In the natural sciences as well as in the social sciences and philosophy, the greatest importance is attached to objectivity. Only that which can be perceived with the senses - be it directly or thanks to sophisticated instruments - is considered objective and is investigated scientifically. In natural science, this already imposes certain limits. When you apply natural science to the human body, questions arise that have to do with ethics. However, in the natural science of man there is still a high degree of precision and objectivity, because the body of man can undoubtedly be sensory. However, when you leave this field of science and enter the field of social sciences and philosophy, you enter a field where the ground under your feet is not as firm as in the natural sciences.
Also in the social sciences and in philosophy the requirement of objectivity applies. Data must be observable objectively. Through hypothesis formation and experimentation, scientific results are then achieved. In the 20th century an important shift has taken place from the inner of man to the outer appearance.
If in the 19th century people still had a certain confidence in the objectivity of human thought, in the 20th century this confidence has shifted entirely to a confidence that is based solely on what can be perceived with the senses. This means that human thoughts can no longer belong to the scientific field; they are not perceptible with the senses, they are perceptible only to the one who has these thoughts. They become perceptible to the senses only when they are pronounced.
In the twentieth century a 'linguistic turning point' took place, in which the social sciences and philosophy shifted their field of research from that which is possibly still within man, to that which becomes objectively perceptible on the outside. That is the spoken word.
An animal is conscious and acts out of instinct. What an animal perceives is instinctively converted into action. Man also has a part of that. Beyond that is the human capacity to bring sensations into representations, to connect those representations with each other, the capacity to arrive at insight on the basis of representations and concepts.
In the book 'I do what I want' I have tried to describe how in man, through all layers of his activities, this insight is born again and again in him.
When you, as a human being, really understand something, see something, then you are in the area where everything that happens has to do with you, with the workings of your own self, with your individuality. It is the most hidden thing in man, but for man himself the clearest. Because it is so hidden, it cannot appear in the objective world of sensory perception, except in certain workings, when someone tries to put this insight into words. But the insight itself, as an inner understanding, cannot be objectified. Therefore, according to the norms of modern science, it belongs to the realm of absolute subjectivity, and is not accessible to scientific research.
As a human being you might very well be at peace with this, were it not for the fact that the laws of the scientific method have so much power that they also penetrate into personal life. We live in a time in which the impressions we receive with the senses are overwhelming. The whole sensory life is based on sensory impressions. Thinking and understanding is becoming less and less experienceable, hidden deep within the human being. The stronger the power of sensory perception, the weaker the perception for that inner life of thought, which ultimately leads to insight.
The first loss is that a person doesn "t know anymore that he can come to the insight. He still acquires his insights, still lives as an understanding being, but does not notice this anymore. Science draws a big line under that conclusion.
The danger threatens, that this no longer noticing yourself as an understanding being in the not too distant future will lead to a loss of the understanding itself. After all, everything that is not practiced will eventually atrophy and disappear. That is so in the body, but that is also the case in the psychic functions.
What would that mean if man would lose his ability to understand? That would mean that all knowledge would have to be presented as knowledge from outside. Man will still be able to repeat this knowledge, but will no longer be able to come to insightful knowledge. In this way man would not be able to develop the most inner secret of his individual being on earth.
The vision, that man is in fact no more than a robot, would then have been fulfilled. With the disappearance of the capacity for insight, the capacity to act also disappears from insight. An animal does not act out of insight, but out of instinct. You could imagine, that you would be a human race could be given in which the specific human instinct is a quantity of programmed knowledge, which acts as a motive for the action. Then mankind would be a collection of robot slaves, which could be programmed by certain bodies in terms of their actions, but also in terms of their feelings and thoughts.
Who those bodies should be, that could be the subject of a next article. This article is about showing the importance to the world and to mankind, which is in immediate connection with that inner capacity of man to arrive at pure thinking, free from all violence of sensory perception, free from all violence of the media, social media and even education. The strengthening of the self-conscious coming to inner insight should be as strongly developed as the sensation with the senses itself is and still is growing.
Human freedom is at stake. Freedom must be something that finds its source in the inner being of man. That is why freedom will never be objectifiable. This is a torment for modern science.
The powerful development of pure thinking, which leads to independent individual insight and which on that basis also leads to finding free actions out of insight, is the content of Mieke Mosmuller's work.
In the practice of the workgroups and the seminars, attempts are made to strengthen this process of pure thinking, the coming to insight and the self-conscious insight therein, through inner practice, in such a way that you can no longer lose sight of that inner process. In this way it becomes an objectively perceptible event for the human being himself. When more and more people learn to take care of, cultivate and strengthen this inner stream in such a way that it becomes more powerful and remains perceptible, then man's freedom is saved.
And where would love be when freedom is buried under the power of sensory violence? How could a robotic, well-programmed human being come up with anything else but to follow what the media command? If he would no longer be able to penetrate himself with his own insight? When the whole life of man's action, of his decisiveness, is guided by 'what one thinks is true, true and right'?
To save the downfall of thought is also to save freedom, but also to preserve the very highest quality that man has and that can be found in no other natural being: That is love.