Wholeness
.jpg)
.jpg)
One can speak of a wholeness (Greek: ὅλον holon) insofar as the irreducible unity of the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts and also includes the lawful structural and, if necessary, also functional relationship of the parts to each other.
Holism
Aristotle in his philosophical clarity, was one of the first to point out this supersummativity, which reveals itself to be an integrated way of thinking known today as Holism:
„That which is composed of constituent parts in such a way that it forms a unified whole is not like a heap, but like a syllable, which is obviously more than merely the sum of its constituent parts. A syllable is not the sum of its sounds: ba is not the same as b plus a, and flesh is not the same as fire plus earth.“
The term "Holism" was first used by Jan Christiaan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. Smuts writes about it in the preface:
„This factor, called Holism in the sequel, underlies the synthetic tendency in the universe, and is the principle which makes for the origin and progress of wholes in the universe. An attempt is made to show that this whole-making or holistic tendency is fundamental in nature, that it has a well-marked ascertainable character, and that Evolution is nothing but the gradual development and stratification of progressive series of wholes, stretching from the inorganic beginnings to the highest levels of spiritual creation.“
Approaches to a holistic world view, however, can be found much earlier in Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Aristotle (see above).
Holism versus reductionism in the modern natural sciences
Today, holism assumes that the individual elements into which a system is divided, which is understood as a "wholeness" or "gestalt" (German), are completely determined by the internal structural relationships. Holism is thus diametrically opposed to the reductionism predominant in the natural sciences today. The main argument against reductionism is the phenomenon of "emergence", i.e. the incomplete explicability of the whole from the parts. However, the physicist Hans-Peter Dürr has emphatically emphasised that the world is ultimately to be regarded as a whole, even from a physical point of view:
„Thus, according to the new view, what is separate (for example, through the idea of isolated atoms) is not at the beginning of reality, but rather approximate separation is the possible result of a formation of structure, namely: generation of unconnectedness through extinction in the intermediate area (Dürr 1992). The relationships between parts of a whole thus do not only arise secondarily as an interaction of what was originally isolated, but are an expression of a primary identity of everything. A relational structure thus arises not only through communication, a mutual exchange of signals, reinforced by resonance, but also, to a certain extent, through communion, through identification....
The holistic features of reality, as expressed in the new fundamental structure of matter, offer here the decisive prerequisite for ensuring that the features of the living that are essential for us are not thereby mutilated into mechanistic functions.“ (Lit.: Dürr 1997)
Even individual subordinate parts form structural and functional wholes in their own right again, which are to be given special attention. Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) coined the term holon (from Greek: ὅλος hólos and ὀν on "that which is part of a whole") for this. Thus, for example, the cells of a living being form relative wholes, to which the organs are superordinated, which in turn are integrated into the more comprehensive wholeness of the organism. This creates a hierarchically ordered system of holons, a so-called Holarchy.
The fact that the world is ultimately to be regarded as a totality, even from a physical point of view, has been emphatically emphasised by the physicist Hans-Peter Dürr.
„Thus, according to the new view, what is separate (for example, through the idea of isolated atoms) is not at the beginning of reality, but rather an approximate separation as the possible result of a formation of structure, namely: generation of nonconnectedness through extinction in the intermediate area (Dürr 1992). The relationships between parts of a whole thus do not only arise secondarily as an interaction of what was originally isolated, but are an expression of a primary identity of everything. A relational structure thus arises not only through communication, a mutual exchange of signals, reinforced by resonance, but also, to a certain extent, through communion, through identification....
The holistic features of reality, as expressed in the new fundamental structure of matter, offer here the decisive prerequisite for ensuring that the features of the living that are essential for us are not thereby mutilated into mechanistic functions.“ (Lit.: Dürr 1997)
This statement corresponds to the concept of modern quantum theory. The chemist Hans Primas therefore emphasised:
„If we consider quantum mechanics to be a good theory of matter, then the statement "Matter is built up of elementary building blocks" is scientifically wrong. What is decisive is not the fact that the chemists' atoms are further divisible - that would be a trivial matter of nomenclature - but that material reality is a whole that is not built up of parts at all.“ (Lit.: Primas, p. 50)
Modern Goetheanism
A higher form of wholeness exists when the parts are images of the whole in a specific processed refined way. This is when the overall structure, as the mutual relationship of all parts, is reflected in them, usually in a characteristically metamorphosed form. For example, the human organism is more than the sum of its organs and in each individual organ the whole human being is reflected, or resonates in such a specific way that this is not always easy to instantly grasp. Goethe, on whose scientific studies, as received by Rudolf Steiner, modern Goethanism is based, wrote about this:
„Every living thing is not an individual, but a majority; even in so far as it appears to us as an individual, it nevertheless remains an assembly of living independent beings, which in idea, in disposition, are alike, but in appearance can become alike or similar, dissimilar or unalike. Originally these beings are already partly connected, and thus, partly they find and unite. They divide and seek each other again, and thus effect an infinite production in every way and in all directions.
The more imperfect the creature, the more these parts are like or similar to each other, and the more they resemble the whole. The more perfect the creature becomes, the more dissimilar the parts become to each other. In the former instance, the whole is more or less like the parts; in the latter, the whole is dissimilar to the parts. The more similar the parts are to each other, the less subordinate they are to each other. The subordination of the parts points to a more perfect creature.“
The further dissection of elementary wholes is, as Goethe already emphasised, quite legitimate for research purposes, but the wholeness of the living system is lost in the process.
„We consider the organic body insofar as its parts still have form, designate a certain definite purpose and stand in relation to other parts. Anything that destroys the form of the part, that divides the muscle into muscle fibres, that dissolves the bone into jelly, is not applied by us. Not as if we did not want to know and appreciate that further dissection, but because, even as we pursue our expressed final purpose, we see before us a great and unlimited day's labour.“
The whole world, the whole cosmos, was originally conceived as a whole; but if it had stayed that way alone, the parts, in turn, could have never themselves become independent and matured into independent wholes. In order to give man, in particular, the space to develop his own individuality, the primordial wholeness of the cosmos had to be broken up to a certain extent, and this necessary work was undertaken by the adversary powers.
„Until the 13th and 14th centuries, no great importance was attached to dissecting and composing a whole from its individual parts in human thinking. That only came later. The master builder built much more from the idea of the whole and subdivided it into parts than he would have put together a building from parts. Assembling from parts actually only came later in human civilisation. And this led to the fact that people began to think of everything as being composed of the smallest parts. This is where the atomistic theory in physics came from. That is solely propagated through education. Our great scholars would not speak so much of these tiny little caricatures of demons - for they are caricatures of demons - of atoms, had it not been for people through their education of becoming so accustomed to putting everything together from fragmented parts. That is how atomism came about. We criticise atomism today; but actually the criticisms are quite superfluous, because people cannot easily get away from how they have been accustomed to thinking wrongly for four or five centuries: instead of thinking from the whole into its parts, they think from the parts into the whole.“ (Lit.:GA 311, p. 84f)
Evolution as a holistic process
Rudolf Steiner consistently builds on the preliminary work that Goethe did with his metamorphosis theory. Goethe assumed that an ideal archetype works in every living being, which he called type. This Type forms an archetypal wholeness out of which the manifold individually formed single beings emerge. The type common to all plants is the primordial plant (German: Urpflanze), the type active in animals is the primordial animal (German: Urtier).
„What does Goethe understand by this type? He has spoken clearly and unequivocally about it. He says he felt the necessity: "to establish a type by which all mammals could be tested for agreement and difference, and as I had previously sought out the primordial plant, so I now strove to find the primordial animal, which ultimately means: the concept, the idea of the animal". And another time with even greater clarity: "But once one has grasped the idea of this type, one will quite understand how impossible it is to set up a single genus as a canon. The individual cannot be a pattern of the whole, and so we must not seek the pattern for all in the individual. The classes, genera, species and individuals behave like the cases to the law: they are contained in it, but they contain it and do not give it." So if Goethe had been asked whether he saw his original form, his type, realised in a certain animal or plant form that existed at some time, he would no doubt have answered with a resounding "No". He would have said: Just like the domestic dog, even the simplest animal organism is only a special case of what I understand by type. We do not find the type at all realised in the external world, but it comes to us as an idea in our inner being when we consider what living beings have in common. Just as the physicist does not make a single case, a random phenomenon, the starting point of his investigations, so the zoologist or botanist may not address a single organism as the original organism. And here is the point at which it must become clear that the newer Darwinism falls far short of Goethe's basic ideas. This scientific trend finds that there are two causes under the influence of which one organic form can transform itself into another: adaptation and the struggle for existence. Adaptation is understood to mean the fact that an organism undergoes a change in its life activity and in its form as a result of influences from the outside world. As a result, it acquires characteristics that its predecessors did not have. In this way a transformation of existing organic forms can take place. The law of the struggle for existence is based on the following considerations. Organic life produces many more germs than there is room on earth for them to nourish and develop. Not all of them can reach full maturity. Every developing organism seeks from its environment the means for its existence. It is inevitable that with the abundance of germs a struggle will arise between the individual beings. And as only a limited number can find a livelihood, it is natural that this will consist of those who prove to be the stronger in the struggle. These will emerge as the victors. But which are the stronger? Without doubt, those with an organisation that proves expedient to procure the means of living. The beings with inexpedient organisation must succumb and die out. Therefore, says Darwinism, there can only be purposeful organisations. The others simply perish in the struggle for existence. On the basis of these two principles, Darwinism explains the origin of species in such a way that organisms transform themselves by adaptation under the influence of the outside world, transplant the new peculiarities thus gained to their descendants, and of the forms transformed in this way, always those are preserved which have assumed the most appropriate form in the process of transformation.
Goethe would undoubtedly not have objected to these two principles. We can prove that he already knew both of them. But he did not consider them sufficient to explain the forms of organic life. To him they were external conditions under the influence of which what he called type takes on special forms and can transform itself in the most manifold ways. But before something transforms, it must first be present. Adaptation and the struggle for existence presuppose the organic, which they influence. Goethe first seeks to gain the necessary prerequisite. His essay "Versuch, die Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu erklären" (Attempt to explain the metamorphosis of plants), published in 1790, pursues the idea of finding an ideal plant form that underlies all plant beings as their archetype. Later he attempted the same for the animal world.“ (Lit.:GA 30, p. 73ff)
„Particularly in the world-view current which, as a newer theory of development, extends from Lamarck, through Lyell and others, to Darwin and the present views of the facts of life, can be seen the importance which the point of view of the seeing consciousness has. This theory of development seeks to represent the ascent of the higher forms of life from the lower. It thus fulfils a task which is in principle justified in itself. But it must proceed in the same way as the human soul proceeds in dream-consciousness with the dream-experiences; it allows the following to emerge from the earlier. In reality, however, the driving forces which conjure up a subsequent dream-image from the earlier one are to be sought in the dreamer and not in the dream-images. Only the waking consciousness is able to feel this. The seeing consciousness can no more be content to seek in a lower form of life the effective forces for the emergence of a higher one than the waking consciousness can be content to allow a subsequent dream to really emerge from a preceding dream without looking at the dreamer. The soul-being experiencing itself in true reality sees the soul-spirit which it finds effective in the present human nature, also already effective in the forms of development which have led to the present human being. It will not anthropomorphically dream the present human being into the natural phenomena; but it will know that the spiritual-mental, which is experienced by the seeing consciousness in the present human being, is effective in all natural events which have led to the human being. It will thus recognise that the spiritual world which becomes manifest to man also contains the origin of the formations of nature which preceded man.“ (Lit.:GA 20, p. 176f)
Seen holistically, every development is based on the interplay of evolution, involution and creation out of nothing.
„Thus we have to consider three things in all becoming: First, the unfolding out of a state that is, as it were, wrapped up; we call this development or evolution. Then what lies in the germ must come into being through the reverse process, wrapping or involution. But these two processes alone do not give progress. Only through the fact that a being is able to absorb influences from outside and to process them into inner experiences can a new thing, a progress, come into being in the world. That is the third thing; it is called creation out of nothing. You are constantly developing what is predisposed in you from before, you are constantly taking up something from your environment which you transform into experiences, and you then carry this into a new embodiment. In all life, the trinity of evolution, involution and creation out of nothing works. In man we have this creation out of nothing in the work of his consciousness. He experiences the processes in his environment and processes them into ideas, thoughts and concepts. Dispositions originate from earlier embodiments, but all progress in life is based on the production of new thoughts and new ideas. The conditions of the environment are "consumed" and the inner experiences lead to new thoughts and ideas. Hence three is the number of life; it is called the number of creation or of activity.“ (Lit.:GA 101, p. 259f)
Literature
- Jan Christiaan Smuts: Holism and Evolution, Macmillan, New York 1926 archive.org
- German: Die holistische Welt, Mit einem Vorwort des Verfassers zur deutschen Ausgabe und einem Geleitwort von Adolf Meyer, herausgegeben und übersetzt von Helmut Minkowski, Metzner, Berlin 1938
- Hans-Peter Dürr (Hrsg.): Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion, Scherz-Verlag, Bern München Wien 1997, S 227ff
- Hans Primas: Umdenken in der Naturwissenschaft in: Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich (1992) 137/l, S. 41-62 (genehmigter Nachdruck aus «GAIA; Ecological Perspectives in Science, Humanities and Economics» (1992) 1, l, 5-15 pdf
- Rudolf Steiner: Vom Menschenrätsel, GA 20 (1984), ISBN 3-7274-0200-8 English: rsarchive.org German: pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org
- Rudolf Steiner: Methodische Grundlagen der Anthroposophie, GA 30 (1989), ISBN 3-7274-0300-4 English: rsarchive.org German: pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org
- Rudolf Steiner: Mythen und Sagen. Okkulte Zeichen und Symbole, GA 101 (1992), ISBN 3-7274-1010-8 English: rsarchive.org German: pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org
- Rudolf Steiner: Die Kunst des Erziehens aus dem Erfassen der Menschenwesenheit, GA 311 (1989), ISBN 3-7274-3110-5 English: rsarchive.org German: pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org
 |
References to the work of Rudolf Steiner follow Rudolf Steiner's Collected Works (CW or GA), Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach/Switzerland, unless otherwise stated.
Email: verlag@steinerverlag.com URL: www.steinerverlag.com. Index to the Complete Works of Rudolf Steiner - Aelzina Books A complete list by Volume Number and a full list of known English translations you may also find at Rudolf Steiner's Collected Works Rudolf Steiner Archive - The largest online collection of Rudolf Steiner's books, lectures and articles in English. Rudolf Steiner Audio - Recorded and Read by Dale Brunsvold steinerbooks.org - Anthroposophic Press Inc. (USA) Rudolf Steiner Handbook - Christian Karl's proven standard work for orientation in Rudolf Steiner's Collected Works for free download as PDF. |
References
- ↑ Goethe-HA Bd. 13, S 56f
- ↑ Goethe: Fragmente zur vergeichenden Anatomie
