75
Goethe as Holistic Scientist
allowing nature to speak because we have placed our faculties at her disposal. Such an enhancement
would perhaps allow us to become, for a moment, that which we study, for example, to experience
vegetative growth or even photosynthesis. Moreover, it allows us to bring the wider picture of relationships and forces in nature to bear on our perception.
To build a bridge between Goethe’s time and our own, I will look at two separate developments.
One is the connection between Goethe and Rudolf Steiner (whose work was the impulse behind
biodynamic agriculture). The other is a twentieth-century scientist, Barbara McClintock, whose
work highlights both attending to nature as in fux and the feeling capacities that the human being
can bring to the scientifc endeavour.
GOETHE, STEINER AND BIODYNAMIC AGRICULTURE
Biodynamics, as a cosmologically informed farming method, is discussed elsewhere in this book; the
purpose of this section is to look at how Goethe informed Steiner’s work. Rudolf Steiner claimed to
have been, from childhood, able to perceive the supersensible world. As he grew up, he was able to discriminate between those perceptions that he could share with others and those that would draw blank
looks. As a student in Vienna, the problems of equating the scientifc theories he was being taught, such
as the wave theory of light, with his own way of perceiving, became a problem; what he was expected to
learn was in direct contradiction to his own perception. Starting from a frm belief that an unprejudiced
examination of phenomena would yield the truth and thus solve these contradictions, Steiner began a
detailed study of light and colour. Professor Karl Julius Schröer, who had already shared his enthusiasm
for Goethe’s poetry with Steiner, was able to see that the ideas this student was developing were close to
those in Goethe’s Theory of Colours, so he drew Steiner’s attention to this text.
Thus began Steiner’s lifelong interest and interpretation of Goethe’s scientifc work, which led
to him being asked to edit Goethe’s scientifc writings for the Deutsche National-Literatur (Steiner,
1978). At that time, Steiner was also reading Schiller and drawing from him the idea of different
stages of consciousness. Together, these ideas suggested to Steiner that the ‘impassable limits’ of
science were only impassable in an ordinary state of consciousness. If other states could be actively
schooled and used with the same rigour, as he believed to be foundational to science, then a science
of nature that included the supersensible could be developed. For Steiner, Goethe was someone who
showed how it would be possible to perceive something of this supersensible realm, not from natural
clairvoyance, but by developing one’s own faculties to understand the nature of physical phenomena. This would mean that the way was open for others to share in his way of seeing, and indeed by
working through Goethe’s method, Steiner was able to ground his own supersensible perceptions as
part of his development.
It is, of course, valid to ask if Goethe saw glimpses of the same world. Some historians, such as
Karl Fink, see in Steiner’s work on Goethe a one-sided or overemphasised view which does not equate
with the bulk of Goethe’s scientifc work (Fink, 1991). Steiner’s work certainly developed Goethe’s
scientifc insights, yet there were already features such as a living richness and a clear divergence
from the mechanistic/reductionistic orthodoxy, plus a new working method. Steiner’s interpretative
work of the scientifc works of Goethe is a key inspiration for contemporary Goethean scientists, such
as Craig Holdrege (2013), Jochen Bockemühl (1985) and Arthur Zajonc (1998). Goethe’s science, in
particular his way of approaching phenomena with the human faculties operating in a disciplined
‘objective’ way – a form of schooled subjectivity – is emphasised repeatedly in the various felds
developed out of Steiner’s spiritual science, which he called anthroposophy, including Waldorf education, anthroposophical medicine and, of course, most relevant here, biodynamic agriculture.
Thus, there is a clear lineage between Goethe and biodynamics through the work of Steiner, but
a lineage should not be necessary. If Goethe is right that the best method of working is drawn from
the phenomena themselves, it should be possible to stumble upon this way of working simply by trying to work with whole plants and one’s full human faculties. In this last section, I want to examine
just such an example.
Goethe as Holistic Scientist
allowing nature to speak because we have placed our faculties at her disposal. Such an enhancement
would perhaps allow us to become, for a moment, that which we study, for example, to experience
vegetative growth or even photosynthesis. Moreover, it allows us to bring the wider picture of relationships and forces in nature to bear on our perception.
To build a bridge between Goethe’s time and our own, I will look at two separate developments.
One is the connection between Goethe and Rudolf Steiner (whose work was the impulse behind
biodynamic agriculture). The other is a twentieth-century scientist, Barbara McClintock, whose
work highlights both attending to nature as in fux and the feeling capacities that the human being
can bring to the scientifc endeavour.
GOETHE, STEINER AND BIODYNAMIC AGRICULTURE
Biodynamics, as a cosmologically informed farming method, is discussed elsewhere in this book; the
purpose of this section is to look at how Goethe informed Steiner’s work. Rudolf Steiner claimed to
have been, from childhood, able to perceive the supersensible world. As he grew up, he was able to discriminate between those perceptions that he could share with others and those that would draw blank
looks. As a student in Vienna, the problems of equating the scientifc theories he was being taught, such
as the wave theory of light, with his own way of perceiving, became a problem; what he was expected to
learn was in direct contradiction to his own perception. Starting from a frm belief that an unprejudiced
examination of phenomena would yield the truth and thus solve these contradictions, Steiner began a
detailed study of light and colour. Professor Karl Julius Schröer, who had already shared his enthusiasm
for Goethe’s poetry with Steiner, was able to see that the ideas this student was developing were close to
those in Goethe’s Theory of Colours, so he drew Steiner’s attention to this text.
Thus began Steiner’s lifelong interest and interpretation of Goethe’s scientifc work, which led
to him being asked to edit Goethe’s scientifc writings for the Deutsche National-Literatur (Steiner,
1978). At that time, Steiner was also reading Schiller and drawing from him the idea of different
stages of consciousness. Together, these ideas suggested to Steiner that the ‘impassable limits’ of
science were only impassable in an ordinary state of consciousness. If other states could be actively
schooled and used with the same rigour, as he believed to be foundational to science, then a science
of nature that included the supersensible could be developed. For Steiner, Goethe was someone who
showed how it would be possible to perceive something of this supersensible realm, not from natural
clairvoyance, but by developing one’s own faculties to understand the nature of physical phenomena. This would mean that the way was open for others to share in his way of seeing, and indeed by
working through Goethe’s method, Steiner was able to ground his own supersensible perceptions as
part of his development.
It is, of course, valid to ask if Goethe saw glimpses of the same world. Some historians, such as
Karl Fink, see in Steiner’s work on Goethe a one-sided or overemphasised view which does not equate
with the bulk of Goethe’s scientifc work (Fink, 1991). Steiner’s work certainly developed Goethe’s
scientifc insights, yet there were already features such as a living richness and a clear divergence
from the mechanistic/reductionistic orthodoxy, plus a new working method. Steiner’s interpretative
work of the scientifc works of Goethe is a key inspiration for contemporary Goethean scientists, such
as Craig Holdrege (2013), Jochen Bockemühl (1985) and Arthur Zajonc (1998). Goethe’s science, in
particular his way of approaching phenomena with the human faculties operating in a disciplined
‘objective’ way – a form of schooled subjectivity – is emphasised repeatedly in the various felds
developed out of Steiner’s spiritual science, which he called anthroposophy, including Waldorf education, anthroposophical medicine and, of course, most relevant here, biodynamic agriculture.
Thus, there is a clear lineage between Goethe and biodynamics through the work of Steiner, but
a lineage should not be necessary. If Goethe is right that the best method of working is drawn from
the phenomena themselves, it should be possible to stumble upon this way of working simply by trying to work with whole plants and one’s full human faculties. In this last section, I want to examine
just such an example.