Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words

["McIntyre, Mike S." <***>]

Translations by Walter Lowrie, from Religion of a Scientist:

[p. 133]
Has nature or the world a soul? -- that means, To the totality of that
which we see and apprehend, the whole system of bodies revolving about
one another, greening and blooming and carrying the creatures and their
history, does there correspond a unified Being which only to itself is
apparent, just as to the totality of that which we apprehend in man, the
whole system of circulation, veins and bones, there corresponds such a
being?  Such a Being is no more to be known by telescopes, deep dril-
lings in the earth, measurements and all the mathematics in the world,
than is the corresponding being in us to be known by microscopes, scal-
pels, chemical analysis and mathematics.

...

[p. 150 ff.]
The ~common~ view is reluctant to think that such a dry object as the
earth, in which no trace of free choice is apparent, might be animated
by soul.  ~Natural science~, delving deeper, sees the earth as a purely
astronomical, geological, meteorological, physical object, finding in it
no more hint of a soul than a place for its exercise.  ~Materialism~,
standing upon the shoulders of natural science and raging against heav-
en, finds in anatomical and physiological facts the strictist proof
against a soul of the earth; for in its view the soul is merely a prod-
uct of the nervous system.  ~Idealism~, flying like the eagle towards
the sun and beholding the earth with its tail, raises ideal difficulties
from the point of view of the ideas of independence, autonomy, freedom,
individuality, personality, etc.  ~Theology~, claiming to be officially
guaranteed in the possession of heaven itself, does not find the anima-
tion of the stars among the dogmas which affirm its title to possession;
it will not suffer pagan gods to enter this heaven, and would erect no
wall of partition between us and God.

The whole difficulty of the common opinion and of natural science stems
in the last resort from the fact that, instead of regarding the earth as
what it is, namely, as a coherent material system out of which the
totality of its organisms was developed and in which they all are now
united, men conceive it rather as something external to its organisms,
something contrasted with them, as indeed it is not -- neither ~astro-
nomically~, for it revolves around the sun as an indivisible whole, with
all its animals and plants; nor ~geologically~, for the organic kingdoms
have developed in connection with its geological epochs, and their re-
mains lie buried in it; nor ~meteorologically~, for the air of the earth
is at the same time the breath of man, its pressure holds the blood in
his veins and the head of the femur in its socket; nor ~physically~, for
the law of the conservation of living energy in the earth is valid only
when man is taken into account; nor ~teleologically~, for everything
which here has been educed separately, along with all which has not, is
as aptly designed and adapted to the whole as is everything in our lit-
tle body, which in turn fits teleologically into the greater whole.

Have then animals and plants fallen upon the earth, that they may be
regarded as something contrasted with it externally?  Or have men, ani-
mals and plants fallen away from the earth, that they may be regarded
as something separate or separable?  Or is their existence in separation
even so much as thinkable?  Nothing of the sort.  They belong to the in-
ward development of the earth, they are components of an organization of
members which was accomplished in the earth by its own forces, and even
now it is only as such they are capable of enduring.

>From the beginning, as it is even today, a coherent earthly system, in
form self-contained, like the many material systems floating far from
one another in the heavens, has in the course of its initial development
organized, as the substructure of the whole, embracing the whole, pene-
trating the whole, comparatively simple partial systems, namely, earth,
water, air, and out of them smaller systems, in form self-confined,
namely, the individual organisms; and following substantially the same
principle, it has out of these composite organisms produced comparatively
simple partial systems, in form self-contained, as substructures of each
whole, embracing and penetrating it, namely, the individual organs, such
as bone, skin, nerves, veins, and smaller yet.  And from the first to
the last step of this process of organization there is visible no dis-
continuity in matter, effect, or aim.

As with organization, so it is with life.  The great periods of days and
years, while they regulate the life of the whole earth, regulate there-
with in the most general way the life also of all its organisms, in
sleeping and waking, in activity and rest.

The leaves and flowers of a plant are attached outwardly to the stem;
the flesh and nerves of an animal are attached outwardly to the bones;
both the vegetable and animal kingdoms as a whole are in turn attached
outwardly to the ground.  But leaves and flowers and stems are connected
materially, actively and purposefully with the plant, and only inwardly
do they stand in contrast to the plant as a whole.  Finally, animals and
and plants are connected with the whole earth; they too stand only in-
wardly in contrast, in so far as one can ~conceptually~ contrast the
parts with a whole.

The stem on which the flower sits is designed more simply than the
flower; the trunk to which the stems are attached is designed more sim-
ply than the stem; the soil upon which all the trunks sit, and which
furnishes support to all bony systems, is designed more simply than
wood or bone; it is not wood and bone over again, yet it is so designed
that wood and bone can find in it their rest and support, constituting
with it a purposeful connected whole.

All this is not metaphorical, is not an hypothesis: it is a simple and
literal statement of how things are.  The relation of the members to a
human body as a whole does not recur here exactly in the same way -- how
much indeed there is in this which runs counter to the comparison! --
rather the argument proceeds from one case to the other by broadening
and exalting.

...

[p. 155 ff.]
For is not the earth in its form and content, like our bodies, and like
the bodies also of all animals and plants, a unified system, a system
relatively closed, like our bodies but not exactly similar? is it not a
system which, though it is subjected to stimulus and determining influ-
ences from without, determines itself and develops from within, engen-
dering inexhaustible variety? although in certain aspects physically
determined, does it not on other sides produce incalculable effects out
of its own fullness and creative power, and comprize in itself relation-
ships of predominance, coordination and subordination? is it not a being
which in the continuous course of its development gives evidence of ebb
and flow and a falling and rising of activity?

With respect to all these signs by which a body resembles a soul, signs
which our own body has and loses [in death], the earth stands not below
its men, animals and plants but far above them, but it presents these
signs in an inexpressibly broader and more exalted degree.

Now here, as is the case with plants, since it is true also in the case
of men, all these signs do not signify the presence of an actual soul
really awake, but only a disposition for such a thing, the essential
prerequisites for a soul awake and active.  However, the signs of wak-
ening and being awake wherewith the argument still has to be filled, and
with this the symbol of the soul made full and real, we have in the case
of the earth more directly than in the case of the plants, for the fact
that the earthly creatures are awake and intelligent.  For since a man
cannot be said to be sleeping when eyes and ears are awake, neither can
this be said of the earth when thousands upon thousands of eyes and ears
are awake in it.  In the case of the plant we could infer this wakeful-
ness only by analogy, but in the case of the earth we have a part in it,
an immediate awareness of it.  We lack nothing but an immediate experi-
ence of the inclusion of all this wakefulness, all the content of souls,
in a unity corresponding to that in which we feel all our soul life
concluded.  This experience we cannot have, nor ought we to require
it, for this conclusion is away above ours; the whole soul of the earth
must be ours if in us we were to have its unified conclusion, whereas
in fact, like a small circle within the greater, we comprize only a part
of its content.  But what is experienced, what is visible, we must re-
gard as a sign of the invisible.



-----Original Message-----
From: John Kineman [mailto:***
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:35 AM
To: ***
Subject: Re: MR as ontological, Fechner


Let me add a caveat on panpsychism. I mentioned it only to not throw it
out automatically; I do not profess panpsychism as such. It has much
historical bagage we would dispose of. My actual statement was pointing
out the inconsistency of condemning panpsychism, while necessarily
considering psyche and while having a scientific ethic that seeks
generality. So, my position would be that we should be open without
criticism to explore the generality of the psyche. I would not,
therefore, assume that everything involves psyche, but would explore
that hypothesis.