Formation of Scientific Mind l

The Formation of te Scent Mnd A Contribtion to a Psycoanalysis o Objective Knowledge

GASON BACHELARD c    y M A/ J

,

tJ  tJ i

The Formation of te Scent Mnd A Contribtion to a Psycoanalysis o Objective Knowledge

GASON BACHELARD c    y M A/ J

,

tJ  tJ i

Copyight © Clinamen Press 2002 Translation © Mary McAllester Jones 2002 Introduction  Mary McAllester Jones 2002 The right of ary McAllester Jones to be idented as the author of this work has been asserted by her n accordance wth the Copyrght, Copyrght, Designs and Patents Act  988  Clnamen Press Ltd Unit Unit B Aldow nteprise Park Blackett Street Manchester M26AE www.clinamen.couk

Transator's note

vii

Inrodction by Ma MAlester Jones Foreword Foreword

Pubshed n French by Librare Philosophque  VRIN as La Formaton de I 'Esprt ScentJque  J VRIN 938 6 Place de la Sorbonne Sorbonne  - 65005 Paris Two slightly adapted sectons of this work previousy published n McAllester Jones, Mary Gasto Bachelard, Subversive niversty of Humanist © 1 99 1  Reprinted by permisson of the niversty Wisconsn Press Al rights reserved No part of this edton may be reproduced, stored n or ntroduced nto a retreval system or transmited n any form form or by any means (eectonc mechancal, photocopying, recordng or otherwise) otherwise) wthout the writen writen permiss on of the publishers. A catalogue record for for this book is availabe om th Brtsh Libray ISBN paperback ISBN hardback

Contents

1 903083 90308306 06 9 03 03 08 08 3 2 3 0

I

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2

Typeset Typeset n Times New Roman with Verdana Verdana dsplay by Clinamen Press Ltd, Manchester Printed and Bound n the nted Kingdom by The Bath Press Avon

17

The idea o f the epistemological obstacle

24

2

The rst obsacle: prmary experience

33

3

General knowedge as an obstacle to scientic �owledge

64

4

An example of a verba obstace sponge. On the over-exension of famiar images

1

5

Uniary and pragmatc knowedge as an obstace o scienic knowledge

91

6

The substantialist obstacle

1 04

7

Psychoanalysng realists

13 6

8

The animist obstacle

1 54

9

The myth of dgesion

1 72

1

The ibido and obecive knowedge

 5

11

The obstacles o qantitative knowledge

21

1

Scenic objectviy and psychoanaysis

23 7

t

Index

25 1

anslator's note

Gato Bahelad' he Formation of the Sient Mind  h bet o book  Fae o may yea o the hool ad vety ylab ad th  the t Eglh talato o the ok The age o mateal Bahelad ove hee ha aed the talato th a mbe o hallege  ala th egad to the eveteeth ad eghteethety e et text he te  am vey gatel to Bll o o Clame e o takg do ome o the ogal Eglh text ed by Bahelad  the Feh talato;  am gatel too to the lbaa at Bmgham U vety bay ho emtted me to ot oeh etey' o oy o h Hito and Preent State ofElectrici, a book hh Bahelad lealy o ell  talato Thak to them  have bee able to te Boehaave MaBde Hthok ad etley  the ogal Egh  have hee eeay ameded ad oeted Bahelad ootote; t ha ot alay bee oble hoeve to emedy h omo dete mh eo the le he gve egadg h oe ovg at tme too lede Fll detal o a ok ted ae gve  a ote he Bahead t ee o t he beqet eeee ae made eade ho h to a look bak to thee detal by hekg the atho ame  the dex; he Bahelad da o eveal ok by the ame atho thee ae eed at eah eeee  h to eo d hee m vey am thak to ed ad olleage to hom  have ted th qeto o the tme they have gve me  am eeally gatel to Ro Abbott o the Deatmet o Cla at Boto Hgh Shoo o taato o the at hae Bahelad e hee ad to hl Cooke ad Malolm ede both olleage  the Deatmet o Mod e agage at the Uvety o Stathlyde o the talato o tal a ad Gea qotato eetvel  am debted to The Uvety o Wo e o kd em o to e talated extat om The Formation ofthe ientc Mind that

TH RMAT  TH SCTC MD

rs appeared in my boo Gaton Bachlard Suriv Humanit, pub ised by em n 1 99 1  ome sma amendmens  ave been made  ere o ose origna ransaons I oud aso ie o an very sncerey a ose I ave ored i a Cnamen Press or eir unaiing epuness, pa ience, and proessionasm Tis ransaion oes muc o e suppor o my usband ober cAeser Jones, o as once agan boe  my quesions and quanda ries or is undersanding,  is dscussions, and is pracicaiy n eeping ings running n a as been or many mons a Bacearddominaed ouseod, I am ry grae

Inoducion

ary cA eser Jones Pubsed in 1938, h Formation o th intc Mind seems om s e o brea  Bace ards prevous or ic, in e decade oo ing e appearance o s rs boo n 1 928  ad been cey conceed i  e epsemoogy o posEnseinian science, i a e came o ca e ne scienic mnd   Formaon does no oug signa a s in ineres o e isory o o e scienic mnd as ormed Baceard maes  cear rom e begnning a e res as an epsemoogis and no as a isorian, carey demarcaing ese o aciviies Hisorians o science , e says, ave o ae ideas as acs Epsemoogss ave o ae acs as ideas and pace em iin a sysem o oug. A ac a a oe era ad misundersood remains  act in isorians eyes. Fo r episemoogiss o ever  is an otacl, a couneroug (27). Baceard sresses a epise moogy s normaive, deaing  deas a  ave  ad an neeca des iny (22) and oring rom e sandpoin o deveoped reason, or  s ony no a e can reay udge e errors o e mnds pas (27) As an episemoogs, e is conceed ereore i e ormng o e scienic mind Tis acive sense o ormaon in Baceards use o e ord s very cear en e argues a e scenic mnd mus be ormed by being re ormed (33), impyng a ar rom being compee and aceved, e or maion o e scienc mind s an ongong process. I is cear oo en e discusses eacng  oaon n Frenc aso means eacing or raining a dscussion e no ony pursues rougou is boo bu i ic e cooses o concude  arming a e principe o continud cultur is moreover a e roo o mode scienc cure    Tere is science ony i scoong is permanen (249) . Tere is anoer srand n is acive sense o oaion, or ice Baeard uses e prase psycoogcay ormaive o descrbe mode V

H RMAT  TH SCTC M 

scienic oug (1 3 246) Tis can be se aongside o ey saemens Eary in e boo, Baceard oers e ooing deniion o uman be ings Troug e mena revouions a scienic invenion requires, u manind becomes a muaing species, or o pu i beer si a species a needs o muae, a suers i i does no cange enay, umans need o need' (26) Ten in is na caper, e c aries is noion o a muaing species' en e ries a An obecive discovery is a once a subecive recicaion I  e obec eaces me, en i modies me I as a e cie bene e obec brings soud be an ineecua modicaion' (246) Baceard's use o I ' sos is commimen o e idea o ineecua modi caion ic , ie ose o mena revouion and muaion, eps us o un dersand is vie o mode scienic oug as psycoogicay orma ive' We see en a Baceard is aso conceed ere i e ormaion o e mind by mode scienc e Te ord  ormaion' is a ric one ereore and aoug Bace ard came o regard  is ie as icosen!  peraps be cause o e endency or is boo o be seen as isory, as an oen ener aining narraive o uman error and oy  i is aso very ap, is puraiy and variaion obiging readers o as quesions, o ave e sense o e probem' a or Baceard mars ou e rue scienic mind' (25). Te rue scienic mind' is precarous a ris because o a Baceard cas e mind's conservaive insinc', o ic e beieves e ormaive insinc' ineviaby yieds (25), and i is is noion o e m ind's insincs a underines e dierence beeen is boo and is predeces sors In The New cienc pii, Baceard ad reerred o scieniss pas sionaey pursuing a ie devoid o passion'  Fou r years aer, is seem s oo simpe, aare as e no is o e insincs and vaues indering e deveop men oe ineecua i e  cience cas a ord ino being'  e ad rien in 1934, no roug some magic orce, immanen  reaiy, bu raer roug  a raiona orce, immanen in e mind' o oug is condence in is raiona orce is saen, or e as undersood a e emoions invoved in e use o reason    e range ovaues associaed i e raiona emoion' (243) In is rs boo is Eai u a cnnaiance appche (928), Baceard ad epained is reasons or considering noedge as i os aong, ar om is origin in e senses a e poin a ic i as become inimaey invoved i reecion', adding a:

GAST BACHLARD

stuaons ta ars so tat our aons ay b adustd to t nw rusans? It s s non of t nd's as as a rsul of t attrav for xtd by an nxaustbl ray ta onsttus  dyna nt ofknowdg

 nd ta knows us ofnssty av a as  ast  andn rovd    t oos w w w an arv t xlanatons Bsds  s no  vng nd dstngusd fro  n obj by t rs a l vr a our dsosa w ory uss n aordan w 

Ten years aer, Baceard as reaised a e senses are no so easiy reegaed, and a e mind's pas can obsruc raer an advance no edge He is no convinced a he pbem fcienc nwedge mu be ped in em fbace', episemoogica obsaces a e very ear o e ac o cogniion' (24) T ey require  a e erms co gnioaecive con ro' (29) and psycoanaysis Psycoanaysis may e seem an odd concep o use in a boo con ceed i episemoogy, espe ciay en e remember a in Frenc  is is dened as e sudy o scienic noedge Psycoanaysis is surey o do i irraionaiy, so o ca n reason and obecive noedge be psyco anaysed? Eary in e boo, Baceard epiciy ins psycoanaysis o piosopy o science, arguing a  e as o e piosopy o science is very cear i is o psyconayse ineres, o desroy a uiiarianism, o ever disguised is orm and oy e saus i caims and o u e mind rom e rea o e aricia , rom e naura o e  uman, rom represena ion o absracion' (21) Tis suggess a or Baceard, e erapeuic aspec o psycoanaysis is paramoun psycoanaysing obecive no edge means ridding i  o everying a impedes is progress , eer aec ive ineress or everyday, uiiarian noedge, so resoring i o ea His erapeuic aim can be seen agai n, a e pages aer, en e ries a a  scienic cuure mus begin i an ineecua and emoiona caarsis' (29) Tis reers o e anayic a meod Freud oo over om Breuer, ic  e iniiay caed Breuer's caaric meod', Baceard's associaion o Freud i caarsis being cea r in The Diaecic fDuain ( 1 936 ) en  e commens on Freud's caaric meod' oreover, in e nuiin amiique (1933)  e ad cosen o describe is on or in erms o a caaric as'  Indeed, ooing bac o The Fmain fhe cienc Mind in a 1939 conerence paper enied La Psycanayse de a connaissance obecive' ,  e says a in eamining  e ormaion o e scienic mind,  e ad recognised e need or a caaric ineecua educaion' Tis under ying idea o a erapeuic inenion eps o epain y Baceard sees psycoanaysis as reevan o episemoogy i is g uiding conceps oea  and disease  conceps a Bace ard epois  ere  psycoanaysis is aso normaive Baceard's noedge o psycoanaysis is maredy more precise in

2

3

TH RMAI  H STF MI

GAST BACHAR

  naura and boogica, so ha he vegeabe kngdom s vaued above he anima and minera, germ and seed for nsance being prveged expana  ory mages Whe hese vaues are discussed in Chapers Egh and Ten n  parcuar, hey aso come no oher chapers, for he feengs of havng and   becomng are no easy separaed. ndeed, as he concudes hs book, Bacheard emphasses ha he scenc mnd mu s pu an end o va  ner ess', usng his phrase o sum up he epsemoogca obsaces he has ds cussed: fe s he rs vaue, he rs dea, passonaey espoused by humans who know  as an imedae possession whch, because i is possession of   becomng, s precarous and herefore greay vaued n Bacheard's vew, hs unconscous vaorisaon prevens he pre scenc mnd from achevng he freedom o judge i mus be brough o conscousness and removed  psychoanaysed, as he pus i  n order fo  he scienc mind o be formed. He dscusses he mena processes and ex  permena mehods of prescienss showng how hese are shaped by such vaorsaion. Generasaon, overdeermnaon and anheca vaorsa  on, ogeher wh fondness for boh varey and repeion, for meaphors and mages, grandoquence and verbosy are a seen o typfy prescienic  hinking They make for a knd of ogic  an rraona reason'  ha aows  us o make sense of he curious exampes he quoes More imporan hough,  hey are demarcaed from scienc hough Bacheard remarks severa imes on he dsconinuiy of eigheenh and nneeenhcentury hough, no eigh eenhcenury observaion for exampe havng gven rse o a nneeenh cenury echnique (78). There s nohng auomac however abou his eps  emoogica break he scenc mnd does no spring y formed from he heads of hose bo aer he eigheenh cenury has ended  s no jus schoo chidren who go on hinkng prescencay bu n Bacheards experence, so do eachers and he wrers of schoo exbooks, wh heir ove of nappro  priae dea (24 so oo, he consders, do advesers and consumers (18) and aso  arring hem wh he same brush  phosophers Phosophers are aways cicised by Bacheard for gnorng he essons of mode scence  his cricism beng made even more p oned here by his argumen ha n he emphasis hey pace on generasaon n science hey are in c hinkng  prescencay He regards generasaon as havng is source n vaues, in  ha of useness especay (3), hs reference here o pragmaism sugges ng ha he has one paricuar phosopher n mnd, Henr Bergson From his rs work onwards, Bacheards opposon o Bergson s cear Wh a he rejecs s rs and foremos Bergsons concepon of under sandng and neec as geared o acion on he word as reave o he  pracca requremens of everyday fe, he word beng undersood ony n

 erms of s useness o human bengs Thus, Bergson sees he scienis as homo fabe goveed by pragmac consderaons, and scence as part of  everyday ife Mode scence makes hese deas unenabe n Bacheards vew, and so hs ong poemc wh Bergson begns, eadng hm o deveop, agans Bergson hs own concepions of conscousness, me, and human  bengs Here, hs poemc s impc conduced hrough a crique no jus of pragmasm bu of ntuon and he vaorsaon of he nner e, of fe  regarded as superor o he mnd, conduced oo hrough references o homo fabe and aso o duraon and me A he begnnng of Chaper Ten, Bacheard obseres   ha Grauous me, me ha has been emped, he me of a   phosophy of repose, is me ha has been psychoanaysed We sha be working on hs n anoher book (85) Ths s a surprsng and mporan obseraon, surprisng because he book referred o n he ure ense is he Diaectic ofDuation,  pubshed n fac wo years prevousy n 936, and mporan n ha i shows hm no jus a work on he Fomation ofthe cientc Mind we before 938 bu hnng ou hese wo books concur  reny. The fac ha  s wrten, in part a eas, no afer bu whe reecng on a concepon of ime opposed o Bergson's shoud ead us o consder i from hs same perspecve, as part of Bacheards poemic wh a phoso  pher whose scenc mnd he consdered o have remained unformed Bacheard regarded hmsef no as a phosopher bu as a phosopher of scence eaing om mode scence abou he possbies of  he scien  c mnd and wh , of he human mnd n he New ientc piit he had suggesed  agains Bergson  he dea of he human beng as homo aeato, homo mathematicu  ha s o say as exporng possby hrough  mahemacs Now hough hs conce is wh objecve, emprca know edge wih formng he scenic mind agains everyday knowedge and ex  perience, n many ways more dcu because of he vaues neress, and feengs  invoves. Riddng he mnd of hese neress, of uariansm in  parcuar, s herefore n Bacheards vew he rs hng ha phosophers of  scence mus do, no progress beng made whou hs (21) Secondy hey  mus u he mind om he rea o he artcia' whereas he prescienc  mnd possesses reay, he scenic mnd consrucs and reconsrucs , and n dong so is sef consany reformed They mus aso tu he mnd from   he naura o he human Gven ha he human beng is presened as an obsace o scienc knowedge hs may seem odd f however we see ha wha constues his partcuar obsace s a vew of he human as naura,   here s no conradcon. Impc n Bacheards phrase s he opposion  beween fe and he mnd hus aowng a new perspecve on he second   ask so ha he artca s more painy a human, mena consrucon

8

9

TE FRA   SC TrC  D

GASTN BAHEARD

Bacelard stresses tis i n a nmber of ways i n particlar b y referring to te inventve empricism teactive togt empiricism of mode science in opposition to te passivey recorded fond empricism of prescience. inked to tis s is conception of te discrsive dialectical objectivity of   mode science explained trogot te book and peraps most strikingy in aper Eleven wen e sows ow objectivity is afrmed witin meas  rement as a discrsive metod (213) ndeed Bacelard arges tatfor te scentic ind every penoenon is a moment n teoretica togt a stage of discrsive togt a reslt tat as been pepaed' (1 8), ts identifying te discrsive and te teoretical Tis wold seem to contradict te idea e also expresses ere of te polemic of reason a nd reality rationaism and em  piricism discrsive togt consisting terefore of tis polemic n siing te empasis to reason  e is in fact stressing tat for te scientic mind it is   reason tat constrcts reaity Te vec  abacin' (26) , as e calls it is essentia for te progress of mode science For Bacelard abstract togt is matemaical togt we orselves believe e says tat mateatical togt forms te basis of pysical explanation and tat te conditions of  abstract togt are from now on inseparabe from tose of scientic experi  men (229). Te last aspect of te task facing piosopers of science is conseqenty te key to al te rest bot essentia and dict: in ting te  mindom representation to abstraction tey teac it to reform Teacers form te scientic mind for good or il and Bacelards cri tiqe of science teacing is vigoros ere. e provides many exampes from is own classroom experience of te persistence of prescientic ways of  tinking not st in mode cildren bt in teacers and in tose wo deter  mine edcationa policy. n sessing te natra and te empirical science teacers fai to nderstand te scientic mind and e is scating abot re forms introdced into secondaryscool science teacing e believes tat in diminising te diclty of pysics problems sc reforms misnderstand te rea meaning of te scientic mind Tota ignorance is preferable to know edge tat as lost its ndamental principle (49 Bt wat is tis fndamen ta principe Baelard explains ow e sees it wen in is nal capter e writes tat teacers pt lessons in te pace of discovery. eacing abot te discoveries tat ave been made trogot te istory of science is an excelent way of combating te inteecta sot tat wil slowly stie or sense of mental newness. f cidren are to ea to invent it is desirable tat tey sold be given te feeing tat tey temseves cold ave made dis covries (245) Te key prase  ere is o sense of menta newness for it sows tat Baelard is referring to a mental rater t an an empirical process of discovery e was strongy opposed to teacing metods based on te

  principe of look and lea  igy critica in an article pblised a few  years earlier of wat e termed te Edcation Ministrys view of experi   mental science weig measre and cont; be wary of abstraction and of   rles; attac yong minds to te concrete to facts Tis kind of teacing is  no longer appropriate e arges in an age wen discoveries are made al  most entirely by matematics. Bacelard rets to tis ere stressing for example te need to teac not te rests of science bt te mental rote to tose reslts and sggesting exercises in discrsive togt to elp gide  ppis minds into te pats of abstraction (234) Scientic abstraction is described by Bacelard as ealty and dynamic (8 and  even more strikingy  as adty (2), all of tese valeaden words wic  point to an  nderlying view of man beings Bacelards conception of man society and man beings is stated  bodly and idiosyncraticaly as e concldes tis book is nal paragrap sms p wat e as leaed abot man beings from psycoanaysis  abot teir psycic dynamism in particlar  and at te same time sggests wat wil eventally lead im to reject it is empasis being rmly on te  mind e did not as it ted ot contine wit is psycoanaysis of ob  jective knowledge altog The Pchanai fFie,  also pbised in 1938, was meant to develop te argments of  The Fmain fhe cien ic Mind it became someting very dierent for in writing it Baceard came to nderstand te imagination not as an obstacle bt as an essentia aspect of psycic dynamism Poetic imagination became is focs over te  next decade wit te pbication of for books on images of water air and eart Wile psycoanaytical ideas contined to stimate im e wod aways adapt tem in terms of is own conception of man beings; in te end owever in is ater work on bot epistemology and poetry e came to  prefer penomenology as more consonant wit is longeld conviction tat it is togt tat rles or being  nitially tog psycoanaysis seemed to oer a way of ensring te rle of togt and wit it te eat of or  being nitially too te psycoanaysis of te scientic mind seemed to im a way of contering te arm done by teacing as e explains in La Psycanayse de la connaissance objective ritics migt wis im to ave  been more modest and caled is book a pedagogy of te scientic mind e says bt pedagogy in tis context rests on ideas e opposes ideas sc as atority and adaptation to a particlar society and above all on wat e termsa cosed epistemology ontrary to tis e arges psycoanalysing te scientic mind means opening it making it conscios ofan open episte  mology Bacelard breaks wit tis view of pedagogy envisaging as e con



11

GAST BACHLARD

H RMAN  H SCNC MD

cientic thought is pschologicall foative for all who tr to lea its lessons The school of science  foation b the scientic mind  helps humans to ll their destin, their dnamic open intellectualit Bachelard's views remain provocative, for science and education continue to be seen as having a social, practical purpose, as contributing to what otard in The mde ndiin has called the perfoativit' of the social sstem With its argument that this leads to closed minds and mutilated human be ings, Bachelard's book still raises uncomfortable questions

cludes this book a time when societ will be made for school, not school for societ', thus reversing the popular view that school is made for societ'. The idea of the social purpose of education prevailed in Bachelard's da, as a contemporar primarschool textbook demonsates : in it, a joe troug France serves to teach two children to love and do their dut towards their countr everthing the lea about as the travel, including scientic dis coveries is made to serve a patriotic end, Fresnel for example being valued for improving lighthouse lamps to the glor and safet of France. n reject ing this kind of thinking, Bachelard was being intentionall provocative. He was provocative too in his references to moralit and dut, as comparison with the same textbook shows: subtitled Dut and Countr', it tus ever thing encountered into a moral lesson and concludes that what constitutes the glor, honour, wealth, and strength of France is her children's moral value', spelt out as obedience, hard work, and love of famil and countr How odd Bachelard's reference to the dut of abstraction must have seemed! He is not though being gratuitousl provocative, but raising ndamental questions with  regard to societ and human beings f school is made for societ, what is societ for? f we sa it is for the good of humans, what is that good? And if societ is made for school, what is school for? While here the answer seems much easier  we go to school for our education, our foation'  it makes us ask what education is for f it is for its own sake, as Bachelard believes, then wh? What is it about human  beings that makes peanent schooling necessar? His references to abstrac tion as a dut and as health provide the clue and bring us back to his ps choanalsis of objective knowledge' Bachelard has shown human beings as obstacles to objective knowledge, as burdened with misplaced aectivit, immobilised and unhealth The are also a mutating species', needing to  mutate, suering if the do not change, health therefore if the follow the  mental revolutions of science Abstraction is a dut because in breaking with the concrete, it frees and dnamises the mind, ensuring this health muta tion. Thus when Bachelard refers a t the end of Chapter One to the moralisa tion of science' this does not impl a view of its social responsibilities but, as the context shows, a conception of human beings, a conviction that those who follow the laws of the world are alread submitting to a great destin' Yet this would seem to exclude nonscientists, as does the emphasis he places on mathematics in the closing sections of Chapter Twelve For Bachelard though, nonscientists can also follow the laws of the world through read ing science struggling to understand the difcult ideas of mode science, the too can experience the will to know, the too can lea to reect on  reection, to think again the brain, as he puts it 248)0 n this sense then,

1 Baeard aoledged tis i a itervie it Aexadre Aspel i  957 quoted  by C G Cristodes i BaelardsAestetis', Joun ofAsthtcs n A t Ct cs, 203   962) 267 2 Th Nw Scntc Spt tras Artur Goldaer Bosto Beao Press,  984) is te Egis traslatio of L Nouv Espt scntqu Paris: Aa, 1 934) o publised by Presses Uiversitaires de rae My trasatios are used ere as trougout tis odutio iforatio is give eever a Eglis traslatio is avaiabe of a or by Baeard to  i referee is ade 3 Ess su  connssnc ppoch Paris Vr,  928) Tis boo as origialy Baelards priipal dotora tesis  19 27) trasated extrats o it are iluded i Mary MAlester Joes, Gston Bch Suvsv Hunst Txts n  ngs Madiso: Uiversity ofWisosi Press  99 1 ) 4 Th Dctc ofDuton tras Mary MAester Joes Maester Cliae Press 2000) 1 47 tis is te Eglis traslatio ofL Dctqu   u Paris: Boivi, 1 936) o publised by Presses Uiversitaires de rae 5 Ls ntutons tostqus Paris Boivi,  933) ; o publised by Vri 6 Publised i Anns   co s Huts tus  Gn   939) 3 7  Pese et agage Revue ritique), vu  Synths 1934) 8 Eest Joes, Th L n Wo ofSgun Fu ed ioe Trilig ad Steve Marus odo Pegui Boos,  967) 496 9 Cares Mauro, Ds Mtphos osnts u yth psonn ntoucton  sychoctqu Pars, Corti: 1 962) 1 8 see aso Marie-ouise Gouier Baeard et la psyaalyse la reotre i Bch Cooqu  Csy Paris io Grale d'ditios,  974)  42 se provides usel iforatio about Baelard's itrodutio to psyoaaytia ideas  0 Te la of referee to Jug ere is striig give tat Baeard akes exte sive use of Jugia oepts i is boos o poeti iages Cristodes states tat

12

3

Mar McAllester Jones

NOT

ASTON BACHLRD

T ORATON O T SCNTC D

Bacelard od Alexandre Aspe a e ad receved Jung oo ae'; see C G Crsodes,  Gason Bacelard and e Iagnaon ofMaer' vu ntationa  hiosophi 1 7 (1 963), 486 Bacelard refers owever o Jungan conceps and expresses s adraon for Jung n Th sychoanaysis ofFir also publsed n 1 938 (see noe 1 5), wc suggess a Th Foration ofth Scintc Min  was argely worked ou before s dae 1 1 Julee Bouoner (aer Fave-Bouoner) was a coleague of Bacelards n e Deparen of Plosopy a e Unversy of Don (n France, psycoogy was en regarded as a branc of posopy), aer ovng o Pars; se pracsed as a cld psycoeraps and was nuena n e deveopen of psycoanalyss n France Mare-Louse Gouer refers o s endsp w Julee Bouoner, see above, noe 9 Baceard ook up e Car of Plosopy a e Unversy ofDjon n 1 930, reanng ere un s apponen n  940 o e Car ofe Hsory and Plosopy of Scence a e Sorbonne; e rered o s a e age of seveny n 1 954 Fro 1 9 1 9 o  930, e aug pyscs and cesry and en plosopy oo (aer obanng s agation n plosopy n  922) a secondary-scoo evel n Barsur-Aube, e sal own  n Capagne were e was bo  2 Baceard sresses e porance of e wl o know' n uan bengs, and s own fe deonsraes s Aer secondary scool, e worked for e posa s ervce, evenualy sudyn g for s icnc n aeacs wc e obaned n 1 91 2 a e age of28 we workng as a posa agen n Pars We on sudyeave n  9  3 14, e prepared for e cope ve exanaon for engneerng sudens n eegrapy, n wc e cae rd, so falng o oban one of e wo places avalable Aer servng n e rences for 38 ons n e Frs Word War e began s eacng career n 1 9  9, sudyng for sicnc n plosopy, wc e obaned a e age of 36 aer one year of sudy n 1 920, e year wen s wfe ded, eavng  w a young dauger o brng up alone In 1 922 e obaned s aggation n posopy, and en n 1 927, aged 43, s octoratsttrs a e Sorbonne  3 Crsna Cs so as dscussed e reaons beween Baceard and Bergson n er Inroducon o Th Diactic ofDuration see above, noe 4 I ave aso ds cussed ese n Gaston Bachar Subvrsiv Huanist (see noe 3), and n a nuber ofarces,  parcular n B aceard conre Bergson: vers une pense de la drence', n Gaston Bachar I 'ho u po tu thor (Djon: dons Unversares de Djon, 9 86)  4  Noune e cropysque', chrchs phiosophiqus ( 93 132); s arcle s ncuded n a posuously pubsed coecon of arcles by Baceard, tus (Pars Vrn 1 970) 1 5 Th sychoanaysis ofFir rans Aan C M Ross (Boson Beacon Press, 1 964; London: Rouedge and Kegan Pau,  964) s e Engls ranslaon of a sychanaZs ufu (Pars Galard,  938) 

16 Watr an  Dras rans Ed Farrel (Dallas Te Dalas nsue of Huan es and Culure Pubcaons, 1 983); Air an Dras rans Ed and Frederck Farre Dalas: Te Dalas Insue of Huanes and Cuure Pubcaos, 1 88) ; arth an vris of Wi rans Kenne Haan (Dalas: Te Dalas nsue of Hu anes and Cuure Publcaons 2002) ese are e Engls ransaons of au t s rvs (Pars: Cor, 1 942),  Air t s songs (Pars Cor, 1 943) ad a Trr t s rvris  a voont (Pars Cor, 1 948)  Te na volue n s seres a Trr t s rvris u rpos (Pars: Cor , 1 948) as no ye been ranslaed In add on o s seres Bac elard publsed n 1 939 a book on e poery of Lauraon; for e Engls ransaon, see autraont rans Rober Dupe (Dalas: Te Da as Insue of Huanes and Cuure Publcaons, 1 984)  17 On epseoogy  ationais appiqu Pars Presses Unversares de France, 1949) ;  Activit rationaist  a physiqu cotporain (Pars Presses Unversares de France, 1 95 1 );  Matria rationn (Pars Presses Unersares de France,  953)  On poery h otics ofSpac rans Mara Joas (New ork Oron Press, 1 964; Boson, Beacon Press  969); Th otics ofvri rans Dane Russel (New ork: Oron Press  969; Boson Beacon Press 1 97 ) Th Fa ofa Can rans Jon Caldwel (Dalas: Te Dala Insu e of Huan es and Cuure Publcaons , 1 988 ); ese are e Engls ranslaons ofa otiqu  spac (Pars Presses Unversares de France  957), a otiqu  a rvri Pars Presses Unversares de France, 1 960), anda Fa  un chan (Pars Presses Unversares de France,  961 ) 1 8  ntuition  I instant (Pars Sock 1 932) 1 9 G Bruno,  Tour  a Franc par u nants (Pars Edons Ben); Bruno was a pseudony adoped by Augusne Foue Frs pubsed n 1 877, s book ran no undreds of edons and as been descrbed as e os success scoo  book ever; a facsle edon was p ubsed o ark e book's cenenary Aed a 1 0- 1  year-ods   was wren n e aera of e uang defea of France by Prussa n 1 87  and e consequen loss of Asace and Lorrane ence e books paroc one; e wo cdren orpans escape o er nave Lorrane, en Geran ands, opng o nd a relave n Marsele 20 In  Nw Scintc Spirit (Caper 4), Baceard descrbes e psycologca  bene' of readng Hesenberg; avng o gasp e paradoxes of wave ecancs and e daecca relaonsp of aer and energy s e says, exceen ena y gene' 21 Te foowng, books are avaab on Bacelard n Engs Crsna Csso,

4

5



urrationais an its Obstacs Scnc an orai in th hiosophy ofGaston Bachar  (Aserda: Harwood Acadec Publcaons, 2000); Coee Gaudn (rans) On otic agination an vri Sctions fro th Wor o Gaston Bachar (Indanapos BobbsMerrl  97 ); Mary McAeser (ed), Th hioso

TH RMATIN  TH CNTIFIC MIND

phy and Poetics ofGaston Bache/ (Washngton Cente fo Advanced Reseach n Phenomenology and Unvesty Press of Ameca 1 989 ) Mary McAeste Jones Gasto n Bache lad. Subverive Huma nist Text and Readings (Madson Univesiy ofWsconsn Pess  99 )  Roch C. Smith Gaston Bacheard (Boston: Twayne 1 982); May Tles, Bachelard: Science and Objecivi (Cambdge Camdge Unvesty Pess, 984).

Foreword

T  he scientic mind is rst seen ceary and incontrovertiby when it  makes representation geometrica that is to say when it deineates phenom ena and puts an experience's decisive events into an ordered series This indeed is how we arrive at gued quani   haay between the concrete and the abstract in an intermediate zone where the mind aspires to reconcie  mathematics and experience laws and facts Yet whie such geometrisation seemed to have oen been achieved  whether following the success of  Catesianism or of Newtonian mechanics or again with Fresnes optics  in the end it is aways shown to be in some way decient In most elds we are sooner or ater compeled to note that this rst geometrica representation,  based on a naive eaim fpaia ppeie, invoves conformities which are more hidden and topoogica aws which are less cleary dependent on immediatey apparent metrica reations. In short, we note that essential con  nections are invoved here which go deeper than those of famiiar geometri cal representation We graduay fee the need to work beneah space so to speak at the eve of those essentia reations uphoding both space and ph e  nomena Scientic thought is thus drawn towards constrctions th at are   more metapho rica than rea towards conguration spaces of which per ceptibe space is aer al, ony one poor exampl The roe of mathematics in contemporary physics therefore goes far beyond simple geometrica de scription. Mathematism is not descriptive but formative. The science of rea ty is no onger content with the phenomenologica hw the mathematical h is what it seeks Moreover since the concrete already accepts geometrical form and is correcty anaysed by the abstract why shoud we not agree to makeabac n the norma and productve appoach of the scientic mind? n point of  fact if we reect on the deveopment of the scientic mind we very soon

16

H ORMAIN OF TE SNTI MD

GAON B CH ELAR D

detect a mometm goig from the more or less visual geometrica to com   plete abstractio. As soo as we accede to a geometrical law we eect a highy surrisig metal iversio as kee ad sweet as a egederig act: curiosity gives pace to the hope of creatig The rst geometrical represe tatio of pheomea beig essetiay a ordering this rst orderig opes  before us perspectives of a abstractio which, alert ad coquerig, should lead us to orgaise pheomeology ratioaly as a theory of pure order. Dis order caot the be caled a order that has bee misuderstood or ca order be described as the simple cocordace o f obects ad our schemata, as could be the case i the realm of the immediate data of cosciousess. Whe it comes to experieces that reaso either advises or costrcts, order is a truth ad disorder a error Abstract order is therefore a order that has been proved ad that does ot fall withi Bergsos critiqe of order ha has been found I Our itetio i this book is to show this grad ad imposig destiy of abstract scietic thought I order to do so, we must prove that abstract thought is ot syoymous with a bad scientc conscience as the commo accusatio seems to impy We shal have to prove that abstractio cears the  mid of ecumbraces, that it lightes the mid ad makes it more dyamic. Proof of this wil be foud whe we ook more specicaly at the dicul of   makig correct abstractios whe we ote how iadequate are the rst at tempts at abstractio ad how cumbersome the rst schemata whe we em  pasise too the discursive character of that abstract ad essetial coherece which caot reach its goa i a sige movemet. Ad i order to make it clear that abstractio does ot proceed uiformly, we shall ot hesitate to itroduce a poemica ote at times ad argue that experiece that is ostesi  by cocrete ad rea, atura ad immediate presets us with a obstacle We shal study may braches of the evolutio of sciece so as to give a good descriptio of the path om p erceptio that is reckoed to be accurate to the abstractio that reasos objectios so happily ispire And as scie tic soutios are ever at the same stage of developmet where dieret   probems are coceed, we shall ot be offerig a sequece of geeral overviews here; we are ot afraid of fragetig our argumets i order to  remai i cotact with facts that are as precise as possible. However, if for the sake of iitial clarity we were obiged to appy crude historical labels to the differet ages of scietic thought, we could fairy clearly disce tree  mai periods. The rst period represetig the pre-scientc stage would icude both cassical atiquity ad those ceturies of revival ad ew eorts that are the sixteeth, seveteeth, ad eve the eighteeth cetry

The secod period  represetig the scientc stage, i preparatio at the ed of the eighteeth cetury, would cover the whole of the ieteeth cetry ad the begiig o f the twetieth cetury Thirdy, the era of the new scientc mind could be very precisey dated from  905 whe Eisteis relativity came aog ad deformed primordial cocpts that we thought were xed forever From the o, reaso mui   plied its objectios, dissociatig fudameta ideas ad the makig ew conectios betwee them, tryig out the boldest of abstractios. Over a pe   riod of twetyve years, ideas appear that sigal a amazig itelecta  matuty, ay oe of which would suce to shed lustre o the cetury Amog these are uatum mechaics, Louis de Brogie's wave mechaics, Heiseberg's physics of matrices Diracs   mechaics, abstract mechaics ad doubtess there will soo be abstract physics which wil order al the  possibiities of experiece. We shall ot feel com peled though to set or ow observatios withi this triptych for it would ot alow us to sketch i accurately eough the detai of the psychologica developmet that we wish to describe It must agai be stressed that the psychic forces at work i scietic knowedge are  more cosed, more s hortwided ad more falterig tha ca be imagied whe measurig them from the outside, i the books where they ie waitig for readers Betwee the prited book ad the book we read there is id eed a great distace, just as there is betwee oe we read ad oe we uderstad, assimilate, ad remember. Eve i a cear mid there are dark areas, caves stil hauted by shades, ad traces of the old remai i our ew ways of  thikig. The eighteeth cetury stil lives secretly withi us ad may  aas  retu. We do ot see this as provig the permaece ad xity of huma  reaso as Meyerso2 thought but rather as evidece of the somolece of  owledge ad the miserliess of cultivated mids that go over ad over the same   kowedge ad cultre ad become as al misers do, victims of the god they so lovigy fger We shal ideed show the improper edosmosis occurrig whe the assertoric is made to ow ito the apodeictic ad memory ito reaso. We shal stress that o oe ca say they have a scietic mid  uess they are certai that at every momet of their thikig ife they are  recostrctig a their kowledge Ratioal axes aloe permit these reco strctios al the rest is base mnemoics A scholars patiece is utterly dif feret from that of a scietist Sice a scietic kowedge must be recostrcted at every momet, our epistemologica demostratios wil have everythig to gai from beig worked out with referece to particuar probems, wthout ay coce with their historical order Similarly we wil ot hesitate to oer pety of exam

18

19

GAST CARD

T RMAT  T C[[C MD

 pes if we wish to show tht o evey isse d fo l pheome, we mst  pss st fom ime to eometic fo d the fom eometcl to b stct form f we e to foow the om psychooic pth of scietc thoht. We sh ey wys bei theefoe with the ofte vey vivid mes of pimy pheomeoloy we shll see how ppopite eometi cl foms the epce these imes d the dicties they ecote  do so. t is hdy spisi tht this vey difficlt, vey slow eometstio shold o be eded s  detive chevemet  d tht it shod sce to costitte the shkebe scietc mid s it ppes  the ieteeth cety. We tch et ve t o wht hs bee p ly wo t wl hve to be poved howeve tht this eometsto s  itemedte se Yet o discssio of ptc isses, meti s it does both pob lems d expeeces, wi oy be cle f it is pessble fo s to efe, thoh withot impyi y histocl coespodece hee, to  kid of  aw fhe hee age fo the scietc mid.  ech scetic mi ds di vidl fomtio, thee wold theefoe be  ecess y psse thoh the follow thee stes which e mch moe pecise d pticl th wee Comtes vesios of these Fist, thee is he cnee age i which the md dehts i the phe omeos st mes d dws o  phosophc tete oii te d celebt the cosly both the wods y d its ich divesity ecod, thee s he cnceeabac age  which the mid dds eometcl schemt to physic expeiece d dws o  philosophy of  simplicity. The md  s oce    pdoxc l sitto the moe clely is its bstctio epeseted by  sesory ititio the se it s of ths bstctio Thid, thee is he abac age  which the md sets to wok o formtio deibetey bstcted fom the tto of e spce, debe tely detched fom mmedte expeece d eve eed   ope po lemic with pimy eity which is lwys mpe d fomless o s to complete o descpto of these tee stes of scetic thoht, we mst the thik bot the dieet inee tht i  wy costi tte thei ective bsis. To be pecise, the psycholyss we e poposi to bi ito  objective cle mst dispce these teests. We wod ike to sest hee, eve t the isk of oveemphss, tht i the ffective chcte of itelectl cle we disce somethi tht mkes fo co dece d shkebity d tht hs ot bee scety stdied s t ot  teches m dty t whteve evel, to ive d bove l eti  vit

iteest i esech which s disteested Bt this iteest lso hs  hstory d eve i t mes be ccsed o fcie ethsism, we mst ttempt to show t powey t wok l thoh scietic paience Ths ptiece wod  be p withot ths iteest With it, sch ptece is  ife of md d spit Deveopi the psychooy of scietic ptiece wi ivove ddi to the w of the thee stes of the scietic mid  kid of w of the thee stes of the so, which e chctesed by iteests Fist, thee is he pueie chidike u he mdih dieane u led with ive ciosity d mrveli t y pheomeo istrmets  podce,  py t physics fo msemet d s  excse fo dopt  seios ttide, hppily colecti this tht come ts wy d emii  pssive eve i the joy of thki ext, thee s he eache u  pod of ts domtism d xed  its st bstcto, esti thohot its lfe o the els of its schooldys, its kowlede spoke ot lod every ye, impos its poofs o othes d whoy devoted to tht dedctio which so coveety bostes thoty, techi its sevt s Desctes did o middecss yostes s do the  pod hodes of ivesty deees. Lstly thee is he u depeae  abac and each he quineen ia  sei scetic cosciosess ive ove to eve mpefect idc tve iteests d py the deos me of thoht tht hs o stbe expeimet spport  t is costty distbed by the objectios o eso, time d  csti dobt o the ht to mke  prticl bstcto yet very se tht bsctio is  dty, the dty of scetists, t st e d  possessi the wods thoht. C sch cocti teests be boht toethe  y cse, the tsk of the phosophy of scece is vey ce  t is to psychoyse iteest, to destoy l tiitiism, howeve disised its fom d loy the stts it cims, d to t the md fom the e to the rtic fom the t to the hm, fom epesettio to bstcto ow moe pehps th it hs eve doe, the scietic mid eeds t o be defeded d iuaed jst s D Belys D{ene e iuain de a anguefanaie stove both to defed the Fech e d to istte t  the sese of mk t ilstios tht is to sy coferri hoo po t d celebti it This ceebtio cot thoh be jst  sbmtio of commo sptios   thei dve sity. t mst be ormtve d coheet t mst mke the pese of metl stmtio  the discovey of tth  very coscios d ctive oe d ot of tth it mst mke o bis he ove of scece mst be  toeos  psychc dyms.  the pty tht  psychoysis of objectve kow ede ives it, cience i he aehei {he ineec

2



H RTI  TH T  D

We ought at this pont to say som ethng about the tone o  this book Our task being to reate the ght aganst a number o preudices poemics wi oen take precedence t s moreover ar harder than peope thnk to separate architectonc reason rom poemica reason since the rationa cri tique o experence s ndeed one and the same thing as the theoretca or gansation o experience reasons obectons are a pretexts or experence or experment t has oten been said that a scentic hypothes s that cannot come up against any contradction is not ar rom beng a u seess hypothesis Simary what is the use o an experiment that does not recti some error and that is ust pain rue and indisputabe A cienc experiment is there ore one that cnadic dina eveda experence Moreover imed ate everyday experience aways has a knd o tautoogica character deve oping n the ream o words and denitons what it acks in act is the per spectve o eced e that in our vew characterises scientic thought Ordnay everyday experience s not reay organised and cmped t s at the very most made u p ouxtaposed observatons and we are stuck by the act that the od epstemoogy estabished continuty between observaton and experimentation whereas experimentation ought nstead to distance t se rom the ordinary conditions o observation Snce everyday experience is not organsed and cmped we are o the opnion that it cannot actuay  be veed t remains a act t cannot give us a aw  we are to conrm what s tre scientcay we have to veriy t rom severa points o vew Thning an experience means thereore gving coherence to an initia pu  raism Yet however hoste we may be to the pretensons o concrete' mnds that beeve the gven can be mmediatey grasped our am here is not the systematic incrmnaton o evey soated ntuiton There w be cear ev dence o this when we come to give exam pes where actua trths are me diatey ntegrated nto science t seems to us though that epistemoogists  and this is what distinguishes them rom hstorans  shoud when deang with a the knowedge o a particuar period draw attention to the produc tive deas For episteoogists ideas must not ust have had proven exist ence they must aso have had an nteectua destiny We sha not hesitate thereore to ascrbe to error  or to nteeca utty which s prety much the same thing  any trth whch is not pat o a genera system any exper  ment however accurate whch remains unconnected wth a genera method o experimentaton and any observat on whch however rea  and positive t  may be s made known n a ase perspective o vercation A critica method

22

 HLRD

o this kind requires an expectant attitude that is amost as pudent with re gard to the known as to the unnown aways cautous where amiiar now edge s conceed and wt scant respect or tt that s taught  t s there ore understandabe that a phosopher who oows the deveopment o sc entc ideas n the work o bad as we as good writers and o natrasts as we as mathematcans shoud nd it hard to avoid an impresson o sys tematic ncreduty t s understandabe too that he may sometimes adopt a septica tone out o keepng with what is in other respects hs rm ath n the progress o human thought

NOT  Bachads fnc is o Bgsons dscusson of od and disod in Chap3 of L ouon cac 07 Hn Bgson Ca Eouon ans A Mill Lanha: Univsiy Pss of Aca 3.  i Myson 533 was an infunia phlosoph of scinc who Bachlad strongy cicsd houghou his psoogic al wok Whil Myson was unusua aong phlosophs of h day in ha h pad cos atnion o dvop ns n scinc, fo ap o non-Eucidan goy aiviy hoy and quan u chancs h dd no biv ha scinc changs h way w hnk agung nsad ha h ind obys s own d uls pocding by dducon and duc ng dvsiy o idniy hus Bachad's La Vau nuc  a a Pas Vn  was win agans Mysons La Ducon a Pas Payo 5; h fquny pssd his opposon o Myson sn  a Pas: Acan 0 pind        6    3    5   3 Bachad's fnc is o h h sags in h pogss of h huan ind postuad by Augus Co 757 h found of nch posi vs as h hoogca h aphysica and h posiiv Co bgns hs Cou  phooph po  30  by sang h ga fundana law' accoding o whch ach of ou princpal concpons and vy banch of ou knowdg us of ncssy sa fo h s sag pogss o h scond and hn o h hd hs bng h nds d and dnv sag'  Bachads foono fs o a sc on in h nch anslaon o f H G  Wls h Opn Conpac Bu no a Wo ouon London Goancz . 5 is publishd n 5 Du Bays book is on of h ga woks of h nch Rnaissanc a anifso n favou of h nch anguag i dfnds  agans s us by bad ws suggss fos and clbas s irus horng nch wis o us h  own anguag ah han Lan and Gk

23

GAS AELAD

Chapte One Te idea o te epstemological obstacle

 W w sa ooig for  psycoogica codiios i wic sci ic progrss is ad, w ar soo covicd a he pbe cienc nwedge mu be ped in em fbace is is o a ar of co sidrig xa obsacs, suc as  copxity ad rasic of p oa, or idd of icriiaig  wass of  sss or of  u a id I s a  v y a of  ac of cogiio a, b y so id of  cioa cssiy, suggisss ad disurbacs aris  is i  ac of  cogiio a w sa sow causs of sagaio ad v of rgrssio r oo w sa disc causs of itia a w sa ca p soogica obsacs Kowdg of raiy is a ig a aways cass a sadow i so oo or cray. I is vr idia, vr cop. vaios of raiy ar aways rcur aiy is vr  wa w ig biv i o b i is aways wa w oug o av oug Epirica oug is car in e pec, w  apparaus of raso as b dvopd Wvr w oo  bac ad s  rrors of our pas, w discovr ru roug a ra ic ua rpac Idd, w ow again   prvious owdg w w dsroy owdg a was bady ad ad surou a os obsacs o spiriuaisaio a i i  id is  ida a w sart fro scrac w craig ad icrasig our  possssios coud oy aris i cutura syss basd o sip juxaposi io wr soig a is ow is idiay soig a ics Y w our sou cofros a  ysry of raiy, i cao a isf  iguous us by dcr I is ipossib  o ras vry sig rac of  our ordiay vyday owdg oc ad for a. W w copa   raiy wa w i w ow vry w cass is sadow ovr wa w ou o ow Ev w i rs approacs sciic owdg,  id

 vr youg. I is vry od, i fac, as od as is prjudics W w r  ras of scic w grow yougr i id ad spir ad w subi o a sudd uaio a us coradic  pas Scic is oay opposd o opiio, o jus i pricip bu quay i is d o co o fu fuiio If i apps o usify opiio o a par icua r poi, i is for rasos or a os a ar  basis of opiio; opiios rig is rfor aways o b wrog Opiio hin bady i dos o hink bu isad anae ds io owdg B y rfrrig o objcs i rs of ir us, i prvs isf o owig  Noig ca b oudd o opiio w us sart b y dsroyig i Opiio is  s obsa c a as o b suroud I is o oug for xap o rci opiio  spcic pois, so aiaiig provisioa coo owdg i so d of provisioa oraity T sciic id forbids us o av a opi io o qusios w do o udrsad ad cao forua cary. Bfor a s w av o b ab o pos probs Ad i sciic if, wavr  pop ay say, probs do o pos svs I is idd avig is ene fhe pbem a ars ou  ru sciic id For a sciic id, a owdg is a aswr o a qusio If r as b o qusio, r ca b o sciic owdg. Noig is sfvid Noig is giv Evrytig is cosucd owdg gaid houg sciic ort ca isf dci. A ab srac qusio fry ad opy xprssd, wi bco wo ou, wi jus  cocr aswr raiig. T ids aciviy is cosquy rvrsd ad bocd A pisoogica obsac wi cus ay owdg a i s o qusod. Icua abis a w oc us ad ay ca, i  og ru, apr rsarc. As Brgso as so rigy said, our ids av  irrsisib dcy o rgard  ida os o of us o   as   big  cars Idas wi us acquir far oo uc iisic carity Ad wi us, idas a o uwarrad vaue A vau i isf ipds  circuaio of vaus. I is a facor of irtia for  id. O occasio, a doia ida wi poaris  id i is oaity A irrvr pisoo gis said, so wty yars ago, a gra  ar us o scic i  rs af of ir ivs ad ar i  scod fmaive isic is so  prsis i so irs a is witticis soud o aar us Y is fmaive isic wi i  d yid o o a is cnevaive Tr cos a i w  ids prfrc i s for wa cors is owdg  rar a wa coradics i, for aswrs rar a qusios T co svaiv isic  doias ad icua grow sops As ca b s, w do o sia o rfr o isics i ordr o u dri  ra rsisac pu up by so pisoogica obsacs. Tis is

25

GSTN BHLD

H MTI  TH SII MID

 ly oe ad complete t s ever short of ways of varyg the codtos here  a word, t ca always d ways of leavg the cotemplato of the ame ad seekg the he, ad of dalectsg ths experece.  ths way, hemsry mltples ad completes ts homologos seres to the pot at whch t eave naue ad materalses the more or less hypothetcal bodes sg ested by vetve thoght. Ad  ths way  all the rgoros sceces xos thoght s wary of more or less obvos ideniie, costatly de  madg more accracy ad pso facto more oppottes for makg ds tctos. Specfyg, rectfyg dversfyg: these are dyamc ways of  thkg that escape from certaty ad ty, ad for whch homogeeos ystems preset obstacles rather tha mpartg mometm o sm p the cetc md may make s desre to kow, bt ths from the rst s so that we ca ask better qestos

a vew that we shall try to st as or argmet develops. At ths pot thogh t mst be recogsed that emprcal kowledge whch s the kowl edge we are almost exclsvely stdyg  ths book  egages setet h  ma begs va all aspects of ther sesblty Whe emprcal kowledge s  ratoalsed we ca ever be sre that prmtve sese vales are ot coe cets attachg themselves to reasos. It ca very clearly be see hat a overfamlar scetc dea becomes weghed dow by too mch psycho logcal cocreteess, amassg too may aaloges, mages ad metaphors ad gradally losg ts vec fabacin ts sharp abstract pot  par tclar we fall prey to a attde of va optmsm f we thk that nwing leads atomatcally to kowg, that leag becomes easer the more ex tesve t s, ad that tellect, ocally recogsed by early sccesses ad  by prowess  passg compettve examatos, ca be captalsed as f t were materal wealth ve allowg that a wedied mind may escape the tellectal arcsssm so commo  lterary cltre ad  the passoate esposa of dgemets of taste, t ca certaly be sad that a welldrlled  md s fortately a closed md t s a prodct of edcato Crtcal momets  the growth of thoght volve  fact a total reor gasato of the system of kowledge he welldrlled md mst the be  remade t chages speces t sets tself agast the prevos speces throgh a decsve cto. hogh the metal revoltos that scetc veto  reqres hmakd becomes a mtatg speces, or to pt t beter stll a speces that eeds to mtate that sers f t does ot chage Metally, hmas eed to eed. ake for example the psychc modcato that comes abot whe a theory sch as reatvty or wave mechacs s derstood ad these phases wll ot perhaps seem a exaggerato especally bearg   md the real soldty of prerelatvty scece We shall be comg back to these pots  or al chapter here, aer havg gve may examples of   metal revoltos t s also oe sad that scece craves ty, that t teds to detfy very dverse pheomea, ad that t seeks smplcy or ecoomy  prc  ples ad also  methods. Cotray to ths however scetc progress s at ts clearest whe t gves p phlosophcal factors of easy cato sch as the creator's ty of acto, atre's ty of pla, or logcal ty Ideed, these factors of ty a ctve thogh they stll were the  presce tc thoght of the eghteeth cetry, are ever voked these days. Ay cotemporary scetst ws hg to te cosmology ad theology wold be regarded as very  pretetos.  the very detal of scetc research whe the scetc md s dealg wth a very specc experece whch cold deed be regarded as

he dea of the epiemgica bace ca be examed  the hs torcal developmet of scetc thoght ad also   edcatoal practce I  both these areas sch a examato wll prove far from easy Hstory s  fact trscally hostle to al l ormatve dgemets We ar e oblged how ever to take a ormatve vew f we wsh to evalate the ecacy of thoght Not everythg we d  the hstory of scetc thoght corbtes to the developmet of that thoght far om t. here are some kds of kowledge whch, eve thogh they are accrate, brg sefl research to a prematre ed pstemologsts mst be selectve the  ther se of the materal hsto  ras provde. he y have to evalate these docmets om the stadpot of   reaso ad deed from the stadpot of developed reaso for  t s oly ow that we ca really dge the erors of the md's past Moreover, eve  the expermetal sceces t s always ratoal terpretato that xes facts  ther correct posto. Sccess ad dager both le alog the axs that os expermet ad reaso ad  the drecto of ratoalsato Reaso aloe ca dyamse research for t s reaso aloe that goes beyod orday expe  rece mmedate ad specos) ad sggests scetc expermet drect ad frtl). t s therefore ths strvg towards ratoalty ad towards co strcto that mst egage the atteto of epstemologsts We ca see here what dstgshes the epstemologsts callg om that of the hstora of  scece. Hstoras of scece hav to take deas as facts pstemologsts have to take facts as deas ad place them wth a system of thoght. A fact that a whole era has msderstood remas fac  hstoras eyes For epstemologsts however t s a bace, a coterthoght.

6

7



TH FMT F TH SCITIC MID

GSN BCELD

t i when we exmine the ide othe epitemoloicl obtcle n reter depth tht we hll bet dice the tre intellectul vlue o the hitory o cientic thoht Althouh the preoccuption with objectivity led hitori n o cience to ctloue their text in ret detil, ll too oen it il to tke them rher, tht i to the meurement o pycholoicl vrition in the interprettion o jut one text. The me word cn t the me period in time hve within it very mny dierent concept Wht miled u here i the ct tht the me word both denote nd explin. Wh t i denoted ty the me but the explntion chne The telephone or intnce i under tood in very dierent wy by the ubcriber, the opertor, the enineer, nd the mthemticin conceed with the dierentil eqution o the telephone current 2 Epitemoloit mt thereore mke every eort to undertnd cientic concept within rel pycholoicl ynthee, tht i to y within   proreive pycholoicl ynthee, by etblihin n rry o concept or every individul ide nd by howin how one concept h produced nother nd i relted to nother Then perhp they my ucceed in meur in epitemoloicl eccy And trihtwy cientic thouht will be een   diculty tht h been overcome, n obtcle tht h be en urmounted. When it come to eduction, the ide othe ep itemoloicl obtcle i eqully illundertood.  hve oen been trck by the ct tht cience tech er, even more thn other techer i thi i t ll p oible, cnnot ndertnd tht their pupil my not undertnd Vey ew o them hve mde  cloe tudy o error, o inornce, nd o thouhtlene GrrdVret book h  met with little repone. Science techer imine tht the mind bein like  leon They imine too tht pupil cn lwy mke ood the lpdh  knowlede they hve indierently cquired jut by repetin  yer, nd tht  pupil cn be mde to undertnd  proo i the techer keep oin over it,  point by point They hve not iven  ny thouht to the ct tht when youn  people tr lein phyic they lre dy poe  body o empiricl knowl ede t i not thereore  quetion o acquiing experimentl culture but  rther o changing rom one experimentl culture to nother nd o remov in the bundnce o obtcle tht everydy lie h lredy et up Let u tke jut one exmple: the buoyncy o otin bodie i the object o  milir intition tht i hot throh with error The ctivity here i more or le openly cribed to the otin body, or rther to the wimming body.  we pt our hnd on  piece o wood nd try to ink it, it will reit We nd it hrd to cribe thi reitnce to the wter t i not ey thereore to tech the principle oArchimede o tht it i ndertood in ll it m rvellou mth emticl implicity unle we hve rt criticied nd undermined thi com  plex nd impure body o primry intuition n priculr, without thi py

Thee enerl remrk will be better undertood, however, once we hve tdied pecic epitemoloicl obtcle nd welldened dicul tie. We hll now explin thereore the pln we hll be ollowin in thi  book. Primry experience or to be more precie, primry obervtion i l wy  rt obtcle or cientic clture ndeed, thi primry obervtion  brin with it  proion o ime: it i vivid, concrete, ntrl, nd ey Yo need only decribe it  nd mrvel And then you think you u ndertnd it

28

29

honlyi o initil error we hll never be ble e t children to ndertnd tht  body tht emere om  u id nd one tht i completely immered in t re both obeyin the me lw. Thu, ll cientic cultre mut bein with n intellectul nd emo tio nl cthri nd we hll be explinin thi in ome detil lter on The hrdet o our tk till remin: we mut put cientic culure on the let o tht it i lwy redy to move, we mut replce cloed, ttic knowlede with knowlede tht i open nd dynmic, nd dilectie ll experimentl rible. Reon mut in hort be iven reon or developin. We could moreover enerlie thee obervtion: while they re t their mot pprent in the techin o cience, they re rele vnt to ll pect o eduction.  n the coure o  creer tht h lredy been lon nd vried,  hve never een  techer chne hi or her techin method Techer hve  no ene ffaiue preciely becue they conider themelve to be mter or mitree. Techin men commndin Thi mke or  ret ood o intinct. Von Monkow nd Mourue hve in ct noted how dicult it i  to reorm techin method, reerrin here to the m o intinct tht weih on every techer Thu, they oberve tht There re individul or whom ny dvice with repect to the educaina e they commit i completely nd utterly uele becue thee oclled error re imply the expreion o intinctive behviour'  Von Monkow nd Mourue re o coure dicu n pychopthic individul' yet the pycholoicl reltionhip between techer nd pupil cn eily become  pthoenic one. The techer nd the tht both come under  prticulr kind o pychonlyi We mut not in ny ce nelect the tudy o the lower orm o the pyche i we wih to decribe every pect o mentl nd piritul enery nd prepre the conito ective control tht i  indipenble or the prore o the cientic mind More preciely till, it i by revelin epitemoloicl obtcle tht we cn help to etbli h the rdiment o  pychonlyi o reon



THE FMAT F THE SCIETIFIC MID

GAST BACHELAD

We shall egin this study y desriing this ost ale and y showing there to e not ontinuity ut rather a rea etween oseration and exerimenta tion mediately aer desriing the sedutions oartiular and olourl oseration we shall show how dangerous it is to ollow initial generalities, or as d'lemert has so rightly sa id we generalise what we rst notie when, just a moment eore this, we had notied nothing We shall thus see the sienti mind hamered at its irth y two ostales whih are in a way oosites We shall thereore hae the hane to see emirial thought osil lating in ts and starts, tugged in dierent diretions and in the end om letely disloated Yet this disloation maes usel moements ossile he eistemologist is onseuently at the mery o ontrary alorisations whih an e airly onisely sarised y the ollowing ojetions t is neessary or thought to leae immediate emiriis m Em irial thought thus auires a system Yet the rst system is inorret hough inorret, it at least seres the usel urose o releasing hought y distaning it om sensory nowledge; thus, the rst system moilises thought he mind that has een onstituted in a system an then go a to exeriene euied with outlandish ideas, ideas that are at the same time aggressie and ues tioning, and with a ind o metahysial irony that is ery notieale in young exerimental sientists, so sure o themseles and so ui to osere reality in terms o their theory hus, when we go rom oseration to system, we go rom haing our eyes wide with wonder to haing them tightly shut t is ery striing moreoer that, generally seaing, ostales to si enti ulture always resent themseles in airs, to the oint where we ould sea o a syhologial law o the iolarity o error When a di ulty tus out to e a sustantial one, you an e sure that as you get round it you will ome u against an ostale whih is its ery oosite his ind o regularity in the dialeti o error annot ome naturally om the oje tie world n our iew, it stems rom the olemial attitude o sienti thought where the sienti ommunity is oneed s in a sienti a tiity, we hae to inent, we hae to onsider the henomenon rom a new angle But we hae to justi our inention we thereore thin our henom enon y ritiising that o others nd little y little, we are led to mae our ojetions into ojets and transorm our ritiisms into laws We ee wor ing away at arying the henomenon in terms o our oosition to other eole's nowledge t is o ourse in a young siene eseially that we an see this worthless originality whih only seres to reinore oosite osta les One we ha e taled he rolem that ones us y studying oth

e onrete and the systemati mind, we shall g o on to deal with ostales  h are rather more artiular Our lan will then hae to e a loose one and e shall nd it retty imossile to aoid reeating ourseles sine it is he nature o eistemologial ostales to e intermixed and olymorhous  is also ery diult to estalish a hierarhy o error and to desrie in a n rderly way the disorders o thought he ojets on iew in our hamer o orrors will thereore e resented higgledyiggledy and it wil l e u to the eader to si oer tedious examles one the oint s we are arguing hae been grased We shall e looing in tu at he danger o exlaining things by the uni o nature and the usefuness o natural henomena We shall eote a hater to he desrition o veba bsaces, that is to say the alse exlanations otained with the hel o  exlanatory words through that strange nersion that onsiders itsel to e deeloing thought y analysing a on et instead o engaging a artiular onet in a rational synthesis Veral osta les will lead on airly naturally to the study o one o the ardest ostales to surmount, suorted as it is y a aile hilosohy We are reerring here to sustanialism, to the monotonous exlanation o ro eries y sustane We shall then see to show that realism is or hysiists  and his is not to rejudge its alue or hilosohers  an unrodutie metahysis in that it halts researh rather than rooing it We shall end the rst art o this oo with a study o a ery artiular stale whih an e ery reisely delimited and whih will onseuently llustrate as learly as it is ossile to do the idea o the eistemologial ostale ts ll tile is he animis bsace in he phsica sciences While it has een almost entirely surmounted y nineteenthentury hysis, it is ery lear in the seenteenth and eighteenth enturies, so muh so that it is in our ew one o the harateristis o the resien ti min d We shal l thereore mae it a more or less asolute rule to desre this ostale y looing at seenteenth and eighteenthentury hysiists Setting this ind o limit will erhas underline the oint o our argument sin e the ower o an ostale will e seen at he ery time when it is aout to e surmouned his animist ostale is moreoer only distantly related to the animist mentality muh sudied y all ethnologists We shall e maing this an extensie hater reisely eause this harateristi might e thought no more than an unromising oddity With the ideas o sustane and lie, eah o them ingenuously on eied, innumerale alorisations are introdued into the phsica sienes o the detriment o the real alues o sienti thought We shall thereore roose seial inds o syhoanalysis in order to rid the sienti mind o hese alse alues

3

3

THE FOMATON OF THE SCENTF MND

er studying the ostales that empirial knowledge must surmount, we shall ome in our penultimate hapter to show the diulties o giing geometrial an d mathematial orm together with tho se o ounding a math ematial physis apale o prooking disoeries Here again, we shall amass examples taken om lumsy systems and unsuessl geometrisations t will e seen how fase igur is a lok to thought and how a rst math ematial system an sometimes preent a new system rom eing under stood . We shall moreoer restrit ourseles to making airly elementary o . seratns, or the sake o readaility To omplete our task here, we would in addition need to study the ormation o the mathematial mind om the same ritial standpoint. his howeer will e undertaken in another ook. This diision is possile, we eliee, eause the growth o the mathemati al mind is ery dierent om that o the sienti mind as it stries to understand physial phenomena. ndeed, the history o mathematis is won derll regular. here are periods when it omes to a halt There are though no peods o error. None o the arguments we are putting orward in this ook has any earing on mathematial knowledge Our arguments here deal only with knowledge o  the ojetie world. t is this knowledge o ojets that we shall, in our last hapter exam ine in all its generality, pointing out all that an distur its purty and dimin ish its eduational alue We eliee that we are thus working towards the moralisation o siene, deeply onined as we are that those who ollow the laws o the world are already sumitting to a great destiny.

NOT 1 Baelad's footote L Pene et Ie uvnt Pais: 1 934) 3   Te quotatio is tae o Begsos essay todutio to Metapysis Hei Begso Cetve Mnd tas M  Adiso (New o: Ci tadel Pess  99)  Baeads oie of te telepoe as a exaple ee is a eide of is ealy aitio to tai as a egiee i telegapy see todutio ote 1  3 Baelads footote ouis GadVaet L gnnce et I en e de pychge bjectve Pas: Ala 1 899) 4 Baeads footote Costati o Moaow ad Re Mougue ntductn

bgque  I tude de  neu ge et de  pychpthge ntgtn et dntgtn de  nctn Pais: Ala  98) 8 5 Baelad did ot oplete tis poet peaps eause te ext few yeas   93 8 48) ae to e deoted to is wo o poeti iages se Itodutio otes  5 ad

 . 32

Chapter wo Te first obstacle: primary experience

 n the ormation o a sienti mind the rst ostale is primary expe riene, the experiene we plae  eore and aoe that itiism whih is ne essarily an integral pat o the sienti mind. nd eause no expliit riti ism has een rought to ear on it, primary experiene annot in any ir umstanes e regarded as utterly reliale. lthough we shall e poiding any proos o the raglty o prmary knowledge, we are keen t o express here and now our strong opposition to a aile kind o philosophy. The phi losophy we oppose is one that rests on more or less uneuioal , more or less romantiised sensualism, and that laims its lessons ome diretly om a lear, distint reliale and onstant given whih is always oered to an al ways open mind Here then is the philosophial argument we shall e adaning the sienti mind must e ormed against nature, against all that omes om natures impetus and instrution, within us and outside us, against natural alurements and olourl ders e ats. he s ent mnd must e omed y eing reomed t an only lea rom nature y puriing natural su stanes and y rnging order to a jume o phenomena. Psyhology itsel would eome sienti i, like physis, it eame disursie and i it real ised that oth within us and outside us, we understand nature y resisting it rom our point o iew, the only legitimate intuition in psyhology is the intuition o an inhiition. This though is not the plae to deelop an essen tially reatie psyhology. e simply wish to draw attention to the at that the psyhology o the sienti mind we are putting orward here orre sponds to a knd o psyhology that od e generalised Understanding the point o this argument is airly diult at rst e

GSN BCELD

E MN  E SCENC MND

cse owdys sciece echig i jior csses  secodryschool level hs slipped ewee re d oserver  lrgely correc rgely crreced ook Physics exooks piely copied o oe oher s hy hve ee or he ls y yers oer or childre  very socilise d d ioi lised kid o sciece which hks o he very crios perec o he sylls or or copeiive exiios c oes o e regrded s atura B i is o   l rl; i is rl o oger.  is o loger the sciece o ow d coryside.  is a sciece developed i  d lorory y oe heless hvig he disicio o eig prodced i  orory   y e  cse o he ocl eecriciy sio which whe i spplies he power lso rigs s he pheoe o h antphyss  h ire which Brhelo sw s he sig o  ew er; experieces d ooks re hereore ow o soe exe deched o or pri ry oservios This ws o he cse i he prescieic period i he eigheeh cery Sciece ooks cold he e eiher good or d. They were o s  jec o he scriy d contro o edcio ocils Whe hey oe soe sig o scriy his ws oe y eed socieies i provicil ow whose  eers were drw o he os ddleheded d es coced o circles. So sciece ooks started ro re They ook  ieres i every dy lie They poplrised poplr kowedge wiho hvig he hidde iellecl ged h soeies kes or poplrisig works oo high row Wriers d reders hogh  he se level. Scieic clre ws weighed dow s i were y he ss d vriey o ior works which grely oered hose o rel vle  is very sri kig h he op posie is he cse i or dy whe ooks h poplrise scieic kowedge re  reively rre Ope  ode sciece exook d yo will see h i press sci ece i reio o  overll heory s orgic srcre is so ovios h i wold e very hrd o skip chpers. Scrcely hve he rs ew pgs ee  persed whe he voice o coo sese is sileced reders' qesios ow go eirely heeded The old preory prse Der eder' cold esily  e  replced y  severe Py eio chidre' The ook sks is ow qes ios The ook cods Ope  eigheehcery sciece ook d yo will relise h  i is  rooed i everydy lie The hor coverses wih rede rs like oe ivig  lk i polie sociey. The ieress d coces h esposes re atura Tke or ex ple he qesio o he cse o hder The er o hder will e ked o d here will e  ep o show reders h his er is grodless wi h he hor eelig he eed o repe he od oser vio h whe here is hder he dger is over or lighig le c

 ki Ths i he A Poceles ook eiled a Nature dans aformaton du Tonnerre et a reproducton des Etres vvants  1 769 ) he rs pge o he  prece ses h  wriig o Thder y c hie ieio hs lwys ee o odere where possile he disgreele ipressios h his phe oeo o he osphere sly hs o  iiy o Persos o ll ges whever heir sex d codiio How y Persos hve  o see who  pssed heir dys i viole giio d heir ighs i orl disqie' The A Pocele devoes  whole c hper o reecios o he righ h h der cses  d his s o o e he loges chper i he ook coverig soe weyree pges. He disigishes or kids oer which he lyses i deil All reders whoever hey y e hereore hve  chce o d ig i his ook he elees o heir ow digosis This digosis ws  sel sice he hosiliy o re he seeed soehow ore direc Now dys he i cses o or xiey re h oes. The grees serig o h eigs ody is iiced y oher hs. Nrl pheoe hve ee redered hrless y eig explied We shll dersd how dier e re ids sepred y  cery d  hl o ie i we sk orseves wheher he ollowig pssge  ke o Goehes Werther, sill correspods o  psychologicl reliy:

34

35

Befoe the danng ended the ashes ofghtnng whh fo soe te we had seen on he hoon ut whh I had untl then passed o as sue ghtnng nen sed onsdeay and he sound o f thunde downed the us Thee ades suddenly e he dane folowed y the panes hee was genea dsode and the us stopped    I t s o hese auses that I attute he sange expessons adopted y soe of he ades The os sense lady thee wen and sa n a oe he a to the wndow and he nges n he eas Kneelng n on o f he and uyng he head n he lap was anohe lady A thd had ep eween he wo sses eang the and weepng opousy Soe lades waned o go hoe Othes gew neasngy dsaught and dd no even have suen pesene of nd to defend theseves aganst he teey of soe audaous young en who seeed ent on plung o the lps ofthese fa ades n dsess the payes hat hey n he fgh wee sendng up o heaven

 wold see ip ossile  hik  o iclde  rrive o his kid i  ode ovel Sch  cclio o silliess wold see relisic. Nowdys he er ohder hs ee overcoe.  is experieced i ll oly i solide  co ec s i  soci grop sice we hve s  grop

GTO BHELRD

THE ORMTO OF THE SIET MID

eniely rationaised he heoy ohunde individual  o iaionaliy ae   now bu oddiie ha ae onealed. We would lauh a Goehe' hoe loin hue and ua in in ode o oe a dane The eieni book oeie aquie a aiula one by viue o i eade' oial a  Aonoy o hoe ovin in he be ile  u bin in he e o he ea and he ood Claude Coie, a hola and a an o ea aiene, bein hi book on oe  a book uh quoed in i day  wih hee wod Sine hee wa a Cou a heaed debae a o whehe "Coe wa auline o einine in Fenh, one o he eld  ahal, wihin o end hi Shola' diue, announed ha in ode o ee whehe i hould be a o e we needed o li u i ail' 2 Mode ien i would no doub no ee o he oinion o a eldahal They would  no o on endlely eeain e abou oe' ail and bead: o quoe Coie, Ju a  he ail i held o be alway he hade a o an anial o kin, o he Coe' ail ha alway been a had o exlain a he Godian  kno o undo'. n he eveneen enuy, dediaion in iene book ae oe l oe in hei aey han hoe ound in lieay wok, i ha i oible They ae in any ae all he oe hokin o he ode ieni ind, indieen a i i o oliial auhoiy Hee i one exale o hee uni ainable dediaion. The wie La Chabe i dediain hi book on di eion o ihelieu Be ha a i ay, y Lod, i i eain ha  owe o  you y Knowlede o hi ube' o he oah, ha i) He oe on o ove i hu Had  no een wha you have ade o Fane,  would neve have iained ha hee wa in our bodie a ii whih ould oen all had hin, weeen he bie, and unie he diiila, and whih ould hen  ake enh and viour ow ino all a, ivin o uly o eah all ha wa needed'. The oah i hu a kind o ihelieu, he ie inie o he huan body. Thee i oen an exhane o view beween auho and eade, be ween he crios and he earned Fo exale, a whole eie o lee wa ublihed in 787  unde he ollowin ile Exeien on  he oeie o lizad, in boh hei ehly and hei liqueou o, in he eaen o veneeal and heei di eae'. A avelle livin in eieen a Ponalie had een any blak eole in Louiiana ue heelve o veneeal di eae by eain anoli' a kind o iuana) He hihly eoend hi ea  en. A oue o hee lizad a day odue wondel eul whih ae  bouh o Viq d'Azyr' aenion} And in a nube o lee, Viq d'Azy hank hi orreonden The a o ediion ha an eiheenhenuy iene book had o

ay alon wih i i an obale o he book' oani uue. A inle exale will ue o how hi wellknown eaue When dealin wih e in hei elebaed hysiqe d Monde ublihed in Pai in 780 Baon de Maivez and Gouie eaded i a boh hei duy and a ae o ide o exaine oyix dieen heoie beoe ooin he ore  one, whih wa hei own The eduion o erudiion an ihly be aken a he ak o a ood ode iene book.  an ovide a eaue o he yholoial dieene bewee n ieni ea Seveneenh and eiheenhenury wi e quoe Pliny a oe equenly han we ouelve quoe he. The di ane o Pliny o Baon i le han o Baon o ode ieni. The ieni  ind oee eoeially, no aiheially n i dayoday eahin, ode iene kee away o any ee ene o eudiion ndeed, i only udinly ake oo o he hioy o ieni idea Soial oani like univeiy libaie ae oewha  uniially lieay and hioial wok o lile value bu ee hoe ien i book ha ae eihe heei o u lain aial  have looked in vain o ookery book in he univeiy libary a D ion On he ohe hand howeve he kill o diille, ee, and ook ave ie in he eiheenh enuy o any wok whih ou ubli libaie aelly oneve The oneoay ieni ouniy i o hooeneou and o loely uaded ha he wok o ad o diubed auho ae had o ub lih. Thi wa no he ae a hunded and y yea ao  have beoe e a  book eniled e Micscope moderne por dier a natre par etre d n nove  aamic chymiqe o  on voit n novea mchanisme phy siqe niverse The auho i Chale  abiqueau, advoaeaou and he Kin' enineeoiian The book wa ublihed in Pai in  7 8   We ee hee he univee uounded by ineal ae ha odue diillaion. The un i a he ene and eaue only ve leaue in diaee We ead ha The Moon i no a body bu ily he eeion o ola e in he aeial vaul'. The Kin' oiian ha hu enealied he leon leaed o a onave irro. We ae old ha The a ae bu he hill haein o ou line o ih on dieen aeial bubble The yoai ein o he power o he aze an be eonied hee  yie a edoinan sjective exeiene ha u be eied in ode o eah he one o he obeive a, he a ha i indieen o he aze ein uon i  have eveal ie obeved ik eole in he aylu ain deanly a he un a abiqueau doe.  w ould be had o nd a ublihe o hei wild idea They would no nd an Abb de la Chaelle who, havin by ode o he Chanello ead uh a luubaion, would ude i in hee e a he ave i he oial a i had alway bee n houh, he ay, ha obe oe

36

37

TH FRM F H S MD

ow cae an foun our eye Rabqueau revere  erecve an   e facuy of een a oe an n objec    Rabqueau work an  nounce a correce Meayc, reconceon overcoe an oral be avour ae ore ure, al of wc crown  work Tee eneral reark on book a eac e r eon wl er a uce o ow e fference n e r conac w cenc ou a e wo ero we w o caracere ere we o be accue of un any ba wrer an foren e oo one, our anwer woul be a oo wrer are no necearly oe wo enjoy ucce An nce we u uy ow e cenc n wa bo n a free an alo anarccal for  no one en o cool a any rae  a wa e cae n e eeen cen ury, we are nee oble o coner al a fae cence wc crue e rue, all a fale cence aganst wc e rue cenc n u n fac be conue To u u recenc ou lve n e wor    no reguar a  o ay  oe no lve uner orer ke e cenc ou rane n oca laboraore an coe n coobook e al o on o ee a workn fro a lly eren on of vew, we ave o coe o e very ae concuon



S HRD

cear a wen e erca r coe o onae  oe  no even ve e corec deneato of enoena nor even a wellorere, ruy erar cca ecron of enoena Once e yery of elecrc y a been accee  an a yey a uc  away accee w alacry  eecrcy ave re o an eay c ence, a cenc e a wa vey cloe o naural ory an far fro e calcu aon a eore wc a been raualy con no ecanc, o c an aronoy aer uyen an ewon Prele y  ll wrn a Eecrca exeren are of al oer e ceare, an e o eean, a e coa of looy exb Tee r eore, eore eal n w uc coex enoena, u reene eelve a e one,  ben e nenab le conon for e o be aun an neren o a ublc ovn n e be ocal crcle  Pun  anoer way an eak n now a a ooer ee ore reene eelve bearn e ark of an ovous and deeseated emprcm nellecual lo n  o leaan o be conne o erc, o cal a fac a fac an o forb e earc for law!   l ue oay a a oe ul wo are ba a yc uneran erca forula Tey reay beeve a all for ua, even oe en ro a y orane eory are erca Tey ane a a forua  ju a e of nuber n ere an wc  you u ave o aly o every arcuar cae Moreover, e erc of  e r elecrcy  o vey beuln   no ly an obou bu alo a coourfu emrcs m   no a aer of avn o uneran  you ony  nee o ee  ere elecrcal enoena are concee e book of e wor  a cure book ou ave o u  ae wou ryn o anc ae e ure n ore Here we can be ure a we cou never ave foreeen wa we are een Preey ry ay a

n a lvely book, Moe a cearly  own e o leane car acer of eeencenuy cence n con back o , we y w o a a few on relave o e nterest, a cllke nere n a way, en aroue by e exerenal cence an alo o oer a arcular nerea on of a nere Our aruen ere  a folow: by vn eae afacon o curoy an by ulyn e oorune for curoy far fro encouran cenc culure we ner  e relace knowlee  by woneren an ea by ae n ryn o reve e ycooy of e aue oberver, we al ee e con of an era of facly wc wll reove e sense ofthe proem fro cenc ou an w   e ove ower of rore Many ex ale wl be aken ere fro elecrcal cence an we a ee ow lae an ow exceonal e ae a eoeraon were n e eore of  ac eecrcy, for ony w Coulob orng cence were e r c enc aw of elecrcy foun n oer wor, oe reaer wl, n our vew, reale a ey erue e any book evoe o elecrcal cence n e eeen cenury ow cul  wa o forake e vvne of r ary obervaon, o ake e colour ou of eecrcal enoena an o r exerence of  aracal feaure an  euar aec  wl en be

Preley oube a a xe ea abou all cenc covere be n ue o cance Even were  own covere are concee, c over e e a aeny urue w rearkable cenc knowee of ce ca exerenaon, Preley oe e faonabe  n an erae e eo   reca connecon a a e  o e u roucve exeren So

38

39

he ee sok se,   be osdeed atevey wll aea alos as surrsg as ay dsovery ha he Isaa Newo] ade ad e a who ould ave ade a dsovery by a reasog a ro woud have bee ekoed a os exraordary geus bu eera dsoveres have bee ade so u y ade ha  s oe he owes o aue a o hua geus ha exe our wode wh rese o he

GT BLRD

T TI F T ITI D

gre is his spirin  empiric phisphy h hugh is nhing her  hn  in f ccsin cuse f experime n Accring  Priesey every  hing is he wr f chnce Fr him uc previs ver resn Le us here fre why cncenre n he specce pye u befre us. Le us py n enin  he physicis wh simpy rgnises he specce This is n nger  he cse nwys when wh ruses ur sense f wnermen is he ex  perimeners ingenuiy n he hereici ns sres f genius An in rer   me cer he humn rigin f he phenmenn h hs been pruce  he experimeners nmes re che  ubess fr  ie   he c  hey cnsruce Exmpes f his re he Zeemn effec he Sr effec  he Rmn effec he mpn eec n s he bnnesDure eec which cu serve s n exmpe f wh is in  wy  soca ct hving  been pruce by he cbrin f mins Prescienic hugh es n pursue he suy f crey eimie  phenmen t dos not sk vaaton but ath va This is  pricu ry chrcerisic feure he serch fr vriey es he min frm ne bjec  nher unmehicy; he min ny ims herefre  he exen sin f cnceps. The serch fr vriin is che   pricur phenm enn i ries  bje cify  is vribes n es heir sensiiviy; i eiches  he cmprehensin f  cncep n prepres he m hemisin f experi ence Le us  hugh  he prescienic min s i ges in serch f  vriey. We hve ny  sim hrugh he rs bs n eecriciy  be sruc by he heergeneus nture f he bjecs in which eecric prper  ies re sugh N h eecriciy is me  gener prpery prxicy i is he  be n excepin prperty which is  ne n he sme ime tche  he ms iverse subsnces In rs pce cme  nury   precius snes fwe by suphur he resiues f ccinin n isi  in beemnies sme n me Aemps re me  in he eecric  prperty n he prperies h re rs seen Hving me  st f he sub snces which migh be eecribe Bunger cncues frm i h he  ms brie n he ms rnspren subsnces re wys he ms eec  ric . Gre enin is wys pi  wh is naua. Since eecricity ws  natua  principe i ws fr  shr whie hpe h i ere  wy f  isinguishing beween re n fse imns The prescienic min  wys wishes he nur pruc  be richer hn he rici ne T his scienic cnsrucin bui f juxpsiin ne everyne hs smehing hey cn cnribue Hisry is winess  he crze fr eec  riciy. Everyne is inerese in i even he ing Priesey recuns  gaa xpn

40

In an as w as in Gnany pimnts w mad to ty how many psons mght f th shok of th sam pha [th Lydn ja h Abb Nott, whos nam is famous in tiity, gav it to on hundd and ighty of th guads in th Kng s psn and at th gand onvnt of th Cathusians in Pais th who ommunity fod a in of nin hundd toiss [nn  ongs, by mans of ion ws btwn vy two psons whih fa dd th in of on hundd and ighty of th guads) and th who ompany upon th dishag of th phia , gav a suddn sping, at th sam nstant of tim and a ft th shok quay

The experimen is nme er hse wching i n we re  h if  sever pepe sning in  circe receive n eecric shc he experimen is ce he njure. When i cme  viising imns pepe f   rn fun i snishing n even rmic M cquer i he experien in frn f seveneen pepe When Drce n Ruee repee i  hunre n y pepe were presen The Leyen jr ws  he ccsin f re mzemen s  he fwing quins m Priesey shw He es us h in he sme yer in which i ws iscvere numbers f persns in ms every cunry in Eurpe g  iveih by ging bu n shwing i. Whie he vugr f every ge sex n rn were viewing his prigy f nure n phisphy wih wn er n mzemen. We s e h An emperr nee n esire  greer   revenue hn he sums which hve been receive n shings sixpences  hreepences n wpnces fr exhibiing he Leyen experimen This use f  few iscveries by iinern shwmen wi n ub  be seen in he curse f scenic evepmen I is nw negigibe hwever The donstatos f Xrys wh hirty yers g cme  see heechers ering    ie nvety  essns wu certiny n hve msse  gre frtune. They seem nwys  hve isppere geher There is nw in he  physic sciences  es  gre guf beween chrn n scienis In he eigheenh cenury science inerese  euce pepe I ws insincivey fe h  nur hisry cecin n  brry cu be  pu geher ie  ibrry s he ccsin rse i ws cneny expece  h he hzrs f iniviu ns wu be crine  by hemseves  nture hersef being bh chere n n hmgeneus An nnymus wrier  prbby he bb e Mngin prese ns his Hsto ga t patcu d ctc  752 wih his very sypmic subie  r he curius n musing use n ineresing merry n jcur hings h hve been si bu i by sme physiciss in Eurpe. He sresses h his wr is very   much f ineres  hse mving in pie sciey since if hey suy his

4

H F  H S D

 it   cuiu t ee  gl pitl beig lded by puig milet eed bck d  t t d t ee it ed tut eite tide bttey  pde but jut by ig  ml p te te t i eve me cuu  d ee tmet i dded t muemet t ee  ge e ectic pk mkg  itecected gup  pt l e t te me time

GS BHELD

is lst oservtion provides good proof of te inerti of te sustntilist intuition we sl e exmining lter on It sows fir cer tt tis intuition is n ostce to te understnding of  new penomenon ndeed, ow stonising it is to see ice tt does not contin' re in its su

stnce trowing out sprks even so et u s terefore rememer tis exmple in wic tere is n excess of te concrt tt msks te correct form, te strct form, of te penomenon Once reverie s tken off into te relms of contrdictor imges,  mrels re condensed wit gret ese It leds te most unexpected possi ilities to converge Wen incomustile sestos ws used to mke long lsting wicks for lmps, it ws ope d to nd etel lmps ' Al tt nee ded to e done, people tougt, ws to isolte abto oi wic undoutedl would not u w n more tn n abto wick does Mn exmples could e found of convergences tt re s swi nd s ims s tis  nd tt re te source of certin projects tougt up  dolescents In works ntici  pting te scientic ture  works of science ction  so populr in literr circles were te were regrded s in fct disseminting scientic knowl edge mong te generl pulic, te sme devices were used, wit more or ess disprte possiilities eing juxtposed All tese worlds wic  simple cnge of scle enlrges or reduces re, s Rgis Messc s sid in is ne stud of Voltire's Microga linked to commonplces wic owever lso correspond to suc nturl inclintions of te umn mind tt it is per  missile to trot tem out to one's ert's content; te cn lws e success ful repeted to  likeminded pulic s long s tis is done skill or wit some pprent novelt in te presenttion' 10 For te scientic mind, tese science ctions, tese joues to te moon nd frictions of gints nd  monsters, re rel infntile regressions And wile te sometimes muse, te never instruct Explntions re t times entirel sed on n excess of prsitic fe tures is is ow rel errtions come out A vivid imge leds to te doption of n unveried potesis For exmple,  mixture of iron lings nd owers of sulpur is covered wit ert nd ten s grss plnted on top of it: it is ten lindingl ovious tt wt we ve is  volcno! It seems tt witout tis gisment, witout tis vegettion, imgintion would e disconcerted Wit tem, it cn go forwrd: it need onl expnd te dimensions nd it will understnd' Vesuvius s it trows up lv nd smoke A elt mind ougt to dmit tt it s onl een sown n exotermic  rection, te sntesis quite simpl of iron sulpide is nd onl tis is is  cemicl prolem nd te psics of te ert does not come in to it Here is noter exmple of vivid detil leding to improper expln tion In  note in Cvllo's tretise on electricit, in wic e reltes experi  ments tt re oen ingenious, e ss tt e s studied te effect of n eectric crge pssing over  piece of crd or noter od' nd goes on to s ttif ou cover te squre of pper wit sml treedimension mod

44

45

Astonisment is sstemticl soug t in order to ctc peoples inter est Empiric contrdictions re mssed pic of  ne experiment, eigt eentcentur stle, is tt conducted  Gordon Priestle tells us tt Mr Gordon even red spirits   jet of wter' In te sme w r Wtson, in Prieste's words, even red ot spirit of wine, nd inmmle ir,   drop of cold wter, tickened wit  mucige mde wit te seed of e wort, nd even wit ice' oug empiricl contrdictions suc s tese, were re is lit  cold wter or  i ce it is eieved tt te msterious crcter of nture cn e disceed ere is not  single ook in te eigteent centur tt does  not feel itself oliged to mke reson tremle efore te msterious ss of  te unknowe, nd tt does not pl wit te vertigo wic seizes us in fce of te depts of te unknown Wt fscintes us is wt rst ttrcts our ttention According to te A de Mngin, ogeter wit te ntur nd te useful in istor, eectricit seems to unite in itself ll te deligts of  fle nd stor, of tetricl spectce nd of romnce, of comed nd trg ed' In order to expin te origin of te prodigious interest immeditel encountered  electricit, Priestle writes: Hee e ee te cue  ue t l ppece etey eveed  t mt udmet  d by cue eemgly te gtet imgibe  Ad  t y e te getet eect pduced by cue ic eem t be cidebe but by te it c tey eem t ve  cect Hee cty t te piciple  gvt e ee bdie tcted epeled d eld upeded by te ic e ee t ve cqued tt pe by tig but  vey lgt cti; ile te bdy it te vey me cti evee l t eect Hee e ee  pece  cd met  eve te  ice emittig tg pk  e   t kidle my immbe ubtce

GATON BACLAD

TE FOMATON O TH SCENTII MID

the cncrete a n a pible. hey will ret t the experient better equipped t bring ut the phenenn' rganic character Experient are dne in rder t illutrate there Refr ntrduced int ecndary edu catn in France ver the lat decade have diinihed the diculty f phy ic prble and even in e cae brught n the teaching f a phyic where there are n prble but jut ral quetin uch refr iunder tand the real eaning f the centic ind tal ignrance i preferable t nwledge that ha lt it ndaental prnciple.

 plive aterial i  eaily btained. It ee that fr adlecent, any ex  plin ugget the vage intentin f haring, f frghtening and f de tyng I have quetined any peple abut ther erie f chl In abut fty per cent f cae, I fund the ery f explin n cheitry len. Mt f the tie, the bjective caue f thee had been frgtten and what wa reebered wa the lk n the teacher' face and the ight f the hy child nearby there wa never any entin f the narratr' fright ll thee erie uggeted, by the very alacrity with which they were   recalled, the repreed wil t pwer anarchic and atanic tendencie, and the need t have cntrl ver thing n rder t be able t ppre peple  fr the frula f aniu idide and the very prtant thery f radi cal illutrated by thi explive, it ge withut aying that they are nt part f the cultivated pern' baggage, nt even by virte f the very pecial interet arued by thi expin. Mrever, t  nt uncn t ee yung peple becing attached t dangeru experient When tak ing t their failie, a large nuber f   pupil exaggerate the danger they have faced in the labratry. Many are the nger ted yellw by e calculated cluine Labratry cat have hle ade in the by ulphuric acid wth atnihing equency he victi f cience' try ha indeed t be lived ut inide ur head In cheitry, any vcatin rginate in an accident. he yung iebig wa apprenticed t a pharacit at the age f een and n diied intead f pll, he wa aking fulnate f ercury Fulinate were re ver the ubject f hi rt cientic wrk. re we t ee a purely bjective nteret in h chice f ubject I patience in reearch adequately explained in ter f a ftitu pychlgical caue In Strndberg T Son ofa Srant, which  in any repect autbgraphical, we nd thi ery fr adlecent day In rder t have hi revenge in the hue where he wa a gure f n becaue f hi unfrtunate experient, he prepared l inant gae'1 5 Mrever, Strindberg wa fr any year beed by che cal prble. In an interview with a preentday prfer, Pierre Devaux wrte that ike all budding cheit, he had a pain fr explive, fr chrated pwder, and fr bb e ade ut f he lac e  Such i   pule etie ake fr ditinguihed career, a indeed the freging exaple hw. Mre en thugh a vilent experient i ucient unt itelf and leave erie that are given unwarranted value. Suing up then, n the junr year f u r ecndary chl experi ent which are t vivid and which ffer t any iage are centre f  fale interet eacher cannt be t trngly advied t keep ving  the labratry bench t the blackbard in rder t extract the abtract 

When a prble i ped, experience ha t be put nt a ratinal fr and unle thi happen and there  cntant recure t an explicit ratinal cntrctin, we will allw a kind f unconscous oft scntc nd t be cntitted, which will then require lw and dcult pychanalyi if it i  be exrced. In duard Le Ry trikingly dene prae Everyday  knwledge i uncnciune f neelf' 1  hi uncncune can hw ever al aect cientic thught In that cae, crtci ut be reintated and knwledge brught back int cntact with the cnditin that gave t ith we ut keep retu ng t that nacent tate which i the tate f    pychic vigur, at the very ent when the anwer ha ce fr the  prble. It i nt ucient t nd a rason fr afact in rder t be able t peak in any real ene f the ter f the ratonasaton f experience Rea n i a pychlgcal activity that i eentially plytrpic t want t tu  prble ver, t vary the, t gra the n t ne anther, and t ake he prliferate Fr an experience t be trly ratinaled it ut therefre  be inerted int a st ofutp and ntractng rasons. hi thery f  dscursv and copx ratonasaton encunter p  pitn fr ur rt cnvictn, fr the need fr iediate certainty, fr the need t start fro certainty and  the rearing belief that  becaue f thi, the knwledge we tarted  wa certain Hw very ill tepered we therefre are when ene ce alng and cntradict ur eleentary knwledge ngerng thi dood trasur the uit f  uch effrt in the chlr! nd hw quick we are t ake accuatin f di  repect and elfcnceit againt anyne wh cat dubt n ur elder' pw er f bervatin h being , uch iplaced aectivity ught urely t attract the attentin f pychanalyt In ur view then, Eet Jne i in deed inpired in hi pychanalytcal tudy f indurate rt cnvctin We ut tudy thee preatureratinaliatin' which play a part in the fra tn f the precientic ind iilar t that f ubliatin f the libd in

8

49

v

SO BHED

THE ORTIO OF THE SIETIF ID

te arit formation Tey are te mark of a w o be in te rigt wiout aving any expicit proof, and to avoid dicuion by referring o a fac tat we do not conider oureve o be intereting, even toug we are giving it an eential dcaratv vau. A Loui Cael a o wel put it The method that folows facts, authoritarian and despotic as it is, assumes a god-ike air, tyrannising our credence and deluding our reason A man who reasons or indeed who demonstrates a proof, regards me as a man: I reason with him; he eaves me ee to judge; he presses me only by my own reason. He who cries ' here is a fact regards me as a save 17

Te pycoanalyi o f objective knowledge i particuarly dicult wen rt fact' are a dered to No new experience and no criticim can, it eem, detroy cerain of our rt armation At te very mot, we concede ta  primary experience can be rectied and made more precie by new one A  oug primary obervation coud yield anyting oer tan an opportun for reearc Eet Jone give a very pertinent example of ti overaty, ilmade rationaliation tat contruc on an experimena bai lacking in any olidity:

action. This persistent rationalisation of a process known however to have been an irrational one in the past is equently to be obseved.18

t i  in our view very intrctive to et ti scntc  page alongide a tra one, bo of e reverie of a writer bot range and wie n i  novel entited In th Bond of th Sa Strindberg ao caim e can cure yteria  e i led to ue aafoetida aer a erie of reection tat obviouly ave no objective meaning and a mut be interpreed om a ubjective andpoint alone: This woman felt sick in body though without exacty being ilL He therefore composed a seies of medicaments the rst of which would force the patient to leave her sick state of mind and spirit and woud simply situate the sickness in her body To this end he took from the household pharmacopoeia that most oensive of al drugs asafoetida and thinking it more tted than any other to produce a state of genera indisposition, he removed a dose ofthis that would be sucient to produce real convusions That is to say, physica being in its entirety would rise in revot against this foreign substance and al the nctions ofthe sou woud concentrate their forces so as to repel it. Imaginary suerings woud as a result be forgotten t woud then ust be a matter of bringing about transitions, from this one disgusting sensation though other esser ones unti perfect iberation was achieved moving graduay through a range of refreshing, balsamic, soening, and soothing remedies; it would be a matter of awakening a total feeing of wellbeing, like that folowing the expeence of diculties and dangers that eave sweet memories. He put on his white cashmere moing coat 19

The curent use of vaerian as a specic remedy for hystera provides us with an exampe of how the process of rationalisation is set in motion It shoud be remembered that asafoetida and vaeian were administered for centuies because peope believed that hysteria was the resut of the wombs migrations throughout the body an d these maodorous remedies were he d to have the power to restore this organ to its noma position which shoud then ead to the disappearance of hysterical symptoms Even though experience has not conrmed this view, most hysterical diseases are at present stil teated in the same way t is cear that the continuing use of these remedies stems from bind acceptance of a deeprooted tradition, the origins of which have now been totally forgotten. Yet e need to expain to their students the reasons for using these substances has led neurologists to grace them with the term antispasmodics and to expain their action somewhat subtly foows valerc acid one ofthe constituents of vaerian, has been named as an active principle and is generaly administered in the form of a salt of zinc, coated in sugar so as to mask its unpleasant taste Some mode authorities who are aware of the origins of this treatment are l of admiration for the fact that peope had ong ago, despite their misunderstanding ofhysteria been able to discover such a precious method of treatment whie at the same time giving an absurd expanation for its

We would like to ave te time o pycoanaye te wole of  Strindberg' ong narrative wic would allow u o dy te curiou mix  ure of a ubjective a priori and wat caim to be objective value However, affective value are o obviou in i extract tat ere i no need to under line tem We can erefore ee very clearly in bo cientit and dreamer  e ame tecnique of demontrating impure proof We cannot urge read er trongy enoug to eek out in a ytematic way convergence at are cienic, pycoogical, and literary Te ame reult i obtained weter  by dream or by experience and ti in our view i proof tat experience i but a dream By imply bringing in a parallel iterary exercie we ave already  pycoanayed objective knowledge However, te immediate and incorrect raionaliation of an uncertain

0





GASTON B ALA RD

TH  FOMATI ON OF THE SENI FI C MND

We would moreover be committing a serous error f we thought that empirical knowedge could remain at the level of rigorously assertoric knowl edge by restricting itself to the smple armation of facts. Descr pton never

  respects the rles of health banali. Buffon hmself wished this delber ately bana, at anguage to be used n scentic books He prided hmsef on ang a featureess and unadoed stye of wrting whc h le objects to be seen directl. Yet ths enduring wsh for simpicity c an come to grief A word wl suddeny reverberate in us and nd too ingering an echo n cherished old deas an image w l ight up and persuade us outrght, abrptly and all at once n realty a serous wegh word a key word only carries everyday convicton, convicton that stems more from the lnguistic past or from the  naivety of primay mage s than from objective trth as we shal be show ing n a ater chapter. All descripton nucleates in ths way and colects about cenres that are too bright Unconscio us thoght gathers around these centres  these nuclei  and thus the mnd s introvered and mmobiised Buon n act recognised the need to keep mnds n uncertanty, so that they could in fure come to reexive knowledge or him What is essenta is to l peoples heads with  deas and facts and if possble, prevent them from beng too quick to reason and make links on ths bass .2 1 However, wat Buon  has particularly in mind s a ack of nformation he does not see the almost mmedate deformaton of objective knowedge when it  s nterpreted by the  unconscous and gathered around these cenres of unconsciousness. He be eves that when given too narrow an empirica base the mind wil ehaust tself making false combinations n reality, the ability to make ins does  not have its origin i n surfaces,  n the vey place where observatons are made,  but rather it springs from more inward reactions Bacons tabes do not refer drectZ to a realty gven greater vaue t must not be forgotten that before nstances are l sted hey are sought hey are therefore the results of ideas for  research, deas that were to a greater or lesser degree both hdden and given   vaue Before beng taught how to descrbe objectivey, observers should therefore have been psychoanaysed, wth repressed irratona expanatons  beng carely exposed We only have to read the secto ns n Buon s work n whch the object does not come to the observers attenton naturaly and we shal recognise the inuence of prescientc oncepts with centres of unconsciousness. This can be best illustrated from his researches into mner as n particular, a knd of hierarchy of minerals can be seen here, n blatant contradiction to clams to be planly and atly empircal We can therefore  reread Buons Histoire naturelle with greater insight observng the ob sever and adopting the atttude of a psychoanalyst watching out for irra tona reasons We shal understand that his portrats of anmals, bearing as hey do the sgn o f an erroneous bioogica herarchy are ful of featres that the  narrators unconscous reverie imposes The lion is the king of the an  mals because to one who s n favour of order, t appears tting that al be

52

53

phenomenon mght wel be more visible in simpler examples. Is it tue that wilo thewisps disappear around mdnight? The fact is expained before  beng authentcated n 1780, Sauy  a serous author  writes that this dis appearance is perhaps because it is colder and the exhalatons producing (the wllothewisps) are then too condensed to hold themselves n the air; perhaps they are als o stripped of elecricity, which prevents them om fer  menting and from producing lght and makes them fall back to earh 20 Do wilo thewisps gve chase to the person attempting to ee om them? His answer is as folows: This ha ppens because they are pushed foward by the air that comes and ls the space le behind by that person n al these imprdent ratonalisations, it is plain that the answer s much clearer than the question or better, that the answer was given before the queston was cari ed This perhaps justies us in sayng that the sense of the probem charac terises the scentic mnd Lasty, were t possble for all nstances of objective nowledge to take an accurate measurement of empricism on the one hand and of rationalism on the other we would be astonished at the mmobilsation of knowledge that occurs when particular obsevations are immediately adhered to We would see that n common knowledge facts are too soon mixed wth reasons. here s too shor a path from fact to idea People think they can keep to the facts They like to say that while mstakes m ay have been made n the inter pretation of facts in the past, at east the facts were seen and wel seen Now, if a fact is to be dened and specied there has to be a minimum o f intere taton If this minmum nterpretaton coincides wth a ndamenta error, what then remans of the fact? Of course, where a fact s conceed that has, in a way, been extrinsicaly dened n an area manifesty foregn to ts es sence, then this weak deniton which does not hold us to anything  may  not be erroneous (t i s not sucienty organc to be so! ) For example, if it is a mater of seeing, saying, and repeating that amber attracts light bodies when it is rbbed then this mechanical action extrinsic as it is to hidden electrica laws, wl doubtl ess provide an opportunty for accurate observatio n, as long as no value is put on the word attracts' Yet this accurate obsevation wl be a cosed experience. t s hardly suprsng that it has gone om age to age without bearng fruit, and wthout gving rise to experences of varation V

II i 

 HELD

 I  TH ETI IN

Alchemy has ben udged and condemned by chemists and writers alke n the nneteenth century a hstorans of chemistry were happy to recognse the alchemists passion for experment they pad homage to some of ther positive discoveries they then showed mode chemistry to have sowy come from the achemists' laboratores Yet from reading these histo rans it woud seem that facts were estabished with consderable dculty n spt ofdas, athough no reason for or measure of this resstance s ever gven Nineteenthcentury chemsts motvated as they were by a postve way of thnking were led to make a judgement of objective vaue and this took no account at al of the remarkable psychoogcal cohesion of achem ca culture. Tuing now to terary gures from Rabelais to ontesqueu ther judgement is even more supercial the achemst beng represented as a dsturbed mind n the servce of a covetous heart Lasty schoary history and coourl naratves depct an experience that s doomed to faure. We magne the alchemst to be as laughable as any oser is. He s for us the unrequted lover of a chimera So negative an nterpretation shoud however arouse some misgivngs We ought at least to b e surprised that such empty theories have such a long history contnung to spread even durng the deveopment of scence and up

 our own day n point of fact ther persstence n the eighteenth century has not escaped Moets perceptive eye Constantin Bla has written a thesis studyng them n action too n eghteenthcentury iterary lfe he ses this hough as simply a measure of the adepts creduty and the master's trckery hs sudy coul d be pursued however throughout the nineteenth century The attracton of achemy woud be sen for many a spirit leading to work as psychoogicaly profound as that of Viliers de 'seAdam The centre of esstance must therefore ie more hdden han is magined by nav atona sm Achemy must have deeper sources n the unconscious. n order to explain the persistence of achemcal theories some histo ans of freemasonry enamoured as they ar e of mystey hav e descri bed al emy as a system of potica intiaton whch was a the more covert and obcure because t appeared to have a more obvious meaning n the work of chemists Thus n an interestng artce on alchemy and freemasonry Kopaktchy writes that Bhnd a purely alchemcal (or chemca) facade whch was v a there was therefore a no ess rea init iatory system    his ntiatory system can be found underyng al esoterism in urope from he eeventh centuy onwards and t therefore underies both Rosicrucian ntaton and freemasonry'. Yet this nterpretation remans too ntectuast even though Kopaktchy recognses that achemy is no t simp y a vast mysticaton in ended to dupe eccesastica authorites' t cannot gve us a true measure of he psychoogica resistance put up by the alchemca ostac to th e attacks of obectve scientc thought Al these attempts at expl anaton take no account of the radcal oppos on of chemstry to achemy We must therefore now tu to examine deeper sychologcal conditions n order to expan such powerfu complete and asting symbolism. This symbolsm could not be passed on in smpe ae gorca forms f it dd not verlay an unquestionabe psychoogca realty ndeed boady speaking the psychoanayst est ones has shown that symboism s not taught like an objective truth For t to be taught symbo sm must be attached to symboising forces that preexst in the unconscous We can say as Jones does that symbolsm has to be recreated afresh out of ndvdua matera and that the stereotypy is due to the unformity of the human mind in regard to the partcuar tendences that sh the source of symbosm  i e  to the unformty of the ndamenta and perennia interests ofmanknd .22 t is aganst this stereotypy whose orign is not perceptve but ffective that the scentc mind must act.  f we study the alchemsts  cuture at the very fount of ther peronal convictions we shal see ths culure to be thought that has been cay com

54

55

ngs even the beasts should have a kng. The horse remains noble n ts servtude because in his social nctions Bun wshes to remain a great and nobe gure

V  However n order to pove that what s most mmediate n prmary experence s ndeed ourseves our hidden passons and unconscous desires we sha now study at some length certan reveries to do wth mater. We shal endeavour to sh ow their affective ba sis and their wholly subectv e dy namism n order to do ths we shal be examining what we shal cal the psychoogcay conct character of achemy. More than any other achem ca experence is twofod t s objective and also subectve t s to subjec tive vercations both mmediate and direct that we shal be drawing atten ton here. We shal thus gve a somewhat extended exampe ofthe problems to be dealt wth by a ps ychoanayss of obectve knowedge We s ha moreo ver have the opportunty to retu to this topc n subsequent chapters here in order to isce the nuence of paricular passions in the deveopment of achemy

GSN CHELD

     D

A historian of positive chemistry may ell see this as being above all a more or less clear chemical eperiment on calcium phosphate or, as one eight eenthcentury riter called it, on animal glass Beckers ish has, e be lieve a different tonality These dreamers pursue not earthly but spiritual possessions nless there is this inversion of interest e shall for an inac curate idea of the meaning and depth ofthe alchemist's ay of thinking Consequently, if the epected material action failed to take place, this operative accident ould not destroy the psychological value of the tension making up this epectation This unsuccessl ata eperience ould be disregarded ithout any hesitation the forces of hope ould remain intact because those ho are acutely conscious of hope have already met ith suc cess This is of course no longer the case here the scientic mind is con ceed here any ata failure is at the same time an ntctua failure

since even at its most modest, empiricism i n science presents itself as being involved in a structure of rational hypotheses n mode science, a physics eperiment is a particular case of a general thought, and a particular moment in a general method t is ee from the need for personal success insofar as it has, in fact, been veried by the scientic comunity Science in its entirety does not need to be put to th tst by the scientist What happens though hen eperiment contradicts theory? You can, in that case, keep repeating the negative eperiment over and over again, in the belief that it is simply a failed eperiment This is hat Michelson did hen he so oen repeated the eperiment hich, in his vie, should sho the imobility of the ether n the end hoever, hen Michelson's failure as beyond doubt, science had to modi its ndamental principles Thus as reativity science bo Should an eperiment in alchemy not succeed the conclusion is dran quite simply that the right matter or the necessary gers of being ere not used or even that the moment has not yet come for it to produce a result t might lmost be said that alchemical eperiments develop in Bergsonian duration, in b iological and psychological duration An unfertilised egg  ill not hatch out an egg that the hen inadequately or interittently broods ill go bad a tincture that has gron stale i ll l ose i ts mordant and its generative force For it to gro and to produce, there is to every being a season, a con crete and an individual duraton hus, hen e can lay the blame on time that hangs heavy on surroundings that fail to mature, on delicate groth deep ithin that gros idle, then e have everything e need in order to eplain om ithin the accidents of eperiment Yet there is a ay of interpreting the material failure of an alchemical eperiment that is deeper and more inard still Here, the eperimenters moral purity is called into question When the epect ed phenomenon fails to be produced ith the help of the correct symbols, hat e have here is not ust a failure but rather a psychological a, a mora fault t is the sign of meditation that is insuciently profound, of psychological slackness and prayer that is insuciently attentive and fervent s Hitchcock has so ell ut it in ritings that are too tte on hat e are dealing ith in the orks of the alchemists is not so much eperimentation but complication Ho could the alchemist purify matter ithout puriing his on soul rst? Ho could the orker, as the masters prescribe enter ith all his being into the cycle of the ork ifhe brought to it an impure body, an impure soul and a covetous heart t is not uncommon to see an alchemist penning a diatribe against gold Thus, Philalethe rites  sco and rightly loathe this idolatry of gold and silver   And again he says   even have an aversion to gold, silver, and precious stones, not as God's creatures for I respect them as

56

57

ptd and that, throughout the cycle ofeperiments, receives pschooga con1ations hich make the solidity and inardness of its sybols very plain Love for a chimera is, in truth the most faithl of loves To fully appreciate the coptnss ofthe alchmists' convictions, e must not lose sight of the fact that the philosophical theory that sees science as essentially ncopt is a mode one Mode too is he kind ofthought that is alays pending, alays on hold, that develops fom hypotheses long regarded ith suspicion and hich can alays be revoked n prescientic times on the contrary, a hypothesis is based on a deep conviction: it illustrates an inner state of mind and spirt hus wth ts sa ofsbos ach  os us a nd ofa n od of nwad dtatons. These are not things and sub stances that are being put to the test these are in fact psychological symbols hich corresp ond to things, or to put i t better, the different degrees of inard symbolisaton hose hierarchy e ish to eperience t seems indeed that in their eperience of the orld of objects, alchemists symbolise' ith all their being and ith all their soul For eample, having reminded us that ashes alays retain the mark of their substantial origin Becker makes this odd sh hich i s moreover still recorded in the Enccopd in the article entitled Ashes) May i please God  .  tha  have frends who w ll pay m e he las honours; who,  say wl one day conver y bones dry and wo ou by long hours of work no a daphanous subsance ha down a succeedng cenures canno be changed ha wl keep s generc colour no he greenness of pans bu raher he coour o he ar of a quverng narcssus and hs hey could do n a very few hours.

SO LR

E ORMO O E SE M

such but becuse they ere use in the ioltry of the srelites s el s in tht of ll peoples n orer to succee ith his eperiment the lchemist must oen live long perios of usterity ust hereticl n eprve s he s neee  emons help in orer to ssuge his pssions n upright hert n unblemishe soul nimte by forces of goo n reconciling its on ntue ith tht of the universe ill on the contrry nturly n the truth Truth ill be foun in nture becuse it is eperience in the sel The truth of our hert is the truth of the orl ever ere the qulities of self scrice integrity ptience scrupulous metho n relentless lbour so closely boun together s in the or of lchemists oys it seems tht those ho or in lbortories cn etch themselves more esily om their or Their emotionl lives re no longer mie up ith their scientic live s Their lbortory is no longer t home in ttic or cellr They leve it in the evening just s one leves n oce n they go home to their fmilies to other cres n other joys e believe tht ere e to loo t ll the vice hich bouns in the prctice of lchemy n interpret it s it seems still possible to o in its objective n subjective mbivlence e oul come to estblish  pe gogy tht is in some respects more truly humn thn the purely intellectulist pegogy of positive science nee lchemy is on the hole not so much n intellectul initition but rther  morl one e must consequently juge it subjectively ccoring to its morl results before e consier it objectively n juge it by the results of its eperiments This spect hs not escpe Hlne Metger ho hs this to sy bout vn Helmont Th is il l not seem  strnge interprettion of vn Helmonts thought if it is remembere tht this philosopher consiere lbortory or s ell s pryer n fsting s but preprng the enlghtenment of our spirit24 Thus n ngogic psycho nlysis of the lchemist must be set in plce bove the mterilist interpret tion o f lchemy This spiritul enlightenment n morl initition o not constitute  mere trining course intene to help positive progress to be me in the ture The best themes of morl contempltion n the clerest symbols of  scle of inner perfection re to be foun though oring, in the slo n gentle hnling of mtter n the ltetion of issolving n crystllising lie the rhythm of y n night re cn be mire in etension in heven n erth n nture cn be mire in intension in its epth n in the ply of its muttions of substnce Clerly though this in of oner ment onerment tht goes eep is boun up ith the meittion of n nner life ll the sbols of objective eperience cn immeitely be trns lte into symbos of subjective culture Ho innitely simple  pure intui

58

surface of a pewter vase. Jovial ton is! The sun plays and laughs on the is as contradictory as a god: it upiter, is J co-ordinate pewter, whose planetary both opaque and polished, ing be surface its light, reects and both absorbs wll suddenly shine very that yet dull is is matterthat Pewter dark. and bright in the right place, of sunshine ray is a happen to this for need we All y bright As �oyr has revealed. be will pewter the and iendship, it in to drawn ht lg 1 order to retu so perceptively said in a book to which we must constantly for thought, symbolic of character nderstand the intuitive and fascinating divine of that God, of symbol true 'the is this someone like Jacob Boehme lght that needed another, that needed resistance and o pposition in order to reveal itself and make itself manifest; that in short needed the world in order to be reected and expressed there to set itself against it and to leave

t 

f contemplting  mere object   vse tht by chnce ctches the rys ofthe setting sun  oers us so much enli ghtenment bout Go n our on soul then ho much more etile n evoctive ill be the contempltion ofsuccessive phenomen in the precise eperiments of lchemicl trnsmu taton This les us to unerstn the euction of symbols s no longer  process oflogic or eperiment but rther s occurring t  eep n personl level t is not so much  mtter of povng but of xpncng. ho ill ever no ht spiritul rebirth is n the puring poer of ll rebirth unless they hve issolve  corse slt in its right mercury n then me it ane by ptient methoicl crystllistion tching ith ious hert for he rst shimmering of crystl? Recovering the object mens in fct recover ing the subject the self is recovere through  rebith of mtter Mtter ly in the plm of our hn To me it purer n more beutil e plunge it into he recherous her of cs rising ht e possesse One y the ci weeter then n soene gve bc the crystl Our hole soul celebrtes the ret of the proigl son The psychonlyst Herbert Silberer hs she consierble light on the morl vlue of the ieen lchemicl symbols Wht stries us pticulrly is tht ll lchemicl eperiments cn be nter prete in to ys i n either chemi cl or morl terms  question rises ho  ever here is the g ol? n mtter or i n the het? Ho then cn e be unsure of the vlue omnting lchemicl culture? hen riters epict the lche ist s seeing his fortune they re offering n interprettion tht i s psycho loiclly nonsensicl lchemy culture is inr ts rst lesson n mgic  foun eep ithin the subject n eperience tht is pychoogcay con  hen lchemists then go on to unerstn nture s operting mgi ally this is becuse their on innermost eperience is being pplie to the worl t s in the souls mgic here innermost bing eperiences its on

59

ASON BACLAD

T FOMATION O T SCINTIIC MIND

acenon, that e have the key to undertandng ho value come to be actvely gven to ubtance that are ntally mpure an d tanted. Slberer  menton an alchemt ho recall that he only made real progre n h art hen he notced that nature ork magcaly. Th though  omethng that  dcovered later on t  a dcovery that mut be morally deerved f t  to dazzle experence, aer havng rt dazzled our prt Th magc  not thaumaturgy The letter doe not rle the prt. One  mut beleve th the heart, not th the p. t may be eay to poke  at the kabbaltc ord murmured a the experment  performed yet th  n fact to mundertand the pychologcal experence accompanyng materal experence, that  to ay the experment on matter The expermenter gve h all, gvng hmelf rt and foremot Slberer alo note that hat  to  be on n ne earth   uualy called Love. Alchemy prevaled at a tme hen human oved nature more than they ued t The ord Love here  crcal.  t  the paord beteen the ork and the orker. Wthout gentle   ne, thout ove, the pychology of chldren canot be tded. And n exactly the ame ay, the brth and conduct of chemcal ubtance canot  be tded thout gentlene, thout love. Bng th tender love  not  really an mage for omeone ho ha armed mercury over a gente ame n lone, gentene, and hope e have the hdden force of moral perfec ton and of matera tranmutaton A Htchcock ha ad, The great eect of Love  to tu all thng nto t on natre, hch  all goodne, ee t  ne and perfecton. Th  that Dvne poer hch t ater nto ne orro and anguh nto exutng and trumphant oy 25 f e accept thee mage of a love that  more acred than profane, t ll no longer be a  matter of urpre that the Bble a contantly conulted n alchemt labo  ratore t ould not be hard to nd thouand of example n the book of  the Prophet n hch lead, earth, gold, and alt peak of human vrtue and vce. Alchemy oen dd no more than cod th homology ndeed al the degree of magcal and materal tranmutaton are for ome people homolo gou to the degree of mytcal contemplaton n Johanne Daten Roarium the even egee ae the bect of the foong ecpton n th ay, the boy  1 ) cae the ate to be coneve he ate 2 cae the o to be coneve an not to catch aght above the e An the o  (3) cae the tncte to be xe an the tncte (4 cae the coo to appea an the coo 5) cae the htene to be hon the htene  cae a eetng thng 7 to be xe an to ceae to be eetng Exacty the ame thng happen n Bonavente ecpton o the epem gradu coempaioi an

60

hen Dav o Agbrg otne the even tage of paye Boehme  ama th even Qegete26

Thee homologou cale ho farly clearly that the dea of  vau   ocated th the ucceve product of achemcal experment We hall have many opportnte later on for hong that in th ordr ofobjctiv nowdg any vaorisation must giv ris to a psychoanaysis Th ll be one ofthe man theme of th book. All e need note at preent though  the dectne and mmedacy of th valoraton. What conttute t  the pa o nate epoual of prmary dea, dea that nd but pretext n the obectve ord Our ntenton n th lengthy ecton ha been to brng together all the  pychoogca charactertc and the more or le obectve pretext of al chemcal culture f e take them altogether a a body, e can n fact form a very good dea of hat  too concrt, too nttve, and too peronal n the  precentc manner of thnkng. Teacher mut therefore alay am to etach oberver from ther obect and to held pupl om the great ma of aectvty centred on certan phenomena that are too quckly ymboled and ao, n a ay, too intrsting Th knd of approach  not perhap a outdated a at rt ght t may eem. n my on chemtry clae,  ome tme had occaon to conder the whofachmy tl eddyng about young   mnd For example, hen one nter mong  a makng ammonum magam ammonum butter, a my od teacher ued to call t  and orkng the elng mercury,  could read the paon preent n all thoe attentve eye Th nteret n everythng that ell and gro, that  orked and  kneaded, made me thnk back to e ancent ord of Erenaeu Phlathe Reoce therefore f you ee your matter ell a f t ere dough for the prt of fe  encloed theren and ll, n due tme and f God permt,  retore fe to the bode of the dead t alo eemed to me that the cla a ll the happer th nature lttle tory f t had a happy endng, th the  mercury the chldren loved o ell beng gven back t natural apect and t nta mytery. Thu, hether n today chemtry caroom or n the alchemt orkhop pupl and adept are not at rt pure mnd. For them, matter telf   ot ucent reaon for cam obectv ty. We are dran to the pectacle of  the mot nteretng and mot k ng phenomena, natrally dran there th ll Uf dere and paon and th all our ou. t  not urprng there ore that our rt obectve knoledge hould be a rt mtake.

6

ASON BACHE LAR

THE ORMAON O THE SCENTC MND

NOT 1 Bachelard does not speci the translaton he uses my tanslaton here 2 Bachelard's footnote Caude Comiers L Nur  prg d Co Ouvrg hiqu phyiqu  hioriqu nrihi d prophi d drnir i  d lfbriqu d grnd lun (Lyon: 1665) 3 Fx Vcq d'Azyr (174894 was a doctor and the author of the rst wors on comparative anatomy 4 Bachelard  s paying wth different senses of regar' , exploitng n parcular ts ecclesiastca sense (being subject to a rule, beongng to a relgous order where regular' s the opposite of secuar ', hence his phase prescentc thought lives in he world'. 5 Bachelard's unspecied reference s to Danel Moet L Pn frni u X i (Pars: Coin 1 926 6 Joseph Priestley h Hio nd Prn S oflrii wih Originl Expr n (London: 1 767) All quotatons om Priestley are taen om the orignal Eng ish text, of which there were severa editions Bachelard quotes om the French ranslation (Paris: 1771. 7 This qotation is om Prestley. 8 Bachelard gives his sorce here as the aricle on Diamonds' in the nyopdi See note 12 9 Bacheard's footnoe Aexandre Vota, Lr trans Osorbier (17 78). 10 Bacheard's footnote: Rgs Messac, Mirog (Nmes 1 935 20 1 1 Bacheard's foonote Tibre Cavalo, ri opl d'rii trans (Paris: 1785. 12 The nyopdi to whch Bachelard equenty refers n the course of ths boo was one of the major wors of the French Enightenment Publshed in 28 voumes ( 1 75 1  1 772 ) nder the direction of d'Alembert and Diderot, its ful tte was nylopdi ou Diionnir rion n d in d r  d ir its aim being to give an account of the progress of nowledge and thought n al el ds 3 Bacheard's footnote Carra, Nouvux Prinip d Phyiqu dedicated to the Roya Prince of Prussia, 4 vos (178182 14 Bachelard's footnote De Marivetz and Gousser, Phyiqu du Mond 9 vols (Paris: 1780 1 5 Bachelard does not spec the translaton he uses smilarly, he omits the sorce of the folowng quotation from Devax 16 Bachelard's footnote: doard Le Roy, Science et phiosophie', Rvu d Mphyiqu  d Morl (1899) 7 Bacheard's footnote Rev Father Castel, Jesut L Opiqu d ou lur fond ur l ipl obrion  ou urou  l priqu d l Pinur d l inur  d u Ar olori (Pars 1740 62

1 8 My transaton, the English editon of Bachelard's French source not having been cated Asafoetida s a res nous unpleasantsmellng gum exuded om the stem of the pantrlfoid  it is an antspasmodic and was formery used medicinally to tre hystera 19 Bachelard quotes the French anslaton, enttled Al Bo ofStrindberg's nove  H bnd but gives no detas o f publication or page references 20 Bacheard's footnote: Sauy, Doctor of Medicine, Pri d Phyiqu 2 vols (Pas: 1780 21 Bachelard's footnote: Buon, Ouvr opl Year 7 This reference uses the repubican calendar, which dated the year  om 22 September 1792 the day on hich the French monarchy was abolished. 22 Eest Jones Pp on Pyhonlyi (London Marese1d Reprints, H aac (Boos) td, 1 977 , 98  Bachead uses the French anslation here The context of this quotation is ones's rejection of Jungian achetypes Bachelard omits the rst phrase I adhere to the contary vew (ie  to Jung's view that symbolsm .  . ' 23 Bachelard's footnote: Anonymous, Hioird l philoophi hriqu v I ribl Phillh, 3 vols. (Pars 1 742 Bache1ard's subsequent references to hia1the  a major alchemical wor  are to ths text 24 Bachelards fooote Hne Metzger, L Dorin hiiqu n Frn du dbu du V  l n du XV i (Pars: Presses Universitaires de France 1923), 174 25 Whie Bachelard quotes Htchcoc in French, hs footnote refers to the orignal English text Htchcoc, Rrk upon Alhy nd h Alhi (Boston: 1 857 . The qotaton given here s om Htchcoc's text 26 Bacheard does not indicate the soce of ths quotaton.

63

GSON BCHELRD

Chapter hree G e n e ra l k n o w l e d ge a s a n o b st a c l e to scientific knowledge

 The progress o scientic knowledge has been slowed down by one actor above all we reer here to the alse doctrine o the gna which prevailed omAristote up to and including Bacon, and which is stil widely regarded as being ndamental to science Eavesdrop or a moment on phi osophers who are talking about science among themselves You will very soon get the impression that Est Mach was being mischievous when he answered Wiliam Jamess Every scientist has his ph ilosophy by observing conversely that Every phiosopher has his own science. We would preer to put it ike this: philosophy has a science that is peculiar to itsel, the science o generality We shall endeavour to show that this science o the general is always a hating o experience, a ailure o inventive empiricism When we know the general phenomenon and use it in order to understand all things are we not, as Malarm has said in his Divagations with reerence to a dierent kind o decadence, delighting as the mob does in the myh that is in all banality? There is indeed a dangerous intelectual delight in rapid, easy gen eralisation A psychoanalysis o objective knowledge must carely exam ine all the seductive charms Jacii Only in this way wil we arrive at a theory o truy healthy, truly dynamic scientic abstraction et us begin by taking an example that will clearly show the immobil iy o summaries that are too genera n order to show in a simple way how inductive reasoning based on a collection o paricular acts leads to a gen eral scientic aw, philosophy teachers will very oen give a quick descrip tion o how dierent bodies al and then draw the conclusion that al bodies all And in order to excuse themselves or such banality, they make out that an example like this shows they have everything they need to indicate deci sive progress in scientic thought ndeed i we compare mode thought

ith Aristoteian thought here, the ormer is seen s rectied generality, as a  ed generaity Aristotle taught that lght bodes  smoke an� vapour, re and ame  retued to their natura abode in the empyrean, whle ha  odes naturay sought the earh Our philosoph teachers take the oppste vie and say that all bodies al, without xcpt n And th, they beleve, gives us the sound theory o gravitation .  ndeed generality does have a place here, whch  why we have begun ih this example so as to sharpen our poemic The contest wil be easier ater on when we shall show that any rapid search or the general most oen eads to misplaced generaities which have no connection with the phenom enons essential mathematica nctions et us begin then with the hardest argment According to our opponents according to philosophers, the greatest generalities should be made the bas is o  cientic clture The basis o me  hanics i s that all b odies al n optcs, t  that al lght rays are propagated in a straight line And in biology it is that all living beings are mortal Thus at the threshod o every science great rst ruths would be set in place, intangi ble denitions that shed light on a whole theory The opening paragraphs o rescientic books are in act cluered up with these a empts at prelimi . nary denition, as we can see in eighteenthcentury ph and twenteth enury sociology alike And yet the question can be raised as to whether these great laws constitute truly scientic thoughts or, what amounts to the same thing in our eyes, thoughts that suggest other thoughts we assess the epistemological value o these great truths by compar ing them with the inaccurate knowledge they replaced, there is no doubt that these general laws have been eective. Yet they are no longer so. t is or this reason that the stages children go through in the cassroom are not homolo gous with historical stages t can indeed be seen that general laws such as these now bock thought They give their answers with one voice or rather they answer without any question being asked, or the Aristoteian qustion ased into silence long ago What makes this overprompt reply so very attractive is this: or the prescientic mind, the verb to al is suciently descrptive i t gives the ssnc othe phenomenon oalling n act, as has oten been said, these general aws dene words rather than things The gen era aw o the al o heavy bodies denes the word ha The general law o the straightness o light rays denes both the word straight and the word  the ambiguity othe a priori and the a posteriori here being such that we ersoaly suer om a kind ol ogica verigo The general aw o he growh and death oliving beings denes the word  pleonasticaly, in eect. Eve thng is clear, thereore everything has been idntd n our view how

65

THE FORMATIO OF THE SIETIFI MID

ee, the shorte the poess o identiation the pooe is expeimental thought. eahing methods ae eidene o the inetia o thought that has just ound satisation in the eal ageement o denitions o show th is, l et us ollow o a moment the lesson in elementary mehanis that studies alling odies t has just een said that all odies all, without any exeption. By doing the expeiment in a auum, with the help o a ewtonian tue, we an aie at a  ihe law: n a v acuu a bodsfa wth th sa voc. We now hae a usel statement, whih is a eal asis o an auate empii ism Howee, this well onstituted geneal orm may ing thought to a standstill. n junio lasses in ou seonday shools, this law is in at the stage whee weay minds ome to a halt his law is so lea, so omplete, and so losed in on itsel that no one eels the need to make a lose study o alling. Genealising thought is satised and as a esult, the expeiment has lost its inentie. When it omes to studying just the thowing o a stone etially up in the ai, we immediately get the impession that the elements othis analys is ae laking We annot distin guish etween the oe o ga ity ating positiely in the downwad moement and the oe o gaity ating negatiey in the upwad moement. When knowledge is too geneal, the aea o the unknown suounding it annot e esoled into peise po lems o sum up then, een when a yle o xact das is eing ollowed, we ealise that geneality immoilises thought and that the aiales desi ing the geneal aspet ast a shadow on the essential mathematial aiales Boady speaking, the idea o eloity hee oneals that o aeleation t is howee the idea o aeleation that oesponds to the dominant eality hus, the mathematis o phenomena is itsel oganised in a hieahy and the st mathematial is not always the oret one, no is i t always the st orm that is eally omatie

GASTO BAHELARD

method o onomitant aiations, it must not e ogotten that these meth ods, whih hae doutless gained a etain dynamism, ae still dependent on the tale o pesene. What i s moe, thee is always a tendeny to ome ak to the tale o pesene and eliminate distuane, aiation, and anomaly t so happens that one o the most stiking aspets o mode physis is that it woks alost uniuely in the aea o ptubaton. t is petuation that now poses the most inteesting polems n shot, thee always omes a time when the st tales o empiial law hae to e oken. t would e all too easy to show that one empiial thought egan to pogess, all the geneal ats isolated y Baon wee seen to e unounded. n passing judgement on Baonism, ieig may hae een impassioned ut he was also ndamentally just We shall only ee to one passage in ieigs shot ook whee he oes an ntptaton o Baonian method in tems o  Baon s he peoupations he inesion o xpanato vaus that ieig points out seems in ou iew to ome within the poine o a eal psyhoa nalysis

Ou emaks will pehaps seem moe oninin g howee i we exam ine the many instanes in whih gna is oiously misplaed his is nealy always the ase o initial genealities, o genealities designated y tabs o natual oseation that hae een dawn up y a kin d o automati eoding om sense data. n at, the idea o a tab does seem to e a onstituent idea o lassia l empii ism and is at the oot o a ey stati kind o knowledge that soone o late hindes sienti eseah Whatee we may think o the oiously geate alue o the tale o degees o o the

Bacons ehod ceases o be incoehensile when we eee ha he is a lawye and a judge, and ha he consequenly alies o naue he ehods of a civi and cina inquiy. Fo his sandoin, hs division no nsances and he eaive vaues he gives he can ediaey be undesood; hese ae wesses he s heaing and on whose deosions he bases his judgeen . . . Wih efeence hee o hea hs hen s oe o ess how Bacon easons in accodance wih his awye's has. Nohing can be done wih he hea of he sun because of he esence of eeual snows on high ounans hough hey be close o he sun . . . The hea of feahes of woo and o f hose dung ae all elaed o anial hea he oigin of whch s vey yseous (Bacon wll no heefoe wase his e loong in ha diecion . . . As on does no expand unde he acion of a vey high eeaue (hs  sees is one of Bacon's asseons and as boiing wae s vey ho whou being uinous his es a judgeen of alib o be ade agains he henoena of eansion and igh The senses can deceve us whee hea s conceed since wa wae sees ho o a cod hand and a ho hand can nd he sae wae o be cod. Tase s even ess concusive. Vio bus fabc bu when diued n wae  has an acid ase and does no gve he ongue a sensaion of hea; spirius origani has a ing ase bu does no bu he hand. Thee heefoe only eains wha he eye sees and he ea heas ha is o say boh he ceing and he inne oveen of he ae and he uu

66

67



E ORMAION O E SIEN MIN

ofbolng water These admssons can b e renforced by toture the torture of the bellows wth whose ad the ame's agtaton and movement gow so volent that the sound t makes s just lke that of bolng water If we nally add to ths the pressure exerted by a foot that stamps out all that emans of heat then pursued n ths way by the udge ths unfortunate heat s forced to admt that t s an unquet beng, ubulent and fatal for the cvl exstence of all bodes'  In the end the constittion of a table only gnaiss a particular in tuition which is given increased value by a tendentious inquiry. Without spending any more time on Bacon and with a view to showing the harml inuence of Baconism some hundred and fty years aer his death let us give just one example where the use of tables of presence and absence led to nonsensical assertions. In 186, the Abb Bertholon an im portant writer who was professor of experimental physic s to the StatesGen eral of the Languedoc and a member of ten or so provincial Royal Societies and of a number of leaed societies in other countries says this: Milton's genius shone from September until the spring equinox a time when the elec tricity in the air is more abundant and continual and for the rest of the year Milton could no longer be found in Milton himself'.2 It can immediately be seen how if such a table were taken as our basis an eectrical theory of genius will come to be developed The Abb Berholon aided in this by Montesquieu is not of course slow to see the diversity of national character istics as dependent on variations in atmospheric electriciy. It must indeed be stressed that when eighteenthcentury physicists make use of such a method they consider themselves to be cautious The Abb Bertholon says in passing that In physics as in trigonometry we must establish a sure basis for all our operations'. Does the use of Bacon's tables really give an initial triangula tion that can serve as the basis for a description o f realiy? It hardly seems so when one reads the detail of the Abb Berholon's books. However rather than adopting too wide a frame of reference we s hall study a number of false concepts i n scienc e that were formed when phenom ena were examined empirically and in nature. We shal see the effect of these false concepts in seventeenth and eighteenthcentury culture. We shall also make the most of every opportnity to show the almost natural formation of false tables ur condemnation of Baconism will therefore be from a psy chological point of view here and historical conditions will not come into it

68

GASON BAELA

 Before presenting our examples it is perhaps desirable that we should briey indicate what we consider to be the real attide of mode scientic thought in the formation of concepts. The sclerosis of concepts formed by Baconian method will then be clearer As we said in our rst chapter here the scientic mind can go astray if it follows two contrary tendencies the attraction of the singlar and that of the universal. Where conceptualisation is conceed we shall dene these wo tendencies as characteristic of knowledge in intension and in extension Yet if the intension and extension of a concept can each lead to an epistemo logical halt then where are the sources of the mind's movement to be found? How can scientic thought recover and nd a way out of this sitation? We need to create a new word here between intension and extension in order to refer to this activiy of inventive empirical thought. This word would have to be given a very paricular dynamic sense Indeed in our view the richness of a scientic concept is measured in terms of its power of de formation. his richness cannot be attached to an isolated phenomenon that would be regarded as growing increasingly rich in characteristics and there fore ever richer in intension. Nor can this richness be attached to a collection that would bring together the most heterogeneous phenomena and extend in a contingnt way to new cases An intermediate meaning will be achieved if enrichment in extension becomes ncssay and as coordinated as richness in intension In order to include new experimental proofs we must then d fo our initial concepts examine these concepts' conditions of application and above all incorporate a concpt  conditions ofappication into th v an ing of th concpt In this last requirement we have in our view the chief characteristic of the new rationalism corresponding to a strong union of experiment and reason The traditional division that separated a theory from its application was unaware of this need to incorporate the conditions of application into the very essence of the theory Since application is subject to successive approximations it can be said that the scientic concept corresponding to a paricular phenomenon is the goup of successive and wellordered approximations. Conceptualisation in scien ce need s a series of concepts that are being perfected in order for it to have the dynamism we are aiming at and for it to form an axis of inventive thoughts. Conceptualisation of this kind totalises the history of the concept and actualises it Beyond history and driven forward by history it gives rise to experiments deforming a historical stage of the concept What it seeks in

69

HE ORTO O  SIN MID

lnge oe  deenng he naue of hs ualy s a deal and a pau lay no whh we anno eally ene Suh dsdan fo deal and suh so fo paulay show pey lealy ha pesen hough has shu self no geneal nowledge and wshes o ean hee hus, wh s ex peens' on oagulaon, he cad ds scncs pu a sop o podu e eseah I dd no ge se o any welldened sen pole e hs, oagulaon s oen aen o e a eans of unesal expla naon fo osogon poles  ey uous endeny leadng peep ly fo explanaon y he geneal o explanaon y he lage ould e exaned hee hs s a endeny ha le Raud has poned ou wh gea suley when he showed ha n yhologal explanaon, wha s pn ple s he Ocan and no he wat as s os oen laed In a oo anslaed no Fenh n 780, Walleus aes oagulaon a of of osogon explanaon as follows e wes (e)  y sog edey o oge w oe es d o ome ogee   sod body    We's dsposo o sody  g be obseed  o w s sed p by oeme oe. Fo s m ess d  we se   be pked p w o ds .  . eoe moee oe ges we o  sod body5

TO BHRD

a ojey  alue hee s he a of an unonsous pefeene s we shall also oen e ponng ou, as soon as a alue neenes you an of ouse e sue of ndng opposons o ha alue Value auo aally podues aaon o epulson Coun o he nuo ha  agnes oagulaon o e he aon o f a ge o leaen podung o sengh enng lfe s one ha, whou any oe poof, sees  as he sgn of deah. hus n 1622, Blase de Vgene wes n hs Tat du fu t du s ha ey oagulaon s a nd of deah, and all lueous ness a nd of lfe'  hs alosaon s of ouse no ee han he s.  psyhoanalyss of ojee nowledge us es all alosaon I us no only ansue ll alues u also adally dealose sen ulue o show he dffeene eween he sen nd and he oe o less aluegng pesen nd all we need o do whee he onep unde dsusson s oneed s loo a soe onpoay sudes of ol lods and gels s eg has sad ode senss see o l he ex peenal eld ahe han o ulply nsanes One n possesson of a lealy dened phenoenon, hey see o deene s aaons hese phenoenologal aaons ndae he phenoenon's aheaal a ales he aheaal aales ae nuely ough ogehe n ues, ough ogehe as no ns Reasons fo aaon ay appea n hs ah aal oodnaon, easons ha ean sluggsh lfeless o degeneae n he phenoenon nde onsdeaon Physss wll y o pooe hese easons hey wll y o copt he phenoenon o as ean poss  les ha he aheaal sudy has eealed In sho, onepoay s enss ase hesles on a athatca undstandng ofhe phenoenal onep and se o ae eason and expeen eual hee he aenon s held no y he geneal phenoenon u y one ha s ogan and hea hal, ha eas he a of an essene and a fo and s, as suh, pee le o aheaal hough.

hee follow any pages desng he aous poesses of waes oagulaon odng o hs eleaed geologs, oagUlaon sues o explan he foaon of anals Eeyone nows oeoe ha anals oe fo a lud ae whh eoes sold hough a nd of oagula on' hus, we see one agan hee he pay nuon of he peedng eny nd n ode o e opleely onnng oneng he gene aon of he oagulang pnple, Walleus uoes Jo: nsta acts  uxst t ns ta cas coagua psst  Many ae he alhess oo who hae deaed oe oagulaon In 1722 Cosse de la Heauee wes ha I s no hade fo a hee Phlosophe o x usle han fo a sple shephedess o oagulae l o ae heese  " I s no hade o  usle no eal sle usng seeds of sle han  s o hen l no heese usng enne, whh s dgesed l  n oh geologs and alhes, he syol of oaglaon an e seen o gahe o  ans hees of geae and lesse puy he deas of seed and leaen ae ae n he unonsous Wh hese deas of gowh ha s anae and ale, a new vau appeas s we shall oen hae oason o pon ou, any ae of vaosaton s a ad sgn n nowledge ha s ang

We also wsh o sudy fo he sae sandpon a ee dened and oe poan onep, ong lose hee o ode es. n de o aan ou al a, we us n fa loo a oneps ha ae oh oe and usel, and show ha hey an onsue an obstac y oeng hough  geneal fo whh s peaue We shall hus sdy he onep of ntaton y ang efeene o an poan we who deoed hself o he new way ofhnng, ha s o say o Dad MaBde.  s oo has as

72

73

v

A BAHLARD

H RA   CI D

ee o he mmedae mmedae daa o nuon nuon The saen quay  coheson or dson  s hereore hereore he generay ha ha suces o expan a hngs t s gna that t hat w xpan and t s by ans ofgna ofgna t hat w xpan xpan n he unendng crce o eary eary emprcsm And hs nae kn d o expanaon expanaon s easy asonshed nd  was hghy peasng MacBrde wres o see he parces o he quckme whch u wo or hree mnues eore were que nse and dssoed n he waer a nnng ogeher and ang o he oom hang reued o her orgna sae o nsouy he momen hey were sauraed wh he xed ar The me had redscoered s ce menng prncpe Wha MacBrde nds pasng here n wha s smpy a precpae s surey us s ready conrmaon o hs hypoheses In anoher expermen we wach he oppose dssouon o mea where he gases poduced y hs pureacon are passed no he souon o mewaer MacBrde hen draws a cear concuson: And here we hae an addona poo o he xd a' eng he cemenng prncpe n anma susances; snce we see ha whe he esh s resoed and as n peces rom he oss o hs hs prncpe he me s rendered rendered sod y hang  resored resored  I s ndeed he genera and ey weak dea o sod ha es ehnd hs expanaon Ths hen s an exampe o a se o oseraons oh accuat and pcous ha aow us o soe he ase proem o he coheson and dsso uon o mea and do no more han rng n ase deas Indeed he nue heme o coheson and sody s a ar oo genera one I eongs o nae nuon aone and s a maor heme n prescenc expanaon Moreoer he reaon eween word and concep here s a ery re marae one In he words xed ar here s aready he supposon o a nd o ar ha s o quoe Haes ere o s eascy and reduced o a sae o xy and aacon aacon  J We shoud no e suprsed hen ha hexed a xes Many exampes can e ound whch show he prescenc mnd coecng expermens ogeher n ems o wha s n he end eymoogy y smpy assemng words eongng o he same amy Fxed ar nds oo genera a name n he pacuar expermen n whch caron doxde acs on mewaer Is uncon uncon s hen gener ased n he excesse way we hae us seen I mus e emphassed ha MacBrde was no one o hose wohess wrers who do no more han copy down expermens peromed y ohers He was a good oserer and was oen ngenous and percepe Hs re searches were repoed n he nneeen hcenuy hcenuy connuaon y Magde ene de Sangy o Cuers Hsto ds scncs natus SanAgy aso says ha MacBrdes expermens payed a greaer pa han Backs n u ng he aenon o physcss and chemss owards he sudy o gases  And

d Azyr prases MacBrde n hs ogs, pushed n 70. cq dAzyr Once we hae uy undersood ha ermenaon s a pa phe nomenon or a genera nuon we can see why aachng an aundance o adeces o  s a ha s requred n order o accoun or he mos derse o chemca phenomena Prescenc hough s conen wh hs consder ng ng as  does ha cassng phenomena means ha hey are aready nown The A Poncee or exampe aso eees ha ermenaon s essen ay a moemen and wres ha:  Snce here are seera degrees o moe moe men here ca n e seer a degrees o  erme ermenaon naon whch ar e usuay reerred reerred o n erms o her reaon o he senses o ase and sme Thus we can speak o a ermenaon ha s sour er acescen aane nous ace ous aromac ed sypc ec The A Poncee s n addon quck o crcse he ause o words (ha) has cas srange darknes oer deas ha are eeed o hae an asrac or meaphysca eng (ke moemen) A raher curous eaure o he prescenc mnd s ha  canno rng s crcsm o ear on se The scenc mnd has a ey deren ay o engage engage  n secrcsm secrcsm As n  he case o coaguaon coaguaon we c an ge exampes n whch oo gen era a concep o ermenaon s manesy oerexended For Georoy Vegeaon s a knd o ermenaon ha unes some o hese same prnc pes n Pans whe reecng he res . 1 1 Here emenaon s such a gen era process ha  rngs opposes ogeher Wrng n 1742 he same year as Geooy an unknown auhor says ha In a unch o grapes he nous uces do no ermen n any oher way han n he arre    We hae he same ermens he same acons and denca ends o hese you can compare n a genera way a ha goes on n he hsory o pans Thus emenaon s esashed on a genera sysem (ha) connuay ares n s oecs 1  To hs excesse and unproen generasaon can e compared Boerhaaes opnon ha when prepared y approprae ermenaon ermenaon a  pans ge orh nous nous sprs wch are waed no he ar: A nd n hs ew we now ook upon hs Ar agan as a Coud as  were o  Sprs Sprs o Wne ] The expanaory aue ohe ohe dea o  er ermena menaon on s o course carred oer no he mnera kngdom For mery:

76

77

n he roucton o fmeta, fermenaon fermenaon whch acs ke re remoes he cre an earhly arts    A egree of fermenaon s neee for he roucton of metals metals ha ha s not foun foun n eery kn of earth earth . . . Snce mea  s a wo rk of ferment fermentaon aon the Sun or the hea o f suberra suberranean nean res must of necessy cooerae n  . . . ermenaon oen causes here here o rse to the mounan to . .  threas of heay ore or some marcase marcase 

GASO BACHEAD

HE OMAON O H SCENC MD

Here again as as already been seen wi regard  caguain expla nain by e gna sides in expanain by e ag and becmes a csmgnic princ ipe. Tus Lmery  w is wever a gied insrcr  is carried away as s many are by is leaed reverie. Wa is biling ere in is re is al e needs in rder  frm frm an image f wa is ging n a e cenre f e ear. Te genera eme f ferm fermenain enain can br ing geer e ms eer geneus f maerial penmena all a is required fr is is a se f adec ives. r exampe e Cme de Tressan explains eecrica penmena in erms f fermenains. He species  fermenains a prduce expan sin and cld nes a give give a c agulum' .1 5 Wi Wi is kind f generalisain generalisain encmpassing w ppsies e can de cnradicin. Having nw caracerised e prescienic aspec fe eme f fer menain i wuld be very easy  sw mde scienic ug  be a dierenia resld f cuure were is eme is cnceed. In paricuar i culd be swn a n eigeencenury bservain gave rise  a nine eencenury ecniqe. N cmparisn is pssibe beween an bservain made by MacBride and a ecnique used by Paseur. Mde s cienic ug srives  specify  limi and  puri subsances and eir penmena  lks fr e specic and becive fermen n universa fermenain. In Marce Bl's excelen excelen prase wa caracerise caracerisess mde scieniss i s b jeciviy n universaism ug mus be becive and wil nly be uni versal versal if i can be s if realiy realiy permis permis i  be universal.1 6 beciviy beciviy is in fac deermined rug precisin rug e cerence f aribues and n rug clecing mre r less anagus bjecs Tis is s rue a wa limis an iem f knwledge is en mre impran fr e advance men f ug an wa vaguey exends knwledge as a we Every scienic cncep mus in any case ave is anicncep linked  i. f a thngs f fnt nt en feenain is very cse  being a penmenn lack ing in any ineres  is erefre desirable  dene wa des n fermen and wa can pu a sp  fermenain. In Paseur's ime in fac e cndi ins  f seriisain were inegraed in knwledge f e cndiin s f fer fer menain and regarded as essenia  is. Mde science's endency  reduce raer an augen bserved quaniies can be seen even in e sim ple disincin made beween e large and e smal. Precisin cemisry peraes n very sma quaniies f maer. Relaive errr wud wever diminis iflarger quaniies were aken. Tecniues are mre reliabe ug

78

i sensiive insrumens Te idea a cmes befre all else ere s a f beer knwledge a is n given iing. Knwedge a lacks precisin r beer cndiins f precise deerminain is n scienic knwledge. en is    a knwledge is ams ineviably knwledge a is vague

NOT  Bacelards foooe: Jss de Lebg Lord Baco ras (Pars: 166

2 Bcelard 's foooe foooe Abb Beolo D l'lcrc du corps corps huma huma  das l a  sa  d malad, 2 ols (Pars 176  Bacelards foooe Hsor ol 1  7 TeAcadm Hsor d I cadm ds Sccs Sccs ol  Sccs was foded  1666 by Colber Los XIVs owerl ace ms er for e sudy of roblems  maemacs ys cs a d cemsy. 4 Baelards foooe Albe Rad L Pom du dr  la oo d la ar das la phlosoph grcu dpus dpus ls orgjusu  ophras ophras (Pars 105 105 5 rr  parculr 5 Bacelards foooe: Wallers D  I Org du Mod  d la rr ra (Warsaw 170 6 s o o ored me o as ml ad crdled crdled me le ceese? (Jo 10 10 grael o R  Abbo for for  s el w raslag e La rases sed  s  m grael boo 7 Bacelards foooe Crosse de la eamere Ls Scrs ls plus cachs d la plosoph ds Acs dcouvrs  xplus  la su d'u hsor ds plus curuss (Pars 1722  Dad MacBrde, Exprmal Exprmal Essas o Mdcal Mdcal a d Phlosophcal Sujcs Sujcs Lodo 1 764 qoaos ere are are from from s ex Bacelard ses e Frec as lao (Pars 1766  Te xed ar s e old ame for carbo doxde 10 Bacelard does o ge e souce souce ofs qoao qoao ee ee ales 1 677- 176 1  a Aglca clergyma ad sces was ow for s esgaos of e e cemsry  e e  e rocesses of release of aeral ds ad e omea ofeumac of eumac cemsry reerse rocesses of xg ar  solds or lqds Ts qoao s dobless from  boo Vgal Sack 1727   Bacelard's foooe: Hsor Hsor d  Aadm A adm ds Sccs 43 12 Bacelards foooe Aoymos Nouvau  d Phsu sur ou la a ure u mdaos mda os  sogs sur us  us l corps do la Mdc Mdc  r lsplus grads aags pour gurr I cors huma   l 'o rra rra plusurs cuross u Pars 1 742 popa 2 ols. Pars  po 1  erma Boeraae Elms oChms aslaed from e orgal La by oChms aslaed moy Dalowe (Lodo: 1 735  qoaos ge ere are from from s ex. Baceard 7

HE OMON O T N  MIND

ve's Elementiae Cheriae uses the Fench translation ( Liden: 1 742) of Boerhaa (Leiden: 1724). . e: Nicoas mery Cours de Chymie, 7th ed. ( Pan s :  680)

4 achelards footnot agent univerel 5 Cote de ressan Es su lefuide Lectrique consid omme as  �ne o he as eden auhos he by ecee s 2 vos (Paris :  7; the e e� of Academ Royal ofthe member a  an�'aise e J oty members of the Acadm er etc Montpe Caen Ruen ancy Berlin gh,  Ednb ence n Paris London Chapter in a note in Bachelard omits hs souce hee but refers to de Tressan's book

SCI�

Cha pter Four An example of a verba obstace: oge. On the over-extesio of a m i l i a r i m a g e s

5.

eferrng in the 16 Bacheard does no ve the tte oMarcel Boll 's atce simpy  929 I May date its and text to the joual conceed Mure de Fane

 ur udy ofo general hee of precienic knoledge ha hon he o exeplify he eae ih hich he precienic ind give ay o idenie genealiaion. We no ih in hi ho chaper o be even ore precie and conider an inance here a single iage or indeed a in e ord conue he enire explanaion ur inenion i o ho ha ee purey verba hab are obace o cienic hough We al oreover ave an opporuniy o develop he ae idea a he end of or chaper on he ubaniali obacle, here e hall be dicuing verbal explanaion ih reference o an adjeciveladen ubanive ha ubie for a ub ace ih a ealh of poer ere hough e hall be aking he iple ord ponge' and eeing ha i alo he o vared of phenoena o be ereed And becaue e are expreing hee phenoena, e believe e are explainng he. We believe e kno he becaue e recognie he n phenoena deignaed by he ord ponge he ind i no hoever aen in by oe poer of ubance The ncion of he sponge i clearly a diincly obviou, o uch o ha e do no feel he need o explain i  eplaining phenoena by he ord ponge e do no herefore have he ipreion ha e are laping ino oe obcure ubaniali nor indeed  e have he ipreion of therising becaue hi ncion i founded in epeience. Sponge i herefore a denmittel of naive epirici

 e u no ee ha a ajor rier ha o ay. In an aicle ofRauur  i hed in 1 7 3  in he moires de  cadmie roale des ences e

80

 ORMON O  SINII MIN

rad that

t is a fairy common idea to regard the air as being ike cotton ike woo and ike sponge and as far more spongy than a the other bodies or coections of bodies to which it can be compared. This idea expa ins ey we why the air is so greaty compressed by weight and aso why it can be extremey rareed appearing as a  ome far greater than the one we had preiosy seen. Equpped wth ths metaphorcal apparatus Raumur wll make ths reply to Marote though Marotte had howeer shed som e lght on the prob lem by lkenng the phenomenon of the dssolng of ar n water to the ds solng o f a salt Raumur thnks that:

Mariotte has taken his spposition rther than he needed. It seems to me that instead of spposing that water can dissoe air which is moreoer a fairy dict kind of dissoing to conceie we sha hae eerything necessary for the expanation of he phenomena we are deaing with here if we content orsees with spposing that water can penetate air and can dampen it Ifwe follow Raumur's explanaton n detal we shall get a good dea of a genealised image, whch s expressed by a sngle word the letmotf o a worthless nuton He wrtes thus

Let s contne to regard thear as resembing spongy bodies in its sctre as one of those bodies that water can penetrate and that can be soaked in it and we sha cease to be srprised that the air that is contained in water cannot be any more compressed there and that it takes p so itte space If I wrap a sponge in a membrane of some sort that water cannot peneate and then hod it sspended in the water by means of a thread atached to the bottom of the ask the sponge wi then be as compressibe as it was when sronded by air. If I compress the water sing a piston or some other means the water wi go down and the sponge wi be forced to occpy a far smaer ome its pars obiged to go and odge within the empty spaces they tend to presere between each other and the water wi then  the space thatthe sponges parts hae e. If we cease to compress the water the sponge wi ret to its rst state . . . If we then remoe om or sponge the coering in which it had been wrapped this wi aow the water to seep within it. Let s gie it the time to  a the empty spaces 8

GASON BHARD

between the spongy laments and then if we again se a piston to compress the water we sha nd that nike the rst time the sponge either does not yied at a or does so ony a ery itte. The sponge has therefore become incompressibe or amost incompressibe the parts that hae been compressed can no onger nd empty spaces in which to odge for water has ed them; a pa that has fond odging pts a stop to the strings of another part that wod drie it ot. If the air can therefore be penetrated by water as a sponge is and if water can  the empty spaces between its parts then we see that it ceases to be compressibe  We ought to ask readers to forge us for quotng ths long and ll wrtten passage from the hand of a famous author We hae though spared them many others of the same style n whch Raumur endlessly explans phenomena n terms ofspongness We needed howee r to ge a farly lengthy example where the accumulaton of mages s obously to the detrment of reason and where the concrete heedlessly amassed becomes an obstacle to an abstract and clear ew of the real problems. Raumur does subsequenty state that what he had proposed was but a setch and that the sponges of the ar can of course be gen completely dfferent forms om ordnary sponge et all hs thought has deeloped om ths mage and cannot leae ts prmary ntuton behnd When he wshes to erase the mage, the mage's ncton remans Thus Raumur refrans om decdng on the form of the  grans of ar  He requres only one thng for hs explanaton and that s that water can penetrate the ans of ar In other words whle he s n the end ery wllng to sacrce the sponge he wshes to eep spongiosi We hae proof here of what s smply and solely a lngus t moement whch by assocatng an abstract word wth a concrete one belees that t has made thought progress A theory of coherent abstracton eeds to be far more detached from ntal mages We shall perhaps gan a beter dea though ofthe napproprately meta phorcal nature of explanaton n terms of sponge f we tu to nstances n whch such an explanaton s offered for less mmedate phenomena Thus Benamn ranln wrte s that:

Ordinary matter is a kind of sponge for the eectrc id a sponge wod not take in water if the parts ofthe water were not smaer than the pores of the sponge it wod ony take it in ery sowy if there was not a mta atraction between its parts and those of the sponge the sponge wod absorb wate more qicky if the mta attraction beween the parts of the water did not oppose it some force haing to be empoyed in order to 83

GASON BAELA

E FOMATIO O E SIENTIFI MIND

spaat th lastly, absoption would b vy quick i instad oataction th was bwn th pats oth wat a uual pulsion that cobind with th ataction o th spong. This is pcisly what happns with lctic att and odinay att [

All these details and suppositions, these sketches he then seems to re gret, show fairly clearly that Franklin is rying to overlay electrical experi ments on an ini tial experience o f sponge Yet Franklin is not just thinking in terms of sponge For him, sponge is a real emirical caego Perhaps this simple object had lle d him with wonder when he was young. This happens quite equently. I have ofen come upon children gazing in fascination as bloting paper drinks up' a blob of ink. This kind of overlaying will of course be performed more quickly, moe directly  if that is possibl e  and less guardedly by minor writers For them this image explains things automatically n a reatise by Father Braut, this double explanation is fond condensed: all kinds of glass and vitriable mate are sponges of light because they (are) all penerated by the matter that makes light; for the same reason, it can be said that they are all sponges of electric matter'  Lmery called Bologna stone a sponge of light' a little more accu rately for aer this phosphorescent stone has been le i n the sun, it retains a cerain quantiy of luminous matter' that it then allows to disperse. Equally swily, in just a couple of lines, Marat explains the cooling of a hot body plunged into air or water: Here, air and water simply act like sponges, for a body cools another that it touches only by absorbing the igneous uid com ing out of it' Such a clear image can be more consed and complicated when used Thus, the Abb de Mangin states briey that ce being a sponge of water thickened and ozen when re is withdrawn, it is disposed to receive with ease every re that is presented t it'  t seems that we are witnessing in this last instance the interiorisation of sponginess, which here is a disposition to receive and to absorb. Examples could easily be found in which we thus come back without realising it to substantialist intuitions Sponge has there fore a secret and primordial power For the Cosmopolit e, the Earth is a sponge and the receptacle of the other Elements'  A obsterician called JeanPierre David nds the following image a usel one blood is a kind of sponge that is impregnated with re'.

 We shall perhaps gain a better idea of the extent to which the image of 84

a songe serves as an epistemological obstacle if we look at the difculties aced by a patient and ingenious experimenter as he tried to rid himself of it. n  785, J H. van Swinden published his Receil de Mmoires giving it he title Analogie de l !ecrici e d magnime  Here, he presents a lage number of objections to the many analogies used by those c laiming to bing electricity and magnetism together in one and the sa�e theory On seveal occasions, van Swinden states his preference for experiments on which the light of mathematics has already shone However, those who would be constructors of mathematical thought must rst be ico noclasts This then is van Swinden's programme  shall go on to examine the experiments by hich igna believed he could show iron to be a conductor of the magnetic uid, or a songe for it as Brugmans thought'. Bgmans's intuition is given hee in all its naivety: Just as a sponge transpors water trough its whole ass, with more water being transported as the volume of the sponge in ceases, so iron, which has the greatest mass or volume, seems to arac and etract (abducere) a greater quantity of Fluid than the Iron o f lesser volume'  he nction o f the iron that has just been magnetised is to transpor this luid to a place where it was not, just as a sponge will, when plunged into ate, suck it in and transpor it'. t was only aer very many different experiments that van Swinden believed he could rightlly reject this intuition. He therefore writes that This xpssion ion is a spong o th agntic Fluid s tho a mpho that tus away o th tuth and yt all xplanations a basd on ths xpssion which is an in its i  n. In y viw though it is not coct to say that all Phnona can b ducd to this that Ion is a spong o th agntic uid and thn to agu howv that appaancs dciv us h t is not coct to think that ason shows ths xpssions to b onous whil nvthlss using th to xplain xpints.

Despite its slightly awkward formulation, van Swinden's thought is e clear it is no t as easy as we make out to conne metaphors to the real  epression alone Like it or not, metaphors seduce reason. They are par ticula and distant images that imperceptibly tu into general schemata A schoanalysis of objective knowledge must therefore take great care to re ve all the colour om these naive images even if it cannot erase them. ce abstraction has gone through this process, it will be time to illstrate ional schemata To sum up primary intitions are an obstacle to scientic hught only an i llustration that works beyond the concept and brings bac k a  ile clour to essential features can help scientic thought 85

GS BCRD

E FRM F E SCIC MID

V n addiion, examples c an be found whee vey gea minds ae suck so o speak, in pimay images. Fo Descaes, doubing he claiy and dis incion of he image oeed o us by he sponge means making explanaions unjusiably oer sble  am indeed unable o say he wies hy his aefacion of bodies has been explained by some as he esul of augmena ion of quaniy ahe han by he example of he sponge  n ohe wods he image of he sponge is scien in a paicula explanaion and can hee foe be used o oganise dieen expeiences. Why look fo anyhing moe? Why no hink in ems of his geneal heme? Why no genealise wha is clea and simple? Le us heefoe explain complex phenomena by means of simple ones in exacly he same way ha ligh is shed on a complex idea by beaking i down ino ideas ha ae simple. lhough he deails of his image may come o be obscued, h is mus no lead us o abandon i We have a hold on one of is aspecs and ha is enough Descaess condence in he claiy of he image of he sponge is vey sympomaic of his inabiliy o bing doub o bea on he deail of objecive knowledge, o develop a discusive doub ha would wench asun de all ealiys bonds and images evey angle General doub is easie han pariclar doub Descaes goes on For altoug we ar or water are rareed we do o t see ay of te pores wc are redered large or ay ew body tat  s added to occupy tem t s yet less cosoat wt reaso to sppose sometg tat s utegbe  order to gve a merely verbal explaato of ow bodes are rareed ta to coclde  cosequece o ftat rarefacto tat tere are pores or terstces wc become greater ad wc are led wt some ew body altoug we do ot perceve ts ew body wt te seses For tere s o reaso wc oblges s to beeve tat we sold perceve by our seses all te bodes wc exst arod s Ad we perceve tat t s very easy to expla rarefacto  t s maer toug ot  ay oter

n ohe wods, a sponge shows us sponginess.  shows us how one paicula kind of mae  is lled wih anohe This lesson in heerogene os fllness suces o explain eveyhing. The meaphysics of space in Descaes is he meaphysics ofhe sponge

86

V The idea o f he pore could be sdied in connecion wih he inuiion

 he sponge: i is indeed such an enduing leimoif in pescienic expla

aion ha i would ake an enie book o ace all is amicaions Wih he help of his idea  a paiculaly specious on  opposies can easily be ec ciled   doo has o be eihe open o closed Bu a poe is open o some hile being a he same ime closed o ohes. Thee ae specic poes fo speci kinds o f mae. The image can ok in boh senses jus like ha o f he sponge, eihe absobing o leing.  is scacely supising hen ha his image should have been seen as deiving fom a ndamenal popey of ae s he ome de La pde woe in 1 82, ll he bodies in nae ae lled wih poes; poosiy is heefoe a geneal popey of bodies' 9

V Many ohe sdies simila o ha oulined in his chape could be a wihou any diculy.  would faily soon be seen ha objecive knowl edge oen gahes aound pivileged objecs, aound simple insumens ha ea he mak of hom o faber Hee we could sdy he leve, he mio he sieve, he pump    We would noe he exisence of dieen and paicula inds of physics which ae soon genealised. Sill in he same spii, we could sudy paicula phenomena such as collision which is so nimporan i naral phenomenolo and ye which has such an impoan ole o play in iniive explanaion and in ceain philosophic al cules . We could daw  an endless lis of ovesimple images ha ae boldly pu foad as expla naions. Le us give a few examples hee Unde he cove of he following uick image Fanklin noes  wih efeence o eleciciy he powe of wha is oined: jus as when pulling ou he hais of a hose's ail a degee of oce ha is no sucien o pull ou a handl a a ime is enough o emove he hais one by one so a blun body ha is pesened canno pull ou seveal as a a ime while a poined body will, ihou any moe foce, easily eove hem one by one'  n  82, Maa explains he elecical machine by compaing i o a up  is ighly compaed o a pump he wheel epesens he pisons of he pump, he cushions ae he immediae souce fom which he heel das he uid and he insulaed wie foms he esevoi in which i places he uid  1 Thee is no mysey and hus no poblem We may well ask how he eension of such an image could seve o impove echnique and o hin he eXeien Ough one o pu in bigge cushions so as o have a lage souce? 8

GSO CHD

T OMTON O TH SCTC MD

Sold one give e weel a backward and forward moion so as o imiae e pmp Mode scien ce does in fac se e analogy of e pmp in order o illrae cerain caracerisics of elecrical generaors, b is is o y o clarify e abrac ideas of difference in poenials and in e inensiy of e crren Here we see a sriking conras beween e wo ways of inking. Te ydralic analogy comes in aer e eory in e scienic way of i ing. n prescienic inking, i comes in beforehand Were e objecion again raised ere a Mara is a secondrae scienic wrier, we wold repy a is works were mc qoed a e end of e eigeen centy We wold also reverse e objecion by repeaing a wa caracerises e pre scienic period is in fac e grea inene exercised by secondrae wri ers Tey were very acive workers in e scienic commniy. Tis is no longer e c ase oday. Mara performed a prodigios nmber of experimens, some ve osand on lig, e says And no a single one of ese ve osand experimens as been remembered by pysics Any mode s den working in a researc laboraory nder e direcion of a disingis ed scienis can, on e conrary, ave e ope a wa ey are doing will be sel mmediae eapors consie a danger for e formaion of e sc i enic mind becase ey are no always eeing images; ey encorage an aonomos kind of og and end o come o compleeness in e realm of images and indeed end ere. Le s give an example of sc an ending n order o explain nder, Faer de Lozeran d Fesc likens is maer o gn powder. From a cemical poin of view, e claims a in e exalaions percepible in sormy weaer e can nd e eqivalen of nire, 1 1 of carbon and of slpr wose mixre, as we know, consies gnpowder From a isorical poin of view, sc a saemen can be regarded as qie plasible, especially if we consider e igly valori sed ideas a people ave eld for centries abo exalaions. Wa we ave ere is, in sor, js one wrong idea among many abo e chemical nare of nderbols B le s se ow is naive image of nder's explosion ends. n order o explain ow nderpowder ignies is wrier ses a eoy of vorices wic, i sold be said, does no follow aesian eory Tis is ow e concldes

Ts gnpowder did no sce and ere ad o be a gn for e eory o be complee. Faer de Lozeran d Fesc s reaise was awarded e Acadmie' prize in  26 e Acadmie ad no been able o award is prize e previos year and was very pleased o ave waied for sc a ne piece of work. However, all ese raer perile images wic are, as i were, appre ended in eir exeal feares are far from being e mos acve ones n e conex of or discssion, e mos powerl obsacles corespond o e intiions ofrealis pilosopy Wa ese igly maerialised obsacles bring ino play is no genera properies b sbsanive qaliies  And i is ere in i more secre, more sbjecive, and more inward experience, a real menal ineria lies  is ere a we sall nd words a really are obsacles We all erefore leave or examinaion of a nmber of sbsances o wic nde preference is given nil e end of or caper on e baniali obacle sbsances of is kind wil l enable s o gain a beer ndersanding of e ideas of episemological preference and episemologi cal valorisaion. And a e end ofa caper we sall also be lly developing e psycoa alysis of objecive knowledge

NOT

Sce ere s o r o g e s o ese wrs  e voces d sce er sdes re eremey ress wc s proved s muc by e c  ey suppor e woe weg o  e mospere s by e surprsg seg o e coud coums  uproo e ges rees d oppe ouses er orm s ke  og Gu. We ereore Tuders mer comes o epode  mus mosy ow e eg os u w e umos speed 

Bcerd's oooe Bem rk xprience  oeraion ur  { lecrici rs. P rs 1 752; my trso  copy o rks xperien and Oeraion on lecrici o vg bee oced.  Bcerd does o gve e source o s quoo.  Bcerds oooe Mr ocor o Medce d Pysc  o e Bodygurd e Come d Aros Dcouere ur Ie Feu l  lecrici e la Luire conae par une uie d exprience no uelle Prs: 1779. 4 Bcerds oooe: Abb de Mg Queion nouelle e inreane ur lecrici Prs: 749.  Bcerds oooe: Coopolie ou nouelle luire chique Pour erir  claircieen a  Principe de la Naure Prs 1 72   s e Bcerd eers o s wor d o s uor s e Cosmopoe' s ws e pseudoym doped by e Scots cems Aeder Seo. Le s kow o Seo pr m s trves  Europe vsg oer cemss bewee 162 d s de o eer  1 ecember 1 6 or  ury 16  He ws regrded s possessg e  rc cres o cemy d s work s  mor cemc e o wc Bcerd reers sever mes. s mporce s udered by e soy o suduggey ced  :  s e ws rs pubsed  Crcow   64 s Nou Luen Chicu by

88

89

T  ORTON OF T SCENTC ND

he Moavian Michae Sendivous who adoped Seon s pseudonym and caimed o be he auho he had rescued Seon om imprisonmen in Dresden by he Eecor of Saony n reu for an ounce of his ransmuaive powder Sendvoius was quick o marry Seons widow  in he vain hope ha she new his secres  who ave him Seons e. There were many French and Enish edions of his e in he seven eenh and eheenh cenures. 6 Bacheard's foonoe eaniere Davd Do cor and hyscan Masr ofArs and Suery ofhe Unversiy of ars Roya rofessor of Surey and Anaomy in Rouen Lhoomis n Resdence and Sureon in Chief a he He-Dieu hospia and Mem ber of he Rouen Academy of Science Lieraure and he As rit d l utritio t d I 'roisst prd d 'u dissrttio sur I 'usg ds  d Aios aris   Bacheards foonoe:   H. van Swinden logid Iltriit t d u gtis 3 vos. The Haue 8) 8 Bacheard refers here o Ren Descares Priipls ofPhilosophy ar  secon  he ransaion used s by Eabeh S. Hadane and G R. T. Ross h Philosophi l Work ofDsrts  vos Cambride  9   ; ondon 98) vo.   9 Bacheard's foooe Come de La Cpde Member of he Academies and Roya Socieies ofD ijon Tououse Rome Sockhom HesseHombour and Munich Phy siqu g t prtiulir  vos. aris 8) 0 Bacheards foonoe: Mara Rhrhs physiqus sur I ltriit aris 8   Nire is he o d word for sapee ie poassium nirae he main consiuen o unpowder   Bacheards foonoe: Rev. Faher de Loeran du Fesc o f he Company of esus Roya rofessor of Mahemaics a he Universiy of erpinan Dissrttio sur  us t  tur du torr t ds lirs aris )

0

hapter Five Uitary ad pragmatic kowledge s a obstacle to scietific owledge

 We he now exmned the geneising nction nd its dnges with eeence to expeences o ntitions tht e s wedened s possbe h s cogution feenttion nd the who mechnic nction of ponge. Yet we cn so see the seductie powe execised b f gete eneities. mpiic thought is no onge wht is inoed hee: wht we e deing with is in fct phiosophic thought. He sweet ethgy hts epeence  questions e stiled in  st Welanchang  dicuties e esoed though  gene iew of the wod simpy b efeing to  ene pincipe o f ntue Thus in the eighteenth cenu the ide of  ho ogeneous honic nd tutey ntue eses  the singuities cont ctons nd host ties of expeience We sh show tht this kind of gene t  nd ssocited geneities  e in fct obstces to scientic thought. ny  few pges wi be deoted to this sin ce it is esiy poed. nd so s to oid witing too ong  book we sh not in picu mke ny mention ee ofitey gues nd phiosophes. Bedin de SintPiees wok  o instnce coud if ooked t in some deti be shown to be  ength ?od of scientic thought Much too cou d be sid in citicism of the phys S of the kind on which Scheings phiosophy is bsed. Howee wtes e these conceed s they e with something othe thn scientic thought e itte inuence on the deeopment of objectie knowedge he liera spect of pescientc boos i s though n impont sign nd oen in fct  bd sign Whenee  hon is descibed in bod out  thee is so  gndioquence we need to chcteise  gndioquence th a oght to ctch the pschonysts ttention. t is indeed the undenibe  of ecessie alorisaion. We sh ony be giing  few exmpes of this, howee becuse the pges whee this gndioquence is seen e mong

TH FORMATON OF THE SCNTFC MIND

the most boring and useless written by physicists' n a book written as ifa seies of informal letters, an unknown autho begins his Plantaire ou abrg de l'h istoire du Ciel in these terms: Do I take too bold a  ight when daring to rise to the heavenly heights? And shal  be accused of temerity in wishing to examine those torches that seem at tached to the vault of the rmament?' n his twentyninth leer, the sae author approaches the study of light in this way: What sublimity there is in the words used by Moses to convey God's will to us: Fiat lux etfacta est , with no interval beween thought and action  .  This Expression is so mavellous and so divine that is uplits the soul, just as it flls it with respect and admiration  .  It is this precious uid this luminous Star this element that illuminates the universe this light in act that we must study, seeking its causes and showing its eects.

There is the same religious wondement in the 105 page discourse that serves as an introduction to the Comte de La Cpde's Physique gnrale et particulire. Here he writes for example that We have considered light that being which each day seems to produce the universe anew before our eyes, and draws again for us the image of creation'  The lack of objectivity in this wonderment is also clear to us Indeed were we to put aside the unconscios values that come each moing and comfot the hearts of all who lie engulfe in night then this  image of creation' offered by a radiant dawn would see very feeble and unimpressive. Aer an atempt at analysis the Comte de La Cpde promises us a stirring synthesis: We have suciently examined taking each separately the diferent parts oing the skeleton o nature let us bring these parts together, let us clothe them in thei rich fnery and let us make o them that great body ull o l ie and perect, that constitutes in act nature in all its power What a magnicent spectacle is spread beore ou eyes! We see the universe unold and extend a numberless host o bright orbs, themselves the sole souce o their own brightness shines there in splendour

A truly literary pen may well be inspired by similar wonderment but it will hen conde in us more discreetly and also more inwardly it is not so much the admirable spectacle but rather the admirer that we ourselves ad mire and love. At the outset of a psychological study, before the novel begins and the heart condes, a landscape may well prepare an inner state of mind and spirit, serving to establish a symbolic link between the work and the 92

GASTON BACHELARD

eder. At the outset of a work on physics, such expressions of wonderment,  ere they eective, could only ake for harml valorisations All this liter ar ostentation can only end in disillusionment. All authors are no doubt inspired by the desire to valorise their chosen ubject They wish to show, right om their preface, that they do have a bject. Yet ways of giving value today are, however reprehensible, more discreet; they are closely connected to the work's content. We would no longer de to say, as de La Chambre did, that the subject discussed in his book La mire will nd its application in the light of the spirit, which is that of honour, merit, and virtue. We would tu aside arguments such as these, found in his preface: Light lls and gladdens all Natue. Where it is not, thee is no joy, no stength, and no life, but only horor, weakness, and noth ingness. Of all perceptible creatres, light i s therefore the only one tha t ost esembles and most corresponds to the Divinity' This need to elevate subjects is consonant with an ideal of perfection given to phenomena. Our remarks are therefore less supercial than they eem, for perfection wi ll see as evidence and as proof in the study of physi al phenomena For exaple, in order to nd the essence of light, de La hambre raises the follo wing question: Let us therefore see whether we can nd something that dazzles the mind as much as the eyes '. t is thus a matter of placing light on a scale ofpeection that goes om matter to God, from the work to the worker t is vey noticeable at times that value is distrbing the table of presence: thus, this witer reses to establish any link between otten wood that shines (due to phosphorescence) and substances as pure and noble as the Stars are'. On the other hand, de La Chambre speaks of angels    whose extension is so closely related to that of Light'  The idea of pefection will oen be powerl enough to contadict familiar initions and to form an obstacle to usel research Thus, he wites that: Were we to ollow the common view we would need to add at this point that o itsel Light ows weaker as it goes arther om the luminous body; that ollowing the example o all other qualities it gradually loses its virtue as it makes progress and that this i s the true reason why it ows weaker and even in the end becomes imperceptible. Yet whatever may be the case with regard to the other qualities, we hold it to be certain that Lght is o a nature and o an order so high above them that s not subject to any o their infities   . (its) weakening is only exteal and it does not aect the essence and inner virue o Light

The sterilising inuence of an irregular valorisation can be very clearly 93

TE FORMATO OF TE SFC MD

seen here A physcal fact as plan as the decrease in illumination that is in inverse ratio to the suare of distances from the source of light is obscured here for reasons that have nothing to do with objective thought We can also see that for the prescientic mind the perfecion ofphysical phenomena is a ndamental principle of explanation he princple of this pefection is of course oen attached to the creative act We can conclude' wrtes de  a Chambre that this rst and allpowerl Word which created (light) when the world was bo still has the same eect at every moment drawing om nothingness ths wondrous Fom and introducng it nto bodies disposed to receive t' Certain theories are entirely bound up with a path towards perfecton hus Hlne Metger has shown with great clarity that alchemy is only con ceivable if substances develop in one direction only in that of a completion a purication and a conuest ale  all these works the i dea o f perfecton s not therefore a value that comes along and is added as an aerthought like some loy philosophical reecton to conclusons drawn om experence t is ndamental to em pirical thought which it directs and epitomises

 For the prescientic mind unity is a prnciple that s always desired and always cheap to acheve Only one captal letter is needed for ths to happen he dierent natural activities thus become the varied manifesta tions of one and the same Natre Experence cannot be conceived as self contradictory or as compartmentalised What is tre of something large must be true of something small and vice versa Error is suspected whenever there s the slightest dualty. his need for unty poses a multitude of false prob lems De Marvetz and Goussier for example are worried about an entirely mechanical duality that might be suspected at the root of ther cosmogony Since they conceive the rst movement of the universe as coming fom God they nd themselves faced with a problem. Could it not be that the rst im pulse comes like a kind of dynamic creation and s added to material crea tion so that what we have is creation n two phases things rst and then movement a duality that s doubtless outrageous n thei eyes hey then take the trouble to answer that

GASTO BAARD

or at any oter pont n t  or at te cente and at te same tme at any oter pont ey ave wrtten God sid unto ths bodis ht th should tu bout thir ntrs Now tere s notng ere tat cannot be conceved From ts order wose executon becomes Naues s ole aw tey deduce all te penomena o f celestal movements

Unity has been speedily achieved and duality uickly and dely re moved! What could not be conceived of mechanically trough a physical action thus becomes conceivable when linked to a divine action Wo can not see that conceiabili has changed ground A mode mnd has broken with this myth of he ni ofhe conceiable And in particular theological problems are thought by the mode mind n dierent tems om cosmological ones Moreover a whole book could be devoted to a study of works  still numerous in the eighteenth century  in which physics is as sociated with theology Genei is regarded as a scientic cosmogony and the history of the heavens is considered  according to the ideas of Poets Philosophers and Moses' . In the eighteenth century everyone had a copy of books like that by the Abb Pluche whose work was nspired by these ideas hese works continued to be reprnted up to the end of the century Without expatiating on the folly of such ideas let us very briey at tempt to descrbe their authors' inner state of mind and spiit. No sooner have tey put foward oe o f these hypotheses of grandose uncation than they gve proof of ther tellectual humility and remember that God's puposes are hidden Yet this humilty which s so elouently and so belatedly ex pressed ill disguises their nitial mmodesty Pride is always found at the root of nowledge that declares itself to be general as it goes beyond experi ence as it leaves the domain of experiences in whch it might encounter contradiction



tey dd not n any way suppose tat ts Artsan ad been obged to ste ts motve force, tat s to say te Sun bot pyscally and mecancally by mpatng movement to t, ete at te centre of te mass

et us re though to principles of haony that are apparently closer to the objective world. Hi storians o f chemistry have made lengthy studies o f the medieval and Renaissance theories that were based on sweeping analo gies. Hlne Metzger in paticular has brought together in welldocumented books everythng to do with Paracelsian analogies She has shown that an analogy was established beteen stas and metals beteen metals and parts of the body Hence there was a kind of universal triangle uniting heaven earth and humankind Upon this trangle there played ultaBaudelairian  cor

94

95

!I  I

GASTON BACELARD

TE FORMATON OF E SCENTFC MIND

a reation in the antipodes As though when the earth is propery onsidered as the group of vibrating atoms that onstitte it its entre o f gravity were something other than a statistia point The phiosophia mind is thus in the grip of the absoute of quantity just as the presienti mind is in that of the absoute of quaity. In fat ontemporary siene eas om isolaed sys ems om fragmented nis It is abe to maintain isoated systems And where epistemoogia prinipes are oneed ontemporary siene main tains that quantities whih are negligible ms be negleced It is not enough to say they can be negeted This therefore uts short any purey pausibe and unproven determinations Finay quantum siene famiiarises us with the idea of a qaniaie hreshold There are energies that are ins ufient to ross a threshod. Suh energies annot disturb phenomena that are we dened and propery isoated. It an therefore be seen that the theory of de termination must be revised and that the quantitative soidarity of the uni verse is not a harateristi to be asserted without due aution

od without eezing. We have a fairy ear sense that Raumur is prejudg ng experiene and that his animist intuiion i prepares him for studying in vitro as he shoud do the phenomena assoiated with the freezing of saine soutions.

V

Certain aterpiars have however resisted the greatest od remaining so and exibe at minus 17°on the Raumur sae However aqueous they seem he writes the bood and the prinipe iquors whih are found in the bodies of these insets are therefore of a nature that a withstand exessive

Useness itsef gives a very speia kind of indution that might be ermed utiitarian indution It eads o exaggerated generaisations Our start igpoint may then be an estabished fat whih we may even suessy extend. Yet amost inevitaby the pressure exerted by useness make us go oo far. A pragmatism is bound to be overstated simpy beause it is muti ated thought. Humans are inapabe of imiting useness whih beause of its vaorisation is immoderatey ared. The foowing exampe shows he unfotunate onsequenes of utiitarian indution. For Raumur aterpiar pupae perspire And it is this ommunia tion with the outside word that maintains the pupas hidden  ife and makes it eveop You ony need to over a pupa with vaish for its deveopment to be sowed down or stopped It so happens that making a bod indution aumurthinks eggs are kinds ofpupae . H e therefore proposes that eggs to e preserved shoud be oated with taow or vaish Nowadays every house wife uses this exeent mehod based as it is on a dubious generaisation ut wi utiitarian indution stop here? Wi it be ontent with this rst su ess? The historian of the Acadmie des Sciences dares to go rther The onusion an perhaps be drawn that human beings oud aso preserve hemseves fo onger by oating themseves with vaish of kinds suitabe to them as Athetes formery did and as savages do today though perhaps with other intentions  This is not an isoated idea Baon aready regarded he redution ofperspiration as a way ofproonging ife In 1 776 Dr Berthoet does no hesitate to write as foows in his Obseraions sr [air I beieve that were we to suppress perspiration during the rst period of ife (in young hiren) urines passageways woud enarge and in them the humours woud for ever estabish a more abundant ow In a these phenomena what is sought is purey human useness not us for the positive advantages it may bring but as an expanatory prinipe idig a use means nding a reason. In order to onvine peope of the agnets urative ation van Swinden  who is nevertheess very prdenty ttahed to experiene writes Again I as k a sinere Physiians whether they are within themseves onvined that this magneti Fore whih is so uiversa so varied so amazing and so admirabe has been produed by the

8



V One of the epistemoogia obstaes reated to the unity and power asribed to natre is the coecien ofreali that the presienti mind at ibutes to a that is naral There is a vaorisation here that goes undisussed that is endessy invoked in everyday ife and that is utimatey a ause of onsion for experiene and for sienti thought Thus, Raumur attributes to

natural

liquids a particular aptitude for

resisting od: We are not srprsed that nammable lquors such as sprt of Wne preserve ther lqudty n excessve cold and we should not perhaps also be srprsed that ths s the case wth powerl acd sprts, and wth waters themselves that carry many salts. But Nature can compose lquors that are not n any way nammable that have no acdty we can dsce and that are however able to resst very great cold  wsh to spea ofthe nd of blood crculatng n nsects of so many spec es; gong by ts colour and taste our crde senses would swear t to be water or at east an extremely aqueous lquor.

GASTON BACELAD

TE FORMATON OF TE SCENTIFC MND

Creator solely to direct magnetic Needle s, which have however been so long unknown to Humankind'. Phenomena that are the most hostile to human beings are oen the subject of a valorisation whose antithetical character ought to attract the psy choanalysts attention. hus, for the Abb Bertholon, thunder brings  at one and the same time, fear to the most intrepid souls and fertility to the poorest of soils. t is thunder too that brings that productive re which is rightly regarded as a h eement. He goes on: he same is true of hai, which aso makes the soil very fertile it has generally been observed that everything s green again aer hail has fallen and that co especially, when sown after hai, gives an innitely more abundant harvest than in the years when there has been no hai l'  Even earthquakes are propitious for the harest. here is an attempt to attribute a characteristic kind of uselness to a phenomenon's every detail f uselness does not characterise a particular feature, then this feature does not seem to have been explained. For prag matic rationalism, a characteristic that is not usel is an irrational. hus, Voltaire very clearly sees the uselness of the earths annual and diual movement. here is only the period of 25920' years corresponding to the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes for which he cannot nd any perceptible use. He does his utmost to make this selessness admissi ble, proving that for the contemporary mind justication by uselness was the most natural ofjustications. We feel that for Voltaire, despite his s light scepticism, heaven is usel to the earth: Far om comes being dangerous    hey are according o Newon new gis om he Creaor    Newon conjecures hahe vapours which come from hem are drawn ino he planes' orbis and serve o renew he ever diminishing humidiy of hese eesial gobes Again he hins ha he mos elasic and mos suble par o fhe air we breahe comes om he comes    I seems o me ha his is a wise man's guess and ha if i is in error hen i is he eor of a ea man

iellectual A psychoanalysis of obective knowledge must break with prag aic considerations. Entire systems have been based onutilitarian considerations Only use lness is clear. Only uselness can explain obinet's works are very typi cal in this regard He declares for instance that: I do no fear o argue here ha were here a single insance ofreal uselessness in Naure, i woud be more probabe ha chance had presided a is ormaion han ha i had a ine ligence as is auhor I is indee d more ncommon or an innie ineligence o ac wihou purpose han i woud be surprising ha by sheer acciden, a blind principe is in conformiy wih order



hus, truth must be coupled with uselnes s. ruth that has n o nction is a mutilated trth And when uselness has been disceed, he real nc tion of truth has been found However, these utilitarian views are aberra tions he dangers of nalist explanations have so oen been shown that here is no need to place any rther emphasis here on this obstacle to a truly obective culture We simply thought it necessary to point out that this obsta cle was particularly dangerous in the eighteenth century his was because te literary and philosophical exploitation of science was still very easy at tis ime, and the excesses of Beardin de SaintPierre are simply an exag geration of a tendency whose vigour we have seen in the work of minor scientic writers

V

Flourens has pointed out this systematic reference to uselness in Buons work  He tells us that (Buon) now wishs to judge objects only in terms of the relations of seflness or familiari that they have with us his main reason for this is that it is easier, more pleasant and more usel for us to consider things in relation to ourselves than om any other point of view. We can see all too well that an empirical examination which, in ac cordance with Buons advice, has its startingpoint in the usel and the familiar runs the risk of being obscured by an interest that is not specically

he need to generalise to exremes, sometimes om a single concept, leads to synthetic ideas that are not about to lose all their seductive power Nonetheless, these days a certain prdence holds the scientic mind in check. hilosophers are now really the only ones to go in search, if not of the phi losophers stone, then at least of the philosophers idea that would explain he world. For the presc ientic mind, t he attraction exercised by the unity of explanation by a single characteristic was allpowerl et us give some examples n 786, the Comte e ressans book was published, though it was in fact written in 1 747. t asserts hat all the phenomena in he universe can be explained by the action of the electric uid n particular, the law of gravity is for de ressan a law of elecric equilibrium. Or better, all equilib ium is in essence electric. His two weighty volumes endlessly refer to the essential propery of the electic uid, which is to tend at all times to equi

1 00

101

 E ORMON OF HE  C   N     C M  N 

brm wt tslf Hnc wr tr s qbrum tr s an lctrc prsnc Ts s t sl and dscnngly nan trm m wc t mst unly cnclusns wll b drawn Snc t ar ms rund t sun wtut gng any clsr t t ts ans tat tr s qulbrm b twn t ctrcy f ts tw stars T b mr prcs plants ar sad t sw t qubrum btwn t lctrcy radatng m t grund and tat cmng frm t sun's rays D Trssan afrms tat Al pssb bds tat tuc t ar r ar pantd n t ar s many cnductrs rcng and transmttng trrstral lctrcty n prprtn t t surgng pwr t tn may a accrdng t t bquty r rtcalty f t suns rays  Antr wrtr t Car d La Prr dts a 60pag b t a syntss wc s y bt as brad and nclus H wrts n s prfac tat:

Eetriity's empre  s so etesie that t has o bodaries ad o imts other tha those of the Uerse t embraes; the Paets sspesio ad orse; the erptos of eestia terestra ad miary thderots meteors; ata ad ara Phosphors; bodiy sesatios; the risg of iqors i apary haes; refratios ad atra atpathies sympathes tastes ad dstastes; the msia re of taraa bites ad of meahoy diseases, ampirsm, or skig eersed i t o oe aother by peope who seep together; a these ome with its proie ad are sbordate to it as s jsted by the eetra mehasms we gie of them 3 t ardly nds sayng tat ts bs by t Car d La Prrr and t Cmt d Trssan d nt p tr prmss Vry many xampls culd b fund n t gtnt cntury f bs wc prms a systm but nly g an accmlation f facts tat ar lcnnctd and trfr undrstd Ty ar wrs tat ar as uslss plspcaly as ty ar scntcaly. Ty d nt gt t grps wt a grat mtapysca ntutn as t wrs f Scllng r Scpnaur d Nr d ty gatr tgtr mprcal dcumnts as appns n t wrs f cmsts and btansts n t sam prd f tm n t nd ty ncumbr cntc cultur T nntn cntury n t tr and wtnssd t amst cmplt dsap paranc f ts nfrma and prtntus letter wrttn by mprmpu x prts Ts brngs abut a astly mprd undrstandng f wat scntc cutur rally s. mntary bs ar n lngr rnus ns Ts rdr ng must nt ad us t frgt t cnsn ta rgnd trugut t pr scntc ra t s wn w bcm awar f ts rtn n t scntc  0

GON BCED

mnty at w can rally undrstand tychologicallyformatie pwr  sntc tugt and als cm t apprcat t dstan tr s b twn t pass mpcsm tat ust rcrds and t mprcsm tat s ac and tugt

NOT  qes-eri Beardi de SaPire (84) s paiary ow for his vl u e gne. Baheard s ritia of his sieti pretesios esp eay  apter   whe he qotes om Beard de SatPiees udes de  Ne

  2 aheads footote e La Chambre Costat to the Kig ad his rst ordi ay hysia  ue Pars   Bahards footote: He Metzger, es Conceps scnques Pais Aa     8.  Whie Baheard does ot spei th s book hee he does gie detais   a fooote  hapter    Abb Phe Hsoe du Ce ew editio Paris 88  aheards se of orespodees' is a referee to Badeaires soet orespodaes  es eus du M ( 8 This poem draws o esoteri tradi to i partiar o Swedeborg (88-) aordig to this theory of ore podees  eeythg o earh symboses some spira eaty, a thigs orre podig' hat s to say beig reated i that they represet the spiria essee of the erse 6 aheards foooe JeaBa ptste ayo ommedatory pror of Notre-ame de oges  Hone cese Paris . 7 Baheards fooote Mes de I Acde des Scences (  34)  aheards footote: Moes de I Acde des Scence ( 3 )  Baheards footote: Abb Berthoo De I ecc des gu Paris 83   aheards fooote: Votaire hysque Baheard refers to o   i the 88 edto o f Votaires Oeues copes   aheards footote or es Hsoe des vu e des des de un Paris  4  Baheards footote -B Robiet De  Nue 3 rd ed 4 os Amsterdam: 6)

3 aheards fooote J-F de La Perire Cheaer Seger de Roi nses de I ecc e Ie I Un es 2 os Paris: 

03

 BHRD

Chapte Sx Te substantiaist obstacle

sghs ha ae ehe nconae o simpy epnen on nuances o anguage canno claim o esabish a psychological suce A oio when hese insighs conce expeience an ouch on empiical eail he connc ion hey ha wih a subsance  o wih a sbsanie  canno esablish cienic hogh



 ike all epismological obsacles, he sbsanialis obsacle is poly mophic  is ome when h mos ispese an en he mos opposi o iniions ae bogh ogeh. he pescienic min has an amos naal enency o combine in one obec all he een kins o nowlege in which ha obec has a oe o pay, wihou paying any aenion o he hie achy o hese empiical oes  immeiaely inks iese qalies o sub sance wheh hose qales ae supecal o namenal eien o hi en. We coul howee make a isincion beween ieen sos o sbsanialism he subsanialism o wha ies hien, o wha is eep an inwa an o obious quaiy. Ye once again such isincions wou ea s o oge he ague an inniely olean chaace o subsanialisaion. hey wol ea us o neglec he episemoogical moemen ha goes ae naely beween e ineio an h exeio o subsances aking aanage o obios exeio expeience bu eeing om ciicism in he ephs o ineioiy. As a as explanaion in ems o hien qualiies s concee he commony hl iew is ha we hae nown how peenously eie an also how misleaing is is since Moli showe i o be so Ye i is a kin o explanaion which, while moe o ess conceale beeah he aices o languag sil heaens cle  seems ha one Geek wo woul suce o he seepinucng ie o opium o case o be a pleonasm when use as an explanaion o why opum makes us sleep .  Binging ogeh wo eymologis o ieen chaaces poces a psychic moemen ha may pass o he acquisiion o knowlege Whenee a nown phenomenon is esignae by a eae name ay hinkng ges a ea sense o saisacion Ceain meical iagnoses an psychological insighs ha make pay wih synonyms co easiy poe us wih examples ohese ebal saisaco ns.

Wha is hien is sh away By analysing eeences o wha is h en, i is possibe o chaaceise wha we shal cal he m}th ofinteiori a hen he deeper myth ofnardne  wo o cose be easy o show ha lieay psychology ess on hese myhs i is enough o speak slowly an in a low voice abou a dee eeling in oe o be egae as a eep psychologis o he inne lie We may wel wone whehe he aiional psychology o eelings woul be possb e   wee oben o use he wo  eep' which  aachs o e yhing bu which ony coespons in he en, o a mee image he impes sion o depth emains in ac a ecial one: so e is his ha i is an mpession which is aache o aie eelings especially o eelngs insu ceny woke on an le o naues monoonous impuses. Ou pesn ask is no howee o sy he psychology oe sl b ahe o olow hough as i wanes in sach o an obec: we nee o ollow eeie as i attribte inwardn to obect. Ahough he aims ae ieen he pocesses ae homologous because psychologiss o inwa ness an nae ealiss ae beguile by he same seuce cham. his ho mology s so clea ha chaacescs cou be ehanged ealism ees ssenially o inwaness  s as he psychology o inwaness ees o ea iy. All we nee o in oe o si his saemen is call o min a a ey o iniions o which alue is gien all wappings seem less pecios  ess subsanial han h maeial hey wap. o exampl whie bak s uncionaly so essenial i is ae simply as poecion o h woo. hse appings ae egae as necessay een in inanimae nae. Paacelsus sai ha in all hings hee col be no cenal pa  no co  which i no hae scales an no scale which i no hae bak. he iea behn bsanalism s oen lusae smply n ems o ontaining Somehing has o encloe an he quaiy ha lies eep has o be encloed hus Nicolas  ocques His Maesys spagyic physician ams in 665 he ne o colness o comba he iolence o hea saing ha h is olaile Col ess cass isel on he suace o peen he issipaion o hea an see as

 05

 OO O  S D

GSON HELRD

a vee fo it   e qait heat i kep afe witin btance b being wappe b co kept afe eefoe b i oppoite i iniive vaoiaton of wat ie witin can ea o cio taemen being mae Wiing in te Encyclopie abot pebbe Zimmemann a at pebbe ae awa ae an moe anpen owa te mie o cene o wa wat e ca e inne gain an in wat enwap tem Wen intiion ike ee ae anae we oon eaie at fo te pecientic min ubance ha an inide o bete at bance i an inie o ti eaon e acemit wa oftiing wa oen govee b te tak of opening bance in a fa e metapoica wa tan wen pcoogi  o moe acemit  a te ae opening ei eat to  Jean e Peetie wite ta mecie of eta ae too tgt coe an at p ae t oo tig o be opene an eveope b te Ace of o omac A ke i awa being ogt ta wi open bance oe eae ave too mc of a enenc to take e wo ke in a gative ene a imp a wa of neaning an acane tet n man ao in fact te key i ome kin of mate ta wi open a btance ven te pcoanaica meaning of e ke appea o be intitive ac tive ee  one wite gge tiking a btance wi a e o in oe to open i e iea of tuing ubtance inide out i mptomatic too Joacim oeman wone wete i i on oi tat a te powe to iove  p gent an nata an o t it inie ot. 5 Poeman ao tate a te twofo cooive a compee invete coppe an te it inie ot an a mae i  not  to ie p it o bt ao    b te vite of i cooive coppe gente o a come o geam a if og a meim ta eciate an vivie i e make i cea tat cop p o at coppe pecio btance ie witin i. e mean mt teefoe be on to emove gaa an a og impecepib i cooive of coppe o ta coppe) can emain in it inveion an it gen tene a we a in i mino an geaming caacte  e pae omeone can be te inie o ike a gove i a pcoogica notation wic i eep ooe in te nconcio an wic a we ave een a given ie to a fae conception of btanc ee i eve inication a it wa no e glove a tag  i in te t pace e image concio cait concea a i o oen oe e pincipe of nconcio convicion. i ange image of turning ubtance inide out i accepe b min mc coe o ci enic tog fo wom it i even a giing teme oeaave  an it i e a e i giving an accont of e acemit  og ee  meitate on te mbo of go (a cice) an ive (a ce

ent fome b two ac of a cice one concave an e ote conve) e ecen e a enoe afgo woe inwa pat t otwa ae pe go wito anting foeign o cooive Moeove we can ee fom ti eampe ta pecienic tog i coe entwine wit mboic togt t ega mbo a active nee of togt an e  eience n a ve famo philoophical letter pinte in 73 foowing e eition of e Comopoite  wok pbie at ame ea we ea a Anone wo can bing te cena vite of go o it cicmfeence wi ome to poe e vite of te woe Univee in one inge Meica ent ee i e no bete wa of aing at a maeia vite i o oogo o an inne pcoogica powe ee ma of coe be a conaiction beween wat ti ee ca e oie an e inie of a btance Go  we ea  appea an i e on te oie b on e inie it i voaie i i a ve cio epeion tat i obe ine wit peona aeam fo i i a o ee e qai to wic ti inward voatii can coepon A abot te ame ime in 17 Coe e a Heameie wie: Qickive tog wite on te otie . .  i e inie    e e incte    appea wen i i ecipiae an cacine b e  Cemi wi ecognie e oiation of ec ee an wi e ti o inicae a rationaliation of acemica ogt e fact emain oweve a i ationaiation oe not in an a coepon o te eaming ogt of acemit wo ogt to ee ate fom e tanpoin of inwane f btance a an inie tee mt ten be an attempt to earch eply into it i opeation i cae e etacion o eccenticit of e o e Comopoite a o te mec a a fo a ong time been coge an eep eace: e me wat o ae in o cente an  i no onge tomen o  nie bance a te cente ofte ve ma e atom of mea ie ien vite tei coo an ei tince.  i et cea fom i tat btantia qaitie ae tog in em of inne atie Fom tei epeiment acemit ea ecet ate tan an eon nee no kin of iec epeience of i cene can be a an a oitive min wi eaie at once tat active popetie ae of neceit eciaie  Yet e myth o/interiori i one of oe fnamena poc ee of nconcio tog tat ae e aet to eocie n o view eioiaion beong to te eam of eam t can be een o be epecia ve n fai ae ee te min take e geaet ofibetie wit geom e e age can t into te ma  in one of Cae Noie toie  aacte cae e Bean eae can wie caing tee ie ofai

1 06

1 07

TH RMAT  H SI M

cot beans over is solder t nto a sngle cickpea It is true tat this cckpea s te carriage belongng to a lttle fairy called Pea Flower. In the same way n another story wen M cael te Carpenter as to enter te ouse ofte rmb Fary e exclams Good Heavens! Crmb Fairy .   did t ever cross your mind tat we could get into it? He as n fact ust descrbed the  ose as a pretty cardboard toy Yt by stoopng a little and with te fairys and gving m a elpl ps Micaels large frame manages to t int ts small dwell ing He sddenly nds imse lf with plenty of room and lovel  and warm    Alcemists dream n exactly te same way of te power o f thei gold wen it s dssolved in mercry. Cildren playing wth teir little card board ouses also dwe in tem wit te secure joys of ownersip. Storytell  ers cildren and alcemists all go to te centre of tngs; tey take posses son o tngs; they believe n te light of tat ntuiton whch pts s at the ert of realty Realst pilosopers remove all traces of wat is bot cild lke and precise n tis Einhung and forget te orignal geometrical sin o te large tat ts into te sall and n so doing believe that tey can follow te same pat and make te same conqests. Jst as provident people ll ter granares so real sts store up in sbstance all power s virtes and forces wtot understanding tat every force is a relaton By lling substance ll n tis way tey too enter a fairy house III

e substantialsaton o f an immediate qalty that i s grasped n a di rect nuton s no less of a ndrance to te subsequent progress of scientic togt tan s te armaton of a secret or inward qalty Ts is because t leads to an explanation wc s as brief as it s incontrovertible A sstantaisation of tis nd lacks the teoretcal t that oblges te scien tic mnd to crticise sensation Indeed for te scientc mind every phe nomenon is a moment n teoretcal togt a stage of discursive thought  result tat as been prepared It s prodced rater than indced The scien tic mnd cannot be content wit simply and solely linkng te descriptive elements of a penomenon to a sbsta nce wtot tere being any attempt to establs a erarcy er and wtout any precise and detailed determn ton o relatons wit oter objects Drect attrbuton n accordance wit te metod sed by mmedate realsm is completely inadeqate and we sall be givng a number of exam ples in order to make ts very clear. We shall ts sow te way in which alse sbstantialst explanations are consttuted. 1 08

AST BAHAR

Ligt boies attach themeve to an electred ody: tis is an mme and moreover vey ncomplete  mage of certain knds of attraction  ate i e pre-scentic mind s ts isolated image into a means of explanaton tat is absolute and consequently immediate even togh tis image repre sents only one moment in te total phenomenon and ougt not to be accepted nto a coect description without its place in it beng clearly prescribed In oter words te mmediate penomenon wll be regarded as te sgn of a roper of btance: all scentic inquiry wll come to a stop ten and tere since the substantalist response sties all questions. Thus te electric uid as the quality ascribed to it of being  glutinous nctuos and tena cos Priestley says tat Mr Boyle's teory of electrical attracton was tat te electric emtted a gltinous evium wich laid hold of small bod es n ts way and in its retu to the body wc emitted it carred tem ack with it' t is obvious tat these rays tat go in search of objects moving otwards and then back again, are parasitical additions We see ten tat te ntal mage comes down to regardng te stick of electred amber as a nger coated with glue Tere would be no great harm if tis metaphor were not interioried; yo could always extricate yourself by sayng t was mer ely a way of inter retng nd expressing te penomenon However tere s n fact more ere tan jst descrpton by a word there is explanaton by a thoght Yo thnk as yo see and you think what you see: a speck of dust tick to an electried srface and therefore eectrici i a gue a very sticky glue Yo ave ten gone o on the wrong tack where false problems will give rse to wortless experiments wose negative results will even fail to act as a waing becase te rst naive mage s so dazzlng so blinding and ts attributon to a sb stance so decsive When vercaton fails tere wll always be the notion at te back of your mind tat a sbstantial qualty tat does not appear s still tere masked and hidden A mnd that contnues to tnk this q alty n t ese terms will gradually become mpevious to the experimental evidence belyng it Priestleys way of expressing imself sows fairly clearly tat e never estions the gtino qai of the electric ud: Oe James Hatma whose accout of ambe is ublished i The Phlosophial Transactions, eteds to rove by exemet that eecca attraction was realy owig to the emissio of gutious artices. He ook two electc substaces viz pieces of colohoia ad fom oe of them made a distiatio ofa blac ba sam, ad theeby deive d it of its attactive ower He says that the electric which was ot distied etaied its faty substace whereas the othe was, by distiatio, reduced to a mere aput 1 09

T FOMATION O T INTI MIND

moruum, ad ad o dr of ts tumous fa. I  cosquc of ths hypothss h s t as hs opo tha am atacts lht ods mor powlly tha oth sustacs caus t mts oly ad tacous ua mor copously tha thy do

ASTON BALAD

This can be easily believed since muriate of soda  which is a good conductor, ought to have given a cuent with a far greater intensity than the prceding liquids which are not such good conductors of electricity Leaving aside this last precision, let us t to grasp what it was that led to the idea of

eectric curent having a tate This could only come about by following sbstantialist suggestions. The electric uid was considered to be a real a trial spirit, an emanation or gas f this subtle matr goes through  tube ontaining urne, milk, or vinegar, it must be directly impregnated with the taste of these substances. By bringing together two electrodes on the tip of the tongue, you will tate thi material electric crrent modied by its pas sag through dierent kinds of matter it will thereore be acrid as urine is, or ild like milk, or sharp like vinegar f touch is considered in the same experimental conditions, there will b less cetainty for touch is duller than taste. Like the monkey in the fable, e do not know why we cannot make distinctions ver well but we make them even so  Aldini continues: n all these experiments, we had a very different sensation in our ngers    the sensat ion presented by the uid as it pased through sulphuric acid was shap; that given as it passed tough uriate of ammonia . .  was of a aty substance in passi ng through milk it seeed to acquire ildness Thus since milk is mild to the taste and unctu us to the touch, it carries this mildness and uncousness right into the phe nomenon of the electrc curent that has just passed through it These false ualities attributed by naive intuition to the electric current seem to us a pefect illustration of the inuence of th substantial obstacl e A beter idea of the shorcomings of this sensualist orientation of sci ence will be gained simply by comparing it here, where this particular prob le is conceed with the abstract and mathematical orientaton that we believe to be c onclusive and corec t. The abstract concept Ohm brought into use a few years later in order to designate the dierent conductors is that of etance This concept rids scence of all reference to direct sensory qual ties. The obection might perhaps be raised that the concept of a resistance still has too much of an image about it. Linked as it is to the concepts of intensity and electromotive force however, the concept o f resistance gradu ally loses its etymological value and becomes metaphorical. This concept is henceforward the element of a complex law a law that i s ndamentally ve abstract and wholly mathematical, and that forms a kind of concetal node. t can then be conceived that urine vinegar, and milk may have pecic effects but these eects are registered only through th intermediay of a tly abstract idea, that is to say one that has no immediate meaning in con crete knowledge and no direct referenc to primar sensation Electrical re sistance is resistance puried by precise denition it is incorporated into a athematical theor that limits any overextension of it Empiricism is ther fore dicharged so to speak; it no l onger has to account at one and th sam tie for all the sensor characteristics of the substances on which experi

1 10

11

Such an experiment is in fact mutilated; to be precise, what is lacking here is the positive aspect There ought to have been an examination of the product resulting from the reigeration of the col ophonia s empyreumatic parts and it ought to have been noted that the glutinous, unctuous, and tena cious electric substance had concentrated there. This had not been done and for very good reason! Quality has been destoyed in order to prove it existed simply by applying a table of absence This is because the substantialist con viction is so strong that it is easily satised This also shows vey clearly that this substantialist conviction runs counter to the variation of experiments Should it nd dierences in the manifestations of innr qualiy, it would explain them at once by a varable nten amber is more electric than other substances because it is richer in glutinous mater and its glue is more concenrated We now come to a second and paricularly clear example that gives us a good idea of the ravages of direct attribution to substance an d of the imme diate data of sense experience. In a relatively recent book (dating om Floreal in the year XI), Aldini  Galvanis nephew  gives an account of a leer om Vassali: Rossi assured me that the galvanic uid takes dierent prop eties from the live animals and corpses it passes through . 0 In other words the substance of electicity is impregnated with the substances it goes through Aldni goes on to say more specically that

 ha otad th folow sults fom succssly dscha th sam aty touh u forc 5 a ry acrd tast, ad a wht ash; throuh m  foc 4 a mld shty acd tast ad a rd ash; thouh w  foc  a slhty acd tas throuh a  foc 2 a shap ast ad a d ash thouh r  forc _ a shap tast ad a whtsh ash    houh a soluto ofmurat of soda  forc 10   ths xprmt ad th folow os  was mpossl to a th ssato o th tou

HE FORMO OF HE SCEIFC MID

GSTO BCHELRD

f the life foce so the parkle ofre obtained lie an electic owe fo plants will allow us to see all the deep and inne tensions of the being it pesses

ments ae caied out It seems to us that we hae ust outlined in half a page o o the faily clea opposition etween the pescientic mind epesented by Aldini and the scientic mind epesented by Ohm a few yeas late hus with efe ence to a paticula example we hae just deeloped one of the pinciple aguments of thi boo n amely the supemacy of astact sc ientic nowl edge oe nowledge that is pimay and intuitie Aldinis substantialist intuition with egad to the galanic uid is not an exception It is nomal thought in the eighteenth centuy It can be found in a less deeloped fom in many texts whee it is pehaps moe instctie because of its ey eity. Fo example elecic e is a btantial e What has to e undelined howee is that it is ey natally elieed to participate in the sustance om which it is obtained Substantial oigin is always ey had to exocise Witing on electic e i n the Encyclopdie, Le Monnie states that the light which comes fom bbed bodies is moe o less bight in accodance with the natue of these bodies that of a diamond of pecious stones and o f glass etc is white moe bight and fa moe daz zling than that which comes fom ame sulphu sealing wax all esinous matte o sil We hae italicised the little wod etc hee because it would meit a long commentay all on its own And all on its own it is the ma of an entie way of thining Wee we dealing with empiic ism of a pope ind one that accumulates and faithlly ecods expeiments that hae eally been done we would then hae to complete the enumeation. Howee the wite is illumined by a prima and obio t: illiant and white as these bod ies ae fom the ey st in thei natual bightness will they not when elecied poject a white and moe bil liant electic e than that poduced by odies that ae opaque and dull? hee is theefoe no point in going on with the expeiment hee is een no point in looing caelly at the ex peiment and listing all its aiales And thee is no point in completing the enumeation eades will themseles ll in what the etc leaes out. Indeed people thin they hae hold of the substantial oot of the phenomenon they hae obseed hey do not theefoe feel the need to ay cicumstances that they conside moe o less accidental and moe o less supecial. he sustantialist answe has once again put an end to scientic quesions. Eeything is decided by substantial oigin especially if it has a tal powe added to it In a lete to Zanotti Piati asses that the spas he obtains fom elecied plants ae aiously coloued in accodance with the natue of the plant and they nealy always ege on the colou of the owe the plant will poduce  1 A simila pinciple of coloation is inscibed in the biologic al deelopent of a paicula plant. Just as owes ae splashes

In accodance with the method we hae established hee let u s now eamine an instance in which the substantialist obstacle is oecome and thought is consequently coected and let us see how inadequate this st coection is  In the eighteenth centuy it was thought to hae been obseed  that if the inner suface o glass essels intended fo expeiments with eectcity wee coated with substances endowed with medical qualities then the most sutle pas of these substances passed though the glass with the matte of electicity and togethe pemeated the body and poduced in it the most salu tay eects    Hee Joseph Veatti is epoting the theoies of Piatti and anotti and he himself undeoo pecise expeiments in connection with this e puges his seant by placing scammony in the palm of his hand while electfying him. As a second expeiment on a lady gae a less apid and less clea esult he wondes whethe the powe of the scammony had been diminished by the st electication. He theefoe ecommends that the scammony spoiled and gown at because of electication should be eplaced each time Accoding to Veatti puges as indiect as this one wo th aloes and gamoge Veatti sees these expeiments as conming an opinion of Hoanns who atibuted the eect of pugaties to the most btle and most olatile paicl es  btle being fo the pescientic mind amost always a sign of powe. Piatti adocates the expeiments he had een the st to pefom egading them as entiely hamless and gentle medication  How usel would it not indeed be he says  if in leaing be hind iteess and disgust in the cyl inde we could e sue oftaing all thei iues to ouseles by touching them with the tips of ou nges his wish is a petty clea indication of the need to alorie. Natually such hamless and gentle medication is not limited to puges Sc ientic eee extends it to al diseases and Piatti has a geat assotment of cylindes that ae diuetic hysteic antiapoplectic sudoic codial and balsamic  he Abb Nollet aes a jouey to Itay in ode to see such maels Unfounatey in the pesence ofthis ench physicist none ofthese puges by paticipation meets ith success We should not e t oo quic though to ejoic e in th is eduction of eo iattis theoy has a following een ae the Ab Nollets citicism It is

 2

 3

V

GASON BACHLAR

H FORMAION O H SCINIFIC MIN

not o ay to put a top to ubtantialim ductiv cha. Th Abb d Mangin vn lngthn th lit of rmdi that can b ud in lctric cylin dr H rcommnd thi tchniqu for th volatil pirit ofvipr ud for th bit of poionou animal for th pirt of tag ho a a rmdy for convulio n for orangowr watr in ca of nrou dia tc   Th objction th Abb d Mangin rai ar to do with protction by mdica mnt and th numbr of lctric machin inc ach drug would rquir it pcial cylindr   H uggt morovr anothr tchniqu imprgnat a pic of cloth with th mdicamnt and apply th cloth to th ick part of th body bring to it th virtu of lctricity in uch a way that bcau thi  virtu pntrat th body only through th pic of cloth it would necessar ily carry with it what i mot ubtl and mot pirituou in th rmdy W tr th word necessarily hr indicating a it do a valoriation that i  indpndnt of th actual xprinc . But why not jut wallow th rmdy Thi i bcau it chang it natur whn in th tomach whra introduc ing it into th body by man of lctricity i an ntirly hanl gntl and convnint way of adminitring a rmdy wih all it activ par and imprcptibly o to pak How could ubtanc not hav innat grac whn thy ar imagind a bing o piritualid o ininuating and o va orid by lctricity virtu Thir ctiv ral action may hav bn d nid yt vn o thir activ action till rmain Th imagination i at work dpit th objction of xprinc. Onc you hav givn crdnc to th marllou you cannot dtach yourlf om it and thr wa for many yar a rlntl atmpt to rationali rathr than rduc marl.

v

 nd to crat ubtanc rmbling it thu it i that r crat r and a a liquid which i corrptd by a malign dpravation carri infction into  rmaining uid  7 Thi curiou ida according to which all activ prin ipl crat ubtanc i vry ymptomatic t m to u to indicat clary th tndncy toward  direc realisaion a tndncy which w conidr can  dcribd a a dviation ofth cintic mind It may b pointd out to u  at uch a thory of th pcic malignity of fvr i a prlud to th di ovri  of microbiology. t uch a rationaliation of cintic hitory appar to u to ignor th ndamntal dirnc btwn th two way of thiking or th prcintic mind maligni i dirctly ubtantid with al it phnomnoogical charactritic: thr i a hortcircuit om ub tac to it mod and ubtantication put an nd o rarch On th otr hand microbiology dvlop through dirntiation by in a way io lating mod from th hiddn principl  t i through a lngthy tchnical proc  that microbiology nd th pcic microb which allow th pcic dagoi to b prfctd. In mod microbiology thr i discrsie preci ion a prciion corrlativ to ymptom and cau which i th abolut oppoit of th inuitiv ubtantialim w ar ndavouring to dcrib. So grat i th nd to ubtanti qualiti that ntirly mtaphorical ualiti can b poitd a ntial. Borhaav thu ha no hitation about attributing mildn to watr a it primary quality As a  h rerty f Water e recn ts mlness An ths qualty t s enue th  such a egree that f t s reuce t the Heat f a healthy By an hen ae t any f ts ars, hch have the qucest Sense t nt nly n't excte any an, but t n't s much as rase any ther han ha s cause by the natural humurs an the arts feel hen they are erfecly sun. If, fr nstance, t s ale t the C f the Eye, than hch there s scarce any art sner aecte th an m anythng shar it es nt cause the least unea sness   the Membrane fthe Nse hch s mae u fNeres tha le amst bare t s nether trublesme, nr aects t th any ne smell

vry quality cal for it ubtanc. At th nd of th ightnth cn tury Carra i till in arch of a ubtanc that will dirctly account for d ness of th air.  Againt th aquou vapour that mak air damp h t  ulphurou vapour that mak it dry n th phyic of th prcintic ra handling ngativ quantiti i a w can  no ay matr Th minu  ign m mor factitiou than th plu ign Propri that ar maniftlyindirec for a cintic mind ar immedi aely ubtantid by th prcintic way of thinking. Sydnham had to account for th maligni of crtain fvr and mad it conit of th dv opmnt of vry hot and vry pirituou particl  rfrring in hort to a kind of atom of fvr that wa chargd with r Chambon d Montaux quot  Sydnham a follow  think that th hot and pirituou particl acquir grat action by coin g togthr for by th law of natur any activ prnci

Borhaav continu a follow And latly it dmontrat it xcl lnt mildn by bing abl to diut thing acrid in uch a mannr a to dpriv thm of thir natural acrimony and rndr thm hal with r pct to th human Body In conqunc of thi essenial propry h ay wa Watr i tmd on of th principal Anodyn and Pargoric in hyic   It can b  n morovr that vn though th quality ofmildness ha  adually movd from on mtaphor to anothr for Borhaav i till indi

1 14

1 15

GAON BAE LAR

TE ORATION O TE IENT IN

cates a qualty that s prfundly substanted. And t wuld be useless t pnt ut the very bvus tlty f such thnkng The play f drect substantcatns may f curse lead t cntradc try attrbutns n derent wters Fr Ptt, t s nt mldness but hardne that s water's essental qualty. He prves ths just as speedly, mrever Water' s parcles must be very hard snce t hllws ut the stnes and rcks  that are expsed t ts cntnual mvement We als knw that we feel pan  f we strke the surface f the water wth the palm f ur hand' 18 Many exam pes culd easly be gven f attbutns as rdculus as ths. Qualtes as  exteal as  onori can be enclsed n substance's nnermst depths Fr Frederch Meyer, prf that the xed ar s an ntegral eement flme les n the fact that when lme s melted wth sulphur and then cled, t resunds the cause f the sund beng acidm pinge: all that cmes m re as a sld bdy als resunds. Lme, charcal made m new wd and m bne, sme melted salts, metals, bth cmmn and metallc glass, prcelan, glass vessels, tles, and pumcestnes, all f these resund'.19

bstance s thught n rder t realse cntradctns. Need we pnt ut nce agan that the wrter quted here was very quently quted at the end f the eghteenth century? He was mrever re eemently attacked by Lalande. We have nly t read the nte t the reader t the end f Carra's furt vlume t see hs skll as a plemcst. n hs  relatns wth Lalande he shws hmself t be a subtle psychlgst, whch rves that scentc and psychlgcal maturty d nt g hand n hand.

V

Thus, all substantalst mages nteract wth each ther n what they symblse The ncandescence f the rn n whch the blacksmth wrks s  substanted as mlky phlegm drven ut by an assduus hammer. Ths mky phlegm suggests an nvsbl e magnetc phlegm These tw knds f phlegm, ne t d wth ncandescence and the ther wth magnetsm, allwed the cntradctn f the vsble and nvs ble t be transcended Substantalsatn attenuates ths phenmenlgcal cntradctn. Here, as s s en the case,

One fthe clearest symptms f substantalsm's seductve charms s  the accumulatn f adjectves arund the same substantve: qual tes are s  drectly lnked t substance that they can be juxtapsed wthut t much nce regardng ther mutal relatns Here we have a tranqul empr sm that s very far frm gvng rse t experences and experments. t takes  the easy way t becmng mre rened, just by multplyng synnyms. An example f ths has been seen n the glutnus, unctus, and tenacus char acter f the electrc ud t s a general tendency, sgns f whch culd mre er be fund n areas far remved m scentc tught, such as psychl gy and lterature the less precse an dea  s, the mre wrds are fund wth whch t express t  The prgress f scentc thught cm es dwn n fact t diminihing rather than n any way ncreasng the number f adjectves that t a substance Attrbutes are thught scentcally by beng placed n a her archy, nt by beng juxtapsed. Ths prlx emprcsm s f curse at ts mst apparent n the back ward scences suc as medcne. In he eigheenh cen a medicamen i lierally coered wih adecie These are a few examples amng thusands. n the arcle n antmny n the Encyclopdie, we read that Gl den sulphur s therefre emmenaggc, hepatc, mesenterc, bechc, febrge, cephalc, daphretc, and alexpharmc'  E lsewhere, sprts fjunper are descrbed as  s udrc, crdal, hysterc, stmachc, carmnatve, apertve, and bechc'  20 Smples' are partcularly cmplex.! Accrdng t the Encyclopdie, napweed rt alne  s vmtry, purgatve, duretc, sudrc, expectrant, emmenaggc, alexterc, crdal, stmachc, hepatc, antapplectc, ant epleptc, antpleurtc, febrge, vermge, vulnerary, and aphrdsac, that s t say t has seventeen pharmaceutcal prpertes. Fumtry has seven, sweet almnd l has nne, ctrn has eght, betny seven, camphr eght, etc f the mst dverse atrbutes thus nd themselves asscated wth ne and te same substance, then vce versa we shuld nt be surprsed t see

1 16

117

V Once the mnd has accepted the substantal character  f a parcular phenmenn t n lnger has any scrples abut gvng n t metaphr t verlays a parcular and en precse experment wth a mass f mages  drawn m the mst dverse f phenmena n hs  Noeax Principe de Phyiqe, Carra explans magnetsm lke ths h phlg m that ooz out of magt  a ct ofth cotua prur or graitato xrt by th mral o tlf t  a k of mrcury that by obtructg th urfac of th iro a makg t mprmabl to th ambt ar gv to th mtary u alo th faculty of propllg t i a privilg rcto    th mlky phlgm whch mrg om th iro wh bat ar mltg  vry crta proofthat that whch ooz out of magt  ot a chmra

GATN AHARD

TH FRMATI F TH IT MIND

many substances cooperating in order to produce one particular remedy Eighteenthcentury apothecaries still use the most complicated of mixtures The medicated plaster kown as diabotanum gathers together a great quan tity of plants. Ifw e remember that each one of these plants is itse lf endowed with many characteristics we can see how great an accumulation of sub stances is achieved by diabotanum. The apostles  salve is of couse made up of twelve drugs Malouins antiscorbutic electuary contains twentytwo simples and the Abb Rousseaus soothing balm contains nineteen The fa mous polychrest salt that the Seignette brothers consider to be a compound of three salts appears too simple to doctrinaire polypharmics Theriacs also obey an eclectic substatialism that might serve to symbolise a very particular way of thinking In a theriac bringing together 15 0 substances there is no conce with their proporions people trst to the ecacy of the ingredients being present and nothing more. A theriac is a accumulation of substances an accumulation which is nevr very welcoming. As Maurice Soenen says according to the statutes of La Rochelle the fabrication of theriacs like that of all large confections in which an innity of drgs is combined must be the work of all the masters together with its product being shared out between them . The constittion of this sm ofsbsanial sms strikes us as very curious t is a good indicator of the theriacmakers ideal which could be compared with the complex of  saving the pennies studied by psychoanalysis This ideal is more persistent than is thought n 1843, Raspail is still writing like th is How many animals are il l when they are deprived of hay that theriac composed of a thousand balms of different kinds  For the unconscious the most composite mixtures are always val orised The phrase  everything bellie s out  that is to say swells and bulges  is just a way of expressing in alimentary terms people s attachment to polypharmic accumulations for protection against disease However since our aim is to arrive at a good description of this myth of medical substances which are overloaded with attributes by the prescien tic mind whether this pilingup is seen as natural as in the case of simples or articial as i n that of theriacs  let us by way of contrast look at mode medicaments which are massproduced industrially with an ideal of unity and precision Let us for example compare antipyrine with an old sedative. Ifwe are to develop this parallel properly we must disregard the claims made in commercial advertising Alas these claims rely in fact on the cer tainty of nding a prescientic k ind of support for them among members o f the general public Business readily sugg ests that tablets can be taken for the most varied of complaints What is more people are all too quick to heed what it says We would be very surprised if we knew all the individual  and

ularly varied  use s to which a mode chemically wel ldened medi e is put ftherefore we disregard as is right and proper this antiscientic e of a scientic product and refer to scientic and honourable usage we ll ten understand that there i s an attempt here to establ ish precise corre ondence between the nosological enti to be relieved and the chemical tity of the remedy Mode pharmaceutical science sets its sights on just oe uality in substance and no more than that The ideal is a monofnc oal remedy a sbsanive ha has a single adjecive The aim that is to y s to realise a elldened aribe by means of substance. Mode amaceutical science manufactures a quality rather than a substance an ective rather than a substantive. It is realis in a discursive way because it ealises in a movement that is the complete opposite of the classical realism  terms of which mode science could it was thought be philosophically escribe This qualitative precision and this state of making absolute distinc tos of quality will be very clear if we care to consider certain specic accines or serums all of which are carelly numbered and indicated by euences of letters that have been very precisely determined It wi ll then be ully understood that a scientic prodc is a specic and welldened mo ent in an objective technique In order to determine it we do not put our tt in a more or less hidden more or less developed activity of substance. e want a wellchosen instant of development and it is this instant that we x and immobilise in substance We can indeed say that seen om this per ective of realisations substance is just the concretisation of abstract theo retical ideas Without these theoretical ideas we could not creae substance or in permanently xing a popery in a wel ldened state we are truly cre tg a substance. We shall be retuing to this aspect of mode scientic realisaion but for now a comparison between scientic and prescientic teories on a very specic point seemed to us a good way of showing both the consed state of prescientic substantialism and also the revolution in thinking that has to come about in order to overcome the realist obstacle This phi losophical question i s far more relevant today than it may rst eem because in all educated minds many traces of substantialism still re an and have to be psychoanalysed The following sentence comes from a reatise on mode chemistry and is one I have used as a test to disce pu ils  diculty i n leaving etymology behind and escaping the inuence of the oo word which in a family of words always seems to represent a privi leged reality Martinet the author of this book simply says that Menthol enthone and menthyl acetate all smell of mint t is not uusual for an eucated reader to be heard to say on reading this line o f course they do 

1 18

1 19

 FOMAIO OF  SIEIFIC MI

In his iple aaion a iple pleonasm is seen. I seems ha he ending

 0  one  yl  indicae ceain sppemenay ncions which of co

allow he essenial qaliy o emain ha is o say he qaliy expessed  he oo of he wod A eade wih no knowledge of oganic chemis i no awae ha he deivaives of he same chemica body can have vey  feen popeies and ha hee ae ncions which when gaed on o  same cenal body do no involve oganolepic popeies sch as smel   shold indeed poin o in passing ha whee his example is conceed  nonscien ic mind does no wok om he sandpoin ofacial nae  is oen eqied Fom he sandpoin of aicia chemisy ha is o sa  scienic chemisy min shold be said o smell of enhol and no  opposie when menhol is said o smel l of min  shold al so be said ping o hesis o f he spemacy o he absac ahe showily ha he con ce smells of he absac  is in ac by sdying pue menhol ha we c isolae he osmophoic gop esponsibe fo smell i is by sudying h molecla suce of his gop ha we can ndesand he geomeic consucion of a sensoy popey saing fom an asac schema o e e he maeial ealiaion of a smel ha has been mahemaically dened

V

GASO BACA



ho beas he sign of a specic smell wil  help o senghen belief in he eciveness of ha sbsance I is fo his eason ha Chaas is opposed o hose who wish o emove he npeasan smell fom vipes sal o sch asidios people do no ndesand ha his smel cod no be sepaaed om his sa wiho is viue eing emoved Fixing he volaile sal ih lime also means making i lose is powe  is  spiial essence  be ase he lime peies i Chaas of cose offes no poof of hese aaions his slapdash logic being as always an indicaion of a pioi vaoisaions. He has simply and solely heefoe sbsanialised smell. In his view a pimay sensaion ms no fo a single insan be sepaaed om he sbsance of which i is he sign Smells ae al pevasive imposing hei pesence on s whehe we ie i o no facs which mak hem o as acive ealiies ndeed smels have oen been p fowad as poof o individalied ealiie Boehaave neve managed o ee him sel compleely fom he idea ha evey being has an ndividaising pinciple a concee pinciple ha a sble chemisy can hope o isolae I appeas hen a engh by he help of he chemical A only he says tht there rely i s in eey single Anim nd Vegetbe  kind o Aura or Vpor tht is proper ony to tht prticr body; nd tht this is o so sbti  ntre tht it discoers itse only by its scent tste or some peclir eects his Spirt expresses the te genis o the Body in hich it resides; nd it is this chiey tht ccrtely distingishes it rom  others he innite neness o this Vpor mkes it inisible to the eye thogh ssisted by the mos t perect gsses  nor cn the mos t exqisite Ar detin nd colect it by by reson o its st oltility; hen t is pre thereore nd seprted om eery thing else it gos imptient o rest ies o nd mixes ith the Air nd so rets to the grnd Chos o l oltile bodies here hoeer it stil reins its on proper ntre nd ots bot til it descends gin ith Sno Hil Rin or De; it then sinks don into the botom o the Eth impregntes it ith its prolic seed mixes ith its ids nd so t st nites itsel gin ith theAnim nd Vegetble Jices

Edcaed eaism is a evesed eaism he vey opposie of which can be seen i f we look a he pivileged ole played by ceain cude sensaions in sbsanialis hinking Tase and smel in paicla wih hei diec and inwad aspec appea o bing s a uswohy message om a maeia ealiy The eal ism of o nose is vey mch songe han he ealism o f o eyes. Wha o o eyes is smoke ha ends in deams is fo o nose and o moh a waing smel ha leads o mea! The idea of banial vie i closely inked o smell Macqe declaes i o be so wiho any discssion A gea pa of he viue of pans lies in his pinciple o f hei smell and i is o his ha we owe he mos singla and mos mavellos eecs ha w see hem podce evey day . Nobody qesions he need o ake gea ca o peven phaaceical podcs fom going a and sale de o expos o he ai While his ogh o be a pecaion ha is specic and elaive  ceain volaile podcs i is howeve held o be a ndamenal pinciple.  is believed ha he poe of a sbsance like ha o a owes pem ades and vanishes If he smel i s mainained hen his means ha he viue is safeguaded. We see how simpy he sbsanialism of smels comes o b exended Smell i s a valoised qaliy heefoe The ac ha a sbsance some

This ex shows s vey cleay he powefl eaism of smel Fo oehaave smell is he ealiy ha is he mos independen of al o opea ons Exhaled y oses on a sping evening smel eus o he ose bsh ih he moing dew I is a ealiy ha ansmigaes b ha is neve de soyed o ansged And of cose we canno ceae i. Fo Boehaave

1 2

2

ASTON BACHELARD

THE ORMATION O THE SCIENC MIND

eve desiing to wok on a reali A substance is woth something  i   possession t is a powe that can and indeed must show its abita ne Nothing is bette at doing this than contadiction Whee Boyles salt is con ceed even isorical al e is not lacking as the wite suggests in h  efeence to the Bible Boy les puzzle beas some elation to that whch  Samson poposed to the Philistines de fori egressa es dlcedo'30 n O view this kind of accumulation of valoising thoughts  which we need  point out in passin g so as to avoid epeating ouselves  pemits us to ee as we shall do  ou next chapte to the need to psychoanalyse substantialis Fo the time being et us simply note that a union of sensoy conta dictions oen seves as a eality Given this example  and we could not wih  fo anything simple o moe mateial  we may pehaps undestand a  udge those philosophical aguments which see eality as being ndamen tally iational We may even place these philosophies in a convese whee accumulating the iational is sufcient to give an illusion of eality s thi not how mode novelists poceed taken as they ae to be ceatos the mo   ment they realise illogicality inconsistency and miscellaneous behaviou  the moment they mix details and laws events and poects oiginality a chaacte the sweet and the acid? This though is not the place to launch int a citique of this fake psychologica l obectivity Ou only eason fo efeing  to it i s to make it cle a that the mode novelist is o en but a bad chemist a that liteay psychology is at the same stage as pescientic chemisty

A pecious substance must be sought so to speak deep down t i hidden unde wappings t is submeged amid cude matte and gangue  i obtained in epeated distillations extended maceations and long diges tions Thus extacted educed and puied it is a quintessence; it is a The commonly held ideal which has no diculty in beguiling substantiali thought is that of possessing in a vey small volume the pinciples of eithe nouishment o healing This myth of substantial concentation is accepte  without question Randoin and S imonnet have stessed in thei book on vita mins that thee is a tendency of the human mind since the beginnings  Civilisation to seek to concenrae socalled nouishing pinciples to emove fom them all that appeas useless and that must even so it is imagined distub digestive acts We shall have othe oppounties late on to psycho analyse this digestive will to powe t may be of inteest simply to eca hee that nouishment in the fom of compessed tablets has in fact been pu fowad as a human ideal Tis shows faily clealy the valoisat ion of wha

i mpessed. Fom this point of view salt is linked to a concenation that can be eaded as typical Ae evapoating what is supeuous the essential and ei ous matte soon appeas in a solution of salt The myth is of couse taen to its limits by the intuition of inteioisation As Nicolas de Locques ays in his Rdimens salt is always the innemost pat of the inemost a n othe wods salt is the essence of essence the substance of sub tance  Thee is hence an undiscussed eason fo the value attibuted to sub tance Going without salt sometimes means going without food. Whateve it oiginal cause the supestition of abstaining om salt is encounteed moe  less eveywhee accoding to Oldenbeg who gives some examples of asting fom salt in Vedic histoy The ultapowelness of salt is such that it is placed at the oigin of lie n anothe wok Nicolas de Locques has no hesitaton in wting that ust as eah in the geat Wold is the Magnet and attacts all celestial inu ees    so salt which is that viginal eath at the cente of all things is the agnet of all that can maintain the life of the micocosm.32 This irginal ubstance hidden at the cenre of all things gives us a clea example of matte tat is pivileged a pioi and that is an obstacle to tuly empiical thought One of the easons why salt is a pivileged substance is doubtless the at it is used in a small quantity in ode to poduce geat effects Homo ber sometimes woks as a pok butche cuing ham fo instance is inuitions come fom his saltingub e thinks as he salts A wite om a faily distant peiod Blaise de Vigene has this to say in 1622: All the umous of animal bodies blood phlegm uine and the est ae salt; with ut this eveything could become tainted at any moment  Bead Palissy akes the same obseation in a much moe geneal fom and of couse till without poof n Des es diers he wites: f the salt wee extacted om beams oists and aes they would all tu to powde The same uld be said of ion steel gold and silve and of all metals. Once a secet we has been attibuted to a substance you can be sue that the valoising iuction will know no the bounds When al l these examples ae bought tgethe in thei unconscious  liation it can be seen how peseving pok fat  the use of salt leads to the infeence that gold can be peseed using a iila and appopiate poduct What peseves can poduce. F o Vigene salt is not  infetile  but on t  contay it causes fetility These ae the poofs he gives of this salt vokes the veneean appetite on account of which Venus is said to have  n bo fom the sea and fo this eason we give salt to animals in ode t xcite them the moe    agai n we see fom expeience that in ships laden

 24

25

x

THE ORMATO O THE SCIENTIC MI

with salt more rats and mice are bo than in the others'. Salt also prevent the earth from in solid and bein constipated this constipation pre ventin plants from rowin'  And naly aer an accumulation of opinion every bit as absurd Vienre dares to deduce this key piece of advice o them: for these reasons salt should be decried when holy thins are looke  upon for here all lubricity must be banished' We have no hesitation in tran scribin a text so overloaded with foolis h nonsense precisely because it show the most heteroeneous values slidin toether and also the need to attain dominant values which however have nothin to do with empirical ones Sea salt is of course just one aspect of the ndamental salt that lies at the heart of all substances Should we wish to stdy the sense of conviction .! iven by these essential valorisations all we need do is look at alchemical texts. The maxim Cm sale et sole omnia recurs in most works. n 166 Nicolas de Locques is still writin like this in his Rdiments: Those who work without salt are like those who would shoot their bow without a bow strin or without an arrow' t i s also as a particularly active substance that salt comes into the theo ries ofpal inenesis which enoyed such reat and strane success in the eiht eenth centry. t is imained that the ashes of plants and animals can repro duce the beins whose remains they are For in stance the Abb de Vallemont writes pae aer pae in order to prove the action of these essential salts For him The salts contain the ideas ure and phantom of the plants o  which they are extracted' and the seminal virtue of every mixture is con centrated in its salts' This secret' he says teaches us that althouh th body dies forms make the ashes their home' The consequence ofthis is that:

ASTO BACHELAR

X

Napoleon 's vision on the eld of Austerlitz would therefore hav been easily rationalised by the Abb de Vallemont's substantialist intuition Lastly since it is a ndamental trait of valorisin thouht that ever  value can be neated we can nd texts in which the properties of salt an ashes are juded in a pejorative way For P ierre Fabre for example the onl  description salt deserves is this it is  rease ofthe world and thickness oft h elements'  t is excrement Salt is so to speak the realisation of impurit

All patient rhytmic work all work that demands a lon sequence of onotonous operations will lead hom o faber alon the path of reverie He will then blend reverie and son with the matter he is fashionin; he ives i h value to substance that is worked on for a lon while. The eometrical boundaries of objects are no l oner drawn by parial effort and basic move ents; when movements are rouped in time when therefore there is ca dence then there is clear joyl knowlede Apothecaries' cheerl enery a pestle is pounded in mortar shows us in itself the value that very sin erely they attach to their pills. All this reat weiht of dreams and all this alorisin of substances in terms of the time spent in their preparation must be cleared away om scientic thouht The products of patient work must be devalorised if we wish to psychoana lyse objective knowlede The dier ence between a scientic and a prescientic mind can be shown fairly clearly ere om a very simple example For us trituration is a mechanical process we can immediately under tand This was not the case in the eihteenth century and a fortiori in preced in centries t was then a trly polymorphic operation akin to deep chemi al operations The Encyclopie recalls that for Boerhaave  trituration has a marvellous power to dissolve certain bodies and makes them as uid as if they had been melted by re' n the same way Dr Lanelotte can use trit ration and make old  as uid as re does and make potable old just by the ovement of a mill' t matters little as Brnschvic perceptively points t that Lanelotte thus discovered colloidal old He discovered it not for himself but for us and Brunschvic reses as we too systematically rese te recurrent optimism of historians of science who oen wish to tack new values on to old discoveries: t is not permissible' he writes to say we now a thin we are makin while we do not know we are makin it' . ere the value syst em is dierent from our way ofjudin t is dependent on a mystique of poundin While poundin is for us simply an incidental reparation for more essential operations in the eihteenth centry it is re arded as an operation providin rounds for sucient explanation in the ost varied of domains This can be seen if we follow the aruments reard i diestion in the stomach there bein lon years of conontation be ween partisans o f fermentation and those o f tritration The theory of tritu ration rst proposed by Dr Pitcai was an endurin one As famous a doc tor as Boerhaave has no hesitatio n in writin that: n rnn infootmen usbandmen and all persons used to hard labour sh and esh meats pui iediately from the violent motion of their Bodies' The author of the

1 26

1 27

 Sads of t Dad tat ar on sn to appar n cmtris ar natra bn t form of bodis burid in ts pacs or tir ta r and not tr so    t s crantat ts appartons can b qnt n pacs wr tr a bn batts And ts Sads ar bt t urs of dad bods tat t at or a nt brz cts and raiss n t ar.

TE ORMATON O TE CENTC MIND

Encycloie aicle on iuaion eminds us of is use by he Hebews an quoes a vese om he Bible. Sain Paul made a paable of i The weigh o adiion gives subsanial expeience a supplemenay value ha is no longe cuen in he fomaion of a uly s cienic mind To an opeaion like iuaion which simply equies paience we can compae opeaions simply equiing ime as when hings ae cooke slowly ove a genle hea The bohs ha in all hei vaiey and paicul iy wee so much used in eigheenhcenuy dieeics doubless owed some of heipopulaiy o he idea ha a lenghy cookingime is an indispensable condiion of subsanial concenaions Ye i is in expeimens ha ae somehow empoally sucued ha ime akes on is ll valo ising powe. Hence he value of poducs o baine in opeaions ha ae seven imes epeae so poving he mysic chaace of his subsanialis valoisaion Boehaave says oo ha fossil coppe as i is dug i n he oe equies boh exquisi e a and labou o make i  fo use no less han welve sions being necessay o ende i sucienly malle able  Ho weve his pecise emak does no involve a descipion of gadual enemen. In mode chemisy deailed easons ae given when opea ions ae boh long and numeous. Wefollow meallur as we follow a rea sone d argumen Mode meallugy is a easoning pocess he absac heme explains indusial pocedues A opeaion such as he moe monoonous acionaed disillaion is eniely aihmeised i almos poceeds like geo meical pogession The mysique of epeiion does no heefoe ene a mode scienic mind. In his espec an opeaion like cohobaion  epeaed disillaion  mus hese days seem incompehensible fom evey poin of view We know wha i consiss of having wih consideable diculy sepaaed volaile om xed mae in a disillaion you econsiue he mixue in ode o ecom ence disillaion o as is said in language ha is pey plainly valoising you pu he spii back on o is faeces Paience and couage in epeaedly ecommencing ae a guaanee of value fo he end poduc. Macque anks cohobaion among he opeaions he ancien Chymiss pefomed wih gea paience and zeal and which ae oday oo much negleced   Thus he fac ha cohobaion had fallen ino disuse was no s ucien in Macque s eyes o ake away is value

X

ATON BACELARD

 omes o be seen as eaining he popeies of he place in which i has el igheenhcenuy medicine has no hesiaion in gounding is choices  a pinciple as obscuely saed as his On he subjec of bohs he £cycloie ells us ha a somach weakened by a long peiod of illness  is e unsuied o digesing he juice of animals and does bee wih ha of ap ench ogs ec    which moeove caies a eshness o he blood ich we canno expec o come fom he juice of eesial o volaile ani s   As has aleady been poined ou his kin d of enumeaion pomply llowed by an ec, shows ha subsanialis inducon has peceded ahe a followed specic expemens. This inducion is gounded on he wholly ubsanial explanaion of he juices ha can cay hei eshness o he od a feshness ha is obvious when one hinks of he long life lived by s and baachians in cold wae In 669 he Acadmie disseced a civeca in ode o compae i o e beave i had peviously sudied These ae is conclusions  Casoeum s a song and unpleasan smell while ha of he civeca is eniely swee d i was consideed ha his diffeence migh come fom he cold damp ess of he beave which is a hal fsh wheeas he civec a is o f a ho dy epeamen dinking l ile and usually living in he sands of Afica  We shall pehaps gain an even bee undesanding of how mislead gly place leaves is mak on phenomena if we conside expeimens ha elong o he domain of physics . A he end of he eigheenh cenuy hee as much di scussion as o whehe fogs om Piedmon wee bee o wose  emonsaing eleciciy han ogs om Povence wha a nny kind of jeciviy his is ha a mounain delimis wih eleciciy on one side of he Alps and none on he ohe!

X Geneally speaking al subsanial value is ineioised by life by ani al life especially Life assimilaes qualiies deep wihin iself and aaches em mly o subsance. So diec is he connecion beween he naure of n animal and he naural quali ha he mos oulandish amaions can e sancioned unde he peex of idiosyncasy. I n his Tableau annuel de la hysique in 772, Dubois give s an accoun of his obsevaions of Mignon  eeie  a pao belonging o Madame X an enhusiasic elecie

When subsance i s consideed wihou any esisance being oeed o unconscious eveie i eadily eceives such an inense powe o absob ha

Al aimas have a share o a greater or esser porto o this vrtue o atractio ad i it is moe peceptible   parrot eathers this  s because the parot is o  a drer ad more suitabe costtuto tha other birds. A ver

28

 29

E FMAIN F E SCIENIFIC MND

erceible rf f is rsiin i s eir nara aversin  drinking. is is en s srng a ny a few drs f waer wil kill em Harmann exlains is enmenn in e ms ingenis manner e arr e says, aways cnserves e qaniy f elecriciy rer  i and s cann fai  be indissed wen i drinks waer becase i en exeriences rg e cmbinain f ese w ings an elecric sck a is csey cnneced  e Leyden exerimen

Thi i no an io laed example o nonenical hinking In a va book on he diviner wand an anonymou wrier  double Touvenel  repea he ame hing in 1 78 1 and draw inerence om i: We knw  f birds fr examle in  e clas s f arrs, a are eminenly electric and a ave a naura aversin  waer esecialy  drinking i    i is  be resmed a ere are many er animals a seek r ee waer and is emanains, in accrdance wi is kind  f exqisie sense f e elecric id Hydrbic creares are eras nly s becase ey are indeed in a sae f e greaes snanes animal eecricity a can be recgnised m several symms

The wrier ee an explanaion here o he phenomena preened by he amou waerdiviner Bleon al e cie nce conglomerae all b y hemelve Bleon wa obedien o he phyic o hi day and ceaed o reac o hidden pring once gla inulaor were placed beneah hi ee Such arran nonene could obviouly no nd i way ino a mode cience book even a populariing work o a highly dubiou kind In he eigh eenh cenury however i encumber and hamper culure. There i no hier archy in he cienic communiy All oberver are declared eual in he ace o experience All ac can be cie d a o many  anecdoe o naure'  Thi pulveried empiricim hi kind o concree experience where here i no aemp a abracion exend a ready welcome o each and every indi  vidual anay I i enough o nd a particlar natre and a btantial ac tii in order o explain all he pariculariie o experience and hen by degree all he prejudice all he hearay and all he ollie opopular wi dom

X V

ASN BACELAD

roperie o heir phyical being The obcuriy o Ifeel prevail over he clariy o I ee Becaue heir bodie are apprehended in a vague eeling human are conciou o being a ubance We hall ee how i n 1 786 he bb Berholon  whoe ame ha already been noed  explain he acion o elecriciy on human being a a deep level o ubanial inwardne In De  lectricit d corp hmain, he wrie ha: ere is n tr a is beter esablised an a f e inence  f e assins n eal; e disrder ey bring  e anima ecnmy is s wel-knwn rg s many examles a n ne can be emed  db i  wld n be a all nreasnab e erefre, in rder  diminis e eervescence f e bld and e ne f e srings in e enire macine  recmmend e se f negaive electriciy fr se w are vicims f e vien assi ns a errb and ear e ears f ms ele, a leas f se w make  a few f sciey's glittering classes is means, wic is direcy sed  e eicis effec f e assins wd be very eecive in rcring cam and tranqillity, by diminising e arm ensin al  en cased b y e erurbains fe sl; and taking in accn e mal deendence ere is beween mind and bdy e mra asec wld be weakened by atacking e ysica All ese means f reserving eal necessariy flw e ms cerain f rinciles, and we cann cnes eir eeciveness wi being very bvisly incnsisen

A exrac like hi eem o u highly characeriic ohe hal o which recienic hough come when i aen on o verbal convergence ha re reinorced by ubjecive impreion Had he word perurbaion no been ued o decribe he eec o paion hen he uggeion o calming hem wih elecriciy would no have been made. Had he word negaive no been ued o indicae an apec o  elecical phenomena hen he ugge ion o diminihing oo grea a enion in he oul wih negaive elecriciy would no have been made. I i plai n ha in hi exac he Abb Berholon  hough i working a a linguiic level The name given convenionally or eaphorically o parial phenomena o very paricular apec o experi ence become ll ubanive ubance ll o ubance. The Abb Berholon ha no heiaion in deignaing individual elec ically in hu  giving he mark o elecriciy a ndamenal ruly ubanial haracer He goe o n o ae ha

The human being i  naurally a privileged acor o  inerioriaion I eem ha human can in a direc way boh eel and know he innermo

Wen i cmes  frming e ies f naure wi wic sciety cld

1 30

131

 ORMATION O T SCINIIC MIND

not ende, very prticlr ttention mst be pid to the electric qlities of temperments Two individls in whom the electric id bonds will enjoy less perfect helth thn if the elecic constittion of one of the pir were we The sme is tre of two temperments tht hve too little electricity, compred with two others whose eectric virte is neql for it is necessry tht the insciency of the one be destroyed by the excess of the other: the correct bnce tht comes bot in the tt er cse even simply throgh cohbittion, endlessly combts the dominnt w in temperment Irrespective of the helth tht individls mtlly receive throgh this electric crossbreeding, the Stte gins om it  popltion which is more nmeros nd more song, jst s observtion dily conrms to the eyes of the philosopher who eeps wtch on ntre, which is ever to be dmired, even in the most common of l its wors.

The idea of electric wealth i therefore taken here to be an idea that i clear in itelf, hain a cient explanatory ale in the mot aried of domain Here a thi electrician write, we nd almot word for word the pycholoical banalitie till crrent abot the elne of poe hain contratin characteritic I it to be conclded once aain that literary py choloy nowaday i at exactly the ame tae a eectric  cience' wa in the eihteenth centry? It too i more readily conceed with the paion of thoe who make  p a few of ociety litterin clae'  hen inwardne i dobtle deeper A rich peronality receie the mot diere characteri tic We ee moreoer that ch facile btantialit intition only ole fale problem, in the realm of cience jt a mch a in that of literary pycholoy

GASON BACARD

3 Bcherd's footnote: Jen Le Pel letier, L 'Alst ou  dissolnt unis d n lmont R dns plusius tits qui n dcount  sct, 2 vols. Roen 1 704). In lchemy, the Arches ws the servnt of ntre' tht is to sy the vit o rce the Prcelsin immteril principle prodcing nd regting the ctivities of the niml nd vegetbe economy. 4 There is some wordply here, the French phrse ne verge en fe' mening both  ery rod nd  ery penis. 5 Bchelrds footnote: Jochim Polemn Noull lumi d Mdcin du mist du souf ds philosophs , trns om the Ltin Roen:  72  ). 6 n French the phrse to t someone inside ot lie  glove signies to me someone completely lter their views'. 7 Bchelrd's footnote: Ltt philosophiqu ts stim d cu qui s plisnt u Vits hmtiqus, trns. om Germn into French by Antoine vl Pris: 1723). 8 Colophoni' more sly colophony') is the shortened form of coophoni resin' resin of Coophon  town in Lydi), ie rosin Its empyemtic prts' re those in which the het of the re remins er they hve been bed 9 This is nother reference to the French repblicn clendr, introdced in Septem er 1 792  Florel ws the eighth month of the new repblicn yer, om 20 April to 19 My. 1 0 Bchelrd's footnote: Aldini, Essi thoiqu t xpimntl su  glnism, 2 vos Pris:  804).   Mrite' is the old nme for chloride, mrite of sod' being sodim choride, ie common slt. 1 2 Bchelrd's footnote: Anonymos, Rcuil su 'lcticit mdic dns lqul

on  ssmbl ls pincipls pics publis p dis snts su ls moyns d gui n ctisnt ls mlds, 2 vols. 2nd ed Pris:  761 ).

 Bchelrd refers here to Moires se of the sophism opim mes yo sleep becse of its seepindcing vire' in order to moc doctors in his ply L Mld imgini (  Hypochondic) Bcherd seems to be ming the point tht if we now sy tht opim mes s sleep becse it is  nrcotic we re indlging in simi lrly lzy thining, nrcotic' being derived from the Gree word to indce sleep ' in French, the sleepindcing virte'  l ver dormitive'  to which Molire nd Bchelrd refer hs  Ltin root, domi, hence the reference to two etymologies. 2 Bchelrds footnote: Nicols de Locqes is Mesty's sprgyric Physicin Ls Rudimnts d l philosophi ntull touchnt  systm du cops mit, vol  on theory, vol 2 on prctice Pris:  665 )

 3 Bchelrd's footnote Joseph Verti, Pblic P rofessor of the University of Bolo n nd Member of the Acdemy of the nstitte of Bo logn, Obstions physico micls su  'lcticit The ge: 750) 14 The roots of the plnt scmmony were sed i n medicine s  strong pgtive the ice of the pnt oes nd gmboge gm resin from  tree), reerred to  few sen ences lter were so sed s pgtives  5 Bchelrd's fooote: Anonymos: Histoi gnl tpticuli d  'cticit, 3 vos Pris: 752) 16 Bcherds footnote Crr of the King's Librry, Dissttion lmnti su  ntu d l lumi d l chlu du fu t d  'lcticit Pris 1 787). 1 7 Bcherd's footnote: Chmbon de Montx, of the Fcty of Medicine of the niversity of Pris, Member of the Roy Society of Medicine, Physicin t L ptrire ospitl it d l mlign simpl t ds s comp/iqus d

132

133

NOT

GSO BACHEAD

Chapter Seven Psychoa na Iys ng rea l sts

 fw  wis to try to arriv at a satisfactory dscriptio of t sductiv carms of t ida of substac w must ot b afraid to sk out tir orii i t ucoscious itslf wr all idstructibl prfrcs ar formd. T ida of substac is so clar ad simpl ad so uqustiod tat it must rst o a xpric lyi muc dpr witi us ta ay otr. W sall bi trr by maki som obsratios tat will at oc sm farftcd W ourslvs wr sockd by tm w w ba to rct o t sub ct atr our dlss radi of alcmical txts totr wit t psycoloica l ivstiatio s udrtak i t cours of our alrady lo ad varid taci carr av prstd us wit suc iuous substatialist covictios tat w o lor av ay sitatio i maki ralism a istict ad i proposi a spcic psycoaalysis for it. dd ot oly is t rst rm blif i ralism uqustiod but it is also i fact ot taut Tis mas tat ralism ca ritly b calld  ad tis is ot i our viw a rcommdatio  t oly iat piosopy tr is T o s tis proprly w d to o byod t itl lctual lv l ad udrstad tat t substac of a objct is rally accptd as bi a prsoal possssio Popl tak mtal possssio of it i t sam way tat ty tak possssio of som obvious advata. Har ow ral ists aru: ty av a mmedae advata ovr advrsaris bcaus ty bliv ty av a old o rality adoe he rche of rality wil tir advrsaris t mids prodial sos cas mpty drams  its aiv affctiv form t craity ralists f as its orii i a misrs oy. So as to mak our arumt clar lt us trfor adopt a polmi cal to ad say tat from a psycoaalytical stad poit ad wit aivty tak to xcss al l ralists ar misrs. Covrsly ad r ursrvdly all misrs ar rlists

T psycoaalysis tat out to b foudd i ordr to cur popl of bstatialism is t psycoaalysis ofteeng ohang. T complx to  b brok up is tat of savi t pis t Harpao complx as it coul d c cictly b calld t is tis complx tat draws atio to t litl tis tat m ot b lost sic ty caot b foud if ty ar lost Tus a littl ob ct is vry carlly lookd aftr. A frail vas is t o tat lasts t ost. Do ot los ayti is trfor iitially a ormativ prscriptio. is prscriptio t bcoms a dscriptio it os from t ormativ to t positiv. astly tr is t damtal axiom of nroen ream: oti is lost oti s cratd is a misrs sayi. T complx of savi t pis as alrady b t subjct of may studis i classical psycoaalysis W sall oly dal wit it as a obstacl to scitic cultur as ivi icrasd alu to a paricular kid of owld ad as alorisi mattr ad qualitis. W ar oblid morovr to bi tis discussio i a vry obliqu mar by putti t mpasis rst of all o valorisatios wic appar to b objctiv Tus it is vry crtai tat i uma socity prcious stos av idisputabl matrial al us Howvr wil accpti tat tr ar rouds for tis social valorisa tio it is of cosidrabl itrst i our viw tat it ca b s slippi ito aras fori to t iit ial valorisa tio parmacy bi o xampl of suc  ara Wil tis kid of slippi as o b poitd out t activ uacs of tis scodary valorisatio av ot praps b sow. W sall bi by briy dscribi tis rst mutatio of valus so as to prpar t roud for a study of valorisatios tat ar mor clarly subjctiv W sall trfor lav it for a wil bfor brii   txts of wic far lss otic as b  tak but wr tir autors ay obscur activity ca  limpsd. Morovr w caot b complt i wat w ar tryi to sow r sic iv t atur of tis book w caot study psycoloy recy; oly a eeced psycoloy is op to us a psycoloy tat is t sult of rctios o t tory of kowld t i s trfor i t vry act of kowi tat w must sow t distrbac causd by t prdomiat fli of avi. t is r ad r alo  ad ot i vryday lif v ou tis coul d provid us wit abudat proof  tat w must rval tis irct ucoscious misrliss t misrliss wic dspit its iability to out disturbs vy calculatio. W w com to dal wit t aimist ostacl w sall i additio d wat may b a v mor primitiv form of tis misrliss i t myh odgeon. or a llr study oft problm adrs ca rfr for istac to t curious book by R adY Alldy ti ld aame e ea   37

HE OMAO O E SII MD

 Fistl it is stikin that in pescientic eseach all pecious matte has a pivileed place ove a lo peiod o time Even when a citical spii comes into bein it still spects the value it is attackin We need on lance thouh the man paes devoted to pecious stones i eihteenh centu medical teatises to be convinced o this induation o  old belies Ou aument would be ease but less meaninul wee we to o the back and look at ealie peiods. Let us theeoe see the pescientic m inds dicomorwhen aced with oss pejudice Even when beli es ae denounced as supestitious the have to be looked at a second time in ode to be sue that the wite is id o them. Wites st o all eel the need to note these belies o keepn slent hee would doubtless disappoint thei eades and beach the continuit o cultue Then howeve  and this is moe seious  wites oen take upon themselves the task o arially ectiin these be lies thus binin about a ationalisation on an absud basis as we have alead pointed out in accodance with the pschoanalst Eest ones Ths patial ationalisation has the same ole i n empiical knowlede that the sub lmation o instincts as in aesthetic poduction Hee thouh ationalisation is detimental to puel ational eseach. The mixin toethe o scholal and expeimental thouht is  ndeed one o the eatest obstacles to the scie n tic mind You canot comlee an expeiment that ou have not ousel stated all ove aain in its enti et You do not own a mental possession tha has not been acquied wholl  b pesonal eot The st mak o scientic cetaint is that it can be elived in both ts analsis and its snthesis. Let us howeve oe some examples in which despite ve ston citicism moe o less accuate expeience joins up with completel eone ous tadition I n Geoos teatise n medicine  a teatise embodin vas culue and exceptionall well kown i the eihteenth centu  we ead that n addition to the supestitous vitues ascibed to emealds and on which we keep silent it is commonl believed that the stop haemohaes dsenteies and haemohoidal ux The ae used with the othe amens o pecious stones in the Electua made o them and in the Conection o acinth with hacinth and sapphies 4 Thee is no bette wa o sain that supestition is a ome wisdom that onl needs to be modeised and pned in ode to eveal its tue value Since thee is in act some tth in this tadition objections will be aised and answeed with no uhe attention bein paid to positive expei ences t ma be objected Geoo sas 138

ASON BAHELAD

ha hese fragmes (of emerad are so hard ha hey mos oe resis q ri ad ha cosequey he somachs eave cao dissove hem reug hem us he same as hey were whe ae Ye his obeco carries o wegh or whe a emerad s paced o buig coas i caches re ie suphur ad sce is gree coour was away wih he ames i remais diaphaous ad coouress ie crysa    eraiy wha is doe by meas of re    ca be doe by aura hea ad somacha ymph Ahough he crysaie subsace of hese soes is o dssoved he suphurous ad meaic par ca however be separaed om he crysae par ad beg hus reeased i ca eercse is virues o he iquors of he huma body Thus the medical action envisaed hee takes place thouh the me ium o a quintessence o a tinctue that substanties as it wee the most ecious pat othe pecious stone. This vitue is as we see pesented unde te cove o simple oibili since no one has eve been able to obseve the discoloation o emealds b the actions o the stomach t is theeoe in  view onl a substiute o what is the immediate value o the pleasue elt when contemplatin the emealds een and entle luste. This vitue is eall valoised b phamaceutical sci ence and b poet The apothecas taphos have no moe ealit than those used b Rem Belleau when cel ebatin the emealds colou and vitue:

he coour ha summos up ad raes Our eyes segh weaeed y gazig oo og oo suddey Ad ha wh gee res feeds O eyes rays du weary or bu Whe hey are scaered Thus the possibilities and deams at wok in the unconscious ae enouh t ake Geoo call o espect to be iven to ancient wisdom We must t theeoe poscibe pecious stones om Phamac s compositio ns with t ood cause  he ams  o the have been accepted o man eas and poved b lon and blessed patience And so we have to espect a science e do not undestand! This indeed means that subjective values ae bein bstituted o the objective va lues o expeimental knowlede Two die et evaluations ae theeoe in pla Doctos who pescibe a pepaation o eealds o thei patients alead have the suet o kowin that the pa  et is awae o ale, o the commecial value o  this poduct. The medi 139

GASON BACHELARD

H E OAON O HE SCENFC ND

cal ahoiy has heefoe only o einfoce an exising vale We c oveehasise he sychological ioance of he aien's and he d_ · o's way of hinking being in accod, n accod which ws esily chie  in he escienic eiod Sch an accod confes a aicla kind of  • dence on cein edicl acices, conseqenly giving he inceased v I is also vey ineesing o sdy he heoeical aings cco_  ing he se of thereore and this is why by eole in ahoiy as hey ogehe old ejdices and eveyday csos Fo  exle, Geooy U"t his on he sbjec of oa The Anciens ascibed he Sn's nae o i This is why i is believed o diminish nigh feas and melancholy, o foi hea and ind, o be oosed o disbing des, and o check haeo hages I is sed in he confecion ofhyacinh' . This sycholo gical and hyi cal bivalence has no been scienly sdied We hve edicaens h can, hogh soaic acion, alleviae ceain kinds of elncholy. We   have sychological edicine. A ll evens, we no longe give cedence  bivalen eedies This kind of ambivalence is always he sig n of n im valoisaion. Indeed, i ms be sessed h whee mos ecios sones ae c ceed, he escienic ind acknowledges hei join aci on on he    ind This is an indicion ofhe convegence beween he joys ofboh he and wealh. Once a medicamen is eed o check haeohages, h i  say when i is believed o hel se he loss of h os ecios of osse   sions, o blood, hen i becoes a restorative in he ll eaning of h  wod Geooy eminds s of he vies of coelin, he colo of which as Bellea says, is incanae The Anciens', he wies, believed h Coelian gladdened he hea, ha i diselled fea, bogh boldness, e  vened enchanmen, and oeced he body gains all oisons lvesed Coelian is ken ineally o so all xes of he blood, b i is ae sed oday since we have ohe, fa oe excellen eedies'. We see h his is by no eans a wholesale esevaion A osiion of comoise i adheed o, showing he esisnce hee is o healhy scienic ehods The acion of ecios ae is soeies eniely sychological S Kenel Digby sily says, as hogh efeing o somehing ha goes wi  o saying, ha  Diamonds, ges, and eealds . . . ove he hea o joy   We hve  faily clea sense of he kind ofoy ha is being sbsanied i his way. In addiion, icolas ain, who was obably he fahe of De ain, says ahe less clealy ha sahies, eealds, eals, and oh  sones incline one o chasiy. Once again, he doco and he oe coincid fo Remy Bellea also aised he eeald's chsiy 1 40

So haste and hoy t s n shot That as soon as t fees the toh Of some aoous aton It is oended shatteng In shame at seeng tself sezed By some oase aeton

The Aabs' science deseves of cose he same esec a s ha of he nciens Moeove, i is he cios h even oday he Aabic science a bings s ediaion on he wildeess shold sill be looked a in a fvoable ligh. Wih efeence o gol d, Geooy wies ha Fomely, he eeks kew nohing of he se o f Gold in medicin e. The Aabs ae he s o have comended is vie; hey ixed i in leaffo ino hei coosi ions. They believe ha Gold foies he he, evives he siis, and e oices he sol; his is why hey a h i is sel fo melancholy, fo ebling, and fo liaion of he hea' In oe meialisic cenies, is belief needs o be soed by oe maeial agens. Fo his ea son as Geoffoy says, Cheiss add oeove ha gold conains a xed lh of he songes kind; which being incoible, if i is aken ine nally and mixed wih he blood, eseves fom all coion, and i esoes and evives hmn nae in he sae wy ha he Sn, which is his sl 's inexhasible soce, esoes life o he whole of nae' Thee cn e sely no bee exale of easoning by iciaion, which meges o ehe hee in one and he sme vale gold, sn, and blood Geoffoy is no ob elcn o acce sch convegences howeve, his elcnce is in c chaaceisic of he escienic ind I is his elcance ha oms s o sy ha escienic hogh is enconeing an obsacle hee which, hile no ye smoned, is in ocess of being so And i is his elcance oo h calls fo sychoanlysis. In evios cenies, hee was comlee nd nqesionin acceance In e cenies, hese lcbaions will go ead The facs e hee hogh wiing in he middle of he eigheenh ny, Geooy declaes hi s esec fo he ab Scho ol and canno bing iself, s he s i, o exile gold fom ll esoaive eaaions' Exiling god ow can i b e said, calmly and collecedly, ha gold oes no bing healh, ha gold does no give coge, ha i does no sem e ow ofblood no disel  he hnos of he nigh, he bdensome emo ies aising fom he as and fom o eos, ha gold i s no he mbivalen  lh oecing boh hea and sol? Fo his, eal inellecal heois is ied, and an nconscios h has been sychoanalysed, h is o say  ie nic cle comleely emoved om ny nconscios valoisaion 4

GSTON BD

T OMON O HE IETII MID

potve ton aton on te nolet of or nteal organ. t one tep fr ter and, f we a ventre to a o, e wll dget  jo n order to rend  n fat tat dgeon  te gn of te ot pleang and ot ertan of poeon. Indeed Malon write tat gold  a good reed for den ter' Lord Canellor Baon, no ddaner of re, reark n  Syla Sylarum tat wat  eran  tat preo tone ontan tle prt, a teir rgtne ow prt w  ean of pat at on an n an nvgoratng and delgtl anner oe preo tone tat ot lend teelve to prodng   an effet are daond, eerald, rue, and topaze' o undertand te f ene of  tateent properl, we need to rng togeter all te reaon for onvton. e jo of poeng  tanted It gve re to an ner eperene, a olae tat render oje tve veraton oplete el e e order ofea  pl and olel an order of peronal preferene In opnon of t knd, we wtne te non of pologal eperene and edal legend n oter word te on of a true paon and a fale dea It  te tre paon ten tat  an otale to te retaton ofte fale dea If we look at readng and tea ng w ave led to  nredle preonepton eng paed down o one generaton to anoter, te eae and fatlne wt w te were trantted tll a to e eplaned f we are to jt pre a laton of t knd S preonepton are n fat endored  te ed ate agreeent of te nono. Attraton to gold natrall eoe, for ertan wrter, a ateral attraton An anono ator wrtng n  640 pt t lke t: Gold a of telf a agnet fore tat atrat ear  te rgt ltre of t pre and nng tntre werenNatre a plaed te ver et e old nd  We know tat for atrologer and alet, woe two wa of tnk ng need to e oned fte polog ofte preent nd  to e ll ndertood, atral inuenes are nene tat are trl ateral, tat  to a aterial attraton We wold n parlar e aking a erio take f we togt tat tee nene were onl gn and ol  to gve jt one eaple, a wrter naed R Dearte woe work we ave tded n a reent artle  of te opnon tat: e l l Moon end down to te Sea a ertan tne tat erve a a leaven to t, ferentng t lke dog and a t re ang te e and ow of tde' 6 It  n ti prit tat tat te orrepondene ofte Sn and Gold  reed , Bale Vaentn aae proo of t pal nteraton

muually araive itu bewee hem beaue he Su ha worked  Gold whih ha erved a a powerful mediaor i order o uie ad bid ogeher eparably he th pinipl ha have heir Mage roud hi uperior Su ad hi Mtl ha obaed uh a high degree of perfeio ha we d here he thpinipls beig i very grea vrue om whih ome he orporeal form of Gold, beaue i ha bee ompoed i he perfe uio ofhee hree priiple hu Gold ha i orgi  he goldn ad eleial Mage 

Ifwe anrie   an ll fored paage t  pre el eae tere  an alaton ere of te vaguet and ot pre preon ar fro ratonalng and lang proof, te writer  totallng p vale Anoter writer   apparentl learer and et t e ae re of argu ent ow one agan te endoo of vale or Nola de oqe n  Rudimens 665), gold  like a Globe ll of all he eleial virue ha uee all meal ju a he hear give life o all par of he body I  i eeemed by Uiveral Mediie beaue of he ypahy i ha wih ma ad wih he Su, ad beaue of he uual love ad araive virue here i bewee he wih he reul ha Gold  a powerl medaor ha bd he virue ofhe Su o a  .  Gold ure veereal dieae ad leproy, forie he ear, he Brai, ad Meory, ad kidle he deire o egeder.

The Su ad Gld have alo a parular orrepodee ad a era

e aton on ear, ran, and eor ow learl enog te p ologal arater of edaton  ean of gold atl, te aton on engendering tat ountle te t relate   prett ptoat of te adat of an ndvdal woe poket  lgng wt gold. Yet anoter writer regard te followng oparon a evdent: Jt a te ol war te anal wle t  n te od o gold drve old fro qklver and teper t wle t  trl one wt t' .  I tere anone wo a not een eered  a andl of god jt a te are  a gla of wne or a wee dra? Need we reall Balza ' arater old Grandetere? In Zola' novel L en, te ator ow  ver pereptvel a Soart a S aard ontnall retung to te plae were te gold wa allarked and were everal llon gold on were everda tranfored nto gold ar, and ltenng wt delgt to te tero nkng tat gladdened  great pelator o l t  t e  of gold tat over over all our  ne, lke fare voe n tore 9 In or vew t retu to conete wealt, wealt far weeter to te non o tan te atraton of ll of

 44

 45

AO BACHLARD

HE ORMAIO O HE CEIC MID

exchange eaves a deep mark on the soul This retu is a regression eeings are aways mutual Robinet writes this Wil people again accuse me ofaectation if speculate that gold sier and    precious stones  .  can to some extent enjoy the respect we show them? He goes on to ask whether gold is completey ignorant of the high honour in which it is hed Robinet also makes a comparison between the luminous carbuncle and the eye that sees light concluding that The faculty of being luminous is assur edly a thing more perfect than that of seeing light Indeed giving is harde than receiving and therefore the carbuncle s act ion has more alue than the eyes reception Here the ndamenta principle of substantialism is also very plain a principe which is at the same time an axiom of avarice it is that nullum otest dare quod non habet  Robinet continues thus the faculty o being uminous implies more purity in the substance more homogeneity in the parts and more delicacy in the stucture The soul has been called an invisibe light and the light has been called a visibe soul' We see therefore that the values o f object and subject can be inverted The same concl usion is expressed again in the folowing do not stones that sparkle brightly enjoy then in their own way the exercise of such a property? Do they not have some consciousness of it? Do they exercise it without the least sense of satisfac tion?   I fwe invert these images and tanslate them from the optimistic to the pessimistic mode we shall have with Schopenhauers intuition a metaphys ics that wil no longer be considered stupid as Robinets alpervasive opti mism is Instead of a realism of the joy of giving we shall hae that of the wil to keep a desire to live and a desire to possess that are inscribed in the ery depths of matter like an absorbent power It is this harshness that passes for profound since it is a eeing that rules the unconscious Be sad and you wil be a philosopher Robinets works on the other hand now resist reading by the most intrepid of epistemologist s Yet the opinion we now have of such ridiculous works fails to recognise their real and eectie importance The uotations from Robinet here are taken from the third edition of his work He was in the e ighteenth centuy a celebrated and muchread author

maledcto or rstly e osee  these metals that they cota a matter that s coruptle hard ad crude, om lad that s accursed; that s to say, a lthy stoy mpure, ad terrestral sustace that they rg th them from the me tsel here s secodly a stkg ater that ca cause death here s thrdly a morted eah that s foud  ths stkg ater; ad lastly, there s a posoous qualty motal ad ll ofy. Yet he metals are delvered of all these accursed mprtes ad of ther heterogeety the e d  them the oble ofGold

essence

As we can see what we have here is in fact a kind of valorisation that goes down to the core that has to traverse layer upon layer of impurities and poisons suffering pain and anguish in order to nd the supreme value These are the meditations of the unconscious as it takes possession of what lies deep within. Such a profound valorisation aught with such enduring dangers can easily overpraise In his lments hilosohiques de Locques expresses the ew that Gold eg the pest the most sprtual, the most corptle ad most temperate of all suects; gve that ature has erched t th all the gs of eave ad of Earth, ad that the Elemets le  gold as  the cetre o ther perfecto; gold e g deed the thoe ofthe geeral soul emodyg the propetes vrtues, ad facultes of all thgs, t s g htly cosdered to e a versal remedy hch cotas the vtues of Elxrs ad of odrous qutesseces

t ca also e see  om the exact aatomy of metals that th them they partake of gold ad that ther exteror s surrouded y death ad

Since no t one of these powers is proven we must inde ed conclude that they simply revea unconscious vaue. Were this value to be dealorised by an appropriate kind of psychoanalysis then a whoe host of false problems facing objective knowedge would be put to iht The grounds for vaorisation can sometimes be seen in experience This s cear in the case of diamonds Their lustre and their entirely phenomenological purity are immediately magnied Thus Pivatti says that an electried diamond has a lustre that dazzles and (that its ashes repre sent on a small scae thunder and lightning  We can presume that if dia onds were not highly prized, such exaggerated images would not be at tached to them For Bonnet purity goes hand in hand with substantial value The Earth he says  that is the base of Rockcrystal and of Diamonds especiall y is consi dered to be among the purest and aso as the cl osest to the rimitiv Earth   This afrmation of purity does not of course derive from

1 6

1 

V Where gold is conceed i t is easy to see the myth of substantial in wardness a dominant myth in fact in substantialist philosophy The Cosmopolite wites as follows

STON BCD

T FOMTION OF T SCINTIFIC MIND

a objective aalyss ts org s stead a psychologcal aalyss  whch the geuousess of the joy of gazg has befalle us Ths  s what leads to the aato that the rimitive e arth s wthout doubt a pure crystal a brght damod

v Deret kds of precous matter ally themselves together wth ease They gve rse to trasmutatos ofvalues rather tha o f substaces whch s proof  fact of the valorsato of substaces by the prescetc way of thkg Gosset exlains the mystery of perpetual erary lamps lamps that b but are ot cosumed ad that are sad to have bee foud  cera tombs  Cceros daughter Tullas tomb  parcular I dog so he oers the followg  atcpato   Although I cosder precous stoes to be mat ter close to beg trasfoed so as to extract om t a perpetual lumous substace evertheless seeg that they take ther re ad ther lustre from the tcure of metals I am  o doubt that from these same metals we ca also extract lumous sprts ad prcpally om those we call perfect such as gold ad slver  Sce gold s combustbl e ad yet able to be gted why could a lquor ot be extracted from t whch wh le gvg out both lght ad re would ot be cosumed Ths ol of gold that Gosset thks wll probably be solated before log wll gve us a eteal lamp The most heterogeeous substatalsatos are covergg here the eretual lght of precous sto es combes wth the immutabili of gold Nothg ca stop realsts who ple perfectos o a parcular realty. Value s the most sd ous of hdde qualtes. It s the last to be exorcsed for t s to value that the ucoscous s most ly ad edurgly aached

V

 oplce   the mds ofthose who allow themselves to be beguled by them s Doctrines chimiques en France  02 We could o other occasos eactly reverse ths ad say thought would ot go o workg towards the sae ed f t dd ot d a accomplce  the passos of those who allow temseves to be guded by the lght of thought If we defed oe argumet to the excluso of the other we lose the chace of graspg thought  ts pecse dyamcs by whch I mea ts essetal dscord Ideed the dalectc oflove ofrealty ad owledge ofrealty whch are almost cotrares ever eases to oscllate. Pastor Oskar Pster has oted that these two cotrary tedeces coexst  oe ad the same ucoscous wrtg that Everyoe as wth them a tedecy drvg them to lay hold of the exteal world ad so to speak to draw t towards them makg t obey ther ow eds ad also a opposte tedecy that would have them abado themselves to the outsde world  There s oe theme a theme to whch coutless alchemsts re that a show us the supermposto of these two opposte tedeces: ths s the eclarato that the gold they seek s ot ordary gold. Ncolas de Locques for stace says ths  h s Rudiments You ca see that my teto s ot to speak here of como Gold but of gold prepared  a proud soul as a lared salt ad  a celestal sprt  the fo of a potable lquor The sublmato emergg here allows ay ad every cotradcto ad plays po the theme of the apparet ad the real I look a s though I desre rche s as though I am someoe greedy for gold; but you eed to thk aga for what I am seekg s a dfferet gold a idealised gold ere sublmato somehow takes place at the level of the object It s the object that has to provde t wth ts pretexts I the same way all mserless ca be excused y prodgalty  the dstat future Gog by what msers say ther love of old s above all a hatred for squaderg a eed for order There are the very may features here that eable us to uderstad the ambvalece of the feelg of havg

V

It has ofte bee sad that alchemsts were sustaed  ther legthy work by ther desre for wealth. We have put forward a deret terpreta to  a earler chapter here accordg to whch the foal educatoal ad moral aspect oers a way of explag ths  psychologcal tes. I deed prmtve ways of thkg are ambvalet ad we should for the sake of completeess brg cotradctory argumets together I other words the peaece of alchemcal experece ca be take to be both a sggle agast passos ad a struggle for passos Metzger has rghtly sad that Passos would ot go o workg towards the same ed f they dd ot d a ac

It also seems to us that reasog by parcpato equally peras to a psychoaalyss of the feelg o f havg Parcpato  fact allows the most verse powers to be pled up o a partcular obect The sg aloe s there fore edowed wth may substatal values It would ot of course be of ay terest at all to pot out here the uece of reasog by parcpato were we uable to show t to be ac tve  mds that are too quckly categorsed as beg scetc We shall

14

 49

E FMA  E  M

gie eampes othis tae om Baos boos whih ae iteay teemig with them.  1 78 5 a Swie sti ees the ee to oppose the oow ig eoe by Bao ths poig that peji es pesee e the oe o a amos ame o at as obstaes. aig sai that it is we ow that wats ae e i the ieet sots o matte bbe o them ae e to ot Bao is ot aai to oh o the at pesoay. e as that

he ha oe hs eperie o hise he ha ha a a o his ge sice chihoo a he he as i Pars he cae o have ar ore o he. The e o he Egish Aassaor erook o cre he y rig he h pig a hich she he hg i he s osie he ino eavig i o o here he operao scceee i ha a hs ars isappeare i he corse o seve ohs ow o oe ot be e whe the w ie o the Egish mbassao aes o yo with sh soiite We ee oy ompae this easoig with some o the thoghts o pimitie metaity i oe to aie at a iagosis o this eato o moe empiiism. This stom that Ly Bh epots wi see as a exampe.  oe to ombat the eet o a poisoe aow pimitie metaity thiks o treatng the aow a ot the wo jst as Bao treats the pig at a ot the wat.  the tip o the aow has emaie i the wo it is p e ot a pae i a amp pae o e se wappe i oo eaes. Yo a the epet the iammatio to be sight a to go ow qiy.  both ases as we a see the objetie sbstae is oeai with qaities that o ot beog to it. Goo a ei i patia ae ey eaiy tae i by sbstaes. Bao aises peope to ay i peios o page sahets e with mey o with asei tabets ot he says  bease these sbstaes hae the popety ootiig the spits bt bease beig themsees oisons they attat that o the lague whih has mige with these spiits piig them by this meas. The pimay o qaities i iet epaatio eas to a eessie realisation o qaitatie ower  Baos Sylva Sylarum (paagaph 704) we ea the oow ig   we o a  o a se sppess the oe o gaity we wo see ea attate by ea go by go io by io ee withot the magets hep. Bt this same moemet o wei ght a o gaity whih is iheet a ommo to matte i geea is the othe so to spea ss it is its e estoye by some ioet moemet. t wo the be aatageos to se a aow mae o wood to piee wood  oe to mae a peso sweat whe i be  bottes e with hot wate wi be se  50

AN BAELAR

ih is petty eay epiabe; what is ot expiabe is Baos ae met to the eet that the est wi be bette i  a eotio o soi b has bee pt i the hotwate botte. We see moeoe that this eaggeatio o sbstatia powe is amost ibe by expeiee.  mi that pies itse o haig drect ow ge o the iee o a qaity a aways  i that qa ity aes a ay o aoiig eiatio. The mi that kows immeiatey a iety  ot a the om the wiy eeit mi.  as we beiee geeaise psyhoaaysis amots to estabishig te peomiae o objetie emostatio oe oitios tha t ae pey iiia it mst oo ey o sey at ways o thikig whee poos ae pt wa that ee both isssio a heig. t so happes that the best ay to aoi objetie isssios is to tae ege behi sbstaes to attibte to sbstaes the most iese o aes a to mae them the ios o o sbjetie impessios. The ita images that eaists ths  as they amie the myia aes o thei ow pesoa impessios ae amog the ey haest to estoy.

OT 1 achear aes his cop ex aer he ser arpago he pcpa characer i

oires pay L ae (he Mie).  e a Yvoe Aey Capialie e exuali Le Coi de iic e le ole acuel (Pars Deo e eee 1932  Iraio s a eca er cag a aora hareg o sse achears s e o i ih reerece o hogh is a exape o  ho he xes ors o heir aiar coex yoyos h sceross i is aso a aspec o hs ocepio o heahy hkig 4 achears oooe Geooy ai de la aie icale ou de l hioie de u du choix e de I uage de ede iple (Paris 1 743  . yach here is a recos soe. 5 Aqa ors as he eary scieic ae or rc aci  ey Beea Le Piee pcieue (57 7 Icaae is se  he sese o esh-coore. 8 Bachears oooe ir Kee Digy Dicou fai e ue cle aele ucha la guio de plaie pa l poude de pah e ooe y Papi Do c or o Mecie  Bos Dieaio ou cha a poude de pahie ras a o he ai (Paris 18. 9 Bachear's oooe Marce oee La Phaacie  La Rochelle aa 80  a ochee  9 0 79 5

THE FORMATION O E CIENTFIC MIND

bo n nd oxygen effected y eduction. Fo  n eighteenthcenty mind how eve, vegettion is such  pimodil entiy tht it must be plced t the oot of  ndmentl chemicl pocess. n the sme wy, the flse dilectic of nimlistion nd putefction is not explicble without the vloistion of life nd deth. Thee is  constnt movement between kingdoms even whee detil is conceed. The Abb Pncelet wites tht putefction is to plnts wht mstiction is to nimls   We see only too well tht such nlogies neithe sum up ny sue knowledge no pepe the gound fo ny useful expei ment. Thee is lso  costnt conce to compe the three kingdoms of ntue, sometimes with gd to vey picul phenomen. Wht we hve hee is not simply  mtte of nlogy but the  el need to think in c codnce with wht is igined to be the natural scheme of things. Without this efeence to the nil nd vegetble kingdoms, one would hve th impession of woking o bstctions Thus in 1786, Sge still thinks it nec essy to distinguish beteen igneous glss nd niml glss Fo him, igne ous glss includes vegetble glss, minel glss metllic glss, nd mixed glss t cn immeditely be seen tht this dividingup hs begun bdly Sg himself gees tht  nil glss is in no wy dieent extelly fom igne ous glss. 2 Distilled hoeve with cbon powde, it decomposes nd  sults in phosphous. Sge notes gin tht the skeleton of hnged mn hs poduced twentyseven unces of niml glss  . n the sme wy he distin guishes between dieent kinds of cly, seeing them s vegetble, niml, o minel. Clely then, te three kingdoms e clssiction pinciples that hve been f too getly vloised Everything tht life hs wought bes its initil stmp like  vlue tht cnot b disputed. Such is the need f unity tht between the three kingdoms e estb lished nlogies nd coections   scle of pefection  tht soon led to the vey getest consin. n 1785 de Bno,  ne obsere who cell descibed countless expiments on mgnetic tcings, writes s follows: The magnet oes us this particuaity of binging iving natue close to natue that is inanimte; it eveas itself to us in the union of stone and metal and in the atte this pincipe of life stil speads out with moe enegy. This amazing stone pesents us wit the wondes we marel at in the es-wate polyp that exaodinary plant o ate animal which sees to link te vegetable o the animal kind The magnet ike this polyp can e cut in a paalle o tansvese dection to its axis and eac new part becomes a magnet    It is active natrehat woks in sience and invisibyJ

156

GASTON BACLARD

Fo Bonet, sbestos mks the tnsition om crde to ognised so l ids. Thee is not much dieence he sys, between sbestos nd tes. This conce to estblish coespondences shows very clely tht people ey oen think physicl phenomen by ovelying them on the moe stik ing nd bette illustrted phenomen of life III

Ntue, in ll its phenomen, is involved i n  genel theoy of growth nd life. n 1722 Henckel published in Leipzig  wok entitled Fora atuisans in which he developed the nlogy betwen the vegetble nd minel kingdoms. Such books wee not uncommon They wee moeove s imobile s books on genl philosophy nd in 1760 Henckels wok ws till being tnslted, this time by Holbch. It is the vegetble kingdom tht gives lessons in cls siction nd tht consequently povides guiding themes ndeed, Auguste Comte will still be sying tht the pinciples of pope cls iction cnnot be undestood unless you hve experience of the life sci ences, nd he wi ll equest tht philosophechemists ttend the lessons these sciences tech. This invesion of the ode of incesing complexity shows cely enough the continuing, moe o less conscious pivilege enjoyed by the phenomen of li fe. Eveything tht impeceptibly grows is scribed to vegettion Hving ound the diffeent kingdoms of ntue in the humn body, Bodeu in 768 ttibuted to the vegetble kingdom ou 'nils nd the hi on both or body nd ou hed  Vegettion seems to be something the unconscious venetes. It exem ies  tnquil nd inevitble becoming. Wee we to undertke  systm tic study ofthis pivileged imge o f becoming, we would hve  moe cc u e ide of the stndpoint dopted by n entily nimist, entiely vegetble ilosophy  philosophy such s Schopenhues in ou view While genelised nimism m y be egded s billi nt philosophy, it e ms emkbly impoveished when doctos use it Thus in 1787,  Bo ux docto clled Desze incutiously explins the most divese phenom  by wht Cuvie descibes s  particula substance that he calls iving substance (and that) circuates in te whole of nature, moe o less like the igneous substance of which Buon had aready spoken Yet the lae ony cedited his igneous substance wit an essential ability to give life he did not atribute to it ife as such

157

I

ASTON BAELARD

TE FORMATION OF TE SIENTIFI MND

Dsz on th ohr hand nsiss thr is a substanc that is tsf vng and that xrciss thi s proprty to a gratr or ssr dgr according to th organisatons n whch it is mpoyd his substanc circuas n th who of natur k h substanc of r and ik hat. This belief in the univers al character of li fe can lead to incredible ex

aggeration when it comes to be formulated. Cuvier reports that for Caspar-  Friedrich Wolf, wo qualied as a doctor at Halle in 1759, the foetus i s not the product of its  parents; it is the product of the whole world, and all the forces o f nature come together in its formation' . He also reports that Alberti who was bo at Nuremberg in 1682 argues that the father becomes thinne when the foetus enters the period of its greatest growth, which is in his view the eighth month, from which time its development is always at the father's  expense'. Thus, life is not enclos ed within the being it vivies . It is popa gated not just om geeration to generation along the axis oftime but als o i

space, ike a physica pwer r a matera heat. Thehysical character fife is attested t by certain intuitins derived m physica phenmena The wrter f the eter t Watsn regrets the chice based n a very specic substance (the Greek wrd electron means amber) f the name Eectricity fr such a wndrus phenmenn that ught prp ery t be seen as the rst principe f nature. t wud perhaps have been n bad thing t ca it vaci'. This is nt just a wrd; it is hed t be a faith expressin f the intuitin f re and ife that exlains eectric phenmena Hence we have the fwing extract, which is very typica f the inuence fanguage n thught W gnray s tha youth has far mor of what w ca re and vvai than od ag dos    Now fanima if is to b ascribd to th sam caus as th r of cricty it w no ongr b dicut o undrstand th rason why i s dangrous for od pop o sp bsid chidrn for sinc an od body contans much ss of his r than a young on dos it is not surprising tha it shoud draw r om h attr which hrfor oss is natura sngth and fas into a stat ofistssnss as xprinc has provd hroughout tm whr chdrn ar concd.

mte de Tressan' s bk  which cmes in tw vumes, each fur hundred ages ng  estabishes a synthesis uniting a phenmena in the singe in uitin f living matter which cmmands  dead matter t is because the eec tric uid is this  living matter that it vivies and mves the whe universe, tars and pants, hearts and the germs f a things t is the surce f a urgening, f a fermentatin, f a grwth, fr it is repusive unt itsef' .  a bk ike this , it i s easy t cme upn the intuitin f an intensity that is  mehw indenite and inexhaustibe, by which the writer cndenses a vita value n t smething innitey sma that is materia Withut any prf at a but simpy by virtue f the seductive charm f a vaising armatin, the writer atbutes imitess pwer t eementary parts. Euding experience i even a sign  f pwer  Dead mater' , de Tressan says,  is iner and withut rganic frm; iving matter is a miin times mre tenuus than the smaest ecue  f dead mater thatthe best micrscpe can enabe us t see' . Search a we may thrugh this vast treatise, we sha nt nd anything t prve this  tenuity, nr indeed t justi fy this substantiaisatin  f ife' s burgening A there is here is, nce again, t he seductive metaphrs f ife Ad this intuitin i nt that f just ne writer The Cmte de a Cpde writes in 1 7 8 1  as  thugh stating an axim, that expansibiiy des nt in any way bet dead mater' 6 Every upsurge is an upsurge f ife, and every frce a i fe frce. ife s ets its stamp n the substances that it inses with unuestined alue When a substance is n nger vivied in this way it ses smething essentia Matter that eaves a iving bdy ses imprant prperties This is  the case where wax and sik are cnceed' , a Cpde states, and they are therefe nneectricabe. Taking this rther, wax and sik are in fact sim py the excrements f bdies that were nce aive'



And the writer ges n t revea, with the same faciity and basing  himsef n a thery f vivaci' hw rheumatism cmes t humans and bight t trees The wrd ife' is a magic ne t is a varised wrd When a vita principe can be invked, a ther principes fade int insignicance The ·

ife cnceived as a generaised prperty eads t a phisphica thesis  that sti has its attractins, prvided hwever that it is nt made precise and that it cntinues t be backed up by a vague sympathy uniting a the beings  i the universe This being s , there wi amst certainy be an utcry amng hisphers if the recise appicatins f this thesis are caed t mind. A eep and why respectabe cnvictin is apparenty being derided Hw ifferent therefre were the perids when the thesis f universa ife cud be recisely stated withut any feeing f discmfrt We sha be prviding istances f this mispaced precisin s as t give a gd idea f a state f ind that nw bengs rmy in the past n this sectin, we sha be putting tgether a variety f utatins where i fe is ascrbed t mineras Hne

1 58

1 59

GASTON BACELAR

TE ORMATON O TE SCENTIIC MIN

whe we ry  the earth the fragmets of the stoes or diamonds we have t aer some years they reprode other damods ad other stoes . I t s deed stll possle to make the same statemets at the ed of the eghteeth etury.  1782 Pott reots several staes of meralJ di Al l these fats he says prove the sessve reprodto of metals, so that the seams that have formerly ee worked are aer a erta pero of tme has elapsed fod to e lled aew wth metall mater . Crosset e la Heamere reports that  some otres ro agmets ad lgs are sattered  mes that have ee exhasted whh meas  short that ro s eg sow. Havg wated for ee years aer ths sowg at the end of ths perod, a very great quantty of ron s extracted .  . There s no dout at all that such an aundant ncrease n ron s due to the fact that the old ron put nto the earth has rotted and mngled wth the semnal ferment of the same mne, dluted y the rans so that when the semnal essence of the old ron has een dssolved and eed o f the onds holdng t prsoner, t acts n more or less the same way as other seeds do, oth drawng to tselfle a magnet and changng nto ts own natre ar, water, and the salt of the earth, whch as tme passes are converted nto ron.

We have ot fod smlar statemets  eteethetury ooks  spte of extesve researh he myth of the fedty of mes s learly at varae wth the set md O the other had however t leaves a deep mark o the preset way of thkg We shall moreover have oaso to retu to ths prolem oe we have suded the  dea of the seed We shall t he e ale to prove that the t to of the fedy of mes as to do wth psyhoaalyss or ow we have oly soght to make mode readers feel amazemet at the prese way  whh the oept of lfe h ee troded to a area that s mafestly foreg to t

hat there s a strtre  a m eral the for a preset md ths stru ure s the sg of a lfe that s somewhat slow ad dstt dormat or watg. At tmes ths sg s ot deeptve: whe the amal org of orals s dsovered ths dg s held to e a perfetly atural oe At other tmes however ths sg seds people  a totally dfferet dreto Let s take the ample ofRoet as he lds ojeture o ojeture: On several astrotes  have seen rous vessels, shaped n small arcs as n the lnng of the stomach's ventrcle.  would show you a whole host of tues, hars, threads, paps, and glandulous clumps n the most compact and rgd odes, odes that are sad to e n ther entrely raw state .  . Snce the organsaton of the solds n an anmal ody s ut the tssue of capllary res that are dotted wth the glandules composng those solds and whch are found there n undles and lattces, n sands, strps, tus, arcs, and screws, wth derent degrees oftenson, stess, and elastcty, are we not forced to accept as eng trly organsed odes all those n whch such a strcture s found?

he overse to whh we have jst referred a deed e see here spayed  all ts geosess Wth ths stle ad leaed tto of mrosop strutres as ts ass Roets pedat revere kows o ods t ples p valorsatos as we see om the followg:

In addition to these general philosophical views, c ertain kinds of tec nical progress have been made by giving even greater vale to the privilege explaatory role played by biological phenomena Ths, the microscope wa rst sed to study plants and animals. Life is its original object. Only rarel and by accident i s it sed t o stdy minerals. Here however we ca n actuall see how a familiar occpation can sere as an epistemological obstacle. Te qestion as to whether the microscope reveals an inner strucure nknow t living beings leads at once to a crios converse. If the microscope show

Mnerals have all the organs and facultes necessary for the preservaton of ther eng, that s to say for ther nutrton They do not have the locomotve faculty any more than plants and some shelled anmals such as oysters and aacles do Ths s ecause they do not have need of t to go n search of ther food, whch comes to them Far om eng essental to anmalty, ths faculty s n the anmals possessng t smply a means to provde for ther preservaton .  . so that those wthout t can e regarded as prvleged Bengs, snce wth one less means they ll the same end . . . Am  wrong then to regard mnerals as prvleged n ths respect, n that wthout movng om ther place they nd ther food wthn ther sucers' reach? f they lac food, they suer and langsh and t cannot e douted that they feel the pan of hnger and the pleasure of satsng t  .  f (the food s a mxtre, they have the alty to extract om t what s sutale to them and reject any tanted parts otherse perfect gold or damonds of the rst water would never, or hardly ever, e formed oreover, they have le other anmals the nner organs requred to ter, dstl, prepare

1 2

1 3

v

GATON BAEARD

TE FORMATION O TE IENTIFI MND

ad carry their food to al poits of their substace

The mirosopes essential valorisation is its disovery of something hidden under what is manifest, of rihness under poverty, and of etraord  nary things lying beneath the familiar Mirosopes make us ross bounda ries Buons hypothesis regarding the moleules oflife was almost inevia ble, in fat Whle there may still be the dualism of matter and life in the higher forms, it is at a minimum in the innitely small ne of Buons followers, the Abb Pone let, tells us very learly how the invention of the mirosope has all owed relations whi h he onsiders to be aurate ones  to be established between the living and the inert We shall see that those who gaze down mirosopes still pursue their animist reveries Ponelet writes as follows Before the microscope was iveted, mater was oy coside red accordig to a few very vague, very agible, ad very rough relatios, such as its extet, its divisibility, its impeetrabiiy, its exteal form, etc Sice the ivetio of this admirable istrumet however, ew ad previousy uow elatios have bee discovered which have opeed up a vey iterestig ed to hilosophy By dit of varig repeatig, ad tuig observatios i all drectios, people have maaged to aalyse mater almost ad iitum. They have really see paricles there distributed throughout, which are ever movig ad ever livig, ad other particles too that are so to speak dead ad i a state of iertia. Hece t has bee cocluded that matter is essetialy edowed with two powers, the oe active ad the other resistat that ca be regarded as two of Natures pricipal agets.

Thus, a gratuitous equivalene is established between ativity and life a quik movemen is a sign of iaci and therefore of life Ponelet  ontin ues  have recogised that, amazigly, the movemet ofthese particles appears

to be idesuctible, sice whe these ivig particles seem to lose their movemet, as happes whe the uid i which they must swim ifthey are to be perceived comes to dry up, if they are give a ew uid such as ordiary water . .  they are made to arise om their ashes, as it were, ad are brought bac to ife, ad are clealy see to move with the same vivacity they had before their movemet was suspeded, which may be six moths a year, or two years aer their apparet destructio

Thanks to this animist valorisation ofmirosopi eperene, the Abb onelet is able to say later on that there is a great anity between the  ing and brte partiles of matter the obet of this anity, inination, and tendeny an only be the preservation of the individual, so that this tendeny lo sely resembles desire Here, as we see, we have the intuition of the will to ive, put before us more than half a entury before Shopenhauer Its ap pearane in the ontet of presienti stdies makes it appear superial however Yet in both physis and metaphysis, this intuition has in fat the ame soure, a soure whih lies in the unonsious t is the unonsious that interprets all ontinuity as an nner duration, a will to live and a desire .   The animist intition ontinues to both move and onvine us as ong as it remains a general one When applied to partiles by the Abb Ponelet, it shows its shortomings t would need to be veried there however were it a matter of obetive veriation n reality though it is simpy a matter of ontinuing anestral reveries with the new images the mirosope provides The fat that people epress their wonder at these images at suh length and n suh iterary terms is the best proof that they are dreaming

V We shall try to make our obserations more preise by highightng a omplete reversal of ways of eplaining We shal show in fat that at a er tain stage in presienti development, it is biologia  phenomena that serve to eplain physial ones This kind of epanation is not ust a matter of refering to a vague intition of life, to the seret pleasure felt when life is satised; it i s a detaied development that overlays the physia on the physi ologial phenomenon t is not so muh the obetive mehanism that serves to instrt but rather the mehanism of the body We shall give many eam pes of ases where the human body s in the ll sense of these terms, a piece ofphysical apparatus a chemical detector, and a model ofan objectie phenomenon et us begin with an eampe of a privileged anatomia image Veins and bodi� hairs seem to us to belong to this ategory At the end of the eighteenth entury, as skilled an eperimenter as uss still has intuitions with egard to magnets that were as naive as Desartess were uss may make the best magnets of the period, patiently varying and multiplying the points of ontat, and yet he eplains all the different workings of magnetism by the ovements of a uid i the magets pores . . . which are uaimousy coceived as beig fored

1 64

1 6

H OMAION O H SCIIC MI

by adjace pipes paallel o each ohe ad eec like he veis ad lymphaic vessels ad ohe coduis ieded fo he ciculaio of he humous i he aimal Ecoomy small hais o valves, all lyig he same way, give ee passage o he uid which ows io he poes followig he same diecio ad do o o he coay allow ay moveme i he opposie diecio. 13

So he bs hs magnetsjust as he strokes hs cat Hs theory does not go mch rther than hs acton If the acton s more dcult Fuss ntense the mage: 'the hardest steel he says 'ressts for a onger tme the regular dsposton of these condts and much more effor s requred n order to str vorces nto beng here lke those that suound naural magnets  Fo the Abb Jadelot a har s a very cear obectve type as the followng statement shows Iron wre s as we know used to gve the most hghptched sounds n nstrments wth metal strngs I t so happens that the hgh tenson of whch t s capable seems to ndcate that ths meta s made of hars that can be spun and wsted just lke hemp  4 In 1785 de Brno recalls that Huyghens and Harsoeker beleved mag nets to be composed of an nnte number of hollow prsms whch allowed magnetc mater to pass addng that 'Eler accepted ther vew and com pared these hoow prsms to the vens and lymphatc vessels found n the bodes of anmals  A scentc mnd wll qeston how Euler s compason can shed ght on Hyghenss prmary mage The prescentc mnd wl nd the anmst mage to be all n all more natual and therefore more con vncng. Planly however ths s a false ght We now come to an example of a prveged bologca phenomenon whch s regarded as a prncple of measurement here s such great con dence n the extreme regularty of the laws of lfe hat n some experments the pulse s taken to be a chronometer Bacon brngs to ths mprecse refer ence a whoe host of precse detas that are very typcal ofthe prescentc mnd. In hs Sylva Sylvaum we read that The duaio of a ame placed i divese codiios deseves o be sudied. We shall s speak of bodies ha bu diecly ad wihou he medium of ay kid of wick A spooful of spii of ho wie bued fo  16 pulsaios he same spool wh he addiio of oe sixh of salpete, bued fo 94 pulsaios ad wih oe sixh of sal fo 83 pulsaios wih oe sixh ofcaidgepowde fo   0 pulsaios a piece of wax placed i he mddle of he spii of wie bed fo 8 pusaios a piece of i (! fo 94 pulsaios wih oe sixh of wae fo 86 pulsaios, ad wih

1 66

ASON BAHAD

he same uaity of wae agai fo oly 4 pulsaios.

1

,

j;

eed we daw attenton here to the fact that none of these experments corresponds n ether ts prncpe or ts way of measurng to a welldened scentc problem? Toughout the eghteenth centuy many references can be found to he acton of elecrcty on the plse It s even arged that two sors of elec rcty can be dstngushed n accordance wth ths acton. For Maudt pos ve elecrcty would ncrease the pserate by a seventh whle accordng to Abard negatve elecr cty would sow t by a foreth whch betokens very great senstvty Other wrters do not make ths dstncton whch should nderlne the lack of objectvty n suh easurements Accordng to Cavallo posve or negatve eectrcty ncreases the plserate by a sxth or therea bots A whole book woul d be requred to unravel the argument between the olowers of Galvan and those of Volta between bologcal and physcal eetrcty. Whatever school they beong to however these expermenters all ndt a great nmber of physologca experments and t s these that are of prme nterest Renhold stded the acton of electrcty on taste On the ubjet of smell Cavallo (n the words of Se) says hat havng put together  pee of slver wre nsered nto the nostrls as far as t wold go and a pe of znc plaed on the tongue he smelled a putrd smel .1 5 he problem hs nvolves the nose and the tongue rather than slver and znc Renhold refers to a large number of experments on sght statng for exampe that 'Wth slver on yor rght eye and znc on your le yo see a very brght lght  An experment can sometmes be coneved n a scarcely cr edble form and yet stl be repeated by many wrters who may also vary t n really nbelevable crumsances We shall gve ust a few examples here Sue els s that Humbold eve esablishes . . . fou ways of poducig his ligh he efeece is simply o a impessio of ligh). The mos emakable of hese is he oe ha shows i vey clealy whe ae placig a piece of zic o he ogue a piece of silve is iseed deep i o he ectum. F owle says ha i addio o he vey obvous ligh he has see  his ow case ad i ha of ohes he pupil of he eye coacig his seems o him o pove he powe he galvaic fluid execises o he is.

It wl be agreed that ths s a very ndrect power and that t s rather 1 67

  FR   SIE ID

ard for us to magn t mportanc gvn to suc an xprmnt W av aso bn unab to dscovr by wat crcutous rout pop cam to mag n ts xprmnt, wc nvovs t wo of t dgstv tract Ts may av com about by vrtu of t myt of ntrorsaton tat t p nomna of dgston so w ustrat. Acard rpatd ts xprmnt and nots tat n addton to t gt tr s a ds r to av a bow mo v mnt Humbodt rpatd t on a nt and on frogs and two canars. So strong was t acton tat  cay concuds tat f a convnnt mans coud b found of covrng a arg surfac of t uman rctum wt an armatur ts woud b far mor ffctv tan tobacco smok n brngng back to f tos wo av drownd' 6 Wn t boogca as bn vaorsd, gavanc xprmnts can b vry cary sn as anmst obstacs Hr, compx pnomna ar r gardd as srvng to anays smp ons. Humbodt as t to say A eve ha s orgacally lke o a few cubc les of muscular esh shows whehe wo meals are homogeeous o heerogeeous whether hey are  a pure sae of regulus  or are ose  shows wheher he colorao of a meral s ue o carbo or o oao The alloyage of cos s easly eee  hs way Whe wo gol lous or wo gol cos me uer he epublc sere as a aaure for muscles a erves  weakee amals hey prouce almos o rrao he same s rue  he case of he ew gol cos  Pssa Ths oes o however happe wh gol lous  her ew sae

GS ELRD

 rs? Ts s s answr A ro wre whch seve o esablsh commucao bewee he pars ofmy back where he sk ha bee bare a ha ha aatures aache o  prouce a very percepbl rrao  he orga of ase of several peope prese urg my epermes Ths k ofrrao ever occe whe he same eperme was repeae usg ogs legs Coul o hs fferece be ue o he fac ha huma orgas are more realy aece by a u emaag om a wablooe amal ha om a colblooe oe? Ough we o o suppose ha us as all he us  a lvg boy ffer accorg o he speces of amal so he very h u ha accumulaes  eves a muscles ca er o oly  he ffere speces bu also  accorace wh he se age a way of lfe of he vuals cocere?

Ts sows tat far om adng to an objcv  study of pnomna, anmst ntutons ncn nstad towards t ndvduasaton of pnom na accntuatng t ndvduaty of substancs markd by f. As s on sad n t gtnt cntury, t uman body s on of t most pntous stors of ctrc mattr . Adn rgards  a vng bngs a so many anma battrs , and bvs tat t ctric ud has a aco o al our lu s a secreory orgas he effecs of whch are sll ukow o us. We mgh go rher a coser all our glas as so may reservors of he galvasm ha accumulae  oe pa more ha  aoher reere mor or less free a moe  ffere maers gves o he bloo owg all ough he glaulous sysem he meas o susa all he chages  uergoes hrough he ffere secreos

Humbodt gos on to not ta A vng nrv br sows wtr a mn contans mta n a stat of rguus or of oxd It sows wtr an organsd substanc s comparab wt anma natur    It s a vng anthrascop, a mans of dscovrng carbon, wc s amost as rab as t acton of r and of akas'  Bgu d by ts da  Humbodt aows s tnkng to b a tt ss crt ca and  coms vry cos to accptng wat as bn sad of ouvns marvous man wo was at on and t sam tm a vng ydroscop, antrascop, and mtaoscop . Somtms tr t bgnngs of a ratonasaton or a prtxt for ratonasaton s a t taks for t most ducatd of pop to accpt t scnc' of t magc wand Humbodt conductd an xprmnt on msf n ordr to prov t spccty of gavanc uds, so brngng togtr anmst and substantast nutons T prcs quston  proposs to answr s ts s tr an ssna dffrnc bwn t gavanc ud of som anmas and tat of

Gudd by ts anmst vws, Adn as no staton n armng tat t dffrnt substancs actng on t uman body av an electric ac on opum, qunquna, and otr smar stmuants tat av muc acton n t anma systm, aso ncras t battrys ct    I av mad sou tons of dfrnt stmuants proposd by Brown I av usd ts to mos tn t pc of card I pacd btwn t pats of an ordnary battry, and  saw tat ts substancs ncrasd ts ntnsty . Trfor t uman body s ndd t orgna cmca dtctor. T compxty of t anma dtctor ads to varatons bng sud  d tat ar n fact scondary and vn transt Accordng to Su, Gavan

 68

 69

SO BCHE LRD

Chapte Nine Te myt of dgeston

 Digstion is a ntion that is privilgd, a pom or a drama, a sour of ithr stasy or sar i. t thrfor boms an xplanatory thm for h unonsious, on to whih immdiat, unshakabl valu is givn. t i oftn said that optimism and pssimism ar to do with our stomahs. Yt w do aim to b ithr good or badtmprd in our soial rlationhips: it was in his dalings with humankind that Shopnhaur sought raons for uphold ing his systm or, in his own so obviously symptomati phras, ood/o misanthoy. n fat, knowldg of obts and knowl dg of human bg om undr th sam diagnosis and, in som aspts, eali is initially a ood. Chidrn put obts in thir mouths bfor thy know what thy ar, and so as to know what thy ar. Th sign of wll bing or of disomfort an b rasd by on that is mor disiv, by in t th sign of ralist osses sion. ndd, digstion orrsponds to taking pos sssion of a fat that i mor obvious than any othr and whos rtainty annot b qustiond. Digstion is th origin of th strongst kind of ralism and of avari at its mot a quisitiv. t i indd th ntion of animist avari. t ntir onasth sia lis at th root of th myth of inwardnss. This i ntriorisation hlps u to postulat an intriority. Ralists ar atrs. This ntion of posssion, whih only nds to b pointd out for it to b sn as an obvious fat, is vry lar in som printi txts. D la Chambr, for xampl, givs inrasd valu to th apptt whih h in fat undrstands as possssion, as w s from th following: tast is in th mouth and at th gat . . . but apptit is in th pla riving what has ntrd Sin possssion is th aim and goal of apptit and sin tho who would possss must dsir th stomah that is to riv th food must thrfor also hav had an apptit

This possssion is th subt of a whol systm of valor isation. ood harty and ubtantial is givn imdiat valu. Drinki g is nothing is at t in omparison with ating. f th intllt dvlops by followg th  hand that lingr ovr olid , thn th unonsious taks dp root by fastg on hwy doughy thing This privilgd tatu of th arty a� th doughy an asily b sn in vryday lif. W an also s sgns of t  many pr inti book. For Hqut, th anonymous author of a Tait des dis nses du Came publishd in 1 7 1 0 , whil hungr i uttrly and ntirly � atural, thirst is always against natur, ebicantes sitiu nt es uiunt onvalescentes' Hungr, h ay,  oms om a vigorous stomah, that fls it strngth and xits it, mpty as it is of uis but ll of nrgy . . . thirst oms om th ination of th nrv brs that drynss stiffns and rndrs powrlss to mov. Hungr i thrfor th natural nd to ossess food that is hea enduing integable and assimilable, and a tru rsrv of strngth and powr. Camls no doubt kp a rsrv of watr for thir dsrtroings and h surmis that thy may still hav th instint to stir up watr bfor thy drink it, o that bing mor muddy and havy it will tay in ths rrvoir for longr and pas into th stomah latr. . Th ontradition of valus is of ours not far away whn thought s from a valorisd prsptiv. Howvr, although this ontradition may ap par to on rational lmnts, it in fat simply xists in th dialti of tast and ditat. Th ightnth nturys long polmi on th subt of pap, grul, and th lik is vry instrutiv hr. Emulating Rouss au, Didrot . rits an artil on pap in th Encycloie oring halth ad that s an odd mixtur of inti vrbiag and unonsious valorisation. t is om mon prati, h writs, to fd hildrn up in th rt two or thr yars of . thir livs with a mixtur ofour and milk, whih i t hn ookd and whh is known a pap. Thr is no mthod mor harml than this. H thn provs it pdantially as follow: Ideed his food is exremely coase ad idigesble for he ea ogas of hese lie oes I is a ver rea id of glue, a sor of masic ha ca bloc he arrow ahs ae by chye i order o eer he bloodseam Mos oe his food serves oly o obsrc he glads of he meseey because he lour comosg i has o ye fermeed ad is labe o  sour i childres somachs which i herefore covers wih mucus causig worms o breed here ha ac chldre wh may dseases edagerg heir lives

t tak all th rasons, ddutions, and infrns ust to tll us that  73

TE FORMATON OF TE SIENTIFI MIND

Dieot oes not like pappy foo! othing has moe reasoned consieation given to it than foo oes among membes of the mile classes othin else beas sch a mak of the sbstantial Whateve is sbstantial is noish ing Whateve is noishing is sbstantial In his Trait hysiologique et chymique sur la nutrition, a wok awae the physics pie of the Belin Acaemy in 1766 an pblishe in Pa is the following yea Dae emake vey simply on this axiom of sbstantal igestion one single sbstance noishes the est is bt a coniment One of the most pesistent myths we can follow all thogh scientic times whee it is always seve p in tems of the science of the ay is tha of the assimilation of simila things by the igestion he best way of show ing this to be a peconceive iea is to take a wite om the faily istant past Witing in 166 PieeJean Fabe the Montpellie octo says in hs philosophical lanage that f the foo is in its beginning ieent om what it fees then it mst ivest itself of this i eence an by ives alte tions mst make itself to be simila to what it fees befoe it can be its las foo Moe ntition has not howeve avance mch beyon this text  its ieals an emains evey bit as materialist hilen ae stffe with cal cim to o thei bones goo wthot the poblem of assimilation eve ben  thoht abot. Even when an expeience is ea l it is thoght fom an eone os philosophical pespective hee is always the tenency to make the simil attact the simila to see the simila as neeing the simila in oe to go  Sch ae the lessons of this igestive assimilation lessons that ae of cose \ awn pon when inoganic phenomena ae being explaine his is exacl what Docto Fabe oes when he evelops an entie cose on chemisty an  geneal meicine base on the namental theme of this igestive assimil   tion

GASTON BALARD

e stuto ote stomc tt vessel o esto ts om  mete te tckess o ts lls te elpes plce ou t eveyt ee s e   symmety o te most eul k  oe to vou  mt ts vtl et . .  e os muscles  tuks o tees  ves suou t e lke so my u cols mt ts e. e lve coves  ms t o te t se  o te le te splee oes te sme e e  pm  te sme ole ove  Te oml muscles te epploo  te petoeum  t et om  ot  e t te sme sevce s eee y te tus o te m tey  o te ve cv toete t te muscle s ote spl colum

his valoisation of stomachal heat is also vey instctive in itself. t s vey feent in texts of the pescientic peio In the Histoire de  admie des Sciences fo the yea 673 we n the following passage Ou stomc mkes extcts om Plts s e oes  ces tem o less om e o exmple t s  spt tt ses to te e  usequet esto yels comustle pts  voltle sulpute sstces. Yet t s most emkle  most ppy t e to te elto o te opetos o te stomc to tose o Cemsty s tt e c see om sevel exmples tt t ete os o eleses y ts tle mp et loe e sme sustces tt Cemsty c oly ve  mes o  et e s s te oly y tt om Emetc Poe seemly sp s t s ete sustces c e   om t e stomc s te sme sustces esly  etly te oly sustces  ct tt c tte  upset t.

Valoisation leas to the stomach being given a pimay ole t wa nown in antiity as the king of the inteal ogans ecet speaks am ingly of it even thogh in his theoy it was bt an ogan whose job was  titate foo Bt what a mavel it was even so e escibes it as  animate philosophical millstone that gins withot noise melts withot  an issolves withot coosion all this by a foce as sising as it is si ple an gentle fo thogh it spasses the powe of a poiios mil lstone   woks withot ss opeates withot violence an sts withot casing pai   In 1788 oy Desjoncaes may be content to amie the stomachs site his enthsiastic tone is obvios

hee thee ae ieences between the c hemisty of the stomach an cal chemisty it is of cose always the fome in vivo that is hel to e he most naal an conseently the most skill of the two his bngs s to the iotal popey pon which the pescientic n enlessly s: igestion is a slow gentle kin of cooking an thee e any cooking that oes on fo a long while is a kin of igestion We can ee evote too mch time to electing on this convese if we wish o n esan the iection taken by animist thoght his is no mee metapho  the pescientic min in fact chemisty leas by examining the phe ena of igestion ist thee is the/ of the hman boy which sely folows that of n en popely nestoo In a text oing back a fai way to the en of the eenh centy Alexane e a oette atlessly tells s his eveie

 7

 75



TH E FORMTION O THE SCIENTC MIND

W s oo how his vry cll achymis our Lord God has buil his ov (which is h body of ma) wih such a  ad propr srucu ha ohig a b said agais i I has is air-vs ad cssary rgisrs which ar h mouh os ars ad ys so as o prsrv wihi his ov a mpra ha ad is coiua r arad, cla ad wl rgulad i ordr o prform hr al His achmica opraios

Digestion is, according to one eighteenthcentury writer, a small con agration    the food must be in proportion to the capacity of the stomach just as a bundle of rewood is to that of the replace 6 The current way of expressing the value of food in terms of calories is not necessarily any better suited to the reality than are these simple images o the prescientic biologist, the degrees of stomachal cooking suf ce to speci substances The same writer also declares Be persuaded that between milk and chyle    the only dierence is in the degrees of a more or less advanced process of cooking or digestion ot for nothing was the pot Papin used, which was in fact a real cook ing pot placed in a haybox, called Papins digester It was by thinking about the stomachs work that its phenomena were explained Indeed, what was especially striking was the fact that when meat was cooked on a very low heat for some six to eight minutes i was rducd o a pulp or rahr o a prfc liquor; by icrasig h ha or simply by avig i as i was for a w mor mius h hards bos wr rasformd io pulp or jly his ffc ca b arbud o h acss wih which his machi is cosd up sic i dos o prmi air o ihr r or lav i h ols occasiod by h pasio ad oscillaios oh air closd i h sh ar uiorm ad vry vigorous. 

We recognise the theory of stomachal rituration here In addition, the writer says that This appears to be perfectly analogous to the operation of the stomach; for although this organ does not usually dissolve things so rap idly or so thoroughly, neverheless in proportion to both its heat and its con struction, Drake considers the eect to be entirely the same  order to defend the theory of stomachal rituration, Hecquet reminds us that what makes for the goodness, delicac and soundness of chocolate is the fact that it has been properly ground Pastrymaking would ish a million other (proofs ofthis, he tells us, for om the same our, seasoned in the same way but dierently stirred and kneaded, it makes dierent dishes 1 76

GSTON BCHRD

e should perhaps omit this detail, which philosophical minds usually nd satisfactory, for nothing touches them other than the sublime or the mar ellous This manner of arguing is a clear indication of the cntinui going rom cooking to digestion It has oen been said that digestion begins in the kichen, and we would add that leaed theories also begin there Where the biological intellect is conceed, hm faber is a cook Operations that really do not have any importance for us were for erly marked by the myth of digestion The Encyclie still refers under the word buccellation to an operation by which, in order to be worked, different substances are divided up into pieces, as though by mouthls The animist history of a chemical operation has thus begun in the mortar itself or as long as this work goes on, the metaphors of digestion will sustain obective thought physical experiment takes lace om the perspective of biological experience ome alchemists even give the idea of feeding its ll force and its precise meaning when they are i n fact working on matter Using the word cibation, they maintain that they are helping a reaction by feeding it with bread and milk In 1722 Crosset de la Heaumerie is still referring to feeding and suckling a compound While this is sometimes an image, it is at other times a reality, with milk being poured into the retort Indeed, so onsed is animist intuition that any white powder can serve as our Thus, riting in 1742 one author unequivocally acknowledges that some minerals have the properies of our Certainly, all these different kinds of our are not equally nourishing, he says, but with water, such our becomes a kind of milk The very milk we take om cows    is not a dierent liquor It is very plain therefore that the concept of nurishing fd, which is so clear and so highly valorised in the unconscious, creeps more or less unnoticed into the thinking of prescientic chemis Bygone methods for the cementation of steel were obviously depend ent on a more or less mystical cibatin Under the heading Tempering in the Encyclie we nd this passage in which rationalisation does not pre vent us om seeing traces of the primitive idea of food: Makig sl mas loadig h iro wih as much phlogiso or iammabl pars ha i ca coai. I  ordr o produc his c w add o h ro ha w wish o  io sl all kids offay subsacs which coai a a  quaiy ofh iammabl prcipl ha hy impar o h iro    I is accordig o his prcipl ha subsacs om h aimal kigdom ar mployd such as bos ough ma birds f lahr r c 1 77

TH ORTION O TH CINTIIC  ID

Close o he hearh where iron ore is being worked some primiive peoples will wih magic in mind place a caske ll of feahers and r he prescienic meallurgis is more f a maerialis and rows he feahers and r ino he crcible In he same way he ecnique of temeing wit galic juice corresponds if no o a myh of digesion a leas o a myt o seasoning ha acs like a causaliy of he very small he following mehod of temeing o produce ne seel is se ou in he Encycloie 'Garlic is chopped ino smal pieces brandy is hen poured over hem and hey are le digesing for wenyfour hours in a warm place a he end of his ime i is all srained rough a cloh and he liquor is preserved in a ighly corke  bole so ha i can be used when required in order o emper he mos dei cae of ools. Didero a cuers son did no reac agains his mehod and passed his seci on for publicaion. You do no criicise your forefahers ech niques I i s of course in alchemy especially ha he myh of digesion is much used I is herefore no surprising o see he many meaphors o do wih digesion here hus o quoe Poleman 'Ordinary corrosives famished as hey are seek o devour meals in order o assuage heir hunger and riousy aack hem Animony is a devouring wolf and here are many engrav ings ha depic i like his As Le Pelleier says his crysalline sal will like a famished chi ld ea up and in a shor ime ransform ino is own nare any essenial oil you may wish o give i. And he describes he whole operaio in erms of nuriion 'In he same way he alkalis and recied spiris mus come ogeher in such a way ha he one seems o have eaen he oher he number of hese images which a scienic mind regards a he very leas as ile makes i prey clear ha for he prescienic mind hey have a su cien explanaory role

GTON BCHRD

hree digesions ha develop in eiher earh kichen or somach belong o geher he mel mte m whh pt d ut e pdued  theefe t peped  the eth whh le  tmh helped y the u' het k d dget t. C tke ve m t d  t pe ple themelve etwee the eh d  tmh. hugh the ll fthe dtu igtio titatio macatiomtatio liatio fig toactio d ll the the eg they dd t t wht the pee f the t lked .  . he tmh  the pled etwee the k d the ve  tht t my thugh t leve exlt the teee f hee ute  y whh I me th lmety meuy  th mt dl f whh the hmet f the pt  mde. tly the femett f the ve me etwee dget y the tmh d mlt y the hum  the ve t the ute f the pt"

here is no doub ha wha we have here is a Weltanscauung ha would immediaely di sinegrae if he myh of digesion were o l ose is clar



Having linked ogeher rs he somach and he reor and hen bio logical and chemical phenomena as a whole and made hem one we sha now carry he analogy o exremes In some prescienic cosmogonies he earh is aken o be a vas digesive sysem. ereas previously a rahe vague life of he earh had been evoked i is now a precise ki nd ofl ife ha is in quesion. De la Chambre pus i simpy for plans food has 'no organ fo is cocion8 oher han he earh which acs as a somach for i He aso noes ha 'Zoophyes have no somach oher han he earh hus all animals have a somach 'for some his i s ineal and par of heir bodies bu fo ohers i is no Oher wriers are more prolix however For Hunaul he

he same excess can be seen in Hecque  is no enough for him ha omachal digesion should ake place by means of riraion: he wishes o show ha he whole universe riraes and digess. An enire chaper of his book on digesion is devoed o showing ha 'grinding has a large par o play in he digesions aking place in plans and minerals  odes in he sem re he says 'so many presses or small hears and 'he air beas and works veryhing i ouches   . chemiss cal i he earhs eece' And as we see ohing pus a sop o he pedans reverie he moon especially and he ars hose grea masses ha  on heir cenre all of hem ogeher weigh own upon he air rample and work i rene and grind i . he moo pushes on he air air pushes on waer waer being incompressibl e deermines pres ures in he bowels of he earh and makes mineal digestions easier 'he grinding acion may seem more dicul o conceive in he digesions aking lce in minerals he says 'bu hese digesions are vegeaions and i has us been seen ha vegeaions ake place by means of grinding Why ind eed ould we look for dierences in how naure goes abou producions of he me knd? Hecque recalls he heory of erresial veins and adds ha 'a re herefore seems o have copied he earh om h human body hus rcely wo cenries ago he scinic communiy oleraed such oura ous inversions

1 78

1 79



ASTON BACHELARD

TE ORAION O THE SCIENTIIC IND

Moreoer in some texts we cn obsere te linking o ery re cis e imges nd te most secret kinds o nimist insirtion For n utor re senting  er to te Acadmie in 1 72 te ert's lters nd striners e its bowels nd iscer. I would een sy tt tey re its lier sleen  lungs nd te oter rts destined to rere te limentry uices It ls s is bones like  ery regulrly sed skeleton' . I we do not dot  ironic ttitude wen we red  text like tis but insted succumb or ust  moment to its cildlike crms nd let ourseles be someow drwn to it we soon sense te gue ide orming once gin beind ll tis mislce recision Tis gue owerl ide i s tt ote nourising ert o moter ert te rst nd lst rege o bndoned umns We tereore e  better understnding ote syconlyticl temes Otto Rnk deeloed  The Tauma ofBith 0 And we re lso ble to gie  comletely new me ing to te need elt by cing igtened beings to nd li e  teir lie  eerywere nd to merge temseles s eloquent ilosoers sy into te Gret Wole. Mystery nd lie do indeed lie t te centre; eeryting tt is idden lies dee eeryting tt lies dee is liing nd itl; te ormtie sirit  te ormtie mind  is  subterrnen' . Tis utor goes on to sy tt In te Ert s in our bodies . . . wil e eeryting outside is ust decor tion or t te ery mos oertions o little weigt witin it re ursued tose works tt re te most dicult nd te most imortnt' In 1766 Robinet is still writing tt A liquid circultes witin our globe. It is lden wit erty oily sulurous rts wic it crries to mines nd qurries so s to eed tem nd sten teir growt Tese substnces re in ct conerted into mrble led nd siler just s ood in n niml's stomc is cnged into its own es' We could nd te elements o  unconscious teory o te unierse tt is bsed on bulimi's rm conic tions Gluttony is n liction o te rincile o identity Eeryting cn be eten. And ice ers eeryting is eten Robinet continues: Tings ll sere s ood or one noter    Nture's consertion is t its own exense. One l o te wole consumes te oter nd is in  consumed by it' Tis mutul consumig is dicult to rtionlise nd een dicult to img ine For one wo is digesting it is on te contrry ery esy to drem Wen we come to study te myt o telluric genertion   r more owerl nd seductie myt tn tt o digestion  we s ll e te o ortunity o deeloing nd emsising tese remrks by giing tem teir ll syconlyticl interettion.

1 80

V Te imortnce gien to excremen is obiously linked to te myt o Mny syconlysts e described te nl se in cildre � 's on  es deeloment. In aitalisme et sexualit R nd Y Allendy remd ic ch s in 1908 ones in 1921 nd Abrm in 1921 e mde lengty Freud t th s studes o te anal chaacte tt te widesred ccentution o is diges e pse comes to e in dults' (47). A ery lucid study o tis cn be und in teir book Reding tis one eels te need to coule clssicl sy hnlysis wit  syconlysis o te eeling o ing wic is s we he shown originlly digestie in essence. We cnnot enlrge on tis sub jet here We simply wis to note tt objective knowledge with scientc tensions is itsel encumbered wit loristions tt re ust s bsurd   It is scrcely credible tt te eigteent century sould e ket  ts rmcooei remedies suc s milleeurs nd lbum grecum. illeeurs  wter o  tousnd owers  is noting oter tn te roduct  dsilling cow dung Mlouin deotes  sort cter to it in is himie icinale o 1755. Let it not be thougt tt by clensing te medcment hs dist illing excuses te doctor Urine itsel is rescribed under te nme o lleeurs Mlouin writes tt Te urne hoen  tht of  hefer or of  et oung brown ow fe on goo pture; t  ten n  or Septeber, n te ong  . . n e wr to te  peron wo ut be ftng   . t   fo quor eetve n ovng obtrton foe b the tne of the be or b the vot of the oter huour t purge bunnt n even oete e the ptent vot

Mlouin recommends it or stm drosy nd migrine. He lso ob sees tt es dung rom  cow ed on grss s te roerty o clming he nmmton o sores nd tumours . .  ince te mle is dierent in tem erment rom te emle it cnnot be denied tt teir dung is in some wy derent . . . Tt o te ox is rticulrly usel i n keeing  loose womb in lce' Let us note in ssing te sexul oerdetermintion tt is resented here s n obious princile And in tis ncoring o te womb by  mlo drous substnce let us lso note te sme kind o rtonlistion tt we he lredy ointed out ollowing Eest ones ere It is noteworty too h Mlouin does not oer ny criticism ere is e sme bsence o criti  sm in Geooy's Mateia Medica whic recommends te drongs o te  Stecus nigum s  cure or constition. Exelly tey cure te itc 181

GO BCELD

E OMO O E EF MD

e says, and mixed wit oney and onion juice tey restore te air an d make it grow Album graecum is dog dirt. Te Encyclodie speaks of it in te fol owing terms: S evera writers Ettmuler among tem, ave ascribed many properties to abum graecum tey ave ceebrated it as being sudoric, at tenuant, febrige, vunerary, emolient, ydragogue, and speci c in scrola, quinsy, and al diseases of te troat. Te more despicable te substance may seem, te more exaggerated is te mutivalent valorisation tat we see ere. Te writer of tis section sows a cerain disaection for tis practice 'We ardy use it now, e says, 'except in te diseases of te troat) were it is used in a small or arge dose, in an appropriate garge Tis restriction in te formery very widespread use of album graecum makes for a rationalisa tion tat soud give us te measure of ow muc an epistemoogical obsta cle resists t is beieved tat tere is no way of overcoming te obstacle oter tan by belitting or eluding it t is not felt tat te obstacle ies in te mind itse A remnant of value continues to be given to te fase ideas valor ised by te unconscious. Tus, te writer develops te following 'rationali sation Album gacum s bu anima ah n ac and  is consquny absobn and anaogous o ppad voy o phiosophicaly ppad sag ho c Th dog's digsiv humous and h wa usd n h oions o his xcmn n s ppaaion hav xhausd h bons h dog chwd and swalowd o hav dissovd h lymphaic subsanc in mo o ss h sam way ha boiing wa has xhausd sag ho n s phlosophical ppaaon I canno ho b sn o hav an advanag ov oh absobn subsancs bonging o h sam class.

of ts water considerably soened and witened teir skin. n Georoys S de la Matire mdicale we nd an even more detaied and terefore

r incredibe account, wic woud require detailed psycoanalyss, a  soanalysis tat is moreover easy to do. Georoy denies neiter ecacy r repugnance ere. 'We are persuaded, e writes, 'tat tis iquor, wic  s and unctuous, can in fact soen and beauti te skin   s it not extrava t toug to be suc a save to beauty tat one wises to preserve it by sing a ting so dirty and disgusting? Only a deepy disturbed unconscious can advise te use of suc tings.   we are to understand tis kind of disturbance, we must consider not just t readers of suc nonsensica ideas but te person wo rst tried te out. w can someone ike Homberg or te lady to wom Geooy refers get te a of looking for a cosmetic ere? Tis can ony be because of antitetica aorisation Peope are unwiling to believe tat te bad smel of a natural rduct soud be ndamental to it Tey wis to give an objective value to t fact tat tey ave overcome personal repugnance Tey wis to admire  be admired. Al tis results in a value being given even to antivaues. cquet ad already responded to writers wo sougt to explain digestion y soe kind of putrefaction, saying tat 'Tis is a strange idea of suc a ne eration tat is so l of art and wonder Te juices produced by digestion re in fact 'perfect, gentle, and kindy and 'it would be iltting for te urising juices were tey to become malodorous Digestion is ard to xpain  'sure proof of te majesty of natre  but for te prescientic nd it can ony be explained in te realm of values. Suc an explanation cases to be open to contradiction And ove is deep wen contradictory quali tes re loved.

NOT

Once again, tis timid, incompete devaorisation is a pretty clear indi cation of te original alue tis strange medicament ad. Faeces ave been te subject of many distilations. To quote Macquer 'Te procedure by wic Homberg cae to draw a wite, odourless oi from faeces is a curious one and merits incusion ere because of te views and matters for reection it can is. Macquer does not realy tell us wat tese views and reections are but we can guess tem if we are ready to bring in te need for valorisation. ndeed, we ea tat distilation as got rid of 'te bad smel, now canged into just a stale one . . . Homberg saw te cosmetic value of tis water and gave some of it to a few people, te skin of wose faces, necks, and arms was in a very poor condition, being grey, dry, granular and roug. Tey wased wit it once a day, and te continued use

 nds o acion' s aim bing o abica' o ma o gson h inlc ops as i acs on and hands solds and s ony a as whn dong so (s L ·otio catice eative Evotio Inoducion and Chap 2). achad ads such a viw as unnab n h igh o mod scinc wh n mcophys cs  nsanc h nlc clay dos no hand soids and h consanly agus  s .

 82

 83

 Conashsa is h gnal sns o xsnc asng om h sum o bodly pssons  aclad's oono: d La Chamb Novees ojectes s a igestio (Pas

1636)  achad is ng h o gson's concpon o h inc as aiv o

E RI  HE SIE  D

quremet oter ta tat of a original tor cera of d a devo da readerp Remarkab we ca a uc a tme t come acro ou wo are t about upate! T retu to tk amd toe  o doubt  sychologists  ee te reeo of a fe tat  becom mer a ed. Be ad becom are ter povce a ao are uma be  a te are wt te ture ad wt mter Tere  a o book wat o be wtte about t devaorato of objectve ad ratoa fe wc fro te outde decare cece to be bakrpt ever tef pacpat  c etc tout Our tak  a more modet oe We mut make te retac of eptemooca obtace cear  te ver deta of objectve reearc   ee tat we a ee te uece of te bdo a bdo tat  a t moe dou for av bee put ade eaer o ad ao for te fact ta  cetc tak epreo  bot eae ad more ecear Te cetc eam  oe of tetoa ardt were of coure te outcopp of t bdo  oe carce apparet. We teefore crave our reade duece awae a te mut be of te dcut of a ta tat  te ed apre to aae te etvt of eat of toe Here te  te pa of t compex capte I deveop t p coo of te cetc ucocou we a be wt te vaue a work towad te pece Ideed wat  vauet  wat  mot power were te bdo  coceed Te pece  aread a exorcm  te ectaato eve we t t bear te udeabe mark of aectvt  aread a dcar of tat aectvt We a d ood roud  a cem for te tud of vaue exuat ad teuc eerato w ow u vat exuat.  fo pece exuat we a d ma exampe of t  te eteetcetu parmacopoea ad ao  te eectrca reearc of te ame perod Lat we a foow our pactce  t book of u trat te eat eptemooca obtace b parcuar exampe: tu fo te obtace cot tuted b a eera mae we td ed te peomea ao cated wt te poe; for te ubtatat obtace we tded od wc provded u wt a pretext for pcoaa rea t  reard te obta ce cottuted b te bdo we a make ou obervato bot cocr ad prece b tud te dea of germ ad seed We a te ee wa cottute a rivileged becoming tat  to a a ubtated becomg We a ed b v reader a few pae to be pcoaaed jut a a tte exerce.

 We caot t fo o about a mter a puze or ome fac 1 86

S BLRD

eepe wtout more or e et exua bot t pcpe ad t tude T  doubte becaue te rt mter fo te cd wa te bem of brt Te ecet of eerato tat paret kow ad cocea    e bu oc or maevoet wa wt eer me or co word  abe tem a abtra teectua autote Becaue of t paet  om te o ee b ter c de a teace wo do ot a evert  ee  to a. Ce teefoe ave to tat eac a o ter ow  a o ter ow te ecoe te absurdi of te t expaato eed Te uck become awae tat t aburdt  teectua ma eece ad proof tat tee  a dee to od teectua domo over em t ead to a awake of te md wc move ao pa tat ee meat to be fobdde oe  covere  oo etabed  te md t  be fomed. ce te bdo  merou evet tat  mte u awake te bdo Tee  a mmedate ove of mter a mmed e eed for mter Ma cuture are redeed cd ke o puere becau e  t ad oe te eed to udertad o a o tme fot foever ead  a caed for mterou teme t eed to eep a reat uow we ead of toe read It ao eed t mte to be a uma oe Lat ue a a woe  be ctoaed Te pecetc md  tef ected b t.  rater dubou kd of popuaato ted to urroud ee aw wt a fe of dete ad mteou properte wc t tat mata It cour te eed for mter woe mpure ource e ee T kd of popuaato   te ed a obtace to te deveop et of abtract tout cemt treat ew adept   te ame wa tat we treat ou cde  e be of te tato poce povoa ad frametar ab te erve a reao. Tee abrdte wok b mea of mbo  emca mbo ma we come to be eaded a a tem but te are t p coeret abudte Te teefore ep to  te mter wc  a tet ad purpoe mea pa wt mter Lat acem ecet  a coverece of mtere od ad fe av ad becom a e out toeter  te ame reto However a we ave aread poted out ere te et operato  eormed  orde to atta te pooper toe ao vaore t qut  e o eat proce  oe peeted a a sacrce made o a to de eve ucce. It  vaored patece a kd of trcate emboder tat   uee ad cam ke Peeope tapetr Tme mut be crbed  te work of acem ece te durato aowed ad te et patte of eetto If adept udeo tato emember ter pat t e mut te eeve tat of a fe mtee  o t e rt mte of brt a bee  87

S BR

 R   S� 

pu omplex e lea ha  I s o lder an s moer wo s waer beause

as ressan as te myse o e work o alhemy Here we see solude beomng a bad ounsellor. A solude as  yeldng as ha o someone keepng wah over alhemys aes s l l proeed agans sexual empaon. In some respets alemy ould be sa o be he sere ve Psyhoanalyss wll easly dse onansm n erta pages o te treatse enled e Triomhe hermtique ou a ierre hiloohal ictorieuse C The Stoe boasts n a o s superory over he smple un o male go ld and emale merury n he ollow ng erms  I (he stone) mar res sel  makes tsel pregnant; t s bo o tsel; t s dssolved o tsel  no ts own blood t s oagulaed anew w  and akes a ard onst eny; t makes sel wte; o tsel  makes sel red t maers lle r our nterpreaon hat mode emss nd an obeve meanng an ex permenal meanng n te marrage o sone w sel Te a remas ha e symbolsm here s sympomat. For enures eran alemss oen repeated a an anmals sper ould no serve o orm a metal Ths saement s espeally sursng gve tat prmve menaly ould easly aept plants ung no people stat ues omng to le and a uman beng hanged no a blok o sal An anony mous autor advses agans b ood and uman sperm beng used n he wor o alhemy Bu wy as t neessary o advse aganst ts? In some books te Sone shows a real power omplex llustraed by he ollowng uotaton n whh   speaks Had te artss4 taken ther re seares rter and gven ll onsderaon o e we most t or me; ha hey sought her and uned me wt er; hen ould I have nted a tousan tmes more. Bu nsead o hat hey ave wolly destroyed my own nature by mxng me wt srange hngs  Ths  as we see  s he lamen o the msmarred. It an be arly easly magned as omng rom a sentst  leaves hs home or he laboratoy seekng rom he beauy o sene' te delgs orbdden m by hs llavoured we It provdes moreover a val way o explanng Bal zas a Reherche de olu. en udoxe explans ths passage tere s an aumulaon o all e meaphors oe dream e he e t or he Stone s hat ont olvn water wose ruly elesal sprng w n partular as ts entre n te sun and moon produes ts lear preous stream ha sages know .   She s a elesal Nymp a haste Dana wose pury and vrgny are unsulle by he sprual bond unng her w h sone  Ts marrage o heaven and eart onsanly reurs sometmes n a vague way and somemes more pre sely. any alemal operaons are reerred to by e ter o dvers nest I s ue obvous tat te merury o he alhemss suers rom e Oed

I we sudy he engravngs tat oen aompany a ext lke hs there n ardly be any doub about te psyoanalyal nerpreaon we are proposng ere. Te alemsts way onkng s dretly reated to dreams nd daydreams  merges togeher objetve mages and subetve desres e ould on many grounds also asrbe shamel moral standards o erury. The dalogue beeen e Alemst and e erury n the osmopoltes book ould have been wrten by Plautus or  s le a maser rmandng a dshones slave: Evl rasal gallowsbrd trator rogue boor ev l demon !  He saves t o as one would a serpent So o soo oul bone d dunghll! e need only go bak o the rst sene n A One oPlauuss mhytrio to measure te ull sgnane o he alemsts anmsm omemes te merury omplans: y body s so lashed so ransaked and

 88

1 89

 s more advaned n he age o pereton For hs reason  s egned as erules beause  klls monsters vanusng srange tngs ngs ar rom te metal. I reonles ts ater and moher bansng er old en y  us o e ngs ead . . . so a t may ave s kngdom 5 lsewere he same omplex an be seen even more leary as or sane n hs verse  a fa fo a on nn y o An y o ca  fal n  wo o avn n of any non A apo  a of on an  o na  on vanq, an a y  fl An non   na  va of Han So fa o n an of c prc 

Te asraon teme an be seen n oter exts. The ollowng extra  jus one example o ts cy   T Ancn acc  of ly ca of  coln an apn  wn   p an cocly ppa an a y  lp  lo  y  .   cry ofAaa  Jw,  f of wc  Ol an w o c ow  cy   xn of  cr of  Sa (wc  y  na volal) y  pfc x w  o w  cn off cy f an akn away fo   volaly  x can only  a ov  wc  pn fo  y  Ol an"

GASO BACHARD

H FORMAO O   MD

iissolubl bo' Writig i  7 5 8 i his Dictionnaire mythohermtiqu Dom Pty has this to say about th or marriag Nothi g is mor  rt i th ritigs of Philosohrs  tha this trm Thy say that th S must b marri ith th Moo, Gabrti ith Bya, mothr ith so, broth ith sistr a all this is othig othr tha th uio of th x a t volatil, hih must tak la i th vssl by mas of fir'  Cosmoolit ishs that  shoul ko ho to marry thigs togthr  orig to Natur, for far of uitig oo i  marriag ith ma or a ox o som othr bast ith mtal but o th otrary, that lik shoul at o li  for th atur ill ot fail to o its uty' H also sts out to omma aur by obyig it, but his obi is almost fmii, a a ki o sutio Look ', h says, at that i a by hih Natur is imrov .    you ish, for xaml, to xt th itrisi Virtu of ah mtal .  . y o must tak mtalli Natur, a this i i th mal a fmal, othri you ill o othig' I short, o ot rush thigs but  a y o sxual aitis D Loqus, a ritr ho is mor of a otor tha a alhmist also stats that Th isass of mtals that stm om thir forms or th  mtalli sirits ar tofol, omig from ithr th ir of thir sx or th otrarity of thir forms' For him, sulhuri mtals ar masuli mrurial mtals big fmii For aothr ritr, thr ar to kis o rubis, th mal a th fmal. Naturally, th mals ar th most bauti a ar thos that shi most brightly th fmals ar thos that glo ls Muh mor rtly Robit, ar a momt's hsitatio, still hos t o is  ovr miral sxuality Writig i 766 h says this As for th istitio bt th sxs that has ot yt b aolg i mtals,  hav suit xamls ro vig that it is ot absolut ly ssary for gratio a i ariular, fossils oul rgrat from thir brok, slitr, a sur arts. Hovr,  must ot sair of o ay maagig to i tiguish bt mal a fmal gol, a bt mal a fmal ia mos'. Thus, th sxualisatio ativ i th uosious sks to isti guish i th sam mtal, i a amorhous boy suh as gol, if ot sxua orgas th at last i ffrt sxual or s Wh a miral rsts form or faturs, th aturally th ramig uosious larly rots its  sirs. his is a ll ko habit ith som obsssiv haratrs Robit artlssly ovys th tor of his ayrams:

gass h l soy shads ha ormd h pod hy wl s hm o  prd wh small hos hrough whh h sd has  jauad

As  a s, Robis obtiv olg  oul hav gai from  rg oig a rlimiary syhoaalysis



I losly osdrg sos wh orms ad aurs ad wh groovs sps ad spplg   mys d o lv h l ss o som ad h avs oohs o  so may spma pods    May mpt apsus wll  oud  hs as I v h urous o xam wh a magg

Yt th libio os ot alays  suh ris imags, a it  a b ott to interiorise ors that ar mor or lss mystrious I this itriorisatio, substatialist a aimist ituitios ar rifor Substa tat is rih ith s surs its o bomig W ra that Ev though it is a xtrmly rft a igst boy, our gol is hovr iu i our Mrury, i hih it s a m ultilyig s , that fortis t ight lss tha it os its virtu a its or'  Mor striigly, for alhmists eve interior is a bey a blly that ust b o u A aoymous author rits as follos: O u your othr's brast ith a stl bla, go  ito hr trails, a trat v hr omb it is thr that you ill  our ur mattr, that os ot yt av ay tiur tak om th ba tmramt of its urs ' .  h aatomy of this mystrious miral that has th sam volum as gol' is somtims aomai by a sur' s laguag O th hr trails ith a stl bla a us a gtl togu, isiuativ, lasig a arssig, moist a art By this arti you ill mak maifst that hih is hi a o al' W s that alhmists, lik all hilosohrs ho valoris, look for th sythsis of otraris by stl a togu, by atr a r, by vio  a rsuasio, thy ill rah thir goal PirrJa Fabr says that alhmy os ot ust stuy mtals but: v ths four vast bois  a ll t four Elmts, hih ar th illars of th orl, aot by thir siz a grat strgth rvtAlhmy from tratig thm through a  through, a from sig by mas of ths oratios hat thy hav i thir bl lis a hat thy hav l yig hi i th farhst art of thir uko  trs' Bfor xri, thr is for th ramig uosious o lai, traquil, ol interior Evrythig that is hi grmiats. To quot th aoymous ritr of th Triomhe hermtique h sour of th sags' liquor   lis hi ur sto strik it ith th ro of magi r a om it ill om a lar srig of atr' From th itrior, th otrary oms h itrior must magify th xtrior This at last is hat rams oul ish A so h th osiousss givs th li to th uosious, h al xrimts a xris hav b assay, a all books ra, ho

 9

 93

T OMAION O TH SNTI MI

 he eh i   he ii ime f the chi whm the ii e f  t Pch wy iit i eqe y by tht f  ve whe he k hi mite

v

ASTON LA

ch ciim t thei tetti f ve My g i me  g y mecy i me th qickive, my te i me th t thee e e w tht chemit ctiy eet, i the me wy tt ve m thei ve t be the gete tht eve wet hm het t my be bjecte th thi ghe w ve  bct witht eig it,  me my emi  f ecie exeimet tht c be ec gie e thee veb e hi i hw hiti f chemity ytemticy cee It e t them th  eit, itive,  emii  iteetti give eibe iity t me f chemic w ege O the the h, it eem tht itete h cctme  t gti  imge, t htive imge, t imge which  t ttch temeve  thig bt imy exe thei eetig ect ekig ey  w iti i  itemeite e, cmig betwee tht f hii  et whie we e e ceti f the rast bass f chemic eeimet  hiti e, we e  me eit th the et, vie tht ity i ght i ychgic ccetee Iee, i   view, meth wy be  the tm f e c ci they e em whe cci ce i  bject Ceqety, whe the methic ig i i fct the ig f ex eie, we beieve h w mt be iteete i thei et ee  give thei  weight,   tig f he ibi   view, if we g ee it t   eive the exeiece f hmki t wk, t g, w wk tt cme eiy ce mtee ivig ce me with h mvig i we ee et, we m emembe ht hm hgh the eme, tht te m vice exee i g the h cee I mt w    wk ifme by kwege i mt  hm fbe i t ig ge mety bt ite witig ety I  view, whe i me tie vie we mie the vie t the em hey wee cgtte by e ty hi i  Ai g

me chemic bk hve  vey ymtmtic chcteitic tht mt be te thi i  the feqecy f the ige fm hi ige f i f tht hght i eveig  the It h xi the th  tht   tht, t e Mti Bbe ge   hght i t mvig tw b jectivity bt tw the e O the Ith xi  myi ect f the eiy e eiete the itect i the the ecti f cvc ti tht e e cei, ttig  bt,  etety,  ke ee it ccete fm Yet ige i e  eti f bective i ectic he eiti f teecie e ve t ee  mk  the i feetiti f ety I the w tw itect wh e et cveig bt  ecie bject te  me bt themeve th bt thi bect me chemit ffe fm e ghe  thi mt be te beig  it e he me mk f hght ht  ke ce,  whiee It h e bee ite t i fct tht chemit w give the me icie vey my  vey ieet me he ychgic meig f  thi veb mtiicti e t hweve eem t hve bee ee I h bee iteete  jt  wy  keeig myteie  ecet f themeve Yet mytey w hve bee ciety eeve by the vt mbe f cbitic me i  e I  view, ex mey t mytey, i the exti It et i the ee t ctebce e gee by the h, my thhemetic matter i metime ce wm  metime m It i Am  it i Eve A me mi i t g  meig thee viti F exme, we e ttey ce whe we e thgh the it f me give by hemetic hihe t thei matte F thi mtte f  mtte, thi te tht i t te, thi mthe f g ' , thi  em tht i t te, I hve cte 60 me  it i ike tht I mie me  f them hee 60 me f e  the  me bject e ey egh t hw tht thi bect i  ii It tke bth time  ve t he ch eqet i   ige beig It i ight whe chemit em beie thei ce, whe the bect i ti y  eie   he,  whe meth gthe tgethe h,  mthe hwe  myi me  he chi he i cig Oy ve c give ix h e me t he beve A i the me wy,  y ve c big 

It will also be said that all metaphors are wo-out and that te mode nd has, by virtue of these metaphors' very mobility overco the �o  onal seductions tha are no longer a hindrance to our knowledge f objects.

 94

95

Vva deoo E dea ve L am econdo Soeno! 15

V

ASTON BACAD

TE OATION Of THE SCTIIC D

were to examine what what is going on in a min that that i s being foe Yet Yet if you were an that is onfronte with a new experiene you wou e surprise to n at the outset sexual thoughts there It is thus very symptomati that a he m al reation in whih two ifferent boies are involve is immeiate l sexualise sometimes with litte attenuation by etermining one ofthe bo ies as ative an the other as passive. As a hemistry teaher I have ee able to osee that in the reation of an ai an a base neary al the pupi wou give the ative role to the ai an see the base as passive If we  ust a itte into the unonsious we soon see the base to be feminine an the fat that the the prout is a neutral salt  a neuter  is nt ai masuin e The fat without some psyhoanalytial resonane Boerhaave still speaks ofhermaph ofhermaph roite sats Vie ws like this are rea ostales Thus the iea of asi salt i muh harer to get young seonaryshoo pupis to aept than that of ai salts Ai has been given the explanatory avantage simply beause it h been taken as eing ative in respet to the base The folowing seventeenthentury text leas to the same onusion

m d d d  a as  s  a d ha h ms passa v l v achv O  hm as aady yldg quyg   xmy ad ad svg  spg hsh dps

assages like this are very ear to psyhoanalysts They are muh less for a reais t interpretation It is very har in fat to etermine the e r though for rl that Jues Renar ha ha seen. Forming aloys of metals is rarely part of he urriulum in th unior years of or seonary shoos an metals o nt yiel as easily as this lueing in one extremity Here then oetive nterpretation is oke o an what ies open to us is psyhoanaytial interpretation It is partiularly piuant to see an ironist being so umsy hen t omes to onealing his shoolboy esires an haits



h v   mals s h s  mac hy  s s as  ad cd  h hads  h ach-machma h as h   ac hy  s  mg  pa  ah ad 

Yet the ahemist is no a shoolboy. He is not even a young man. Usualy Us ualy the ahemist ahemist is the Ol an the Ol One. This i s why the theme theme of reuvenation reuvenation is one of ahemy ahemy  ominant themes Theori es that see ahemy s moneygrubing lea here as elsewhere to the wrong interpretations e ng mae. ou wil outess n ahemists who sell the water ofyouth of youth an l rih prines who buy it. But what is money in omparison with youth It  the hope of growing young again that keeps them goi ng in the lo ng wathes a f the night in the ong hours at the ae an that makes light o f a fortune fortune ost the hope of ning themselves in the moing with one again a gra ous ountenane an smoulering eyes The perspetive from whih a hemy an be unerstoo is that of the psyhology of ysomethings the pyhology of a man who has ust fet fet a rst theat theat to sexual worth Who w i l ot spare any effort to rive this shaow away to erase this il omen an efen what is supremely value It is by interpreting oupations in terms f preoupations that we an nerstan their real inwar meaning One it as realy een aepte that alhemists are aways yyearol men then the suetive psyhoanalytia interpretations we are proposing here e ome very lear. Alhemial sustanes ust thus make time go bakwars an they re therefore temporaise to a very high egree When it is a matter of e for alhemia nuptials  the ahemists ahemists hesitate ing the est time of year fo etween spring an autumn between see an fruit. They wou ike to be e to put the two seasons together aing spring to autumn youth to matu hlosohers  emerald oes. ty all n one eixir This is exaty what the hlosohers hs water of youth is esrie in the Dctonnare hermtque as the ew

 96

 97

h acd s h h aa cas havg c gagd s sma p    h ps ad havg  y s s mvm  mas a amp  hs h ad y hs mas  ags h pass pas s ha h  acd ha s  h aa  g dg s s ghy csad s h s a  h   us h y ha a had ad up 

A sienti min whether rationalist or experimenta by training whether that of a geometriian or a hemist wil not n any eement of reetion any sensibe uestion or any esriptive shema in suh a pa make a ritiue of it suh is the istane etween etween g  sage It annot even make rative explanation an hemial experiment. A psyhoanayst on the othe han wou have no iulty in iseing the preise soure of this on vition If we knew how to trigger onenes aout the inner state of min an spirit that aompanies the uest for obetive knowlege we woul n many traes of this very sexual attration to ertain hemia phenom ena. Thus in his oua Jules Renar transribes the folowing folowing reverie whih is uite obviousy inke to shooloy memories

ASTON AHLAR

TH ORMAO O H SNTII M

f March a Sptmbr, whch s gr a sparklg th autum w s mr bak tha that f sprgtm, spcally sc t shars mr f su mrs su tha wtrs cl. Ths s why ths wh us thm rfr t th autum w as mal a t th sprg w as fma Hw fw ar th thgs a th rass w    rr t uph l th prcp f ruvat Th last ccasal caus awaks  us th wll t grw yug aga ft by ths uspk wsh, w tu th bctv prtxt t a ct caus I 166 haras wrts as fllws  hs tra ts  vprs, a trats that als shws grat pwrs f bsrvat Vprs sh thr sk vry sprg a smtms v  autum; ths has l ppl t bv qut rghtly rghtly that thy pssss a vrtu that w rw rw a csrv th frcs f ths wh us thm as thr a prtctv r a rm y Latr  th sam trats, trats, w ra that Aga a toat toat u  ghty atutd atutd to th th  .  . hch ca uat, a t acty ho y hddg t  c a ya ad g t t dg dg t l cod cod th a   h togth th th ut a o hch th   comod ad t  td gaz ho that t  y aoat that th Act acd to t th tu o ghtg ad og og th y 

It s clar t us that th tr argumt hr amuts t interiorising a multilying th phm f sughg makg f t a substata a vg vrtu whch s attach t ust t th wh bg but t vry  f ts brs a t all ts mattr. Th ucscus that wats t grw yug aga cu t ask fr aythg mr.

V Hwvr, amst pwr taks  ts l value wh ccv  u vrsa trms, utg hav a arth. Earth s th prst prst t ust as urshg, as w hav shw t t b  th myth f gst, but als as a mthr wh grs all b gs. W shal brg tgthr a umbr f txts txts frm th prsctc pr, whch shw hw ray ths argumt gath rs th last bctv  f rvrs Fr Fabr: Eythg o o th ath ad th ah o o h chd l th moth h  o al thg t m dd that th gal t oth oth old lo th ah ao al oth lmt; accodgly accodgly t com do

18

om hght Ha h  t at ad oyal tho amog t aac oazu o azu ad god tuddd th a ty o damod ad cauc to   th dt dugo  ath ath mot da dam ca th t ta o th l t ad mot cod o all th od t ca oduc  th  hch  th alt o th at a th alt om hch th Eah a omd

Grat s thus th ccat f bth hgh a w valus, f  a vl, a f lv a s. I  thr wrs, grat s th varsa t t flwr, frr substacs. abr s t s mtaphrs hr. What frm  hgh  s  fact mattr that  y b gat hr fr fr us t ha v ms frm iversal medicine It has t b tak as t rst sprgs up, at ts brth a ts g, flwg th avc w mght  cmg frm th p f m psychlgst s, as thy xt wsprug tut, tut that s bg b r svtthctury ctrs thugh, that whch egins s that whch  rs that whch grs s mattr that ralss pwr. Ths csta attr, Fabr latr stats must b tak th mmt t cms w m av a s but kss, gty a lvgly, th ps f atura mxts a mpus, th mmt wh ts matal v fr ts chlr maks t sh tars brghtr a mr shg tha pars a tpazs a whch ar ut ght, clth a cvr wth amp ght. W s y t wl th gcac f ths sxua matralsm that gvs a ccrt frm t sprg tm mts, that gathrs th mg w as th ssc f th marrag f hav a arth. Th sa s als  csr t b a uvrsa wmb clas  cqus says that t frms a ursh g, aquus ampss a a salty spr atc, grg substac . Usg a v mr prcs a symptmatc ag, h gs   t say that Just as at th tm tm wh wm ccv ccv r thr s s crrupt, thy s a fl thr clur chagg, thr apptt msh a thr m sturb, s  th sam way th Sa grws stmy a turb  Tmpsts, wh t prucs ths sat uts tslf fr th ccpt ccpt f th chlr t bars  Th gratg gratg act s a a that s as xpaatry xpaatry as  t s bsssv;  thr thr wrs spt carryg th l wght f ucscus fly, a   is an idea that is clear. Th smpt wrts thus: Just as mas prm has ts ctr r prpr rcptac  th kys, s  th sam way th fur Elmts,  a trlss a prptua mvmt . . . cast thr thr sprm t th ctr f th Earth whr t s gst  a th by mvmt thrust ts H ctus as fllws fllws 1 99

THE FOMO OF HE SCEC MID

bseved te tump   eletty ve a la k  vty

Innumerable exames c ould o course be gien o the use o electi_ ity to cure enereal diseases without o course any recise statistics hai rstustied this method. E lectricity i s ery aourably considered. The  mysterious it is the more sexualised it becomes Ad it is because   mystery that it can be sexually eectie  Jallabert a muchuoted exerimenter associates substantialist   sexualist intuitions n his oinion i brilliant sars can be drawn rom -  mate bodies this is because they abound in oily sulhurous and co " uently inammable arts  R He reminds readers that the omentum ad  ', blood and bile etc hae a cosiderable uantity othese in them . . . urie    is dist illed aer it has ermented and diers other animal substances   ery actie hoshors. Jallabert then nds an easy exlanation or all thi  "':   that eole o dierent ages and temeraments do not roduce sar   eual strength. Taing his conectures rther by reasg in the ll se  o the term the metahors o ardour he ascribe to the electrical hen  eno  the dierece in the igou r o those who are chaste and o those h    abandon themseles imoderately to leasure. For La Cde the electric  uid is or lants what loe is or sent beings with neertheless this dierence that or lants it is but the caus a tranuil eacel existence. There then ollows in this boo on electr  ity a assage showing that in humans loe is a source o ain and unha ness . We then come bac to lants that  grow and multily ithout ealou and ain. The electric uid is he writes so healthy and inigorating  lants that they ae nt tubled by ea  stms tundeng natue beng  them but a tende mte w mes t pvde  the needs and  smetmes the tallest tees ae hamed by wat s but the geatest gd  humbe pants eaples n a way  a devtn aey und amng us tey an be sad t e the tpmst pat t the lghtnng tat must stke tem seeking thus t ptet m t te tende pants and yung subs that gw n the shade  the bnes

SO BCHELD

 en should not men water their gardens with electried water? And then  ee is the exeriment endl essly reered to in the eighteenth century o the  myrtle trees in Edinburgh that were electried in the October o 1746 n were then coered with buds.   We might accet such harmoies rom someone lie Beardin de excusing them as a literary deice. They are harder to accet ntPierre i  om a writer whose only ambition is to be scientic. They conrm our iew tt an animist hilosohy is more easily admissible in its general insiration n in its articular roos in its oerall i ews rather than its secic ones t its summit rather than its base. But what then are we to thin o such a ilosohy and how can we exlain its su ccess? A hilosohy is ot coherent eause o its obect its only cohesion is that o the commuity othe aec ie alues held by writers and their readers

x We shall now try to condense all the obserations made here with a iew to establishing a sychoanalysis o obectie knowledge We shall do so by showig the enormous alue orming around the idea o seed germ an grain an idea that is used as a synonym or a substance with a alue oe and beyond what is strictly the domain o lie we shall also continue  olow the ath o aimism Let us loo rst at gratuitous unroen alorisations which are lain ly  riori Intensity concentration and urity are ascribed to t he germ. Thus Charas sys without oering any comment as though reering to something se1 eident seed is the urest and the most elaborated art that an animal can roduce and it is also accomanied by many sirits  0 More than a century later the same alorisation is imlicit in what is in ct a general transmutation o substantial alues. In 1 788  Roy Desoncades rites as ollows

There are many ages oering a rational exlan ation o this grad  ose intuition and this teder aection The writer asks this uestion what secret means does the electric uid gie lants the strength to grow sread and is the electric u id in some way necessary to their reroduction   This secret means is sa. It is sringtime rain charged with lightning

s nt mans seed mpsed  the subtlest pat  s d w wen dgested and peeted by ts last tn,  s then dused n al pats  hs bdy? Nw des nt te d that uses ths seed me m the nvesal seed dsed n the uppe egns and then ast deep nt te bsm  the eath whee t s ked and dgested and m thene dstbuted t al mts  the mantanng? Thus sne ts seed s und en n all te mneas plants and anmas m whh man takes bt d and medaments t sustan s le, man's seed emanates teee

20 2

203

ASTON AELARD

TE FORMATON OF TE SIENTIFI MIND

graes come t o be harested '  o coninced is the Abb de Vallemont that germination is ondened in this water o his that he rooses to add e liser, saltetre and liquid manure directl to the water in which the co ha been sown lants ar e not the onl thin gs to benet rom the ower o this ger  natie water. he Abb de Vallemont also sas that Animals will indee grow and become ne secimens i this liquor o increase is used or mo tening their bran and steeing their grain'. And he goes on thus  no rom eerience that when a little o  this l iquor is added to a horse 's oats, tha  horse will render serices we cannot imagine. here is no obstacle it cao  clear, and no dicult situation it cannot oercome .  .ows rea the cost   this liquor with an amazing abundance o mil. ens rea us with eg  Eerthing multilies . . . Eerthin is liel and agile'  And the Abb  Vallemont adds this, giing awa the nature o his unconscious conicton  . eerthing in the armard is eeling olicsome his is not an isolated intuition Fort ears later, in 747 the A Rousseau, the ormer auchin and doctor to his Maest ', claims that gran  that has een insed in an alcoholic sirit made with co will germinat  much more igorousl because this EaudeVie which contains the egeta tie essence o the grain rom which it was made, haing been imbued wi this grain, orties it own ertilit and b its erment, gies swier moe ment to the grain insed in it, li e leaen that maes another batch o dou to rise' 24 oweer, too much alcohol must not be used, h e adds, because th grain would disanimate' We get the eeling that he has erormed eer ments that tued out to be negatve grain steeed in alcohol at too high  . concentration did not grow Potve eeriments in which the maceration were shown to be indierent and ineectie were gien weight b animt alorisation. he Abb Rousseau continues, giing his intuition the status o  a major rincil e: t is according to this rule that hilosohers sea other  imbibitions in order to resurrect and reanimate the sulls the see to ol ati ise; little b little the restore to them, b a coious and dominant asion the soul or sirit the had remoed om them' hus, the eaudeie has n it a ertilit rincile, no matter what changes ma hae beallen the aear ance o the lants rom which it is taen'. n all these eamles, there  nothing metahorical about the fert prnpe t is not something ab stract: it is an etrat. ence, it does not matter whether the co is in th earth or crushed and milled into our, ed and mied in dough, or een soaed in the brewer's at' Whether it is lanted, eaten, or  it is a was the same ertilit rincile that renews both lants and humans. U I vru  vrtu eminal ower is the sureme ower; it totalises and sum 20 6

 all actions and all owers.  hae alwas belieed' , the Abb Rousseau  s that hsical irtue lies in the essential, seminal rincile o eer eing'. e goes on to state more recisel that  sa that the same seminal eing o the o, which is caable o roducing its lant, is also caa ble o roducing the eects it has in Medicine' . We sen se how onrete and there ore incorrect this intuition is and how ar it is om the hil osoh o mod m hemis, or which the eaction o oium is instead disindiidualisation  deconcretisation. Moreoer, snthetic rearations based on chemical elements are roo o this er mode substitution o the abstract or the etract. .G  Wells's noel The Food of the God is based on similarl in euous intuitions; under its scientic erbiage, it would be eas to nd the imlistic  elies we hae noted in the mth o digestion and also in the mth o the uniersal seed  he theor' o uninterruted growth which is Wells 's uiding idea here can alread be seen in the Abb de Vallemont's ancil ractices hs maes it er clear that the noelist's success as a oulariser i solel due to the stoc o ideas he draws on, the ermanence o which b o means roes their alue.

X A ll schoanalsis o the scientic unconscious should undertae a ud oeelings that are more or less directl insired b the libido  t should i articular eamine the will to ower that the libido eercises oer things d animals. his is no doubt a deiation o the will to ower which, in the ull meaning o the term, is the will to dominate humans. his deiation is erhas a orm o comensation t is at an rate er clear when aced with eutedl dangerous reresentations We shall roide onl one eamle which, we beliee, comes under a articular ind o schoanalsis his is the case o allen ri de, o ostentatious ower that i s the mar o latent imo e ce We shall see a roud thaumaturge caught in his own tra. he sight o certain objects or liing beings carries such a weight o emotion that it is interesting to detect weanesses in the bold minds that ride themseles in studing them. he ollowing is an amusing stor told  the Abb Rousseau: Van Hent says that   yu put a tad n a vessel su ently deep  t nt t esape and  yu stae at t ths Ana l havng ade evey e t up ut and esape then m und, stae at yu and a e ents late al dn dead Van Hent attbutes ths eet t the

207

AO ACAD

TH ORATO O THE NTi ID

ia ofal fa h oa ois a  h sigh ofa huma. Assiuous aio as o his ig so si p a high ha i suffoas h aimal. I ha hfo o his fou ims a ha fou a Hmo o ha ol h uh h A Tuk ps i Egyp h I pfom his xpim fo h hi im o sig his xlaim ha I as a sai fo haig kil y sigh of m a aimal hy li o ha  pou y h i.

thlne. Aa  teacher how lttle nteret n mpartng th tranqullty. d conequently they do not gude pupl toward nowledge o the ob t hey judge rather than teach hey do nothng to cure the anxety that  every mnd aced wth the need to correct t own thought and go be d tel n order to nd obectve truth

Here we ee the thaumaturge n all h glory Let u now ee the de   that wll allow u to ee very clearly the true ambvalence o courage wh   o badly ued he Abb Roueau contnue thu:

 aha fs h o The Diaectic oDatio puish i fa i  93 hih

Ho haig ish o o h sam hig fo h las im i yo . . . fa om h oa yig I hough I mysf as goig o i . Haig i i ai o lim ou his aimal  oas m a slig o a xaoiay g a aisig isf o al fou f, i ah impousy ihoumoig om is pa looki g a m ih uag ys ha I sa go ppiy mo  a y a ha mom a uisa akss oam m, hih al of a su l o faiig aompai y a o sa a oosig of h ols a la As a sul  as hough a. I ha  ohig h o ha oh ha Thia a po ofVip of hih I as gi a ag  os ha al m o o my sss;  oiu o ak his oh moig a ig fo h igh ays his akss as.  o o ha a o a al h makal ffs of hih I ko his ighl aimal o  apa.

NOT  dsis as  a iouo o h ahig ofa phiosophy of pos hu ii aig ha h is a ok o The Fomatio othe cietic Mi l fo  93 8 d ha h i s ig o hs o ooks ouy. S  The Diaectic oDa on, as. May MAs Jos Mahs Cliam Pss ) 1.  ahlas fooo: Aoymous e Tiomphe hemtiqe  a piee

hiosophae victoiese taitps compet et ps iteigibe q i y ait e jsqes i tochat e magiste hemiqe  . Amsam 1   ).  a has fooo Aoymous a mie sotat  soimme es Tbes ou itabe toi e a Piee es phiosophes as fom h Ialia  .

way of objective knowledge, o f tranquil knowledge, it is human beings a  whole that we must consider human beings with their heavy burden of ancestrality and unconsciousness, and with all their confsed, continge

ais: 93).  Ais is us h i h ss of alhmis; ahmial xs f o h  of Amy, o aia o  5 ahlas fooo *** Raes epieces s I espit mia po a paatio et a tasmtatio es cops maiqes Pais 1  .  aha s fooo: Dictioaie hemiqe Pais:  95).  ah as fooo: Aoymous e Tiomphe he?tiqe s o .  ahlas fooo: Aoymous Histoi e a Phiosophie hemiqe avec e itab Phiathe 3 os. Pais  4).  ahla's fooo: A  , Apoogie  Ga Oeve  ii es iosophes it vgaiemet piee phiosophae Pas:  59)  ahla's fooo Aoymous Histoie e a Phiosophie hemtiqe s  8. 1 Phi osophs is aoh m us fo ahmiss a hmy ig f o as th Philosophial A'. 1 ahads fooo Aoymous e Tait chmie et e soge ve Pas: 1  5). 1 aha is auig h o h s i i Malams pom is mai  a z) Th sh is sa aas! a I ha a al h ooks'. 1  ahla o h pfa fo h h asaio of Mai us h  Du il Je et t as. G iaquis Pais Aui 1 938) .   Whi aha quos i Iaa om 'Auzio s o  Foco Fie h

08

0 9

This passage seems to us an excellent example ofthe concretiation the fear that troubles so many pre-scientic cultures. The valorisation ofpow de of viper is partly out of fear that has been overcome Triumph over pugnance and danger is sucient to valorise the object. The medicament then a trophy. It can be a very eective aid to repression, a repression that is . somehow materialised and that can hep the unconscious. We would be ready to entertainthe theory that foolis h remedies are needed to treat fooi people and that the unconscious needs to be unburdened using methods t

are both crudely materalt and crudely concrete. We see then that if we wish to measure the obstacles that stand in th

THE OMTION O THE SIENTII MIND

reers  he French ranslain I am grael  r Phlp ke r he llw i ranslan  hese lines

Thobbig with the le othe elm ad the vie plat The getle cc Oetili

Chapte Eleven he obstaces to quattatve k o w l e d g e

6 A ain prverb: When he case is aken away he eec s remved'. 7 achelard's ne W Whewell Hto othe dctive ciece 3 vls  dn 857). 8 achelards ne Jallaber Pressr  Eperimenal Philsphy and Mah emaics Member  he Ryal Scees  ndn and Mnpellier and  he Acad my  he Inse  lgna Epiece  I ecticit avec qelqe coje te  la cae de e eet Pars: 79. 9 Jseph Priesley reprs his eperimen in his Hito ad Peet tate oEle

tici 20 achelard's ne: haras ite de ovelle epiece  a pe Paris 672). 2 achelard's ne: Annyms Novea Tait de phyiqe Paris: 72 see haper 6 ne 29 22 T meerise s  vaprise  cnver n vapr 23 achelard plays n he wrd gallard' here which n addn  meanng merry r lvely has a mldly seal cnnain sed r insance  descbe sries a naghy' r spicy and sngs as ibald' r bawdy. 2 achelard's ne: Abb Rssea ecet et Remde pov dot le ppaatio ot aite a ove de l 'ode d Roy Paris: 77) 25 Where here s slime here is gdness 26 H G Wells The Food othe God ad how it came to eath ndn: 90) achelard reers  he French ranslan niled Place a Gat Paris 90)

20

 Immedite oective nowledge is necessril incorrect  virtue o the ct tht it is ul ittive. I t produces error tht must e rectied It ls n inevitle urden o suective impressions on the oect; oective nowl edge must thereore e unurdened it must e pschonlsed Immedite nowledge is suective in its ver principle. B regrding relit s its own possession, it gives premture certinties tht hinder rther thn help oec tive nowledge This then is the philosophicl conclusion tht we elieve n e drwn rom the precedi ng chpters I t would e  miste moreover to tin tht quaniaie nowledge escpes in principle the dngers o uli ttive nowledge ie is not utomticll oective nd we onl hve to ove w om milir, everd oects to meet with the oddest o geo etricl determintions nd the most whimsicl o untittive determintions Since the cienc objec is in some ws lws  new oect, we cn understnd t once tht rst determintions re lmost inevi tl inpproprite. Length studies re necessr eore  new phenom non cn give rise to the correct vrile Thus, when we ollow the develop ent o electricl mesurements, we m e surprised to see how lte Cou oms wor comes Vit lometers re still eing proposed lte into the eight eenth centur, these eing devices sed on electricl ction which, while doutless striing nd immedite, is lso complicted nd thereore ill suited to the oective stud o the phenomenon Conceptions tht re pprentl ver oective nd ver clerl represented, nd uite oviousl prt o  precise geome, s Crtesin phs ics is, re strngel lcin g in  theor o esurement Reding Descrtess Principe ofPhioophy one could l ost s tht size is  quai o extension Even when it comes to techers s vigorous nd cler s Rohult, prescientic explntion does not pper to

GASTO BACELAD

TE FORMATIO OF THE SEFC MND

tion do not beong to the object. When two subjects such as mathematics and physics interfere, one can be prety sure that pupils wil not harmonise t two precisions'. Thus, with a view to teaching healthy approximations, I have oen set the folowing simple probem: calculate to the nearest cnti metre the average radius ofan oak tre with a circumference of 150 centim es. The vast majoriy of the cass woud do the calculation using the sterotypical vaue of p = 3 .  4 1 6, which is obviously way beyond the degree of precision possibe. I have similarly pointed out elsewhere,2 when expound-

ig o a illumiatig age of Boel's, the dishaoy i ecisio aisig whe the ice you ay fo a buildig lot i Pais is woked out to the las cetime wheeas the lad is measued at the vey most to the ast squa decimete, with the ice of a squae decimee havig a eect o the umb of facs aid out This actice makes us thin of Dulog's joke about a exeimete who, while sue about the thid gue ae the decimal oit, will hesitate about the st oe I the eighteeth ceuy, a etiey gatuitous excess i ecisio is the rule. We s hal oly give a few exames of this hee i ode to make th oit clea. Buffo fo istace eaches the coclusio that 74 ,83 2 yeas ago the Eath had bee seaated fom the su due to the imact of a comt, ad that i 93, 29 1 yeas' time it wil have cooed dow so much that life will be o loge be ossible thee'  This uta ecise edictio is esecially stikig give that the hysica laws o which it is based ae of the vaguest ad most aticua I the Encyclopdie, thee is a aticle etited Bile' whee we ca d the followig ecise detemiatio ovided by Hales gallstoes giv 648 times moe ai tha thei volume ad kidey stoes give 645 times thei volume Accustomed as we ae to lookig caely at exeimetal ero we will see these dieet but simila gues oduced by a somewhat cude techique ot as the sig of substatia dieece, as Hales doe s, but athe as oof of exeimetal idetity Coce with ecisio also eads some mids to ose meaigless oblems athe Mesee asks  Pay tel me how much the a ma who was six foot tall woud jouey with his head tha with his feet wee he to walk aoud the Earh' Give the vey ough kowledge of the eath's a dius at that time, we ca see the geometica absudiy ofthe oblem osed by Fathe Mesee, i additio to the questio's comlete ack o f meaig. At the ed of the eighteeth cetury, Beadi de SaitPierre observes th ight of houseies Some woud ise i the ai, yig agaist the wid, usig a mechaism oughly simila to that o f ae kites, which as they ise form a age of, I beieve twetytwo ad a haf degees to the axis of the 214

.i

d  Hee, 225 ° has obviously bee give because i is half of 45" The tho wated to make a visio geometical The idea of obiquity seemed oo vague to him Moeove, he doubt ess thought that the best ad simls t obiquity coesoded to 45" Pueie calculatio, as we see, comes to the aid o a iaoiat eed fo ecisio The quest fo false ecis io goes had i had with the quest fo false esitivity. Madame du Chteet offes us this eectio, as if it wee some ea ed thought: Sice ie exads al bodis ad sice its absece co acts them, bodies mus t be moe exaded by day tha at ighttime, houses ust be highe, eole talle, etc, ad thus eveythig i Natue is i e petual osciatios of cotactio ad exasio, which uhold movemet ad ife i the Uivese'. We see moeove how ightly the escietic id associates geea views with aticua ad meaigess facts Mad ame du Chtelet cotiues thus, mixig d iffeet kids of thigs Hea mus expand bodes a he Equaor and conrac hem at he Poe; hs  why Lapps ar e smal and srong, and  s very apparen ha the Anmas and Pans hat lve a he Poe would de a he Equator, and hose of he Equaor would do so a he Poe uness hey were carried here by mpercepbe gradaions jus as Comes pass om heir apheion o heir perihelon.

Aithmetic is sometimes alied i detemiatios whee it is ot e quied We ca thus d the followig icedibly ecise details i the aticle o Ai' i the Enclopdie:  t has bee demosated that the esiatio of ude 3,0 00 eole stadig o a ace of lad would ae 34 days fom a atmoshee about 7 1 feet high, whi ch woud vey soo become estile tia if it wee ot disesed by the wids'. Lastly, eighteethcetuy wites ad oday's baccalaueate cadidates ae ot the oly oes with the bad habit of givig iaoiatey ecise details: thee ae etie scieces which have ot detemied the scoe of thei cocets ad whi ch foget that under no circumstances should the ex actess of umeical determiatios exceed the meas of detectio Geoga hy textbooks, fo istace, ae currety stued with umeical data whose vaiability ad aea of exactess ae ot xed. A textbook used i classes of thieeyeaolds iicts o them ecise details such as the folowig the aveage aual teeatue i Meto is 1 63  Thee is a aadox hee, fo the aveage is woked out to a teth of a degee while i fact the actical use of cimatic data makes do with degees The same autho, like vey may othes givs e xcessive ecisio to the cocet ofoulatio desity a co 25

A BACAD

TE FMA   CFC MID

pt whh s la an usl f allow ts appopat ntmnaton Th onng txtbook tlls us that n th patmnt of th Sn th popula ton nst s 9 19 nhabtants p sua komt Ths xed numb fo oating onpt wh h n ts xat fom s not val fo vn an hou wl b us aong wth oths lk t to tah' ou pups fo tn as o so Th  gogaph txtbook wttn b th sa m autho fo pupls ppang fo th baalauat ontans 3480 numbs whh nal all hav th sam sn t vau Ths nual ovoa fos pups to mmb o than 100 nubs p houong lsson Ths s th xus fo a loathsom tah ng mtho that though ng n th fa of ommon sns s bomng wspa n subts that a snt n onl a mtaphoal sns

 Mo la stl an so to spak atal th nt ags of a sn oul  b tn b th thus of ts masung nstumnts Rnt ntus hav all ha th own patula sal of pson th own goup of xat als an th own sp nstmnts It s not ou wsh to go bak ov th hsto of nstumnts that w hav ala s uss n anoth book Al w want to o s to show th ult of t mnng th rt ontons of masumnt o xap Matn mns us that th was muh pso n n th onstuton o f th st thmom ts: Evn thos ma n lon w fa too vagu an ntmnat th hghst g bng x n aoan wth th Sun's gatst hat n that gon'   om ust ths on xamp w als how sastous th  t us of a thmomt was Sn a thmomt ought to gv us nfo maton about th ambnt tmpatu mtoologal natons wll b look to st of al to pov th pnpl of ts sal Wth a sla vw n n Hal suggsts takng as a x pont th tpatu of subta nan aas that a nnt to both wnt an summ Ths  nffn was ogns b th thmomt t was not t obtv n th ab sn of masumnt b an nstnt Evn n Bol's tm Matn ob svs thmomts w so vaab an so ntmnat that t s moal mpossbl to stabsh b ths mans a asumnt of hat an o n th sam wa that w hav a masumnt of tm stan wght t'  Gvn ths lak of nstuntal thnu w shoul not b sups at th nomous vat of th st thmomts Th w soon mo tps of thmomt than th w asumnts of wght Ths vat s v haatst of a sn pusu b amatus In a snt om 6

un onsttut as ous s nstmnts a aost mmatl stana  Th thnal wll s nowaas so a an kpt un suh los su  lan  that w a sups at th a magns of o W blv that h onstuton of an obective piece ofapparatu s sfvnt an w o not alwas s th numb of thnal pautons u whn assm bng th smplst appaatus Is th fo xampl anthng appantl sm p than puttng a baomt togth as n To l's xpmnt? Yt ust lng th tub us v gat a Th slghtst o h th tnst bubbl of a l bhn wll tmn appabl ns n baomt  hght Romas an amatu sntst vng n a lttl town al Na oow th nt vaatons of som  of ths nstmnts At th am tm  a a g numb of obsvatons w ma n o to fathom th nun of baomt vaatons on a vat of llnsss Thus th nstu nt an th obt asu w both shown to b llaapt wth ah of thm a long wa awa fom th ot ontons fo obtv knowl g In al nstumntal knowg th sam obsta an b sn to as as n ona obtv knowlg: th phnomnon os not nssal ak ts most gul a vaabl avalabl fo masumnt On th oth han as nstmnts a mpov th snt product wl b btt n Kowg bos obtv n popoton to t bomng nstumntal Th a o f xpntal snstvt s a v o on Phssts ust tmn th snstvt of th nstmnts bfo untakng an pnt Ths s what th psnt mn os not o Maa u htlt am os to th xpmnt ou pfom a nu lat but  not s ts possbt Sh xpltl sas that: If movmnt pou  thn ol wat whn shakn up vgoousl woul gow hott but ths os not happn pptbl an f t gows hott t os so wth v gat ult Th phnomnon that hans annot stngush n an app ab wa woul hav bn nat b an ona thmot Th m hanal uvalnt of hat wll b tmn b smpl stung ths  ut wang poss Ths omplt lak of xpmntal nsght wll b un lss supsng f w ons th mxngup of aboato ntutons wth naua ons Thus olta lk Maam u Ctlt asks wh th oent noth wns o not pou hat As w an s th psnt n os not hav a la a of th lag an th small It mxs up th lag an th sal Phaps what th psnt mn most aks s a ho of xpmnta o

7

THE ORMTO O THE SENTC MD

V In a similar way, the presienti mind makes exessie use o rep_ roal determination. In its iew, there is nteration etween all the aria le haraterising a phenomenon, and the phenomenon is onsidered to e euall sensitised in all its ariales Now, een i the ariales are lined, the sensitiity is not reiproal Eery pee o researh must e made an ind idual ase. This is what happens in mode physis, whih does not pos  late the oerdeterminism that is held to e unuestionale in the presien ti period To enale these uantitatie oerdeterminations to e ll grasped, let us gie some examples where suh oerdeterminations are es peially shoking Retz notes that there is no instrment aailale or est mating the uantity o eletri uid ontained in the human ody and then gets round the diulty y tuing to the thermometer. The relation etween the entities o eletriity and heat is ery uikly estalished Sine the ele tri matter is regarded as re, its in uene in the organs oli ing odies must ause heat the rising or alling o a thermometer plaed on the skin w thereore indiate the uantity o the eletri u id in the human ody  8 An so a whole treatise goes awry the authors oen ingenious eorts lead hi in the end to draw ingenuous onlusions suh as the ollowing During the amous retreat rom Prague, the itter old o this season depried man soldiers o oth eletiity and lie, and those who were let were only pre sered y the are the oers took to whip them up and make them marh and onseuently eletri themseles. It must e noted that the relation etween eletriation and ody temperature s erroneous that is to say gien the sensitiity aailale to eighteenthentury themometry; yet this exper ment is done oer and oer again y many experimenters who register ther mometri ariations that are entirely insigniant They think they are per orming a physis experiment; what they are doing, and doing in ery ad onditions is an experiment on the physiology o the emotions With this guiding idea o the total orrelation o phenomena, the pre sienti mind resists the ontemporary oneption o a cosed system No sooner has a losed system een posited than there is a departure om this audaious idea and the presienti mind arms, with an unarying stylis ti dee, the solidarity o the ragmented system wth the Great Whole. Howeer, a philosophy o approximation that is well regulated, that arelly traes the steps taken when eective determinatons are made, would lead to the estalishment o phenomenologial leels that esape minor dis tranes asoutey Yet this nstrumental phenomenology, rokn up y the imassae thresholds o opeatie sensitity  the only phenomenology 2 8

GSTON BCHE RD

w an indeed all s enti  annot withstand the deeprooted and unues

toned realism that seeks to sae the ontinuity and sol idarity o phenomena,  eery one o their harateristis. This naie elie in a uniersal orrela ton, whih is one o the aourite themes o naie realism, is all the more tiking eause it manages to unite heterogeneous ats Let us gie a splen dl y exessie example o this Carras theory aout the hain o auses that operate the dierent reolutions o the elestial odies leads him to e, om an astronomial point o iew, preise details not just aout the easons o the planets ut also aout the properties o plants and anmals, uh as the olour o plants and lie expetany, all these details eing o course gratuitous. Plants on Merury are a ey rownish green, and on Ve us they are rownish green in the lands at on o its poles and golden yellow in the lands at the other pole  On Mars, they are right green. People le longer on Venus than on the earth. The longeity o Martians is a third less than ours Astronomial properties lead to eerything else eerything ts in with them Carra almly suggests that Sa enjoys unelieale rihes t must hae on it seeral illion eings similar to humans, and ast towns wth etween ten and twenty million inhaitants. n these allemraing cosmologies, we an see Montesuieus theory o limates, now extended to the unierse, and this exaggeration exposes the weakness o Montesuieus thesis. There is nothing more anti sienti than maintaining, either without roo or under the guise o general and impreise remarks, that there are causalities etween dierent orders o phenomena For enturies, presienti minds hae haroured these ideas o un lmted interation, o interation that an ross ast spaes and onnet the most heterogeneous o properties Suh notions sere them as deep, philo ophial ideas and are pretexts or eery kind o alse siene t ould e roed that these are the ndamental ideas o astrology Astrologial inu nes are gien a mateia harater and this point is not always underlined y historians o astrology. As we hae already noted, what the stars send us is ot just signs and signatures ut sustanes, a uantity rather than a uality eenteenthentury astrology knows ll well that the light o the moon is imply reeted sunlight Yet it s said in addition that in this reetion, a lttle lunar matter penetrates the reeted ray just as a whitewashed wall ill leae a white mark on a all that ounes o it The ation o the stars s thereore the uantitatie ation o real matter Astrology is material ism in te ll sense o the tem. The lin we saw in the preeding paragraph e teen a star and its inhaitants is just a partiular ase o this allemraing aterialist system, a system ased on general determinism. Few modia tons are made oer the enturies Carra, writing at the en d o the eighteenth 29

ASTO BAHAD

T FOMATO OF T STF MD

century takes up te deas of Fater Krcer wo a undred and y y preousy ad cauated n accordance wt te se of te panets n o soar system wat te egt of ter nabtants soud be We Car a  crtca of Fater rcer e ratonases te same ypotess n s o way prodng a rter exampe of ontespot ratonasaton of man  nonsense 'for te nabtants ofte most dense of ceesta bodes   e say  wat we ca bood w be a tck back qud crcuatng sowy n t areres For te nabtants of te east dense ceesta body t w be a  subte bue ud crcua tng ke re n ter ens   Ts s foowed by man many pages were statements eery bt as darng can be found Hence  te sense of wonderment tat ery ceary sows te aue accorde to  untary concepton of te unerse een toug tat dentty s brougt abo smpy by te quanttate concept of deni Tus Carra excams W ast objects for our medtaton are we not gen by te puraty of words  we but consder ts n a ts respects! T e greater or esser densty of  ceesta bodes estabses an mmense can of aretes n te naure o  bengs nabtng tem te derence n ter reoutons tes us of an  mense can n te duraton of tose bengs Scentc readers w n o doubt accuse ts exampe of beng grosy and batanty rdcuous In our defence oweer we sa respond wt  nformaton tat we ae used ts quotaton as a test We asked a numbr  educated peope to reect on tese words and tere was no reacton not t gmmer of a sme on ter passe worred faces. Tey a recogns one of te tees of posopca tougt ere eerytng n eart d eaen ods togeter te same aw goes bot umanknd and tng We ae aso set ts text as an essay topc and neer once as tere been an attempt to reduce te ndamenta error Yet tere as to be an agreement to reduce te scope of determns  we ws to pass from te posopca to te scentc mnd It as to  armed tat n scentc cuture not evething i poibe and tat o wat as been sown as a possb ty can be regarded as possbe n scent · cuture. Ts means resstng courageousy and sometmes at some rsk  mnd tat knows mmedatey and drecty tat w constanty escew proo for presumpton te pausbe for te possbe s ges us wat may be one of te features tat best dstngus t scentc from te posopca mnd we are referrng to te rght to n gect. Te scentc mnd foruates ceary and dstncty te rgt to n gect tat wc s neggbe and te posopca mnd treessy reses t tat rgt. e posopca mnd ten accuses te scentc mnd of pro ceedng n a cous crce retortng tat wat seems neggbe s n f t

at s negected. We can oweer proe te poste and acte caracter of  e prncpe of neggbty We ae ony to state ts pr ncpe n a nonquanttate form n order t proe t to be poste s s precsey wy we aue Ostwads remark to e effect tat wateer te penomenon under consderaton tere s a ays a ery arge number of crcumstances tat ae no measurabe nu ence on t 10 Te coour of a projecte does not ater ts bastc propetes t ay be of nterest to see o w exacty te scentc mnd reduces useess rcumstances. We know of Symmers teory of wo uds but wat we peraps do not know s tat t coud be sad to ae rst ben te teory of  wo stockngs Ts s ow Prestey descrbes S ymmers dscoery of s caton as an eectrcan

22 0

22 

Th gelema ha for ome me oberve hat upo putig o h ockig  a eveg hey mae a cacklig o appg oe a hat, i the ark he cou perceve them o emit park of e. He ha o oub bu that thi proceee from the pcipe of electrcy a ae a great umber of obervatio to eerme o what circumace hoe tog elecrical appearace epee he fou , a egh hat t wa he combato of whte a black ha prouce he elecrciy a tha he appearace were toge whe he wore a whe a back ik ockg upo the ame leg .

We te cemca nature of te dye can doubtess come n  ere sc entc experment woud n fact ook at cemca nature n ts efforts to re uce a dfference n acton on te par of neggbe crcumstances suc as ooraton Ts reducton was not easy but ts dfcuty does sere to draw ore attenton to te need to reduce te nteractng properes of penomena Te w to negect s especay acte n contemporary tecnoogy. A pece of apparatus can ndeed be descrbed negatey f we may be aowed te expresson as we  as pos tey It  s dened n terms of te perurbatons t guards aganst te tecnque soatng t te assurance t ges tat ceary ened nuences can be negected n sot n terms of te fact tat t com prses a coed yte. Tere s a woe compex of seds casng and mobsers tat fences n te penomenon A ts aebed negatii  at a pece of apparatus s n mode pyscs runs counter to te soppy rmatons of te possbty of some undetermned penomenoogca n teracton e prncpe of neggbty s qute obousy ndamenta to der enta cacu us were t reay s a poen necessty Te crt csms of a rater

ASTO BAEARD

TE OMATION O T IETIIC MIND

perap elp u overcome preentday retance to atomc objecvty W a amper conemporary centc tougt, f not for t creator en at le as for toe carged wt teac ng ,  attacment o everyday ntuons an reference to te ordnay eperence ta belong to our ode ofmagnitd Te ony tng o be done en  to break wt abt. Te centc mn mut combne eblty and rgour It mu reve all t contructon we  approace new doman and mu not mpoe te law of our famlar o der of magntude on everytng To quote Recenbac, It mut not be fo gotten a n fact almot every new objecve doman at  dcovered n pyc lead to te nroducton of new law   Nevertele,  oblga ton  gradually becomng eaer becaue c enc tougt a eperence many revoluton over te lat undred year. Tng were very dfferen  oug wen te rt racture occurred. Abandonng commonene know edge  a dcul acrc to make. We ougt not to be urpred at e ngenuou repone to te rt decrpton of an uknown world

V It can ealy be own moreover tat e matemataton of eper ence  no elped bu ndered by famlar mage. Tee vague, crude m age preent a pcure on woe lne geomety can ave no od. Tu e refracon of lgt mmedately nd  maeral mage wc wll put a top to tougt for a very long tme by probtng matematcal demands An anonymou autor wrtng n 768 provde t rapd ntuton  If you ammer a rater long nal nto plater or tone, t pece of ron wll nearly away bend 5 T  al a noncenc mnd need n order o under tand cenc eperence Wen I taug pycs n junor clae at ec ondarycool level, I oen ad occaon o note tat t materal mage ate lazy mnd quckly and datrouly And even wen prece proof s  brougt n, people go back o te rt mage. Tu, Faer Catel  crtcal of Newon' clear work and eek to prove te facttou nature of te concept of reangblty ued by Newton to eplan te reacton of ray troug  prm. Cael ten nvoke famlar mage, among tem tat of bendng  bundle of rod. Indvdually, e ay, eac of e rod a te ame plabl y' owever puttng tem togeter n a bundle make for derence and te od on te oude o te bundle wll bend le . Te ame tng appen wen a bundle of ray  refracted . .  It  alo very rkng tat wen double refracon wa dcovered, te eraordnary ray wa n everal work al lowed to oat lawlely bede te ordnary ray tat wa clearly degnated by e law of ne We read for eample n te arcle on  Iceland par n te

224

l 

nyopdie tat O f tese wo ray, one follow te ordnary law; te ne o te angle of ncdence of te ar n te par   n te rato of 5 to 3 to te ne o f te angle of refracton A for te oter ray, t break n accordance wt a partcular law Indetermnaton peacelly coests terefore wt enc determnaton. Tere are ometme even vaguer mage tat atsfy te precentc nd , o muc o tat te queto n ares as to weter we ougt not refer to a ea need fo ageness wc reult n even te knowledge of quantty comng rater woolly. Tu, Haroeker makes te followng comparson n order to eplan reacton Notng appen to a ray of Lgt oter tan wa we could ee appenng to a man wo, avng paed troug a crowd of cldren, would on leavng t meet oblquely wt a crowd of trong and gorou men, for auredly t man would be tued om  pat a e paed oblquely from te r crowd to te net' Tere ten follow an planaton, wt an accompanyng dagram, tat clam to ow te fa on of a man wo  elbowng  way forward T  no accdental para do uc a toe ometme parked o by te Angloaon eloquence of ome profeor It  ndamental n fact to te eplanaton Te real to gve dcurve matematcal form, were varou ap promaton would be put nto a ere,  to te benet of an oeafom of a aw epreed n a vague matematc tat ate te cant need for rgour of mnd lackng n clarty In 1787 Delara, a doctor of te orbonne, wrte a long book wt te ttle hsiqe noee fomant n ops de do ine et somise a a dmonstation igoese d a You would, a t appen, look n van for any gn of an equaton ere And aer enjoyng a enury of ucce, Newton' ystem  crtcsed ere and concluvely re uted on everal pont, but wtout any eamnaton of t varou mat matcal apect On te contrary, te autor a fat n general form uc a e followng: Every ma tat occupe te centre of one of toe area of te unvere called a sstem  but a compound of organc tep tat dou le back on temelve and form all knd of nteractng movements. As  ee nteal tep double back on temelve, tey are ubject to ncrease n velocty tat come from accelerang faculte'. eeng impeision iti ise peision n ts way eems to u very typcal. Te autor constantly refer to a natural geometry, wtn everyone' reac , tu mantanng tat oug tere may not be a royal road to matematcal knowledge, ten tere  a leat an open road, a roue tat anyone can take It  very rkng tat a mecanc' tat rese te caractertc of umber alway end by decrbng te detal of mecancal penomena us ng adjectve For eample, te Abb Ponce let wrtes tat Tere ae as many 225

ASON AHAR

TH ORMAON O H SNT MND

kinds of moement as thee an be modiations to moement itself he e is moement that is saight oblique iula entipetal o entigal o a moement of osillation of ibation of eleti shok of etigo et. . he Abb Pluhe s itiques show the same need fo agueness and the same seah fo diet qualies In his iew Newtons law of gaitation whih is the inease o deease of attatie powes in inese atio to the squae of distane    is the pogess of all that is dispesed aound us t is the pogess of smells .  he question aises as to how suh an aommodatin geneal ision an be satised b an increae in powe in aodane with the sphee of atiit he same disdain fo mathematis inspies Maat Ae length it ism of Newtons optis he wites as follows Here we see in their tue light the abuse of science and the variety of mathematica speculation For where have so many ingenious experiments detailed observations leed cacuations and deep researches ed other than to an erroneous theory that a simple fact can irremediably overtu  And why have so many ingenious eorts so many odd formulas so many outrageous hypotheses and so much wonderment been so profusey expended other than to make very cl ear the uandary in which the Author nds himse

eaing himself out with idiulous tions. On the othe hand it is this ame diult that in a tpiall ambialent wa attats stong minds astl just b taking the theme of relatie eaine we an show objetie nowledge to hae undegone an inesion as it passed om the pesien  to the sienti ea It is not in fat unusual to see phsis being egaded in the eighteenth entu as easie than elementa geomet Castel wites in the foewod to is phsis that Physics is in itsef simple natura and easy by this I mean easy to understand We know its terms and we know its objects We naturay observe and experience most things light heat cod wind air water re weight easticity duration etc Every gance is an observation of nature every operation of our senses and ou hands is an experiment Evey one of us is something ofa Physicist more or ess according to how attentive and how capable of natua reasoning our minds are Geomet on the other hand is vey abstact and mysterious  t object a t way and even in its terms

he theme ofthe eaine o dcul o fstudies is in fat muh moe impoant than is thought And this moe patiulal is not a seon da ha ateisti On the onta om the pshologial iewpoint adopted hee the dcul of a thought is a pima haateisti. It is this dcul that is expessed in e eal phsiolo gial oppession an that gies sienti u tue its aetiit. It leads Maat in his gentle peiod when he pofesses to be sensitie and oueous to ause Newton of hasing illusions and o

 hae seeal times set this text as an essa topi fo stdents of phi losoph without saing who the autho was. he mostl ommented on it n glowing tems seeing it as a ne expession of pagmati aguments his outdated text whih the pesienti mind pemeates though and though was soon ed into an atie aal theme b philosophial minds intoxi ated with st intuitions and hostile to all abstation. It i s indeed in elation to essential simpliit that Fathe Castel judges and ondemns Newtonian siene e notes that Newton has ineted the ode o pedagogial diulties in the mathematial and phsial sienes sine ou hae to know integal alulus if ou ae to undestand the moe ment of the stas and the phenomena of light e sees this inesion as an anomal to be eied. is long book is witten in ode to put phsis bak in what he beliees to be its good and ightl plae that is to sa in its eas mmediate aspet Fistl fom the expeimental point of iew simpliit must be main ained Supisingl enough thee wee man phsiists who did not su eed in doing Newton expeiment on the dispesion of light b a pism What a lot of ompliations the would sa You need pisms and thats e easiest thing You need a amea obsua You need long ooms and who aong pofessional sientists has these? You need this and ou need that and ou also need paaphealia of a thousand something o othes. And then

226

227

Gien the pshoanaltial standpoint we ae takng hee we need to ask ouseles whethe the quanda in whih Newton is aused of nding himself does not poe the eades quanda when faed with the mah ematial diulties of Newtons wok. ostilit to mathematis is a bad sign when it goes hand in hand with the lim to la diet hold on sienti phenomena. Maat goes as fa as to wite thatNewton  hased illusions made a omane of phsis and woe himself out with idiulous tions an alwas with nate befoe his ees.

V

THE FORMATO OF THE SCEFC M D

GASTO BACHEARD

cal attractin an repulsin in ne general view Frm this single eample in which the activity f imaginatin an the activity f reasn are cmpare we can sense the nee fr the algebraic eplanatin the inirect iscursive eplanatin therefre f the gemei cal frms that intuitin ns much t beguiling. Mrever the uncnscius valrisatin f simple gemetrical frms cul quite easily be seen in bth histry an teaching. hus as lng as yu restrict yurself t general statements f Keplers laws yu can be pretty sure f being misunerst his is because fr the prescientic min the ellipses escribe by the planets are thught in terms f the circle which remains the pure frm the natral valrise frm Fr the prescientic min the ellipse is a balymae circle a attene circle r as ne eighteenth century writer puts it in a phrase that maes the valrisatin very clear the ellipse is a circle that is regaining it eat. Fr this in f intuitin the ellipse is alreay a perturbatin an is the result f a real accident. his cn ceptin is especially clear in Niclas Harseers system In a b entitle njcture pique publishe in 1706 Hartseer lins the ellipticity f the terresrial rbit t terretria upheavals similar t the eahquae f   September 1692 hese earhquaes cause settling an cmpressin increas ing the earhs ensity the earth then twars the sun since it has be cme heavier; as it escens it lses sme f its velcity ubtless because f its incrprati n int an inner vrte (?) .2 It then remains statinary fr a mment an aerwars reascens t the place frm which it ha stare withut it being pssible t see frm Haseers lng epsitin hw an

hy the earh retus t its rst place. Anyway since the cataclysm brught a t a cming tgether fllwe by a istancing we nw have w ier nt raiuses: in Harseers view this suces t eplain the ellipticity f he rbit. In any case Harseer es nt feel the nee fr prf here. He egars ellipticity as being initially an accident. He will therefre irect his greatest eneavurs t ning the prf f uc accident. He es nt l ar fr the prfs he nees stuying the cmpleity f gelgical strata. hus withut maing any transitin he ges n t escribe the ierent layers f earth encuntere uring the sining f a well 23 2 feet eep ging rm clay t san san t clay an then again frm clay t san . . . All these aterial cntraictins cul nly have been cause by accients. hese aterial accients gave rise t astrnmical accients hat is illmae in the heavens is the result f what is illmae n earth hese primary images f naive tplgy are very frequently fun hey are therefre ways f unerstaning t which peple enlessly resrt his cnstant use maes them increasingly clear an eplanatry hence the valrsatin we are inicting. hus fr a nnscientic min everyhing run is a circle hen an intuitive characteristic is given this in f increase value real errs cme t be mae Vltaire fr eample calmly cmes ut with this utrageus statement: A circle that is change int an val neither increases nr ecreases in area.3 He imagines that it is the area a curve enclses that measures the ll reality fthat curve a line that clses n itself es s in rer t enclse a reality maing it a pssessin It is nt impssible t n even mre heavily laen intuitins Fr animist intuitin  an this can be nte fairly frequently  every val is an egg One authr eplains this irratinal iea in pretty clear terms riting in 7 Delairas claims he has fun a synthetic thery f generatin. In his pinin this generatin taes place in accrance with a unifrm principle; aicular circumstances nly bring iversity t the applicatin f that prin iple He cnsequently prpses t stuy the principles f generatin in elatin t the mst cnsierable f rganise beigs where nature evelps n a gran scale the ispsitins it fllws an appears t cnceal frm us in eings that are less cmpun an f smaller vlume. He uneraes t she light n the p rblem f the generatin f animals by means f that f he stars. Only a minimum f gemetry is neee here Des nt the astr nmical ui f a star tae an val eggshape frm? Nw all generatin aes place by means f eggs cuncta ex OVO, 4 that is t say by means f an val. hat is the essence f the prf an the whle prf in fact. A in f animist generalisatin can be seen here in all its puerility in all its striing emetrical ryness. hat is mre es nt a philsphical view that rests

230

23 1

 the pla aes, thei nceasing and deceasing incinatin, and the biqty f the eqats

e cul pruce enless eamples f this in f gemetrical mish mash. his ne eample will suce thugh t shw the seuctive chas  gemerical images that are put frwar as a grup withut any cnstituting principl es being ere in rer t justify these images an  fr a very  g reasn!  withut the transfrmatin being prvie that wul allw  us t pass m ne curve t anther frm ellipse t hyperbla. A sun an healthy mathematical cnceptin such as that achieve in Newtns syste will n the cntrary allw ierent gemetrical instances t be envisage while leaving sme play  a wellene play hwever  fr empirical ap plicatins Newtns system gives a scheme f pssibilities a cherent plu ralism of quantity that permits the conception of orbits which are not just elliptical but also parabolic and hyperbolic. The quantitative conditions for their application are welldened; they form a scheme that can unite eleci

TE OMION OF E SCIENIIC MID

GSO BCELD

on a deep intuition, on an avowed communion with universal li fe, share  same riches and the same resources as Delairass astronomical egg? In an case, geometrical representation makes this absurdity all the more obvious and only a heavily burdened unconscious could produce this kind of animis generalisation If we are to break with all these attractions of simple, complete fos around which so many erroneous interpretations can gather, then the best thing we can do is to make the algebra explicit here For example, the scien tic teaching of planetary motion must not be content to repeat that the plan ets describe ellipses round the sun, which occupies one oftheir two foci; this teaching must use discursive calculation to link the algebraic reality of a traction to the phenomenon of Kepler's motion. It would no doubt be easie ust to teach the result. Yet teaching the results of science is never teaching of a truly scientic kind. If we do not explain the mental route leading to t result then we can be sure that pupils will combine the result with their mos familiar images Pupils have indeed to understand' You can remember ony if you understand. But pupils understand in their own way. Since they have not been given any reasons they attach their own personal reasons to the result It would be fairly easy for a physics teacher with some insight in psychology to see how, in relation to the present problem an unexplain intuition matures. Thus aer a few weeks, when the verbal memory of h lesson has been replaced by what Piere Janet has so aptly described as a memory that has been worked on,25 it is quite common to nd that the sun has moved: it no longer occupies focus of the ellipse but is at its centre n the teaching of results, what indeed is the focus of an ellipse? Why speak of one focus rather than the other? If one focus is reed by the sun, why is t other one forsaken? When the correct result is kept in the memory, it is oen thanks to the construction of a whole framework of error The key to th problem is the word  focus , or rather its etymology: i n Latin, means a replace, a domestic hearth, and while the English word has lost touch wih its roots the French word foyer has not, being used to mean a replace, a home, and also a focus in an ellipse. The sun gives heat and light to the entie universe and so is obviously foyer for a French speaker Were a differen word used in French with regard to ellip ses  a neutral mathematical word  then French schoo lchildren preparing for the baccalaureate would have foun it harder to state Keplers laws and would have made far more formal errors The following phrase used by the Comte de La Cpde is very symptomatic here in its geometrical indetermination and also in the need he feels for a pompous adverb: The Sun    gloriously occupies one of the foci (oyers, in French) of the revolutions of our comets and our planets'  However in teach

 g physics, I myself have come across more fallacious rationalisations' than i s simple linguistic one. On one occasion, an intelligent pupil gave me this aswer the sun is at the focus of the terrestrial elipse because if it were at te centre, there would be two summers and two winters in one year. Based as it is on total ignorance of the way the plane of the ecliptic is inuenced by e inclination of the terrestrial axis this objection is psychologically in srctive It shows us an ingenious mind giving weight to an allembracing ageladen representation The mind is seeking to lin all it nows to a etral primary image. All phenomena have to be explained by the main ece of knowledge. Tis is the law of least eor. If physics teachers underook more psychological investigations, they uld be surprised at te variety of individual rationalisations for one and e same item of objective knowledge Al they have to do is wait until a few eeks have passed aer the lesson and they will observe this individualisa ion of objecive culture t seems in fact that too clear an image an image ta is seized upon too easily and too speedily then attracts a whole host of alse reasons as the slow process of individualisation takes place. Teachers ould be well advised to put a stop to subjective p roliferations by frequently reuing to objective topics. This would mean what we will call recurrent ahng a kind of teaching that is singularly neglected in our secondary scools but that we consider indispensable to the strengtening of objective clure. The history of science that inexhaustible mine o f reasoned errors could f course provide us with many examples of this supremacy of the resultant image over the calculation that ought to explain it On the very precise point  the ellipticity of planetary orbits deduced by correctly calculating attrac ion in inverse ratio to the square of the distances we are struck by Fater astel's very realistic objections because they concur with the pedagogical bservations we have been able to make. They are as follows:

232

233

If it had .  . o be decided which of the two had prioity, it would be incontestably more naua o deduce the Raio D2 from Elipiciy han Elipicity om the Raio 1D. lipticity is bee known an this Raio is I  is given to us by the immediae obseation of cees ial moion and is a perceptibe fact and one that is purely physica On the oher hand, he Ratio D is a mate of Geomety of a Geomety hat is deep and sbte, and in a wod Newtonian26

This last remar is intended by Castel to express the strongest criti

TE ORTO O E SCTC 

Rpes le wo wod ask someoe o beak o te gass tip ad te ejo  ir eatio to te amess eplosio. 12 Baeads ootote osep Betad Hitoir d I 'Adi d Sin  13 es Mieet, L 'nt Pais 1 5  1 Baelad's ootote: Has Reieba L Phioophi  intqu 1 6 1 5 Baelad s ootote Aoymos Ei d Phyiqu nor d ttr P 16 16 Baelads ootote Abb Ple Hitoir du Ci ew ed Pais 1 1 Baelad's ootote ea-Pa Maa Moir diqu ou nouv  douvrt ur  uir rtiv ux point  pu iportnt d I optiqu Pai 1   Baelad's eeee at te begiig o setio VII to Maat's  gete p iod' is a emde o Maats vioet ole as a leade i te 1 9 Revoltio 1  Baelads ootote: Rev Fae Lois Caste L Vri yt d Phyiq  gnr d Nwton xpo t ny v ui d Drt   port du o d Phyiin Pais: 13 19 Baeads ootote: Rev Fate Lois Castel L 'Optiqu d ouur Pa 1 0. 20 e Fe wod ptr sed ee meas bot spetm ad  spee'  e adjeive speta is appopiate to bot seses ad as bee  ose o is eao 21 See ote 1  22 e estio ma ee is Baeads 23 Ba eads ootoe: Voltaie Ouvr opt vo 1 Pais 12 2  Eveytig om a egg' ie  a lie omes om a egg 25 Baelad dissses aets oeptio o te wo o memo i Th Di oDurtion, Capte 2 wee e daws etesivey o Piee aet's L voution d  oir t d  notion du tp Pais: Caie 1 92 26 See oe 1

 36

hater wele Scietific objectivity ad sychoa a ysi s

  he oregoig chpers we hve wheever possible icluded brie emes idicig how i our view he scieic mid overcomes he iere episemologicl obscles d cosiues isel s recied errors. owever hese scered semes re doubless r om providig  com ee heor o he objecive ide. Ad  se o rhs h hve bee wo b deeig dispre errors m o seem o oer he kid o ver smooh d homogeeous domi o rh h gives scieiss he o o possessig omehig gible d sure. Scieiss re i c icresigl less eger or hese llembrcig jos. he hve oe bee sid o be becomig more d more specilised Philosophers hose speciliss i geerliies hve pu hemselves orwrd o mke sheses. he c is hough h scieiss ome o wish or d o seek shesis becuse o heir specili he c o regrd s objecive   hough h he hemseves hve o objecied oseque someoe coceed wih pscholog rher h wih p hiloso ph will i our view lws hve o come bck o he sdpoi h hs bee ours i his book pschologicll spekg here is o rh uless  error hs bee recied A pscholog o he objecive iude is  hisor o our ow persol errors. B w o coclusio however we wish o emp o brig ogeher he geerl elemes o  heor o he kowledge o objecs. We shll oce gi ope or discussio wih  po lemic.  our opi o he ollowig posule mus be cceped i episemolog he objec o be desiged s  iedie  objecive' ; i oher words moveme owrds  objec is o iiil objecive  mus hereore be cceped h here is  ver rel brek bewee sesor kowledge d scieic kowl edge. deed we beieve h i our criiques here we hve show h he

GSTON BHELRD

THE FORMTION O THE SIENT MD

oal tedeies of sesory kowedge with all their immediate pragma tism ad reaism oly lead to a false star ad to a wrog diretio ei  take I partiular immediate adheree to a orete ojet whih is hed like a possessio ad used ike a value ivoves setiet eigs too great it is inwad satisaction, ot ationa evidence As Baldwis admiraly dee phrase puts it: It is stimuation ad ot respose that is the otrollig fato stimula i the ostrutio of ojets of sese  Ideed it is i the fo of stimula tion that the st objectivit otiues to e uderstood eve y the sated thoroughly gratied eig who elieves the time for thikig freey is at had ad eve whe that fo is a apparetly geeral oe his eed to fee or sese ojets this appetite for ojets ad this ideteiate uriosit i o way orrespod to a sieti state of mid Just as a ladsape is alled a romati emotioal state  a ier state ofmid ofmid ad spirit  so i the same way a piee of god a e aled a misers emotioal or ier state ad li a estati oe he you try to put a presieti mid o the spot  raisig ojetios to its initia realism ad its laim to lay hold of its oject straightaway it wil always revea the psyhology of that stimuation whi is the truy oviig vaue without ever omig systematially to the poi where there is the psyhology of ojetive otrol. I fat as Baldwi see this ool is iitially the result of esistance Geeraly speakig otrol  uderstood as the hekig imitig (ad) regulatio of the ostrutive proesses . 2 It is hard to d a equivaet Freh word word for for the lish o ept of checing ut it a e usely liked to a similar soudig word i Freh chec chec meas failure ot hekig so how a we say the are liked? Failure is i fat a prerequisite of the hekig of stimulatio Were there o failure stimulatio would e pue vaue It would e thrili ad itoiatig ad therefore a huge sujetive sujetive sues s whih woud make it the most uretiale of ojetive errors hus those who have the im pressio that they neve make mistakes are i our view always mistake

root of ou ' n is not at the root stimula tion th at stimulatio quitee sure that If we are a re to be quit than echoes, then rather than ontrol efoms rather objectivee ontrol ion and that that objectiv bjectication objecticat ed of going goi ng in a acc used o f being accus ght in. At At the the risk of brought social soci al contol has to be brou

iious ire we propose that ojetivity e ased o the ehaviour of other eople uttig it aother way so as to make our paradoial u of thought audatly audatly lear we wish to hoose other peoples eyes  aways the eyes of others  to se e the fon fon  the well ad truly astrat astrat fon fon  of the the ojetive heomeo tell me what you see ad ll tell you what it is Oly y this ather iruitous ad apparetly osesial route a we e sure of havig totally disregarded our rst pereptios We are doutess wel aware of all e shal e losig At oe go the oour goes out of the word our food is deodorised ad all our atural psyhi momeum is roke reversed mis uderstood ad despodet despodet We so eeded to e whole ad omplete omplete i our sio of the word Yet Yet it i s preisely this eed that must e overome So ets get goig It is ot i the ll light of day ut rather where shadows egi that a eam of light dirat ad tels us its seret Moreover it mus t e oted that every theory of oj oj etivity always omes to plae the kowledge of ojets ojets uder other peop les otr ol. s uay though e wait util a solitary mids ojetive ostrutio ha ee ompleted efore judgig it i its al aspet We therefore leave the solitary mid to et o with its work without keepig ay hek o either the ohesio of its aterials or the oheree o f its proposals. We are suggestig that there should o the orary e a preimiary dout aetig at oe ad the same time fats ad their oetios eperimet ad logi If our thesis seems ari ia ad poitless it is eause peope do ot realise that mode siee is orkig with eperimetal materials ad logia frameworks that have log ee soialised ad that are osequetly already otrolled Our itetio though is to deteie the iitial oditios of ojetive owledge ad we must therefore study the mid at that momet whe of itself soitary ad faig ature i all its vastess it laims to e desigatig is own ojet his rst desigatio has we eli eve ee proved iorret iorret whe i a previ ous hapter we looked at the egiigs of eletrial siee. We eed oly oserve youg eperimeters too as they sive without ay hepig had to ake a eperimet preise ad we shall reogise that the rst exacting eperimet eperimet is the oe that  goes al wrog  A pecise measuement is pe aed measuement he order of ireasig preisio is a order of ireas g istrmetaliatio ad therefore of ireasig so ialisatio  adry said tat It is a easy matter to move a ojet lyig o a tale y a etimetre; ovig it y a millimetre requires the ompe iterplay of atagoist mus e s ad ad is muh more tirig I fat this ast deliate measuremet requires e checking of stimulatio ad is wo oly aer failed attempts at it i the isursive ursive ojetivity whose priiples we are tryig to eluidate here How eer movig a ojet lyig o a tale y a millimetre is ot yet a sieti

238

239

rather to thusiasm has been rather of enthusiasm rstt rush ofen obj ected that this rs t will be obj eim are in fact fact eim hings out are made when when trying hings that errors errors made ced and that quicky quicky redu reduced n seen as rest restn fore be seen could there therefore ledge could tic know knowledge our Scien Sc ientic behaviour nated by behavi cce We do not acce coherent. We made cohe behaviourr has made dge that that behaviou knowledge sensory knowle on sensory impurity ha origina l impurity ulation's 's original stimulation iation ho however, for the stim conciliation kind of concil this this kind  om the the ob checking checkin g r sor of o f anothe anoth e ands s r eprimand eprim ed by n amend amen d not bee been wlede sory no nowled obects. Sen Sensory the rst obects. ttached to the values attached ec t There There are still values j ect

remais a fauty ompromise.

I 

GO BHD

H FOMON OF H SCNF MIND

ogeter let us break wt te prde of general certantes wt te cupdty of partcular certantes et us prepare ourseles and eac oter fo fo te ntellectual ascetcsm tat puts an end to al ntons tat slows down

ey prelude and defends defends tself aganst agan st ntellectual presentments And let s n our t n our woleearted deoton to te ntellectual lfe utter ese words: you error are not an el Enrques expressed ts ery well en e wrote tat 'If we reduce error to te dstracton of a tred mnd we bookkeepers totng up gures er e s a muc re only tnkng  n terms of bookkeepers ntellectal work. 5 der eld to be explored wen we are dealng wt rea ntellectal error to error error tat s bot normal and usel s s s wen we get to poste error nd wt a teory of normal error as our gude we lea to dstngus be wc reasons can qut e properly be  een wat Erques calls 'te faults for wc sugt and tose tat are not really errors but rater gratutous armatons made wtout any effor of tougt by carlatans wo rely on gettng lucky beaks for quck guesswork understandng as notng at al to do wt te tter e sequence of common noma eors must terefore be arranged ong a ne o f obe obectty ctty e ll mpor ofa psycoanaly ss of knowledge ould ten be felt f we could ust extend ts psycoanalyss a lte rer. We cannot realy perfor perform m ts prelmnary catarss on our own and t s eery bt as dcut to begn ts process as t s to psycoanalyse psycoanalyse onesel We ae been able to determne only tree or four mor sources of error for for becte becte nowledge We ae seen te daectc of te real and te general  ae ecoes n te psycoanalytcal temes of aarce and prde. It s not enoug toug to cut te mnd free from tese two perilous places It as to be led to ner and ner abstractons by drng out more and more falla cous faults s senste subtle teacng woud requre complex scentc ocetes scentc socetes n wc logcal endeaours are accompaned by psycologcal ones ear progress as n fact been made ere ode socety professes professes in ts admnstrators d eclaratons at least least  te educatonal alue of scence and t as deeloped qualtes of obecty to a far greater extent tan sc ence could do n perods wen fewer people ad any scoong Boeraae ted tat te reason for cemstry beng so long ncorrect n ts ery prnc es lay n te fact tat t was long a soltay knd of culture s obseraton was made as e began wt muc dculty s treatse on cemstry He egarded cemstry as a dcult scence to teac. ontrary to wat mgt be tougt te chemca object, substanta as t s s not easly desgnated n te early days of scence. On te oter and oweer as scence becomes ore socal tat s to say easer to teac t becomes better at conquerng ts bjecte bases. We must not exaggerate exaggerate toug te alue of formal formal educaton n fact as Von onako and ourgue obsere relatonsps wt te peer group are ore formate formate for scoolc ldren tan ter ter relatonsps wt older peop le

24 0

4 1

operaton. Scentc operatons start at te next decmal pont o moe   object object by a tent of a mlmetre you need a pece of apparats apparats and tere o o a body of professonals wo can make t. f you nally get to te next de mal ponts amng for example to nd te wdt of an nterference n and determne by closely related measurements te waelengt of a p p tcular type o f radaton you ten need not just apparats and bodes of    ratusmakers but also a teory and terefore a body of scentsts an Ac emy of Scence n fact A measurng nstrument always ends up as a teo te mcroscope as to be understood as extendng te mnd rater tan e w eye] us dscurse and socal precson saters te nadequaces of w s nute and personal e more delcate te measurement te more n  rect t s Scence done n solde s qualtate Socalsed scence s quan tate Wen te dualty of mnd and unerse s examned n terms o  attempt to acqure personal knowledge t emerges as te dualty of an ll prepared penomenon and an unrected sensaton. Wen te same n mental mental dualty s examned n terms of an an attempt to acqure sce ntc knowl edge t emerges as te dualty of apparatus and teory a dualty tat s no longer oppostonal but recprocal

 We sall come back to te process of dscurse rectcaton tat seem to us te ndamental process of obecte knowledge Before dong so we ws to draw attenton to some of te socal aspects noled n teacng he objecte attude tat caracterses mode scence Snce tere s no objec te process wtout conscousness of a rst nward eor we ae to beg our lessons n obectty wt a real confesson of our ntellecual sns e us terefore terefore confess our fools ways so tat our broters and ssters can see ter own folles n ours and let us ask tem to make te same confesson and render us te same serce et us nterpret n terms of ntelectualy te followng lnes commented upon by psycoanayss Selten habt I ih verstanden Setn auh verstand ih uh N wen wi in Kot us anden So verstanden wi uns eih

i

GASTON BACELAD

TE OMATON O TE SCIETFC MND

the psychological healthiess of mode sciece as compared with the sci ece of the eighteeth cetry is that there is ow a steady decrease i the mber of thigs that are misundesood. The best proof that this progressive pedagogy correspods to the psy chological reality of adolescets is to be fod i the theory of ilaealplay briey otlied by Vo Moakow ad Morge as follows

ad classmates are more importat tha teachers Teachers provide ephem eral, haphazard kowledge, especially i the icoheret mltiplicity of sec odaryschool teachig, kowledge which also bears the peicios stamp of athorit athority. y. O  the cotrary, cotrary, or schoolmates implat idestrctible isticts i s We oght therefore to take a grop of ppils ad ecorage them to wards cosciosess of a grop reaso I other words, we shold help them acqire the istict for social objectivity, for this is a istict that is der estimated ad i whose place we prefer to develop the opposite istict of oiginali, failig to see the cotrived ad articial character of the origial ity we lea abot from or literary stdies. To pt it aother way, if objec tive sciece is to be really edcatioal, the the way it is taght mst be socially active. Normal edcatioal practice makes a big mistake whe it establishes a iexible relatioship betwee teacher ad ppil I or view the dametal priciple of the pedago of the objective attitde is this whoeve is augh mus each. Ay teachig that is received ad ot the passed o to others will form mids devoid of ay dyamism ad selfcriti cism. I sciece sbjects especially, this kid of teachig makes kowledge xed ad dogmatic, whereas this very kowledge oght to be a spr to r ther progress ad ivetio Most imortat of all it fails to provide the psychological experiece of hma error I ca imagie oly oe admissible se for the school tests by which ppils are raked ad that is as a meas of choosig istrctors istrctors who wold pass o a whole rage of lessos, gradally decreasig i rigor The ppil who comes top wold be rewarded by the pleasre of teachig the secod to top, who wold the teach the ppil i third place, ad so it wold cotie til the errors really did become too sizeable. The tail ed of the class is ot, we may add, withot its seless for psychologists, for it exemplies the oscietic species, the sbjectivist species, whose immtabiliy is highly istrctive. The rather ihmae way i which the dce is sed i may a mathematics class ca be forgive if we remember that those who are objectively i the wrog pt themselves sb jectively i the right. Members of the cltred middle classes thik it rather smart to boast of their total igorace where mathematics is coceed Peo ple will really wallow i their failre, oce that failre is scietly plai The existece of a grop that is imme to scietic kowledge ecorages s i ay case to psychoaalyse ratioal covictios It is by o meas eogh for people to be right they have to be right agains someoe else If this social dimesio is lackig i the exercise of ratioal covictio, the or sese of beig profodly i the right is ot far om beig a feelig of re setmet; ay covictio that is ot pt to the test by or eorts to teach it to someoe else will act i or sol like a reqited love deed, what proves

The teachig of experimetal ad mathematical sbjects wold gai by lllig this dametal coditio of play Ifwe have allowed orselves to describe, thogh briey, this topia of the schoolroom, it is becase it seems to offer s, relatively speakig, a prac tical ad tagible way of measrig the psychological dality of ratioal ad empirical atitdes We believe i fact that there is always a iterplay of philosophical aces aces i  ay real, livig teachig he eaching we eceive is psychologica lly lly speaking speaking a kind oempiicism he eachin e aching g we give is psy hologically speaking a kind o/aionalism. Whe I liste to yo, I am all ears. Whe I talk to yo, I am all mid. Eve if we we are both sayig the same thig, what yo say is always somewhat irratioal; what I say i s always some what ratioal Yo are always slightly i the wrog ad I am always slightly i the right. What is beig taght taght is of little importace importace It i s the psychologi cal aiude, composed of resistace ad icomprehesio o the oe had ad of implse ad athority o the other, that comes to be the decisive fac or i a y real teachig, whe books are le behid ad we tak istead istead to other people Now, sice objective kowledge is ever complete ad sice ew o jecs ever cease to provide ew topics of coversatio i the dialoge be twee the mid ad thigs, ay real, livig teachig of sciece will be draw this way ad that by the ebb ad ow of empiricism ad ratioalism. Ideed, the history of scietic kowledge is a edlessly reewed alteatio of empiricism ad ratioalism. This alteatio is more tha jst a fact It is a

4

43

Whe we sdied t ntnt ntn t o orrton rrton we sessed he eed o ake peedee ha is obseved obseved whe hide ae payig. oweve oweve hee is aohe aspe of hide's games ha ough o be bough o igh Chide do o i fa seek o asse hemseves nvby havig payed a beig geeas hey ae he pefey happy o be foo sodies Wee his o he ase, he  io of pay  whih whi h is pepaaio fo fo soia ife  woud be disoed ad, ad, as is i fa he ase wih usoiabe usoiabe hide, ayoe who esiss he moe o ess impii es of he game woud be eimiaed om he sma goup he hide fom.

T ORMATION O T SCINTIIC MIND

neceiy fo ou p ycholoica dynamim Th i i  hy any philoophy ha conne culue o eihe ealim o nominalim e up he mo fomidable obacle o he deelopmen of cienic houh In a plendid eempoiaion a a ecen cone of philoophe Lalande ha ueed ha in ode o ca lih on he ineminable polemic of aionalim and empiicim, a yemaic udy hould be made of he peiod in hich eaon nd ea aifacion and of hoe in hich eaon i ill a eae He hoed ha in he coue of he deelopmen of cience, ynhee uddenly occu ha eem o allo up empiicim, like fo in ance Neon ynhei of mechanic and aonomy, enel of iba ion and lih, and Maell' of opic and eleciciy. A uch ime each� e ae iumphan Ye hen he bihne fade and dakne ahe ome� hin i oin on fo Mecuy i in he heaen, phooelecic phe� nomena famen he ae, and eld canno be quanied. A uch ime doube ae eahed in mile, like choolchilden Wee e o eend he udy Lalande ha ueed e ould be able o deemine in a pecie ay ha eacly i mean by he satisfaction of eaon hen i aionalie a fac We ould hen ee a accuaely a poible and ih epec o pecic inance in he ue domain of pa hioy he paae om he aeoic o he apodeicic and he illuaion of he apodeicic by he aeoic Ye hile hi puely hioical udy ill poide u ih he quai loical meanin of he aifacion of eaon i canno oe u he pychol oy of the feeing ofbeing in the right in all i compleiy and in he am bialence hee ofenlene and auhoiy Ife ae o kno all he emoion inoled in he ue of eaon, e hall hae o lie and each a cienic culue, e hall hae o defend i aain all iony and incompehenion, and hen am ouele ih i and ally foh aain philoophe, aain pycholoi of he inne life aain pamai and ali alike. We hall hen hae ome idea of he ane of alue aociaed ih he aional emo ion hen i i people ho pu u in he ih ih ead o ohe peope e ae he ee ucce beloed of poliician ih hei ill o poe When hoee i i hin ha pu u in he ih ih ead o ohe people e ine he iumphan ucce no of he ill o poe bu of he ill o be aional in all i billiancy der Wie zur Veun Hoee hin can nee pu he mind in he ih once and fo all I i moeoe ey ceain ha hi aional aifacion mu be eneed if i i o poide eal pychic dynamim. Thouh a cuiou effec of habiuaion, he apodeicic no on old acuie a ae fo he aeoic and he rationa fact emain ihou he aiona yem The ony hin people emembe abou he hole of Neon mechanic i ha i a he udy of 24 4

AON ACARD



aacion, heea fo Neon himelf aacion a a meapho no a fac I ha been fooen ha Neonian mechanic aimilaed apodeicically he paraboa of he moemen of pojecile on eah and he eipse of plan eay obi hank o a aional yem We mu heefoe ake ep o peen aional uh om deeneain, fo hey alay end o loe hei apodeiciciy and deeioae ino inellecual habi. Balac aid ha bach elo and old maid pu habi in he place of emoion In eacly he ame ay, eache pu leon in he place of dicoey Teachin abou he di coeie ha hae been made houhou he hioy of cience i an ecel len ay of combain he inellecual loh ha ill loly ie ou ene of menal nene If childen ae o lea o inen, i i deiable ha hey hould be ien he feelin ha hey hemele could hae made dicoe ie We mu alo diup he habi of objecie knolede and make ea on uneasy. Thi i indeed pa of nomal pedaoical pacice I i no ih ou a ouch of adim hich ho u faily clealy he peence of he ill o poe in cience eache. Thi eain ue of eaon opeae in he e ee diecion oo In ou odinay dayodaylie in fac, e loe puin omeone ele in a po The peon ho e iddle poide u ih a e ealin eample hee Oen a iddle ha come ou of he blue i he e ene of he eak aain he on of pupil aain eache When chiden e hei fahe a iddle in all he ambiuou innocence of inellecual aci iy, ae hey no aifyin hei Oedipu comple? And ice ea i i no had o pychoanalye he aiude of he mahemaic eache eiou and aeome a he phin We can alo dice in ceain educaed mind a eal inellecual mao chim. They need ome kind of myey behind he cleae oluion in ci ence They ae elucan o accep he clea elfconciou eidence ihed by aiomaic houh Een hen hey hae conqueed and maeed a mah emaica concep hey i need o poulae ome kind of ealim ha lie beyond hei ap cuhin hem In he phyical cience, hey poulae ealiy ndamenal iaionalim heea in fac hee laboaoy phe nomena ae conceed, hoouhly maeed and mahemaied a hee phe nomena ae hi iaionalim i ju he resut ofa the careessness pepe aed by he epeimene Ye he mind do e no eek he quie enjoymen of knolede ha i compleely cloed in on ielf I doe no hink of peen diculie bu of hoe of omoo i doe no hink of he phenomenon ecuely impioned in he appaau no in ue bu ahe of he phenom enon ha  ee and unamed impue and hadly een named Philoophe u hi unnamed hin ino he unnameable Bunchic ha econied 25

:} TH OION O TH SNIFI ND

'.

GSTON BHD

'\}i

that this dalit, marked as it is b contrar vaorisations, is resent even in the fondations ofarithmeti c, for he has sok en of a scien ce of nmber which is sed either to rove or to imress and dazze, meaning of corse that be fore we dazzle others, we mst rst blind orselves.  Yet these sadistic or masochistic tendencies, which are articlarl aarent in the social ife of science, do not rovide an adeqate descrition of the real attitde of the lone scie ntist; the are no more than the rst obsta cles scientists mst sont in order to acqire comete scientic objec tivit n the resent state of scientic develoment, scientists face the con tining need to renounce their own inteetuai f there is no exlicit re nnciation, no relinqishment of intition, and no abrogation of favorite images, then objective research will soon lose not st its fritlness bt the ver vector of discover, the indctive imets. We mst constantl strive towards desbjectication if we are to live and relive the instant of obectiv it, if we are to remain forever in the naent tate of objectication. he mind that schoanalsis has freed om the wofod slaver of sbject and object can savor the head delight of oscilating between extraversion and introversion An objective discove is at once a sbjective rectication. f the obect teaches me, then it modies me .  ask that the chie f benet the obect brings shod be an intelectal modication. Onc ragmatism has been sccessfll scho analsed,  wish to know for the sake of knowing, never for the sake of uing Conversel too , if throgh m own effors  ha ve been abe to obtain some schoogica modication  which can onl be imagined as a comlication at the mathematical leve  then fotied b this essential modication,  go back to the object,  cal on exeriment and techniqe to il strate and bring abot the modica tion that has alread been broght into being schoogicall. he world wil dobtess oen resist, the world will alwas resist and the efforts of mathematics mst be ever re newed, the mst grow ever more exible and mst be constantl rectied. Bt as the are rectied, so the are eniched. Sddenl, the eorts of math ematics are so sccessl that reai crstallises along the axes rovided b hman thoght and new henomena are rodced nd eed, we can now seak withot an hesitation of the creation of henomena b hmankind. he el ec tron existed before twentiethcenr men and women. Bt before them, the electron did not sing. n the triode valve however, the electron sings his henomenological reaiation occrred at a recise oint when mathemati cal and technical develoment was coming to mari An attemt at a remare realisation wold have been in vain. Had astronom soght to reaie the msic of the sheres, it wold have faied t was bt a meagre dream that gave a meagre science vale. he msic of the electron in an 6

�;':

,"

ateating eld has, on the other hand, roved to be realisable. his dmb being has given s the telehone his same invisible being will give s te vision. hs, hmankind trimhs over the contradictions of immediate nowledge We force contradictor qalities to become consbstantia as soo n as we have eed orselves of the mh of sbstantialisation here is no longer an irrationalism in a sbstance that organic chemistr has made with great care and atention irrationaism cold onl be an imrit. Sch an mrit can moreover be toerated he moment it is tolerated, we see that it s qite owerless and in no wa dangeros. Fnctional seakng, this im rit does not exist Fnctional seaking, a sbstance reaised b mode chemica snthesis is entirel rationa

 t is dobtless tre that jst when science reqires the most farreach ng schological mtations, interests and instincts show themselves to be criosl stabe. Cassical schologists then have an eas victor over or adventros views. With all their bitter wisdom, the remind s that it takes ore than an eqation to change the hman heart and that a few hors of wondos intelectal ecstas are not enogh to redce instincts and give rise o new organic nctions. Desite sch criticism, we steadfastl believe that, n the exclsive form in which some sirits live it, scientic thoght is s choogical formative. As Jlien Pacotte has ointed ot in a enetrating aicle, in biological evoltion, the living beings sdden orientation towards the environment in order to organise it in a wa that is indeendent of its bod is indeed an incomarable event    echniqe is an extension of biol og. Bt now we see abstract, mathematical thoght extending techniqe, and scientic thoght reforming henomenological thoght. Mode science is incr easing a reection on reecti on. o show the revotionar character of this com lexit, we cold look again at a ll the themes of biolo gica ev ol tion and std them siml from the standoint of the relations of the inter na to the exteal. We wold see that, as Bergson has so we ll shown, imme diate and local reexes are gradall comlicated as evotion goes on, be ing extended in sace and ssended in time iving being s rogress in so far as the can link their point ofe consisting of an instant and a centre, to drations and saces that are greater Hman beings are hman becase their objective behavior is neither immediate nor loca. Foresight is a rst form of scientic rediction. Before mode science however, it was a matter of foreseeing something ditant in terms of what was coe at hand and recise sensations in terms of crde ones; obective thoght develoed even so in  7

E FR F H EF M

contact th the od othe sensatons No t does see that the tenteth century has seen the begnnng o scentc thought again sensatons and that e need to constct a theory o the obecte again the obect n the past reecton ressted the rst reex ode scentc thought requres us to resst the rst eecton he ey us o the ban s theeoe caed nto queston Fro no on the bran s no onger unreservedy the approprate nstrent o scentc thought n other ods the bran s the obacle to scentc thought It s an obstace n the sense hat t coodnates our oe ents and appettes e hae to thnk again the bran Ths beng the case the psychoanayss o the scentc nd no takes on ts  eanng ke the eotona past the nteectua past ust be knon as soethng that s ndeed past and oer The nes o nerence ead ng to scentc deas ust be dan statng o the rea pace o orgn the psychc dynas rnnng though the ust be cosey atched a sensoy aues ust be deonetsed Fnay n order o here to be a cea conscousness o phenoenoogca constcton he old mu be ough in erm o he new ths beng the essenta condton o oundng atheat ca physcs as a ratonas Aongsde the so and hestant hstory o hat has been e ust then rte a apd decse hstory o hat ought to hae been Ths noased hstoy s not reay naccuate It s ncoect socay speakng n the rea rse o popua scence hch as e hae tred to sho n the course ot hs book pepetates each and eery eor It s tue by rtue o the ne o genuses n the seet soctatons o obecte tt It s ths decate ne that sketches the rea destny o huan thought graduay sng aboe and oerhangng the ne o  e I e oo ths decate ne e see that nterest n e s suppanted by nterest n the nd And so as to assess value hee e can see uefulne acribed o he mind as ceary apparent a useness that s  nteectuay ey dynac hereas the uefulne acribed o le s partcuary statc hat serves e  obse t hat seres the nd  set t n oton The theoy o inere s thereoe essentay deent n the ea o boogy and n that o the psychoogy o scentc thought Lng the to nteests  nterest n e and nteest n the nd  by a ague knd o pragats eans brngng o oppostes together n an abtrary ay Dstngushng beteen these to oppostes and puttng an end to the nd's sodarty th ta nteests s thereoe hat the psychoa nayss o the scentc nd has to do The anst obstace s a partcua probe here snce n aost eey centy t nsd ousy reappeas n a oe o ess upodate boogca o ony once ths obstace has been educed can e hope o scentc thought to be reay dynac and enenng o eer as douard Le Roy has so quety and pressey sad or ths gen

8

GS BLR

eraI success o scentc thought to be possbe t has to be willed Thee has o be a strong soca  n oder to aod the poygns that Le Roy does not re out as a possbty Indeed he ears a rpture beteen berated sous and sous eghed don by heay burdens he the will of he ind s ey cea n oe oy sous t s obousy not a ocial value. Cares Ander ade ths proound reark n an arce pubshed n 98 Roe as no ore abe than Greece had been to ake scence the bass o ducaton o a'   e ought to take ths reark to heart Ie ere to ook beyond the schoo syabus and see the psychoogca reates e oud undestand that the ay scence s taught needs to be copetey reored e oud ease that ode socetes do not appea to hae ade scence n ntegra pa o genea cuture By ay o excuse t s sad that scnce s dcut and specased Yet the harde soethng s the ore t teaches us he oe specast the scence the greate s ts deand o enta concen taton the geate too ust be the dsnterestedness that nspres t The pn cpe o coninued culure s oeoer at the root o ode scentc cu ue he ode sc entst s a oe apt ecpent than anyone ese o pngs austere adce I you can see you es ok suddeny coapse and then start ork agan  you can sue stgge and de thout copa n you  be a an y son' .12 Ony n the ork o scence can you oe hat you destroy ony hee can you contnue the past by repudatng t and honou your teaches by contadctng the hen that s the case schoong does ndeed go on throughout your hoe e A cutre that s stuck n schoodays s he ey negaton o scentc cuture There s scence ony  schoong s peanent It s ths schoong  and ths schoo  that scence ust ound Soca nteests  then be reesed once and o a socety  be ade or schoo not schoo or socety

NO  celd does o ge e sorce of s qoto 2 celd quoes  Egls ee 3 cherds foooe c  dord e Ro Ree de Maphsqe Apl 9  4 celd does o ge e soue of tese es. I m gel to Professo Mlcolm ede fo e followg slio:

Rae hae o deood me As  ae deood yo O whe we ee boh  h Dd we desa oe aoh isa�!· o mes bo lt d eceme.

 9

H TI  TH SII IND

5 Bahelards ootoe: edergo Erques Signcaio e I 'hisoie  e a pens sienqe Pars: 934) 7 6 Bahelards ooote Cosa  o Moakow ad e Mourgue noci   I 'e e a neoogie e e a psychopahoogie: ingaion e singion  a oncion Pars Ala 928 83. 7 Bahelards oooe Lo Brushg Le Re pyhagoise ans  oi e ies (Pars Herma 937) 6 8 The phrase ter wsdom' (ae sagesse ehoes a wel-kow le  Baudelares poem Le Voyage he ter kowledge ae saoi oeys rg'  9 Bahelards ootoe see Ree e Snhse (Ooer 933 2  0 Bahelards oooe douard Le oy Les Oigines haines e   oion  [ineigence (Pars 323   Baheards ooote e Re e Maphiqe  e Moae (Ap 98 8. 2 Bahelards rather ree erso o les rom Kplgs   has ee traslated here  would seem o e ased o he ollowg les  he orgal poem   you a . " wah he hgs you gae your le to roke . .  ad sart aga    ad eer reahe a word aou your loss    you l e a Ma my so! 

Index

A

B

elard P raham K  8  srato  mode see 3602 2648 64 8385 88     0 2

Bao .5 37 53 64 67-70 79n 99

 2 8   3 0  29  2 3 3   3 4 2 39  2 4  ad se md 43 45 9

56 27 234 39 ey  set md 35 254

  4    5   3 7   8 6 2 23  2 5  2 2 8  eahg see 6 49 6 hemy 7 54 55 84 94 32n  36 43

 44  76 - 78   8 7  8 8  90   9   9396 09n moral alues  576 48 49  8 8  9    9 9 sexualy  88 9  96 susae  0507 25 77 96 tme  57 87 uosous  54-56 6 72 89  95 ld 0-2 32n 69 70 lledy  ad Y 4 .  3 7  5  n   8  ams osale 3 70 75 37 Ch 8 passi 03 204 206 3   248 rhmedes 28 rsotle 64 65 234

0

 43   50  5    66 Balza H de 45 88 45 Baudelare C 95 03 2 250 eomg 8   85   86  93 he ldo ad 7  85   8 6 egeao as mage o 5 7 Belleau  39 40 5n Bergso H 9 4n 5 3n 57 53n

7n 83n 247 Ceaie Eoion 8 3n Ceaie Min 3n Laghe 7n See aso durato hoo abe; elle; tuo Beard C 5 5 Beard de SaPerre -H 9    0  

03 03 24 35 Berholo A 46 68 79n  00 03n

 3 0  3    0 Boerhaae H 77 79 06  5   

 2    7  60  96  4 Boyle  09 23 26 Brushg L  7 34 53 245

50 Buer M 94 09n Buo G-L L  Comtede 75354 63n

GASO BAHE LAD

HE OMAO O HE SEI MID

durato 9  5 7 , 1 6 , 1 66 , 1 84  1 87  2 20 

100, 103n 152n 157, 164, 214, 222

227, 247

C

Bersoa 57 247 See s tme

Carra 46 62n 11 4 1 16, 13 3n 21 9, 220

229 Castel Fater L 0 62n 222, 224, 227



229 233 234,236n catarsis 3, 6, 29, 241 Caalo T 45, 46, 62n 167 Cam bo de Motau 1 14, 133n Caras 2 1,  34n, 42, 98 203, 2 0 Comiers C. 36, 62n 96 comple i scietc cuture 24 1 aao 1 37 o sai te peies' 118 133n, 137, 142 ComteA 157 171n Codorcet A C   Marquis de 43 Cosmopoite te 84, 89n, 107, 146, 189 191 192, 199 Coulomb . -A 3 8, 4 3 1 70 2 1 1 Crosset de 1a eaumere 72, 79n 107 1 6 2 1 7 7, 2 04 Curie M 43 Cuier G 7 6, 1 5 7, 1 5 8 ,  7 1 n , 2 35 n

ls  4 204 empirical kowede as obstace to scietic tout 7, 24 26 28 30

D dAuo G 19, 209n de Bruo 16 160 166, 171n 222 ecates R. 12n 165 e1airas 225 23 1, 232 escartes R , 42, 86, 90 211 229

236n iecic uin The 3, 9, 1 1 , 14 209n 236n derot D. 62n 173, 1 74 178 Dby Sir K 140, 151n 20 ubois 42, 129 u Ctelet Mme. 43, 21 5 217, 235n u Clos 7 1  1 2 3

3944, 52 104, 105 112 117 1 38 See s aorisato empiricism , 7 1 0 24 30, 39, 52 7 66, 68 76 81 92, 100, 12, 130 150,222 243, 244 acte 10, 103 ietie 10 6 69 passe 10 103, 117 pro 1 17 Encycpdie 46, 56 62n 106, 11 2, 11 7 1 2 7, 1 28  1 7 3 1 77  1 78  1 82  1 8 4 2 1 4, 2 1   2 2 nriqes F. 241 250 pistemoloical obstacle 3 5 7 8 C 1 pssi 8, 98, 104 162, 182 186 212237 erm ad seed as 57 microscope as 1 62 See s amistobstacle; empiric kowlede; etymoloy; eperiece prmary; eeralisato uma beis; maes; metapor; atural te; pramatism; reast obstace reerie; sesuaism substatiaist obstacle; uity; useess; erba obstacle epistemoloy 1 3, 4 6, 11 , 15n 27, 28

4 3, 6 , 6 9, 1 04 , 2 2 9, 2 37 error 1, 2, 5 24 27-31 , 52, 78 94 9

1 1 3  1 4 1  2 1 3  2 1 4 , 2 1 7 , 2 20  2 2 3 228 231-234, 237, 238 240242

5

artsoeker N 166, 225, 230 231 ai feeli of 7 8 137, 149, 181,

248 rectcatio of 2 75 211 237

Essi su  cnnissnce ppche 2 13n 23n ude su 1 'uin d 'un pe de physique:  ppgin heique dns es sides 1 3n , 235 n eymoloy as obstace to scietific tout 1 04  1 1 1  1 1 9  1 3 2n , 2 32 eperiece primary as obstace to scetfic tout 7 , 2 9  C 

pssi 81 , 84 89,94, 99 104 105 1 07 1 1 0 1 38 1 44 1 47  1 48 1 5 1  222, 224, 242

F Fabre P-. 126 135n 174 193, 198 199 Fayol .B 96, 97, 103n Frankli B . , 42, 83 84 87, 89n Frese A 12 244 Freud S 3 4 3n, 34 181 Fuss N. 1 6 5  1 6 6 1 7 1 

G Galileo G 223 Gaa . 167 169 170 171n eeralisatio as obstce to scietic tout 8 , 3 0 3 7, C3 pssi, 81 

8 2 8 5 , 8 6 9 1  9 , 9 9, 1 0 1  1 5 4 1  5 , 1  7, 1  9 1 8  2 3 1  2 3 7, 24 1 Geooy 7 7 1 3 8 1 4 1 , 1  1 n  1   1 8 1 1 83 Grard-Varet L 28 32n Glauber  7 1  1 6 0 Goete W 35 36 Goussier 37 62n 94

H aes S. 76, 79n, 214 artma J 109, 130

18 187 ecquet 161 171n 173 174 176 179,

 83 eiseber  1 n elmot  B a 58  33n, 207, 208 istory of scetic tout 27, 28 37,

212, 213 243-24 itccock 57 60, 63n

hbe9 87 125, 1 77 195 228 ad alues 1 27 uma bes 1 113 14n26,3, 60 95 96 99 100, 157, 158, 165 168, 1 7 2 1 8 5 , 2 0 8, 2 48 as creati peomea 39 40 246 247 as mutati species 2 as obstaces to scietic tout 6 9  9 6 99 1 3 0 1 3 7, 1 6 8 1 69 , 1 7 8 862082 12 242 See s aorisatio umboldt F.A 167, 168 171n uyes C 39 166

 imaes ad imaatio 11  1 3n, 32n 43

4 7, 6 0, 7 3  8 3  8 5  9 2 1 1 1  1 1 4 , 1 1 6, 1 2 2 1 26  1 5 1 , 1  7, 1 8 8 1 95 , 2 2 8 246 as obstaces to scietic tout  26 29 C pssi, C4 pssi 1 0 5 1 09  1 6 , 1 7 6 1 7 8, 2 22 , 2 2 4, 2223223 i prescietc tout 8 78 C4 pssi 106 109 146 147 178, 1 80 1 9    9 3  99 , 2 2  2 30 , 2 3  , 23 3 See s metapor stcts 2 5, 2, 29 136 1 38 242 243

53