45. On Théodule Ribot's book, “The Creativity of the Imagination.”

The aim is for the articles in this section of the journal to provide an overview of contemporary cultural life. The fact that this first chapter is much shorter than those that will follow is due to the fact that in the first issue the space had to be devoted primarily to fundamental presentations of our aims and methods. However, it is not unworldly theories and dogmas that are to be cultivated here, but direct life. The spiritual eye should look in all directions to explore the paths of the soul and the world spirit. The science, art, moral and social culture of the present day should be put into the perspective that makes this journal its own. Only such an approach can truly be fruitful in the sense of an understanding of the spiritual laws of the world. — Whoever has something to contribute to such an approach will always have access to this part of our journal. Every short note and every longer exposition in this field will always be welcome. Only the one thing will have to be taken into account: our point of view cannot have opponents in the sense that a dry intellectual insight and a passionate dogmatics have them. For them there is a lesser and a more far-reaching knowledge; but nothing absolutely “true” and “false”. “Error” occurs only when a limited knowledge wants to pass judgment on things that lie outside its field of vision. For the person who sees through the true facts of the matter, it cannot be a matter of a so-called logical refutation, but solely and exclusively a matter of understanding how someone, from his point of view, comes to his judgments; and to show how he should rise from this point of view to a higher one. The point of view that Vedanta wisdom adopts when answering the materialist, for example, is the one adopted in this journal: “Everything is fine with you, my dear brother, since your hypothesis suits you... But... do you have any evidence to support your claim? Have you proven it? If you have not done so, why are you annoyed? Why are you angry with us? You have only a hypothesis without any possibility of proving it; but we give you a method by which you can prove our assertions yourself, if you want to take the trouble. Be a little more tolerant of us.” (See ‘The Secret Philosophy of the Indians.’ By Bramacharin Bodhabhikshu.)

Here, attention should immediately be drawn to contemporary views that are in stark contrast to all actual spiritual knowledge. These views are clearly and sharply presented in a remarkable book that was recently published: “The Creative Power of the Imagination” (published in German: Bonn, Verlag von Emil Strauß, 1902). Its author is the French philosopher Th. Ribot. He is known for his commendable research on “will” and “memory.” What he has to say is characteristic of a certain “scientific” way of thinking in the present day. From the point of view of this way of thinking, he will and must condemn what this journal has set out to cultivate. For him, it can only be: subject of “mystical fantasy.” He discusses this “mystical fantasy” (see pages 152ff. of the book mentioned). He summarizes his judgment as follows: “In its free sweep, in its diversity and richness, mystical fantasy is second to no other fantasy, not even to the aesthetic fantasy, although the latter, according to general opinion, is the type of fantasy par excellence. By the most daring analogies, it has constructed world views almost exclusively from feelings and images, and symbols are the material of its towering buildings... This is how animated abstractions, allegorical beings, successors to the old gods and spirits come into being” (pp. 161-162). Why does Ribot see only creatures of an unbridled imagination in the ideas of the mystic? And why does he not see them in the conceptions of the modern scientist? The reason lies in Ribot's limited outlook. And since Ribot is one of the best and most astute of our modern scientists, his point of view is particularly noteworthy. The outlook of this science knows only experiences that are transmitted through the senses. Therefore, he also wants to form concepts only about these sensual experiences.

Whoever wants to recognize the individual soul life of a person and the general spiritual life that comes into being in this, must approach both with the same impartiality with which a natural scientist approaches the facts that his senses, instruments and calculations show him. The naturalist will – quite rightly – not allow anyone to pass judgment on the laws of animal development who has not familiarized themselves with the methods and research methods of the study of living things. We can only agree wholeheartedly with our greatest naturalist, Ernst Haeckel, when he says to his critics: “Acquire through five years of diligent study of natural science and especially anthropology (especially the anatomy and physiology of the brain!) those indispensable empirical prior knowledge of the fundamental facts that you still lack completely.” — One should say to the opponents of the “unbridled mystical imagination” in the same vein: Surrender to the facts of the soul life without prejudice, do not drown out the language of these facts with prejudices that you have formed and with the belief that you can only find reality where your senses convince you of such. It is only natural that someone who, from the outset, only recognizes the reality of the facts of the senses, should speak of the mystics' explanations as Ribot does. He does not see the facts on which the mystics base their ideas, and they appear to him as a traveler's descriptions of a country must appear to the listener: the traveler says he has seen it, but the listener assumes that the traveler is telling a tall tale. Our natural science, directed purely to the facts of the sense world, has simply disaccustomed thinkers from the observation of facts that are not sense-perceptible. These thinkers should say to themselves: How little appropriate it would be to our entire scientific creed if we were to discuss the facts of physiology without having dealt with them! And then they would have to conclude: Are we not doing exactly the same in the realm of non-sensory experience! We talk about mysticism like a farmer talks about anatomy: that would be the answer they would have to give themselves, according to their scientific conscience. In our time, there is a mood of profound dissatisfaction in the minds that has been created by the described disaccustoming from non-sensory experiences. And at the same time, there is a deep longing for the experiences that can be had on the paths of the soul. More serious and profound personalities feel this. Recent literary phenomena are a clear and eloquent proof of this. In the next issue of our magazine, such phenomena will be discussed in detail at this point. In particular, writings such as Maurice Maeterlinck's 'Buried Temple', Bruno Wille's 'Revelations of the Juniper Tree', Eug. Heinr. Schmitt's 'Gnosis', Wolfgang Kirchbach's 'What Jesus Taught' will be considered here. From these in particular, the two characteristic features of the present time, as described above, emerge for the observer of the times to a special degree. A recently published book by Annie Besant, “ Esoteric Christianity, or the Lesser Mysteries” (German by Mathilde Scholl, published by Griebens Verlag, Leipzig), is intended to shed light on all these endeavors. This book will also be discussed in detail in the next issue. — It should then be followed by a consideration of the results of hypnotic and similar research for the knowledge of spiritual life.