Goethes Typus – die konstituierende Idee der Pflanze – steht als unsichtbare Entität bis heute als naturwissenschaftliches Unding da. Aber ihre Implikati- onen für die Genetik, die Bockemühl am Ender der sechziger Jahre sorgfältig phänomenologisch herausgearbeitet hat, werden heute intensiv erforscht. Das Gemeine Greiskraut (Senecio vulgaris) ist eine autogame Pflanze, d.h. eine Mutterpflanze bringt Nachkommen hervor, die phänomenologisch kaum voneinander unterschieden werden können, wenn sie zur selben Zeit und unter denselben Bedingungen ausgesät werden. Nicht unerwartet gibt es morphologisch viele klar unterscheidbare Typen – Selbstbestäubung muss zu solchen Verhältnissen führen. Nach Bockemühl können die Unterschiede verstanden werden, wenn das Gestaltpotential verschiedener Typen im Jahreslauf verfolgt wird. Durch monatliche Aussaaten werden Bildetendenzen sichtbar, die sich zu anderen Zeiten auch bei anderen Typen zeigen. So kann z.B. die Gestalt eines Typs A im April kaum von derjenigen eines anderen Typs B im Juli unterschieden werden. Die Typen halten nach Bockemühl also verschie- dene Bildungstendenzen fest und geben sie an die Nachkommen weiter. Vererbung ist aus dieser Perspektive nicht Ursache für, sondern Folge von Gestaltbildung. Sie ermöglicht nicht Vielfalt, sondern schränkt sie ein. Zu einem ähnlichen Ergebnis, das zeigen die Schriften aus dem Nachlass, ist Goethe auf anderen Wegen ebenfalls gekommen.
N1 -Goethe’s archetype, his idea of the plant remains to this day an invisible entity, and thus a scientific absurdity. But its implications for genetics that Jochen Bockemühl carefully worked out phenomenologically at the end of the 1960s are intensively researched today. Common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) is an autogamous plant, i.e. the parent plant produces offspring that phenomenologically can hardly be distinguished from one another if they are sown at the same time and under the same conditions. But not unexpectedly, morphologically there are many clearly distinguishable types. Such an outcome must arise from self-pollination. According to Bockemühl, the differences can be understood if the for- mative potential of the various types is followed through the course of the seasons. Through monthly sowings, formative tendencies become visible which at other times are also shown by other types. For example, the shape of type A in April can hardly be distinguished from that of type B in July. Bockemühl argued that the types fix various formative tendencies and pass them on to their offspring. From this perspective, inheritance is not the cause of the shapes that arise but rather a result of them. Inheritance does not enable diversity but instead restricts it. As his writings show, Goethe arrived at a similar conclusion, only by other routes.
AB -Goethe’s archetype, his idea of the plant remains to this day an invisible entity, and thus a scientific absurdity. But its implications for genetics that Jochen Bockemühl carefully worked out phenomenologically at the end of the 1960s are intensively researched today. Common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) is an autogamous plant, i.e. the parent plant produces offspring that phenomenologically can hardly be distinguished from one another if they are sown at the same time and under the same conditions. But not unexpectedly, morphologically there are many clearly distinguishable types. Such an outcome must arise from self-pollination. According to Bockemühl, the differences can be understood if the for- mative potential of the various types is followed through the course of the seasons. Through monthly sowings, formative tendencies become visible which at other times are also shown by other types. For example, the shape of type A in April can hardly be distinguished from that of type B in July. Bockemühl argued that the types fix various formative tendencies and pass them on to their offspring. From this perspective, inheritance is not the cause of the shapes that arise but rather a result of them. Inheritance does not enable diversity but instead restricts it. As his writings show, Goethe arrived at a similar conclusion, only by other routes.
ST - Von Senecio zu Epigenetik UR - https://dx.doi.org/10.18756/edn.100.43 Y2 - 2024-11-04 08:44:35 ER -