My thoughts to these concepts were developed in Sorrent, Italy, while I was tracing Nieztsche's steps during his 1876/77 Italian sojourn, trying to imagine what it was like for him to write his "Menschliches Allzumenschliches" there, and his discussions with Paul Rée, Albert Brenner and Malwida von Meysenburg ("Nietzsche habe ich niemals so lebhaft gesehen. Er lachte vor lauter Freude."(1) – This quotation expresses that Nietzsche was observed as having been more lively than ever, laughing with joy). Sorrent was also the place where he met Wagner for the last time. Sitting on a rock above the sea at the gulf of Naples, with a view at Mount Vesuvius which is always crowned by some clouds, following the boats that commute between Capri and Ischia with one's eyes, it was not hard to evoke in oneself the feeling of happiness that seems to beckon many Germans to search for it in Italy.

It is a well-known fact that the ancients had a different concept of the Sacred or Numinous than we do today, a concept which they separated from their concept of the profane and by which they understood a particular area or realm that was dedicated to the Divine; the separating empirical process accords a different area or realm to the facscination by transcendental experiences that lies outside of the profane, while after the so-called "turn of our times" – and to this points, particularly in the German language, the close relationship of the concepts "Heil" (salvation, state of wellness) and "Heilig" (sacred, holy) – reflection was forced to combine both of these concepts within and as existing within the inner realm. Ever since, at the center of the divine lies less the experience of one's feeling exposed respectively subjected to or fascinated by uncontrollable powers, the inexplicable activities of which it was paramount to influence, but rather one's trust in salvation that the Godhead may be able to provide to man - this, however, pre-supposes one's ability to realize that mankind is in a state of non-salvation. This reversal was what turned the "turn of our times" into it: ancient man basically went out from his perpetual existence in a state of wholeness or salvation, temporary interruptions of which it was important to overcome. In the state of the change of leadership with respect of the brain's transfer capability from understanding to reason, which brought forth Christianity as well as Buddhism, man basically found himself in a state of non-salvation, out of which only the Godhead could save him. This points towards the fact that obviously, in the various categories of receptive capabilities that even today still exist next to each other, there also prevail in these categories concepts and expectations of salvation that are essentially very different from each other. Only superfically are the concepts of salvation, of healing (as the activity that is aiming towards salvation) and the concept of a "whole" or "complete" world (with the emphasis lying on the concept in its form as adjective and its connotations) the same. With a view towards the common use of these concepts in the various stages of development of understanding and reason, only the basic concepts are identical: healing aims at the achievement of a state of "wholeness" or "salvation", which is ovbiously seen as non-existent or as not yet existent. In this context, the statement that the definition of this state of "wholeness" or "salvation" is directly dependent on individual conditioning and the individual neuronal networks in different human brains as a result of that, appears rather trivial, for it is obvious that, depending on whether an individual is centered in emotion, understanding or reason, he/she will come to quite different concepts of what this "salvation" or "wholeness" will be comprised of or by what factors it will be disturbed.

It is less trivial to ask what, in each concrete individual type of centering in a human being, will lead to the respective expectations or concepts of "wholeness" or "salvation". While it is true that in all cases of healing, a system which has left its appropriate state of order is supposed to be led back into it – yet have we said anything essential by that? Yes and no; Yes, for obviously, all human beings go out from the concept that there ought to exist a kind of "predestined order" (of things), out of which one is supposed to have been removed or fallen due to whaever reasons (as for example, in the concept of the "original sin"); no since we do not have an answer that applies to all individual stages of development in humans with respect to the centering of their receptive capabilities (in their brains) as to what this "order" is comprised of, as to how it could be created respectively re-created (if it should have existed, in the first place). This not-knowing or state of ignorance is already applicable to physicians when they go about their "business of healing" in the purely physical sector – how much more does this have to apply to the realm of concepts and their categoriality, particularly with respect to the numinous? Thus certainly see all humans perpetually striving for their "salvation" – most of the time, they refer to it as their "happiness" – but this striving itself is the only thing which is common to all of them(2). The point of departure, the state of non-salvation, which they feel themselves exposed or subjected to as well as the goal, with which this state is strived to be ocercome, are basically different (in each case). Consequently, the first question to be raised has to be this: Is man actually and basically caught in a state of non-salvation – or is this just due to his imagnation? In case that one can, actually, perceive a state of non-salvation, (the question to be raised should be): how and out of what order did man fall or was he removed, what is or would be his state of salvation?(3)

This is the point at which one should raise the question as to the objective conditions of human existence, and that, in comparison to man's fellow creatures, for these are, obviously,not forced in the same manner, to live in a state of non-salvation, for they do not strive in the same way as man does towards the fulfillment of some expectations; rather do all of them keep within the parameters of their own species and the necessities that these parameters entail. With respect to man, on the other hand, this means that, from an objective point-of-view, a species obviously does not find itself, yet, in a state of salvation as long as it has not yet been achieved that its order is harmoniously incorporated into the systems it is surrounded by in a pacifying and satisfying manner, which means that it has not been determined, yet, by and with these other systems. However, it is man in particular who, as carrier of the vital stream of evolution by means of his intellect (in the cultural evolution) can be described as the "nichtfestgestellte Tier" (Nietzsche – this translates to "non-determined animal"); what should be expected due to this is that, on the basis of his openness towards his continuing further development, man cannot find himself in a state of salvation.

However, does this also hold true for the individual as this may hold true for the species, or is not, rather, the former already determined by the concrete development of his qualities in his particular environment? The answer to this has to be two-fold: the status of determination will have to be presupposed whenever a particular invidual, as he is found as a product of ontogenesis and phylogenesis, must and can be satisfied with the values that he had been conditioned with and handed down to him; the pre-determined course of his life then follows a tension that is determined by himself (it does not matter whether this occurs conciously or unconsciously): from a point of departure in immanence towards a goal that also reaches immanence and the striving for and reaching of which is conditioned by emotion and ratio.

Here, salvation is basically seen as something that can be reached in immanence – and this is nothing else than the continuation of the "animalistic concept of salvation" and an individual determination. Non-determined and thus, at first, in a state of non-salvation is only that individual (and, due to individuals who are conditioned in this way, the species itself – and thus, if one broadens the spectrum of this thought, not only the species, but all of life and all anorganic elements, as far as these are at the disposal of this species and its state of non-determination...), who can, due to the factors of pre-conditioning and environment that work in him, not be satisfied with tradition and its conditionings – thus he will become the "guinea pig of evolution".

Obviously, a simple and clear answer that describes the conditions of salvation for the individual as well as for the species, is not possible from the objective viewpoint of the various developmental constellations of the neural network in different individuals, between emotion, understanding and reason; yet, most human beings follow a fixed path of life within a traditional, established set of values (here, it does not matter as to whether this occurs due to conscious conditioning or rather unintentional, whether it occurs under the leadership of emotion or of 'ratio'), due to which they, objectively, move within a closed system, the paths and aims of which are basically accessible to rational evaluation. As far as they thus perceive themselves in a state of non-salvation, this could only be the case due to a misconception or due to the incorrect classification of given facts. However, this misconception is only all too easily supported by the fact – which, at the same time, allows the evasion of actually necessary consequences that arise out of these misconceptions –, that the entire species finds itself, after all, in the (cultural) evolution and appears to be, due to its "progress", breaking the chains of the subjective framework of conditioning and orientation, and that nowadays at an accellerated pace.

At the same time, the uninhibited process of scientific innovation, which is also to be considered part of this cultural evolution of man as his exhaustion of his potential which lies in his 'ratio', leads to clashes with the systems it is surrounded by, the effects of which trigger a similar kind of fear as did the earthquake of Lisbon in the past: beyond all individual viewpoints that are caused by different developmental stages of the receptive capabilities in humans and the different neural networking due to this, onto man is forced an awareness of the fact that 'ratio' is not in a position to create the best of all worlds and to thereby bring about salvation. This double backlash of the cultural evolution onto all existing and determined possibilities of neural network setups in the human brain brings forth a kind of indirect state of non-salvation, for the ordinary human being would, after all, argue as follows: "For myself, within my own framework, everything would be quite in order, if there were only not certain circumstances that I am not in a position to influence and which always tend to mess up my plans respectively force upon me a certain fear of the future!" Contrary to this, that other kind of "non-salvation" due to "selbstverschuldeter Unmuendigkeit" (to speak here with Kant, which would mean "self-inflicted immaturity") would have to be described as unactual state of non-salvation: the actually "determined" ordinary human being, who is guided by either emotion, understanding or reason, would certainly be in a position to "find happiness", if there would not be added a certain subjective state of dissatisfaction, which arises out of his incorrect handling of his own emotions respectively of his 'ratio'. A lack of self-knowledge leads to the fact that one, in relation to one's own inclinations, develops the wrong kind of goals to aim for (and, if these are not reached, one is "unhappy"), respectively one misjudges one's own capability of realizing these goals in a pre-determined environment.

The predominance of emotion (over all other or higher capabilities) in most humans will subsequently lead them to conclude that they have been deprived of something that they were entitled to, whereas, in reality, their own expectations have created their feelings of deprivation (or non-salvation), in the first place. Hence, if everyone in this position (and that is also the basic premise of Freudian psychoanalysis – and it is only this far as it reaches) were able to recognize and to accept himself within the parameters he has set for himself, he would, indeed, be in a position to attain the salvation he was striving for. This "satisfied" type of human being exists, therefore, in more or less pleasant varieties: from a harmonious aesthetic sense of balance in an individual to that individual who, in his self-righteousness, is proud of his "possession" of ethical principles. In any event, it is a prerequisite that one can balance one's own emotional and rational "household" (here, it does not matter as to whether this work is accomplished in a state of complete awareness of it) and to subsequently opt for attainable goals that are based on a realistic assessment of one's own capabilities and of their chance of being realized. However, since these conditions rarely coincide, the majority of humans will, at least with respect to one aspect of these conditions, always feel dissatisfied, so that, with this, their state of non-salvation, could, on the one hand, be described as an "un-actual" one, and on the other hand, as an only "conditionally" genuine one.

Even still the "exceptionally ethical individual": by this is referred to the more rare idealist who, under the guidance of reason, believes in the "good" and in its realization, and who wants to accomplish it – let us show some exaples here of such individuals onto whom and onto their positions of which we can 'fix' this concept: also Kant and Hegel could be counted as such individuals who, out of the emerging products of reason expected the ideal state or government to ultimately emerge and with this, they expected mankind to be determined "in the best sense", or those rare true communists (in which case one has to consider that marxism is actually only a version of Hegelianism), their model or ideal of which has been discarded as impractical today, or even those "ethical movers and shakers" (as, for example, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt), who seek salvation in the plain rationality of the "better" and with it in the "lesser evi", they do not even aim for the "best", anymore (and, seen from this viewpoint, one could even consider them as the "managers of non-salvation") – in any case, that type of ethical human being whose phylogenetic "zenith" would have to be found in the beginning of renaissance; he, too, considers man's salvation as something that can be achieved.

Hoewever, the disturbances are not found externally, but rather in a kind of immaturity of the average human being which ought to be overcome and which is conceived possible through education – to this would have to be added the entire enlightenment (as in Helvetius or Rosseau). This type considers himself as already "on the better side", as an enlightened being who can lead the rest of mankind and show them who still remain in the darkness of non-salvation "the right path" and, subjectively, this type even finds himself in a "sacred position", as long as he can, on the one hand, refrain from being affected by the effects of the cultural evolution of mankind (however, who can still do so today? what kind of reason could still maintain its good conscience in the face of the interdependent effects of the technical revolution, of the environmental changes and of their effects on man?), and, on the other hand, as long as he is not forced to become aware of every actual progressing of the evolution of man's inner self, which has already progressed for beyond this type – even if only, for the time being, by means of dissolving reflection. Therefore, this is actually a situation of non-actual salvation for whoever has progessed thus far as an ethical person, of him will be required another choice than the good conscience of a reason that rests on itself.

Consciously and actually in a state of non-salvation and thus there where he belongs is alone he who recognizes the immanence and conditioning of normal existence including its concepts of salvation up to and including the most ethical individual that is conceivable and who wants to choose himself: for the only thing that he wants to reach and express with all his striving and with his entire life, exacly that he cannot attain, at least not out of and by himself.

How did man, however, come to find himself in his state of non-salvation? Naturally, due to his mind, for no animal species exists for itself and directly in a state of non-salvation. Without the capability of one's imagining a "better" situation than the one one is actually experiencing, the determination of one's state of non-salvation would not be imaginable, at all.

With this is also experessed – and which is a result of the comparison – that for this, phylogenetically, at least, the developmental stage of the receptive capability of reason myst have been reached, as, in this, a comparative reflection is a pre-requisite (which comparative capability had again its effect on the category of the receptive capability of understanding). Further, the answers to this question have to be different, depending on whether they refer to a "non-actual state of non-salvation" which is based on a misconception with respect to the actual pre-requisites of one's own salvation, or whether they refer to the other, "irrevocable state of non-salvation" which mankind appears to have been inflicted with, but how?

All possibilities of "non-actual states of non-salvation" can be derived from a (false) dualism – of emotion and ratio respectively from the way of functioing of ratio itself. Many misoncpetions are based on ratio's mode of functioning since our ratio, in order to perceive and handle outside impressions, is forced to determine and summarize processes that are in a state of flux, to arrive at a correct evaluation of one's own situation. As an example may serve here a large group of superstitious individuals: this type which is very prevalent even today, due to insuffieient enlightenment, accords to ratio the effect of influences on his existence that can not have anything to do with it. Erroneous concepts thus lead to a state of delusion of dependencies, possibilities of negative effects on one's emotion are being subjectivised so that one can deal with them in this way.

The functional dualism which is, as such, at first, a "given" in the interaction and interconnectedness of emotion and ratio, with regard to which, however, everything depends on not "feeling" here an immediate "side-by-side and against-each-other" but rather a combining of the emergence and the respective "equivalent" with each other – this functional duality, "per se ipsum" contains two different possibilities of perception of reality, and with this also of the supposition of a state of non-salvation

– once in such a manner, that approached and perceived by the wrong center so that matters that pertain to ratio are dealtwith by emotion and vice versa;

– and, on the other hand, in such a manner that one, while one is "sorting" external effects correctly with respect to their manner of impact, but that one attributes a wrong value to these effects due to one's own conditioning.

While, in the first case, understanding works incorrectly and thus lead its carrier into wrong dependencies, it connects correctly in the second case between cause and effect, but the evaluating "sorting" which arises out of the individually prevalent conditioning, "goes wrong". If one could conceive of all these sources for errors to be non-existent, "saved" or "whole" man would (in the event that he, due to his pre-conditioning, can and does not have to move beyond tradition) be quite imaginable. The way things are, however, these sources for errors and their conditions in individuals allow for as many differences and misconcpetions(4) ("opinions"), as there are cernels of sand at a sea-shore. This raises a difficult question: why does the "mind" in humans "function" so unsatisfacorily that their ratio cannot remove the sources for these errors, even though that would be ratio's noblest task? At first one comes upon an unsatisfactory answer to this: this may be due to the fact that, for the human species and its individual representatives, their ability to exist is paramount and not (or not mainly?) the development and ideal functioning of their "ratio", and this ability to exist has to, first and foremost, concentrate on dealing and coping with external influences, and only secondarily on dealing with and mastering of "internal" matters. From an "evolutionary" viewpoint, this answer might even be satisfactory, since, for the entirety of a species, it is less important how it copes with existence than that it copes with it. Insofar, there does not lie any evolutionary pressure on the rational coming to terms with inner matters, rather, it is more of a coincidental event. For this coming-to-terms is only one of may means with which humans are able to keep themselves able and willing to exist. What is at work here, just as much, as this "rationally coming to terms with internal matters", are social forces and possibilities for individual escaping (i.e. in form of inhibitions and even the above-noted erroneous ways of attempting to cope: effects that are experienced as being of a misfortunate nature possibly may not have to be recognized as erroneous, rather, from an evolutionary viewpoint, it is sufficient that one copes with these in some manner. To express it differently: nature provides to every individual according to how much or how little this individual is capable of recognizing his/her state of non-salvation, the means to "cope" with it, even if this "coming to terms" is not necessarily being accomplished by means of one's ratio.

All real states of non-salvation can be derived from the fact of awareness as such: that man has a mind – and that again in a two-fold manner: first, functionally out of the connectedness of this awareness with the outside, as, by the elimination of the above-mentioned erroneous behavior patterns of emotion and ratio, this outside must appear to the awareness, second, existentially out of the necessity of a subjective evaluation scale with which the lively inner self has to prove itself against the outside.

What concept of this awareness would allow for the conclusion of the existence of an irrevocable state of non-salvation? Even though an awareness that has reached double-reflection in its lively inner self cannot be shattered by any outside effects in any way, it has to, nevertheless, pay attention that and how these external events that stand opposite to its inner self, produces "meaning" by and for itself as well as for the entire species. Without an unprejudiced teleology of the existing that has to consiously remain hypothetical, in parciular, without an evalution of the teleology of the "human", as it has been lieved out up to its individual expression in such an awareness, one would, without any need for it, cut oneself loose from the connectedness of existence. For, if all humans are, ultimately, in the same state of non-salvation, then the external path of the many should, even if this would be diffcult to discern, make visible a "part of salvation" for which one is striving, oneself.

What catches the eyes immedately here, towards the levels of existence, as they were already established prior to man's arrival, thus toward nature, is the joy, nay, admiration on man's part for it, in which is expressed both his awareness of his difference to these levels as well as his longing for salvation: from days of old, man has admired the well-ordered structure of creation; however, at least since the development of his capability of reception of reason, he no longer sees himself included in that harmony. What is the basis for this view of creation which even up to our days is capable of finding expression in emotional enthusiam? In reality, behind the euphemism of the well-ordered structure of creation lies the fact that all that eixsts at these levels has been and is determined: all creation that existed "before man" is inevitably bound to "laws"(5) that stand "above" these levels of existence; contrary to this "being bound to", man's awareness experiences itself as a "free" state – and in this freedom lies his salvation as well as his non-savlation: while he is put "above" all levels of existence that already prevailed before him, he sees himself as their "master"; in his "free actions" towards those levels of existence, however, he himself triggers effects that result for him in such a state of non-salvation, such turbulence, and such a degree of being at the mercy of these effects, that he yearns for himself, too, for the "well-ordered structure of creation" (see, for example, the "noble beasts" of Rousseau). Therefore, to this awareness, the "external" appears different than all pre-existing "forms of awareness"; it experiences in itself the non-determined status of its own species, which "incompleteness" of the species must, "per se ipsum", appear as a non-esitence of "wholeness" – wherever, however, "wholeness" is absent, there necessarily exists non-salvation. Both the path of the many (in their "non-actual state of non-salvation": where the species per se aims at the nearby and quickly attainable "utility" (in a confusion of that "utility" with Salvation), the individual aims at achieving salvation based on and going out from his own self). In doing so, it retroactively also serves the community which, in turn, in its unconscious striving towards salvation, is capable of producing side-effects that can by far surpass the immediately aimed-for "utility" (positively as well as negatively). Both paths ultimately run parallel and influence each other, predominantly with respect to the selective function of the community towards the value of the self-supporting and self-sustaining striving of the individual with respect to its originality and supportability for the purpose of the incorporation of this contribution into its tradition.

The "inner self" of man, since the reception of reason, can be interpreted as a further fixation of ratio: the human mind which is subject to the turbulences of external events that it cannot influence (these turbulences are a necessary consequence of the working side-by-side and against-each-other of categorically different systems which, as a whole, compriese "nature") fixes itself by creating and inner world that is independent of the outer world. This, however, does not occur in order "to achieve something (particular)", rather, this new inner imaginary world of reason should be a necessary consequence, a "neuronal reaction", the vertical establisment of its network of which non-determined man (thus man at the top level of phylogenesis) responds to the surplus of information that emerged out of the hitherto activities of understanding. With the development of the receptive capability of reason as a new vertical memory and awareness "platform", man integrates, on the basis of purely external exalizations and now, in this receptive phase of reason, he fills the interior with an entirely new content and entirely new values which now ought to comprise man's "self" in order to find a firm "opposite pole" to withstand external turbulences. Even from an evolutionary viewpoint, such individuals had an advantage over the "old man": with their new internal awareness, they could more fimly withstand external influences and they could "see" external matters better, as well, due to their capability of abstract comparison. With this, mans' "self" took a leap from the purely "feeling" (emotional) self-awareness to the rational self in those individuals who were independently capable of doing so, to the rational self that now finds itself in a conglomerate of ideals and concepts of itself. Thus he who sees the essence, the purpose and the path of his existence in ideas and concepts of himself, has brought forth the first aspect of the inner self. As much as this progressive development of the non-determined human capability "mind", at first, allows for an improved insight of and stabilization against the external, as much, on the other hand, does it increase the state of non-salvation, even more, as soon as the reflection of these ideas of the self about it increases: for the ideas that have, at first, been gained in a process of abstraction, exercise an idealistic pressure on man who beholds them, for him to express this, his ideal, in reality completely and to also completely find it therein. The impossibility of such a demand in the face of a comparably "pre-categorical" environment in which things do not happen according to ideal precepts, but rather in which the hitherto existing categorical levels clash with each other in a real-chaotic confrontation, has man, due to his functional ability to compare and the resulting demand of ideality, move into a state of non-salvation. Contrary to this, "old" man basically and according to his possibiliteis, sees himself in a state of salvation; for the latter, everything depends on "only" putting himself into a position of being able to "come to terms" with higher powers, i.e. the Gods: The perils that he does experience, he attributes to the will of those Gods or to his self-inflicted "cult" or "sacrificial" mistakes; this, however, acording to the "old" standards, can be remedied and the basic state of salvation can be restored.

This "better inner self" that brought about the development of the "new" man in the reception of the ethical ideals, now also influenced the real existence of man, this new and different evaluation that arose out of this self, which also concluded the age of antiquity, pushed man towards transcendence in a new manner, forced a clash and confrontation with traditional religion due to the functional change in "ratio": the "fall" of the ancient God images is inevitable, since the essence of transcendence cannot exist in contradiction to the "truth" that can be perceived by ratio at this (new) level. This holds true as much for the ancient Greek Olympus as for the Jahwe of the Old Testament, both are not at the same level with this reason, so that the former God had to perish while the latter became the focal point of the Christian high religion in the "New Covenant". Gods, respectively now "the one God" must, on the basis of the reception of reason, necessarily be conceived greater and better than man in every respect; the "foil" of the divine is now the ethical man, so that this has to be considered the "Pure Incarnation" of all human ideals. In this, monotheism is the consequent equivalent of the completed and implemented reception of reason: the ability to choose between "comparables" forces the concept of the "only true" (i.e. with Plato). Due to this is, thus, the change in the outlook of the "beyond" in the high forms of religion: the "beyond" that was either not seen (as in the Old Testament) or received as an "unbroken continuum" (Egypt) is transformed into a process respectively situation of salvation in the beyond, the core of which is, from a rational viewpoint, the incarnation of the "ethical", from an existential viewpoint, however, the "focal point" of the sacred/numinous. These new forms of high religion, in which the change of the world view has found its vivid expression, are characterized by the fact that the cult ceremonies that were the responsibility of the community have been replaced by the individual'(s) love of God. This shall lead us directly to the next aspect:

The "trinity" and sequence of these concepts finds its equivalent in the "trinity" of the categories: in the experiences of lust, joy and love (the expression of which is best reflected by the word "bliss") as an inner movement that is connected with the experience of "warmth" up to "heat", the agreement and confirmation by humans is expressed. While, in ordinary langauge use, these terms are often confused, which demonstrates how humans, amongst each other and within themselves, gravitate to and fro, between the categories; here, these terms shall be defined as they belong to each category: esthetics and lust, ethics and joy, transcendence and love/bliss. Esthetic/emotional man has a very "direct" standard of his state of salvation: if his "emotional potentiometer", which in its fixation towards external impulses in conncetion with a more or less large number of intellectual peripheral values reacts with a pleasant or lustful sensation, his state of salvation is present; however, if an emotional stream finds itself in a neutral or even in a negative state, there arises in it the urge to do everything in respecively towards the external in order to escape this state.

Thus, to the purely esthetic type, sleep is a "reasonable" means to escape from times of troubling emotions or from boredom. Therefore, non-salvation in this category can rightfully be considered a mistake, which, from a phylogenetic viewpoint, exactly corresponds with "cult/sacrificial mistakes" in religious practice at those times in the past when the human capability of understanding represented the highest phylogenetic level: here, too, the restoration of the state of salvation was achieved by the corresponding and adequate worship and service of the Gods. The basis of both is the same type of reaching conclusions by means of unreflected understanding; the emotional reaction (lust) is still direct and unbroken, is without awareness of its own conditioning – thus, this non-actual inner self of understanding can always only assume the cause of lust, un-lust, salvation and non-salvation, to lie in the external that is surrounding it, which ought to be sought out respectively escaped from, for here, one does not recognize the reason for (one's) concern in a positive or a negative sense; rather, one only feels the fact of one's being concerned to which there must exist a reason outside of the emotional "self". A further indication of this condition is, that in this category, salvation can always only be found in the present. Religious or ehtical values can only disturb or delight this type in a social, retro-active manner. His actual state of salvation is not affected by this in reality, for it, in the directness of the emotional reaction, responds thus to a real and momentarily prevailing motivation; here, ethical as well as religious values are only conditioned retroactively.

With the reception and reflection of reason, man moves into another state of non-salvation, for, from this vantage point, he defines his salvation quite differently than he would on the basis of understanding, and with this also changes the inner content of the epxerience. It is now up to ratio in form of comaparing reason to recognize an event as belonging to proper reception- respectively belonging to the ideal reflection. The agreement respective rejection no longer happens subconsciously, but rather does it emanate from the individual as an individual who is aware of his self-constitution as an individual. This internal activity of ratio both in the choice of motive (where, in understnaing, the motivation works "per se impsum" or not) as well as in the evaluation proves to be different from emotional experiencing, the activity of rational recongition (realization) as well as the eperienced connection with the ideal are responded to with self-conscious joy. Not the least share or part in this may have the fact that the individual attributes this as its own accomplishment to its own ego, which, in turn, raises its "self-awareness and confidence", the concept of which still contains quite a different value than the merely functional alone. The non-fulfillment of values that are considered important triggers a sense of iniquity; this state of non-salvation in reason is insofar not an actual one as there will always arise for the rationalist and for the ethical individual opportunities to existentially express, at least in the partial realization of that which is "right" or in fulfilling ideals that relate to a certain time and to a certain person(6), respecively also partial realizations of the state of salvation, be it in a process or realization or as consequent upholding of an ideal. In both cases, a reaction will come about in a joyful manner which is the newly created evaluation criterium of ratio – in the first event as joy of ratio with itself, in the seond event as existential joy, insofar as here, an at least partial "leadership takeover" of reason towards the ideal must have taken place. With this, the individual is at least temporarily able to lift himself above the situation of a state of realized non-salvation, holds on to his ideal (the "right" respectively the "true humanity") as "actual", considers it at least in theory, realizable – if it was only not always brought back down to the level of iniquity by an enviroment that, according to his opinion, is not yet "as far as he is". Therefore, also the "pathos of action" of all ethical individuals which aims at the establishment of the "right" respectively "ideal" real world (and which pathos does not always have to appear as negative as the hollowness and vanity in the "superior" behavior of some politicians). This joy of reason is always joy about itself, with its own self, be it with respect to his ability of realization as such (the pride of ratio), be it in the self-elevation of ratio as existential idealism (ethical anthropocentrism as joy over one's onw species and its possibilities and potential).

The reflection of this ethical point-of-view and the realization of its actual emptiness forced those individuals who were capable of attaining this level (of reflection) at the phylogentic top, beyond it, into double-reflection respectively in "one loop" into connection with transcendence; this, naturally, at first, in a counter-movement against traditional religions (the Olympus of the ancient Greeks, the traditional Jewish "work religion") which, in their encrustation and "ethical elevation of the religious" as the truly living and divine, had to be considered as harmful to them (and which led some cynics as well as sophists to rejecting religion entirely – see the parallel to this in enlightenment). In a two-fold movement, on the one hand, ancient Greek philosophy from a rational viewpoint (the receiving and reflecting part), and, on the other hand, the lively content of religious inner spirituality was realized by Christianity, these movements ushered in the development of western civilitzation. Buddha accmomplished the same task he was faced with in one movement; due to this, in Buddhism, the conceived separation from traditional Hindu religion become less apaprent (as, for example, the unfortunate "re-incarnation" is upheld), and in his teachings are mixed essential rational, ethical and speculative elements with the truly religious. For Plato and for Jesus, the transcendental "one-ness" (God-head) had to become the central value and the path to this love), for, along with the concentration of all ideas by ratio respectively the lively realization of the One God, the emotions that are scattered in the ethetic realm, have to be purified and concentrated. Love is the passion that has been elevated to the uppermost level, concentrated in one focal point, cleansed of all external influences: the pathos of the inner self, in which alone the basic human state of non-salvation can be eliminated in unification in that the individual – ratio does not know how – only experiences his holeness, his salvation, in it. Below the level of transcendence, this kind of unconditional love is always wrong, be it in an unconditional position towards an intellectual value, be it in the love between man and woman, or be it as idealism; since, behind this, even if sub-consciously, is hiding the self-love of the individual, either related directly to the self or, in a wrong kind of "sublimation or elevation", related to one's own species – and that connected with the reaction of lust or joy that is directed towards the self. With these emotional conditionings, which are taken (over) out of the tradition of eomotion and ratio, pre-individual evaluation criteria are accepted as the basis of "confirming experiences", which limit individuality to such a great extent that it can actually be "felt". While on gains subjective focal points for existence one can, however, not recongize their illusory nature; rather, one remains indirectly linked to the sate of non-salvation of the species. By, so-to-say, "cheating one's way" out of the state of non-salvation by lulling oneself into a state of false security by these limittions, the question as to a possible existence in a state of non-salvation does not even arise. When non-salvation, however, knocks at one's door in spite of all limitations and in spite of all societal "security measures", the individual concerned is thrown into despair: a relationship that was considered as unconditional falls apart – and with it often the Ego of such an individual who considered himself to be safe in such an "unconditional" relationship – the newspapers are full of such break-ups...

Someone might perhaps say that it is therfore important that one gain more security by active double-reflection in order to shield oneself against or from the ever-treatening state of non-salvation? This, too, would again be nothing else but a typical conclusion of ratio, which hopes to secure itself by the elimination of all conceivable dangerous situations – and thus is a sign of one's being trapped in the category of reason. Even that would still be an attempt of protecting oneself, of attaining security there, where everything would depend on one's allowing oneself to break free by "letting go". A true position can only be achieved though the realization of love/loving realization: it does not attempt to forcibly cut off onenness (the state of non-determination) in order to move in an illusory state of security, in moving "back" to a so-called "system of order" of reason, rather, in the concentration of the individual on one focal point, it accepts everything that was, is and shall be, what is behind, beneath, besides and above the individual, in calm agreement. This is the love to the one out of which, after all, everything that exists, comes forth – and that which exists is nothing else but "revelations" of formerly non-existing on the part of this one; and this is also the one half of one's own existence, the other half of which is that openness which is the basis of all future "revelation", towards which one has to behave existentially, and only towards this new, transcendent that still lies in the dark may, no must, be directed the unconditional essence of love. To exist as and in openness, towards this must be directed the emphasis in double-reflection respectively in relation to transcendence, if realization of this situation shall not be a merely rational one in the medium of phantasy which otherwise remains satisfied with the prevailing earthly conditions. For the necessity of this tension towards opnenness here two testimonials that are capable of expressing this tention: Hoelderlin's "Nur einen Sommer gebt, ihr Parzen" as well as Nietzsche's "auf eine Sekunde den Uebermenschen erreichen" – both do not want to express anything but that this tension towards the transcendental is realizaed and accepted in facing this openness with one's entire being in order to wrest free some piece of darkness from it in order to bring something new to light. Acceptance and expression of this tension towards openness is only one part, the other part is unification itself, the finding of a true connection towards the numinous and the forming and closing of this connection with transcendence in immanence. For these two positions towards and in salvation respecively non-salvation are not identical; the first could be considered the transcendence of reason in double-reflection, the second the realization and unifying finding of the connection to trascendence by simultaneously moving beyond reason, in which the objective and subjective salvation of the individual coincide...

This movement is confirmed to us by the religious founders Jesus and Buddha themselves, but also by an Ekkehart, whereby the latter is closer to us for our today's path towards this, insofar as his "break-through" towards the numinous is accompanied by self-reflection to a far greater extent, and is also capable of cutting loose from the mythical imagery of the statement with respect to the inner self. For this reason he can serve us as a link to that early and direct mode of break-through as well as an indication of the fact that it is a mistake to not only dissolve those images by means of the reflection of reason but, above all, to sever the ties to transendence itself as this occurred in enlightenment and in idealism and as it still occurs even today: that, with these images, one also discards the only connection and acces to salvation which, as a necessary function of the spiritual existence of man with respect to his vital inner self and its state of non-determination, was hidden behind those images: that we must and want to deal with the openness of human existence. Due to this there has to be re-established for our ratio an awareness of the fact that there exists a question as well as an awareness of the possibility that there could exist the possibility of raising questions that reach beyond the realm of this ratio, the accpetance by means of ratio that it may venture ahead up to the expression of this openness but not beyond it, that it cannot move beyond the highest level of double-reflection and that thus unification is something different – this acceptance would also have the advantage to, so-to-say in passing existentially show our ratio its limitation and to encourage it to more modesty. The highest that man is able to gain for himself in this way is his realization of his state of non-salvation – realization considered here as it has to be considered contrary to knowledge: as existential realization. As long as unification with the eternal cannot happen, man is like that unhappy lover of Kierkeegaard – his unhappiness turns out to be his happiness: he does not flee, he does not search for his happiness elesewhere, no, he must remain at this highest level of unhappiness. That man's love cannot be requited and fulfilled at this level, can be atrrributed to two reasons: either he is not capable of complete surrender and letting go – which would even be demonic in immanence, but which "here" is the "sine qua non": Or, he cannot gain access to the aim of his love out of his own strength – thus a problem of mercy.

How can we understand the essence of mercy without any connection to religion, thus functionally? This may still best be achieved by seeking to understand it from within a religious context, in order to draw conclusions from the image to the existential fact that lies behind it. In Christianity, the "process of mercy" is described more clearly and more in image form than in Buddhism: man is referred to Jesus' role as mediator in whom mercy, as a possibility for the entire species, already exists as God-given when man only has to let go and turn towards it in order to transform this possibility into a true experience through the medium of the Holy Spirit. In this we can also see the essence of trinity; human experience necessarily dissects the unity of God into three "persons" and still keeps the unity intact, since this process of mercy thorugh this trinity is in agreement with facutal experience: the mediation (not out of itself), the medium (beyond space and time) and the goal (the numinous "A and O" (alpha and omega). When the stretched-out, searching finger of Adam finds God's offered hand, the mercy lies in the transformation of this connection from its possibility into reality, and to salvation; this, though, triggers the vital transformation of the individual into the whole, from duality into unity. How could thus this experience of mercy which, in Buddhism, is called enlightenment, be described analogously – or, do also these religious experiences, only refer to misinterpretations as these, in even cruder form, were the underlying basis of the religions of understanding? A misinterpretation that is possibly the necessary result of the "causal" determinative function of our ratio? Must not this consciousness or awareness, as soon as it wants to gain clarity with respect to its changed self after the enlightenment, conclude through this ratio, that something has entred the individual through this experienced enlightenment that was not there before as, for example, in Augustine? It is this transformation of the self that can not be attributed to the self and also not to its ratio that forces this very ratio to incorporate a qualitatively different and higher "opposite", out of which streams, in a different medium than the normal experiential medium, that enlightenment – a similar yet even more comprehensive "reflex" of ratio as one can observe it in oneself in that "inclination" to attribute existential experiences "gratefully to a higher influence", a phenomenon that can even still be found in the area of scientific realization.(7) To express it differently: The humility that is appropriate to this experience characterized as mercy that new "potential" which man has been taken hold of without any concrete doing of his own and which, while it lies within him, it is not known to him in the manner and in the way in which it has been revealed in him, that in him, a "categorical transformation" has taken place in a concentrated thrust forward and upward. A similar movement can be observed in individuals who have the capability for it during the age of 17 to 20 years: for in this age, in the reception of reason, is awakened, that ethical idealism which, in its categorical demands, is a prerogative of youth – and a necessary transitory stage through the categories. This "awakening" is nothing else but the freeing (being set fee) of a new potentiol in a new vertical expansion of the neuronal network in the brain of a human being which is new to the thus changed or transformed individual and which is only not experienced as "that" new of an exprience due to the fact that the ethical is already known to him/her from an environment that is also shaped by the ethical, so that this transformation only appears as a following-through with respect to an already inherent potential.

This transformation of the individual in mercy, away from the neuronal-network ties of the existential inner self to emotion and ratio towards transcendence, in the high forms of religion, is initiated, by imagery, such as, for example, at Pentecost: the "Lord" sends his "Holy Spirit" – i.e. the activity that emanates from an unknown party –, through whom the waiting community – which is comprised of those individuals who have existentially prepared themselves for this reception – will be "filled with spirit", in which is epxressed the existential transformation in the individual. These images are only too easily considered as an experience that cannot be realized in one's own existence in a sub-categorical environment, images that can only hint at the actually inexpressible; rather, they are accpeted as empirical facts that become part of the teachings and in their encrustation turn into dogma respectively even to superstition. Where these images that have been derived from external facts are supposed to re-assure their sub-categorical followers of their salvation, for even their concept of the here-after is, if one looks at it carefully, quite immanent: as, for exmple, in a "taking along" in whatever shape or form of one's own individuality into that hereafter), there these images, in reality, express the realization of the non-wholeness and imperfection and of non-salvation in the here and now which can only be dissolved in a rationally nondefinable, supra-rational-internal herafter for which the entire life in the here and now is a time of learning and preparation. It is Augustine who is successful in transforming this image from the individual level to that of the species: opposite to the immenent "civitas terrena" he sets the "civitas dei" which is the fulfillment of creation. The connection between these two "realms", between the community of the Saints and the individual in immanence, is made by mercy, in the exprience of the possibility of salvation in contact with transcendence. This "salvation" of the species as well as of the individual is not anything that can come about in an immanent future by man's own doing, as all idealists and ideologists tell us, rather is it the always and forever existing possibillty of salvation in the individual contact with the numinous in the presence. This, however, means for the mass which, as such, as multitude, but also caused by its categorical position, does not come into direct contact with the numinous, that it needs the mediation of the true saint – the case of Jesus repsectively of Buddha.

This necessity of mediation and its coupling with "teachings", images for the understanding of the masses, in which salvation and its mediation are expressed, points to a problem that is not only specific to religion. For, if one expands one's view for once onto all of life, then the layered development of plant and animal organisms can be considered a layering

on-top-of-each other of teachings and their genetic adaptation and incorporation into the tradition, as this circumstance has, of course, since the appearance of human awareness, become even more important, since this awareness itself is nothing else but a product of learning and tradition in a process of layered reception and reflection. Then we should, however, still ask: where do the teachings come from? By what act do life as well as man learn, when all species, including the human species, are nothing else than "determined facts of learning"?

The believer, of course, sees his God at work here; one only has to think of creationism, which has become fashionable again in America, and which is certainly only one facet of the fundamentalistic tendencies that can be obsrved globally, in which humans who feel abandoned by rationality and threatened by its effects, want to "remind" themselves of formerly applied teachings. However, what does this "creator" mean to reason, how can the essence of revelation be conceived? For, every new "teaching" thus each new creature in the chain of species as well as every categorical change within the human species, all of this are revelations of something that was not there, before. Every new "teaching", at whatever level of life, is brought forth in form of a single innovative creature. For this purpose, there is available, by means of combinatory genetics (with humans, above all, also an individual "epigenesis" of the neuronal expansion of the network of the brain in combination and interaction with conditionning by tradition) a special and particular equipment which must be realizeable in a special way that is different from tradition. This holds true particularly for the human-mental realm to which the innovative capability of nature (at this time?) has turned in form of the cultural evolution. We do not see "schools of thought" in all intellectual fields, for no reason: in every discipline of natural and human sciences does, at any given time, an entire hierarchy of learners rely on that which has been accomplished to the hightest degree in the respective discipline, the highest degree or maximum of which is always connected to the name of a genial teacher. And even those few extremely great minds of humankind, they made their indenture on tradition with an effectiveness over millenia – and even today in these traditions can be seen the strength and force that emanated from those individuals with which they were able to work in their own time, but also remain in effect until our days, with which strength and force they brought a new "ligth", a new "color" into the intellectual and spiritual substance of humankind.

This very interaction and connection between innovation and tradition can be observed in both the intellectual as well as in the religious sector; in addition to their role as mediators, the main function of each of the three great religious founders Jesus, Buddha and Mohamed is that of teaching, to whose teachings the "believers" flee, to whom they look up as their representative(s), where their own intellectual and spiritual strength does not allow them this insight, so that the "religious gap" (behind which is hiding the non-determined status of the species) is closed by the belief in the teachings of the representative innovator. This dependence of most individuals is not only a fact in the religious sector, no, it prevails in all areas of knowledge and of life – from the emotional conditionings to science to ethics to religions. In this dependence on a teaching, salvation becomes equally indirect as non-salvation is non-actual – which is, in a particular way, represented by the Catholic Church: in its double-substitute-construction – the Pope as representative of Jesus who, in turn, took upon his shoulders the "guilt of this world" as a representative of all individuals – this dependence of the individual is elevated to a principle and possibly written into stone for eternity. The point is not the living faith of the individual and his position before God but the fact that only he who keeps within the boundaries of the official opinion of the Pope is "orthodox", papal opinions and teachings through which alone the connection leads to Jesus and to God. However, anyone who wished to oppose this dogmatism, because he had to revolt against this indictedness of salvation due to the fact that he had experienced salvation as something actual, was persecuted – from Eckehart to Hus and Luther to our days, with, for example, Kueng and Drewermann.

While it is an inevitable realization that such innovative teachings in the religious sector within immanence have been brought forth by "holy" teachers – holy being used here since the concept of "genial" only applies to arts and sciences, for reason itself, while with the concept "holy" is referred to the other quality of such a category-shaking innovation; while it is further correct that man, with respect to his mental capabilities (as the "procedere" in the categories of this mind) is the "nichtfestgestellte Tier" (non-determined animal), then this would mean that also these innovative religious teachers can only be of a finite and temporary nature, which can then also be proven by the development of religion through the categories: from religions of nature to national religions to the high forms of religion. That means, however, that teachers and teachings are temporary historical phenomena, which grasped in anticipation that which was maximally possible in insight to the human mind which thus grows out of these new capabilities, the need for salvation: the longing for wholeness in a teleology which brought and bound together past, present and future.

The difference in the behavior between a Jesus in relation to the martyrs that followed him lets one suspect that the latter were somewhat aiming at this martyrdom and did not actually exist in a real connenction and relationship to transcendence but rather that they, as idealists, put their stakes on their one trump card "faith". Would anything else not also be peculiar? Such a "leap forward" (Jesus) and his "congenial medium" (St. Paul) cannot, all of a sudden, appear as a "generally accessible" phenomenon. Did not these teachings as well as the appealing example of the lives of their inspired adherents, particularly in contast to the lived-out and confused existential position of the antique age rather convince the reason of those martyrs and complete this capability for reason by its own leadership takeover?

This assumption is, above all, supported by the fact that the martyr (similar to, for example, the heroes in Schiller's plays, and even stronger yet in the dramas of Kleist) does not appears as imbued (as, for example, a Jesus with respect to transcendence), but rather fixated – fixated on the teachings as an ideal. Behind the "stubbornness" of martyrdom appears a self-will, the indication of one's relying on oneself, in which the Ego puts its value into the ideal (which is actually opposed to ratio); this ideal wants to become the Ego and hold onto it also against the rest of the world – the exaggeration of this attitude turns into the Kohlhaas-type* (translator's note: this refers to the literary figure of Michael Kohlhaas of Renaissance days in Germany invoked by Heinrich von Kleist, an individual who, feeling wronged by his superiors, takes justice into his own hands. This might have been based on the actual figure of Hans Kohlhase). On the other hand, the real state of being imbued with transcendence does neither know any "opposite" nor any "opposition"!? These considerations are intended to assist us in following the traces of the "real ethical individual", whose possibility of existence appears doubtful – in any case at least insofar as to whether such an ethical existence could be "right", considering the status of reflection that has been reached today. The status of a real ethical individual pre-supposes the emergence of existentiality in reason; in this, his sphere of concern has to ally itself with a certain ideal that has taken shape through time and place, thus outside of himself, in order for it to be transferred into reality. For the "generally good" always remains non-committed and/or emotional, so that a practical-concrete existence cannot be shaped out of it on a daily basis. However, with the selection of a concrete ideal, the ethical is overdrawn and inadequate, since this ideal must lead to a collision with other ideals, whenever it is held onesidedly by a sphere of individual concern (Kohlhaas). Such a "truly ethical" basic attitude thus has to live with this self-contradiction, so that the individual rational concrete realization of the ideal can collide with the "higher ideal", the "generally good" (in reality with the absolute), as well as the various concrete realizations amongst each other. This, however, points to the limitation as well as to the limitedness of the purely ethical perspective.

Functionally, for the ethical individual holds true that he must not only have gone through the receptive phase of the newer, vertical neuronal cycle, which, in the "mixed type" between understanding and reason leads to peripheral intellectual values, but who must also have gone through reflection – and that at least far enough that the sphere of concern and the "value" of his Ego are no longer determined by his emotional center (which will, rather, be taking on a serving function). Further, he must have led his concern over into the rational realm which would have the consequence that the forming of values is now dependent on reason. Ouf of what are values now formed here? The simplest and normal way is that ideals are taken up from tradition – which, however, already pre-supposes the "apriori" existence of such ideals. The modus of the forming of values as welll as their adoption is the rational-vertical comparison at the abstract level. On this "upward path" there occurs a sublimation of the "pleasant-sueful" of emotion to the "only right" of ratio. The determination of this "only right" will always be dependent on how much of facts and perspectives this ratio was able to take in. The thus formed "true" is therefore by no means "absolute" but dependent on knowledge. Since knowledge, however, first of all, can never be "completed", secondly, since the subjective awareness is not equipped to take in all of knowledge, this "only right" will always remain relative – a paradoxical self-contradiction! Would that not be the, so far, only guessed at and, from this position, sought after proof for the objective impossibility of the ethical individual?

On the other hand, the subjective truth of the justification of the existence of the ethical individual lies in the fact that it is obviously "enough" to reflect through the self as it is found and as it has been formed by pre-disposition and enviroment in order to close the vertical position of reason and to lead existentiality into it, in order to create an existentially supportable establishment of the ethical in this new vertical expansion of the neuronal network of the brain. The subjective justification of this type is an inevitable result of the fact that the capability for reflection depends on the individual's pre-disposition and for its actual execution requires the conflict with the environment. Then it is not at the discretion of the individual nor could it even be demanded of the individual as "duty" to even reflect beyond the ethical – if this is to be his point of determination, his "salvation". The basic problem here is again that phylogenesis and ontogenesis do not supplement each other but rather that, within a generation, always the entire substance of phylogenesis is poured out. In this process, the abilities and with it also that of reflection will be spread according to Mendel's law within that generation: the "average" will, by far, outnumber the extreme – and with this also in regard to the passing of the categorical boundary of "ratio", so that the human species consists of 90% phylogenetically "outdated" types respectively of "repetitions". Among these has also still to be counted the truly ethical individual; on the other hand, this "outdatedness" does not undermine a more subjective truth. From a phylogentic viewpoint, thus can be stated the objective impossibility of a truly ethical individual; however, the subjective possibility cannot be denied; for the limited functional development of the neuronal network that is based on pre-disposition will always also again and again bring forth the type who will find the constellation of his existence in precisely this that he, through his lively striving in connection with his knowledge basis, will arive at the existential building of ideals and of existentiality which will become the guiding light of his existence. The path to the ethical individual is, of course, nothing planned or even a rational decision: up to here and no further – rather is this the lively development of an individual's growing into adulthood which, according to pre-disposition, ends with "maturity" which can, neutrally, be considered an observation and negatively as a standstill of development. That reflection, as the conscious interference of reception, is only carried out up to a point and then comes to a standstill and that, at this point, this Ego means to have found itself in a process of effect and countereffect out of the existing environment, out of the development of his/her own neuronal network, out of the basis of his/her knowledge and out of tradition. At this point this important fact has to be stated again: a connection and an effect of mental objects on the lively development of differentiation in functional-physical respects is dependent on knowledge (=Epigenesis). If this knowledge can not be completed on the objective side, it obviously depends on the kind and quality of this knowledge by means of which will be decided as to wether someone will remain at the developmental stage of an ethical person or whether he/she will, in a new receptive phase, move to double-reflection of the Ego/Ego respectively towards transcendence. The decisive factor in this will be as to whether this knowledge is based on learning or on existential realization.

(a) If the modus of the acquisition of knowledge is learning, then this has to be considered as rational and purpose-driven acquisition of tradition from external reality for the purpose of acting in the service of emotion respectively of ratio. In this process, the Ego is a "Non-Ego", as it allows the actual purpose of its action, either unconsciously-emotionally or rationally-ethically, to be driven by external forces. Thus the ethical individual will say that the community is more important than the individual – and he can still not solve the contradition that even the community is still comprised of individuals.

It the acqusition of knowledge occurs by realization, by this acquisition will be achieved an existential adaptation of the inner essence of this knowledge, so that each actual realization triggers, "per se ipsum", an existential movement.

(b) If objective knowledge cannot be completed, but if a unity of the individual in the Ego/Ego should be possible (what would have to be considered the equivalent of the ethical category with respect to mental as well as neuronal considerations), then the knowledge that is acquired in a process of realization will, in a certain manner, have to be limited by and in reflection:

(a) Towards the external, freedom from superstition will be important, which means that the individual must have been able to recognize the natural inter-connectedness of causes in their continuity up to himself, free of contraditions. From this follows that it (the individual), in dealing with science, must find itself in agreement with its results, wihtout there being the need to follow those results in every detail, since this is objectively impossible. Furthermore, the individual must have understood and accepted with his reason the construction of that which exists in its continuity and particularly the internal aspects of this process of growth.

(b) Regarding the internal, the self-concept of man with respect to phylogenetic as well as in ontogenetic considerations, subjectively as well a objectively, is the decisive factor: The functional levels of instinct, emotion, and ratio including their independently developing manifestations as part of tradition, out of which again the individuals have to be conditioned, have to be recognized as such: that these levels form the history and level-oriented development of the individuals as well as of the species.

Next to objective knowledge, therefore, realization as such and man's self-realization are paramount: what conditions individuals in general and this individual in particular, what makes it having arrived at this particular point at which it has arrived, thus not only the human condition as such, but also still that which is differentiated in itself, in a double-sense: that the human condition itself is always subject to change, and that this differentiation in the individual takes place even up to the realizing subject of the Ego/Ego. The subjective reflection, the realization of the individual conditioning, subjectively as well as objectively, and the complete reflection of this conditioning, is a pre-requisite of the ongoing expansion of the neuronal netork (in the human brain), since only in this way can the experience that triggers lively and existential concern be transferred out of the previous regulative centers. Whenever reflection remains imcomplete, the experience is split up between the old and the new center and thus forms the "mixed types". From this also emanates the thinker's inclination towards complenteness, towards a "system", which alone willl allow the closing of reflection and, simultaneously, also the turning over and destruction of the just-created system, as it either erroneously is dircted backward or, correctly, forward in opening new paths, so that directly with and by this closing there begins immediately a new reception which carries in itself the core of dissolution of the just-confirmed closing.

Nach neuen Meeren Dorthin – will ich, und ich traue Mir fortan und meinem Griff. Offen liegt das Meer, ins Blaue Treibt mein Genueser Schiff. Alles glänzt mir neu und neuer, Mittag schläft auf Raum und Zeit – : Nur dein Auge – ungeheuer Blickt mich an, Unendlichkeit! Friedrich Nietzsche

To New Horizons That way – do I want to venture, And from now on, I trust myself and my choice. Open lies the sea, into the blue Drifts my Genoese ship. Everything shines newer and nwer to me, High noon is sleeping in space and time-: Only Thine eye, incomprehensibly, Looks at me, Infinity

Notes:

(1) Janz, Vol. 1, p. 744.

(2) To this, we can already read in no. 42 of ("Deutscher Text").

(3) That also Nietzsche already became aware of the physical and phsychic pre-requisites of "happiness" in a manner that is quite comparable to today's "cognitive sciences", is proven by (was heisst aaO?), First Main Section, No. 1: "Deutscher Text").

(4) Due to this reason, Nietzsche gave (wieder aaO, First Main Section, No. 1, the title "Deutscher Text".

(5) Of course, by this is not meant anything "metaphysical", but the inter-related cause and effect(s) of regulatory cycles that influence each other, which lead, by means of this "communication", to an "unstable determination" of that which exists, which are described by reason as "natural laws" along the repetion under constant conditions (=causality).

(6) and be it in the theater: actually, this is not ridiculous, since the capability of reflection brings with it "per se ipsum" the ability to evade the pressure of ideals! – which means to transfer them from reality into phantasy; and that is why it was the Greeks who "invented" theater.

(7) According to a new survery, 40% of physicists believe in God (1998).

You are  . visitor since 12.03.1999.  
Thanks for this counter to   http://www.digits.com/