The Spirit in Human Evolution - Waldorf Research Institute

careers being made from the discovery of a few bone fragments, the temptations to poor
Third World nations where the fossils are found are profit from well-funded scientific
research and the tourism that follows. The other side of the coin is that scientists should
respond to the genuine need for knowledge as their motivation for research rather than
seeing the work as steps up the career ladder. If pure science, just as art should also be,
were recognized as an essential part of a healthy society, then scientists (and artists)
would be properly funded, and this would reduce their dependence on the masters who
pay them.
Another Way?
If the alternatives available to us consist only of the conventional scientific method
or the apparent relativity of personal subjective experience, then pessimism would be
in order. If each individual, scientist, politician or humble citizen, is thrown back either
on his or her own subjective basis for meaning in his life or submissive acceptance of a
reductionist world view of selfish genes and packets of energy devoid of meaning, what
can be done?
My practical concern as a teacher is how to explain human evolution to the next
generation in such a way that they have the possibility to, put frankly, do something about
it! Out of the qualities they can develop in themselves through the struggle to understand
human nature, I hope they can gain sufficient motivation to tackle the problems inherent
in the current world view, the one that has of necessity lead to a separation of nature,
culture and life. I freely admit that my conscious purpose is dialectical. I want to open
eyes to human potential. I want to facilitate, in however modest a way, the emancipation
of that potential.
My experience tells me that this human potential that is borne in the younger
generation (and perhaps in the hearts of a few oldies too) bears within it much good for
the world. That is the significance of this search for meaning. I want the rising generation
to do better than we have done. I recently read a report in the local newspaper of a
study which revealed that most young people aged sixteen to twenty have little faith in
politicians or politics and are mostly concerned with their own satisfaction and having
enough money. One could hardly describe them as a generation of revolutionaries and
certainly no match for the ’68ers! Yet well over sixty percent of those youngsters trust
that Amnesty International and Greenpeace are doing the right thing. 2 That gives me
hope. These young people may be self-preoccupied, that is understandable, but they also
want good to occur. They still, however, need to realize that only they can do it. Leaving
it to Greenpeace and Amnesty is at best a mild form of passive resistance. Life demands
a rather more self-active, though still pacifist engagement.
My argument is that in order to have a basis for doing good, we must have a
comprehensive understanding of the world and the nature of the human being. How
we arrive at this understanding is a question of the appropriate methods of acquiring
knowledge. My belief is that a path of knowledge that takes account not only of physical,
material nature but also of the spiritual dimension is more likely to lead to a meaningful
relationship to the world, one which may be able to reintegrate the two worlds that have
become separated. But what does “doing good” mean?
_________________________
2
Neue Westflische, July 22,1999, printed an Associated Press story of a report commissioned by
the Hamburg newspaper Die Woche.
42