I. “The Innermost of Nature No Created Mind Can Enter”

These words of von Holler are singularly apt to demonstrate on them, how even the “eternal truths” have succumbed to the corroding influence of time. This so often quoted line of the poet has even now numerous admirers who repeat it. The more reason have we to show those who believe in the old wisdom, what progress is being made by the ever-revolutionary criticism.

The “created mind” is the special subject-matter of a special science calling itself “Philosophy.” The meaning of this term has undergone many changes. In the times of the ancient Greeks a philosopher was a general lover of wisdom, whilst nowadays the growth of general culture has proceeded so far as to make people understand that with the general love no great results can be achieved. Whoever seeks wisdom must turn to science, which grows its fruit not in the hazy generality, but in concrete special fields. Philosophy, too, has become a special branch and has a special subject of study which is that of the “created mind.”

To speak precisely: since Kant’s time Philosophy has begun to recognise that its former efforts had been more or less of a youthful dream, and that it must, like all other scientific branches, set before itself a definite aim if it is at all to arrive at some sort of result. Philosophy has since then become gradually modernised and has now finally settled down to a critique of cognition.

The created mind or the mental organ which has been implanted by Nature in the head of man, has always puzzled him as a mystery. The solution of this mystery has been effected by the observation that all things, all natural phenomena are mysterious as long as they are not understood, not investigated. The more intimately man gets acquainted with them, the more they lose their mysterious character. The mind is no exception to this rule. Since Philosophy has consciously, clearly and definitely occupied itself with it, the mysterious unknown has become more known and has acquired quite a different complexion.

Just as the fetishists deify the commonest things – stones and pieces of wood – so has the “created mind,” too, been deified and wrapt in mystery – first by religion and afterwards by Philosophy. What religion used to call belief and supernatural world, was called by Philosophy metaphysics. Still we must acknowledge that the latter had for its laudable object to make of its study a science, – an aim which, indeed, it has finally achieved in a physical manner. Behind its own back there has arisen out of the metaphysical world-wisdom the special science of a modest theory of cognition.

Nevertheless we do not wish to give the philosophers too much credit for that. The mind saw scientific light not merely through philosophical heads; investigators of natural science, too, have at least indirectly, contributed something towards its elucidation. By enlightening the human mind in respect to other subjects science prepared the ground for, and provided the possibility of, an epistemological enlightenment. Before Philosophy could enter the innermost of the mind-function, it had to be shown by the practical achievements of natural science how the mental instrument of man possesses the hitherto doubted faculty of illuminating the innermost of Nature. The physicists do not close their eyes to the fact that there are many unknown worlds. Still some of them have yet to learn that the Unknown, too, is not so totally unknown and mysterious. Even the most unknown world and the most mysterious things are together with the known places and objects of one and the same category, namely, of the universal union of Nature. Owing to the conception of the Universe virtually existing, as a kind of an innate idea, in the human mind, the latter knows a priori that all things, the heavenly bodies included, exist in the Universe and are of universal, common nature. The “created mind” proves no exception to this scientific law.

The old religious world of ideas renders difficult the recognition of the truth that Nature is not only a nominal but an actual monas which has neither above it, nor in it, nor alongside of it anything else, – not an uncreated mind, either. The belief in an uncreated, monstrous, religious mind impedes the conception that the human mind itself has been created and produced by Nature – consequently is her own child towards which she knows no reserve. And yet Nature is reserved, – she never discloses her secrets all at a time or completely. She cannot give herself away entirely because she is inexhaustible in her treasures. Still the created mind, the child of Nature, is a lamp which illuminates not only the outer most, but also the innermost of Nature. In view of the physically endless and inexhaustible and all-embracing Nature such expressions as Innermost and Outermost must be regarded as antiquated conceptions. The same holds true of the term “created mind” insofar as this expression suggests an uncreated great, monstrous, metaphysical spirit which has its seat beyond the clouds.

The “great spirit” of religion is the cause of the disparagement of the human mind of which the poet is guilty when he denies to it the capacity of penetrating into the “Innermost of Nature.” And at the same time the uncreated monstrous spirit is but a fantastical reflex of the naturally produced human mind.

The theory of cognition in its most developed stage is able to prove this proposition up to the hilt. It has shown to us that the created mind derives all its ideas, conceptions and thoughts from the monistic world which science calls the “physical world.” The created mind is the definite child of the world. Good mother Nature gave to it something of her inexhaustibility. Mind is as limitless and inexhaustible in gaining knowledge as Nature is in her readiness to open her breast. The child is only limited by the limitless wealth of its mother’s love, – it cannot exhaust the inexhaustible. The created mind penetrates with its science into the innermost of Nature, – but it cannot penetrate beyond that, not because it is a narrowly limited mind, but because its mother is Infinite-Nature, a natural infinity having nothing besides it.

The wonderful mother gave its child consciousness as an inheritance. The created mind comes into the world with the faculty of becoming conscious that it is the child of its good mother Nature which created for it the ability to form excellent images of all other children of its mother, of all its brothers and sisters. Thus the “created mind” possesses images, ideas, notions of air, water, earth, fire, etc., and at the same time the consciousness that these pictures which it had formed, are each true and adequate images. No doubt, the mind finds by experience that the children of Nature are changeable, that, for instance, water consists of various kinds of Waters of which no drop is absolutely like the other; but that much it has inherited from its mother: to know by its own nature and a priori that water cannot alter its general nature without ceasing to be water and without losing all sense; it therefore knows, so to speak, prophetically that however much things may change, their general nature, their general essence cannot change. The created mind can never know all the possibilities and impossibilities of its uncreated mother; but that water is under all circumstances wet, or that mind, be it even met with beyond the clouds, cannot change its general nature, – this the created mind knows apodictically and of its own innate nature. The created mind, child of nature that it is, possesses the innate faculty of knowing that reason must be rational, that nature must be natural, that water must be liquid and that the uncreated spirit must be a monstrous absurdity.

The above may seem to be a mere assertion without proof. Yet, since every reader carries about with him the proof of these facts in his head, I may be spared the trouble to bring proofs from other quarters. One need only ask his own head whether it does not know prophetically that if there be a reason on the moon that reason may be smaller or greater than that of Peter or Paul, but must, in spite of all possible variations, remain as regards its magnitude and power within certain reasonable limits.

The knowledge of the “created mind,” accumulated in the course of centuries by Philosophy and Science, culminates in the doctrine that this mind is a force, a force of nature, like that of gravitation, like heat, light, electricity, etc., and that alongside of its general nature, it possesses, like all other forces, a special nature of its own which distinguishes it from all other forces and makes it knowable. If we closely examine this special nature of the “created mind,” we find that it possesses an innate, and, if you like, “wonderful” faculty of knowing with perfect sureness and without further inquiries that two mountains must have a valley between them, that a part is smaller than the whole, that circles are not square and that bears are not elephants. This wonderful faculty of the mind deserves every notice, since from it follows the further positive knowledge that the idea of another mind, besides the familiar human mind, – the idea of a mind which is above all known minds, is an extravagant idea, an ideological extravagance.

The created mind has inherited from its mother Nature the faculty, developed by experience, to classify the other creatures of nature, to distinguish and to name them. Thus it distinguishes the beech from the oak, the bears from the elephants; it classifies the world and is convinced that such classification is justified, and true, clear, and distinct. That this classification is subject to development and, consequently, to certain modifications, to limited changes, does not alter, and is no contradiction of, the fact that on the whole the classification made by the human mind is a well-defined, stable and durable one. From this it follows that what is called in New York bread may be called in Paris du pain, that is, bread may change its name, but it always and everywhere remains bread. It may also be of various kinds, forms and tints and be made of various kinds of flour, but these forms cannot alter its essence. The oak may be of different varieties, but it cannot vary beyond the limits of its species. The same with bears: there are large and small, brown and black, but there can be none which drop out of their species entirely.

Such knowledge is supplied to us through the objective research of the “creative mind.”

We refer to these facts in order to make it clear that we are as sure in this respect with regard to the mind as we are with regard to bread, oak or bear. There may be on other planets many minds which we do not know, but on the whole, according to their species they cannot be constituted differently from those “created minds” which we know, without dropping out not only from the name, but also from the conception. The supernatural mind is a fantastic conception.

Just as fantastical is also the conception of Nature by those who speak of a Nature which shuts her innermost against the “ creative mind.” Nature is the Unlimited. Those who grasp this grasp also that with reference to her there can be no question of beginning and end, of the above and below, of the innermost and outermost. All these terms do not refer to Nature in general, which is the absolute, but merely to her parts, to her products, the single things.

With our hands we only grasp the tangible, with our eyes only the visible, etc., but with our conception we grasp the whole Nature, the Universe. With all that our faculty of conception need not be conceited and look down on the senses as on something quite inferior and limited. That faculty, innate in the human head, would as little be able to form a conception without the aid of the senses as would the eye to see, the ears to hear, the hands to touch without the assistance of the mind. Just as the whole depends on the particulars, so all particulars depend on the Nature as a whole.

If we wish to form a concrete picture of Nature and its created mind we must, above all, infuse the latter with the consciousness that it must not raise itself above the mother as it did when it dreamt of a super- and extra-natural mind. A proper conception of the human mind, a conception which thinks of this piece of Nature neither extravagantly, nor disparagingly, but exactly, – such a conception can only be gained if we become possessed of the clear and distinct consciousness of the universality of Nature. Then we perceive that the mysterious character which was ascribed to her, is a fancy. We see then and learn from experience how frankly universal Nature goes about her work. Our mind is her own product. She endowed it with the faculty and mission to gain knowledge of her and of all her phenomena. I say “of all” and use the term in a reasonable and moderate sense of the word, without failing to consider that Nature is inexhaustible in the production of her phenomena, and that the “ created mind,” so far as it is but a piece of Nature, can, in spite of its universality in conceiving, only be a limited creature of Nature.

Do we not possess a sense of touch which feels everything tangible? Maybe, that there is an animal whose feelers are still more delicate than the nerves of the human skin. Have we on that account cause to complain of our limited sense of touch or of the inadequacy of Nature? Perhaps, we should have, if she had not endowed us with a mind which is inventive enough to acquire instruments by whose means we can discover things inaccessible to the most delicate feelers.

In short, whoever considers the results of natural science cannot accuse Nature of a mysterious reservedness, and whoever at the same time takes stock of the results of Philosophy cannot fail to notice that the human mind is called upon to solve all possible problems. But the Impossible has neither sense nor reason and must not therefore form the object of our observation and attention.

What did we say? The Impossible had neither sense nor reason? Are we to postulate reason in something else besides the human head? Are we not, we human beings, the highest ones to possess a mind, reason, understanding, a faculty of cognition? The latter being the special subject of this chapter, we may as well deal with the question now.

Just as the faculty of seeing is connected organically with light and color, or the subjective sense of touch with tangible objects, so also is the created mind connected with the riddle of Nature. Without comprehensible things in the external world there can really be no understanding inside the head. To have missed this interrelation of things was the fault of those backward epistemologists who have such hazy notions of mind and Nature that they seek for a solution beyond the clouds.

The exaggerated disparagement of the mind which is said not to be able to illuminate the innermost of Nature, just as the exaggerated mystification of Nature whose innermost is said to be impenetrable – both arise out of a method of thinking which for thousands of years has, like a natural growth, dominated mankind. This has now changed; the efforts of philosophy have now succeeded at last in making man the master of his way of thinking, – at least in so far as to be able to solve the problems, which are confronting him, with more skill and method.

Philosophy has discovered the art of thinking. That it has thereby occupied itself so much with the all-perfect Being, with the conception of God, with the “Substance” of Spinoza, with the “thing in itself” of Kant, and with the “Absolute” of Hegel, has its good reason in the fact that the sober conception of the Universe as of the All-One with nothing above or outside or alongside of it, is the first postulate of a skilled and consistent mode of thinking, which knows both of itself and of all possible and impossible objects that they all belong to one eternal and limitless union which is called by us Cosmos, Nature and Universe.

We think to have proved thereby that a higher mind than the human one is not possible. My mind and thine are limited minds because they are only parts and fragments of the human mind in general. The minds of men are connected with one another, one supplements the other, one learns from the other, and this connection forms the progressive, developing process of the mind of the species. “On the tree of mankind blossoms sprout and throng upon blossoms.” How high that tree may grow yet, we do not know; but that it will not grow right into heaven – that we know a priori, positively, apodictically.

We, therefore, on the one hand, assert, we do not know what is possible for Nature to accomplish. She may yet in the long run bring out wonderful things such as no imagination could ever have dreamt of. And yet we assert, on the other hand, that we know apodictically what is impossible.

How, then, does it stand with this contradictory knowledge of the Possible and Impossible?

Quite simply; our undoubted knowledge of the impossibility of a supernatural, uncreated mind rests on the critique of reason which is also called by another name: theory of cognition. This branch of study has selected as its special object of inquiry the empirical mind and has found out that the mind possesses the undoubted conviction of the universality of Nature, that the consciousness of unity, infinity and immensity is innate in it, at least as a predisposition.

The parson was already convinced that his divine omnipotence can do nothing bad. Why should we not be convinced that the natural omnipotence, the creator of the human reason, can not have created anything irrational, illogical? There is, of course, enough irrationality in Nature, that is, enough which is comparatively or secondarily irrational. But of such irrationality as would completely and absolutely overstep the boundaries of its kind, we cannot even conceive, – Nature simply does not permit it to our faculty of thinking. She has endowed our mind with the conviction that she cannot be irrational and illogical to such an extent.

The omnipotent Nature has created Reason and implanted in it the consciousness that her omnipotence is a rational force which cannot be so illogical as to create minds or beings which are still more omnipotent than the natural omnipotence. It is a law of natural logic and logical nature that everything must remain within the natural species, that though species and varieties may change, yet not so extravagantly as to outgrow the general species, the natural. There can, therefore, be no mind which should penetrate so , deeply into the innermost of Nature as to be able to clasp her and pocket her, as it were.

Is this certainty, given to us by Nature, wonderful? Is it inexplicable that the thinking fragment of Nature should possess from its mother the conviction that the omnipotence of Nature is a rational omnipotence? Would it not have been more inexplicable if the child of its mother were compelled to think that the latter is omnipotent and omnipresent in an irrational sense?

Yes, Nature is in every respect wonderful whether we contemplate her in a superficial manner or penetrate into her innermost recesses. But withal, her natural wonderfulness is explicable. Still more wonderful, however, are the people who dream of an intellect wonderful beyond all measure, in comparison with which the wonderfulness of Nature would be trivial.