perceive the world around us as it is in reality, allowing us to unfold our being within it. In the discussions, which centered around new and active forms of perceiving, Henri Bortoft repeatedly mentioned the German philosopher Edmund Husserl ( 1859 - 1938 ). In his phenomenology, Husserl counters the presupposition of Descartes’ subject-object-separation with the premise that there is no difference between the inner and the outer, between subject and object.
Henri Bortoft offered an example: » Imagine somebody, » he began in a lively manner, »who happens to smoke a cigarette and is looking for an ash tray. Suddenly he sees a sea shell. ‘ I found one’, he exclaims, although in reality this is not the case. The sea shell was already there; he didn’t actually ‘find’ it, instead he gave it new meaning. In fact he ‘ashtrayed’ it.«
Bortoft likes these plays on words and employs this form of speech in an attempt to balance the deficit inherent in our common subject-object-language. The simple example makes clear that even though the conversation may seem to be of a philosophical nature, it really deals with the practical. A new form of seeing, representing all our senses, must be developed. Goethe and Husserl, in Bortoft’s opinion, are going in the same direction. In their method of proceeding, in how both view the world, they allow the phenomenon itself to appear and manifest itself.
Henri Bortoft: » Therein lies the key to a new form of seeing. It creates a space within which the phenomenon can appear. In this moment, we experience the idea. The long, dominating neck of the giraffe fades, while the living idea of the giraffe appears. We see the giraffe as it exists in reality. - We see giraffely.«
Here, in the small group of listeners Bortoft is more personal than in his book. He tells us how the Goetheanistic approach actually changed his perceptions. In the seventies, when he was still working with the quantum physicist David Bohm, it could happen that in the middle of a lecture or during a walk his perception slipped into a form of observation which changed the perspectives and made the world around him appear differently.
» When my children were still small, I experienced the same thing with them again and again. Children are much more embedded in this form of seeing. The sufis for example describe this world as the ‘ imaginal world’. It lies between the physical and spiritual world and is more delicate and inconspicuous than the physical world, but much more real and concrete. At the instance one encounters it, one recognizes immediately that it is the heart of the world, and yet I would never describe it as mystical.«
Science becoming Business
The path to acquiring a new perception of the world may seem long and hard. Indeed, during this Goethe workshop there was no lack of bad news, particularly as expressed by participants from the camp of the reductionistic sciences.
The biologist Ruth Hubbard from Cambridge turned her back on her conservative colleagues a long time ago. In the eighties she and like-minded people set up the » Council for Responsible Genetics«, and later she published the book Exploding the Gene Myth. In contrast to the sixties, the retired professor at Harvard University explained, many scientists today unabashedly pursue commercial interests. This leads to registering of trademarks and patenting of single genes or »new« cloned organisms. Ruth Hubbard related that Jeremy Rifkin recently filed a patent on a » human - animal hybrid » as a form of protest against the possession of nature. In doing so, the further patenting of this specific type is at least put to rest for the duration of the patent; the next seventeen years are thereby »secured«. It is absolutely not their intention to utilize the patent. Ruth Hubbard and her organization have recently launched a petition against the patenting of life which will be filed in Washington, D.C.
These accounts circulated at the conference one day after the media news reported that genetic engineered BT corn threatens the Monarch butterfly, the largest and most loved butterfly in the United States. This news story was among the first anti-genetic engineering- news reports to alert the Americans. In contrast to Europe, where steps are routinely taken to prevent the introduction and distribution of genetically modified food products, the critical consciousness in the U.S. concerning genetic engineering is still in its infancy. Ruth Hubbard offered an explanation about why, in her opinion, the American consumers are so hesitant to deal with this problematic issue threatening land and population.
» We Americans do not have a historical consciousness. We erased all history that existed prior to the founding of the United States, when we began to settle the country. Our historical consciousness actually begins with the Industrial Revolution. Nobody is giving a thought to the question where we might be three hundred years from now, because nobody bothers to ask where we were three hundred years ago. We will not achieve true historical consciousness as long as we ignore the old cultures that populated North- and South America. To do so would make us more aware of the problems related to genetic technology and the patenting of life.«
Qualitative Genes
If we could only abandon our detached subject-object-position, then our withdrawal from nature, which leads us to mistreat and destroy it, could be avoided. This subject-object detachment causes us, among other things, to construct mathematical models like the double helix, and then even announce them to be reality. The physicist and Waldorf teacher, Stephen Edelglass, from Spring Valley, New York, decidedly favors a science built upon phenomena rather than one relying on abstract models. Craig Holdrege, director of the Nature Institute and likewise Waldorf teacher, emphasized in his contribution the need for a qualitative science in contrast to one merely aligned toward measurability. Both presentations were attempts to put Henri Bortoft’s challenge for a new form of seeing into more concrete terms.
It became apparent, however, that modern science can no longer be understood solely as a pure, quantitative science. Craig Holdrege invited criticism when he, in his contribution » Genes and Life: the Need for qualitative Understanding«, mentioned the genetic comparison between the chimpanzee and the human being. Scientists had discovered that quantitatively only 1.5 percent of the human genes are different from those of the chimpanzee. The reductionistic conclusion would be that merely these 1.5 percent need to be examined to find the key to what elevates the human being above the chimpanzee. A science of quantities makes it that simple, summarized Craig Holdrege, in his example.
Charles Sing of the University of Michigan, which supports genetic research with millions of dollars per year, countered by saying that this scenario is no longer the prime problem of geneticists. The 1.5 percent of the genetic make-up that distinguishes us from the chimpanzee are not that remarkable. Recent studies reveal that actually as much as ten percent of their DNA between two people is different. Furthermore, in comparing two individuals, it was found, that the length of the DNA and the proportions of the components of the same gene were entirely different. The result of such discoveries leads one to realize the importance of introducing into genetics the concept of quality.
From Bacon to Goethe
During all of the three days it was noticeable how urgent the participants felt the need is for science to change its direction. Everyone waits and hopes for it to come about. The question is, are there enough indications for change? Or, is there rather the hovering hope for an unexpected event to happen comparable to the fall of the Berlin wall?
Towards the end of the extraordinary gathering, Henri Bortoft, who puts great emphasis on the historical context of natural science, advanced an interesting comparison between Francis Bacon and Goethe. It took nearly two hundred years for the ideas of Francis Bacon, father of scientific reductionism and originator of the motto » Knowledge is Power », to be ultimately applied by the practical scientific community. In the case of Goethe, exactly two hundred years of »incubation time« has elapsed.
Henri Bortoft concluded, »In the 19 th century, Bacon was the hero of a new science. It takes an average of one hundred-fifty to two hundred years before a new scientific impulse bears fruit and is accepted.« Another participant intoned, »Let us finally bring to earth the wonderful ideas of Goethe!« (Published in »Biodynamics«, September/October, 1999)
Related Literature:
Henri Bortoft, The wholeness of nature - Goethe’s way toward a science of conscious participation in nature, Lindisfarne Press, New York 1996.
Stephen Edelglass et al., The marriage of sense and thought - imaginative participation in science, Lindisfarne Press, New York 1997.
Craig Holdrege, Genetics and the manipulation of life: the forgotten factor of context, Lindisfarne Press, New York 1996.
Ruth Hubbard, Exploding the gene myth, Beacon Press 1997.
Wes Jackson, Becoming native to this place, Counterpoint, Washington D.C. 1996.
Arthur Zajonc, Catching the light - the entwined history of light and mind, Bantam Books, New York 1993. Two of the papers presented at the Goethe workshop are published in the Research Bulletin of the Waldorf Education Research Institute, June 1999, Vol. IV, Sunbridge College, Spring Valley, New York: Craig Holdrege: Genes and life - the need for qualitative understanding; and Will Brinton: Ecology - coming into being versus eco-data: a goetheanistic view. This review was first published in the German anthroposophical magazine Info3, 7-8/1999 and translated from the German by Heinz Grotzke. Judith Krischik is co-editor of Info3, Frankfurt. Since 1998 she lives as freelance writer in Maine.
|
