Thinking in the Service of Understanding the World 29necessity. Certainly, it is unquestionable that it initially
appears as our own. We know perfectly well that the cor-
responding concepts are not given with the objects. That I
am myself the active one may depend upon an illusion;
nevertheless, that is how immediate observation portrays
the matter. Therefore the question is: what do we gain by
finding the conceptual counterpart to an event?
There is a profound difference, for me, between the
way in which the parts of an event relate to one another
before and after the discovery of the corresponding con-
cepts. Mere observation can follow the parts of a given
event in succession, but their connection remains obscure
until concepts are brought in to help. I see the first billiard
ball move toward the second in a certain direction and
with a certain velocity; I must wait to see what will hap-
pen upon impact and, even then, I can only follow what
happens with my eyes. Let us suppose that, at the moment
of impact, someone conceals from me the area where the
process goes on. As a mere observer, I am then without
knowledge of what happens next. The situation is differ-
ent if, before the process is concealed from me, I discover
the concepts corresponding to the constellation of rela-
tionships. In that case, I can report what happens even if I
can no longer observe it. By itself, a process or object that
is merely observed suggests nothing about its connection
to other processes or objects. The connection only be-
comes evident if observation is linked to thinking.
Insofar as we are conscious of it,observation and
thinking are the two points of departure for all human
spiritual striving. The workings of both common human