purely psychological existence which belonged only to the mind, culture, history or society and the study of which was therefore complex, humanistic and subjective. In the same period, the European 'underground' on the other hand, without in any way denying the opposition of mind and the world or the thing and the sign, always looked for a third scientific solution which would have the characteristics of both terms although without being itself either of them, e.g. to human body as between mind and the world or the reading of symptoms (semiology) as between the thing and the sign. The underground of science should also have taken up the study of material culture or instrumentalities as the point ofconjuction of man and the environment in the way that Goethe talked of practical gardening or the technique of dyeing and painting, but I have not yet found that case. The official science saw only two possibilities -as between any two things, homogeneity and heterogeneity: either the two were together and the same or else they were both seperate and different. But for the alternate tradition there are also other possibilities considered, i.e. two things might be seperate but similar or might be different but together. I have shown this mode of thought as underlying Goethe's theory of colour (Fig 3) and I am unable to understand why it should be discarded from our science as non-mathematical, organicist or humanist. If the unstated positivist charge is that the colour magenta, purpur or pure red, through which Goethe reunited the qualitative and the quantitative, is not to be found in the Newton spectrum or the rainbow but only among planta, animals and artists, then Goethe's advocate should plead guilty. Goethe clearly stated that the Rainbow or the Newton spectrum is deficient in pure red and, one may add, because this colour belongs to that part of the world where the light seen through the dark (Fig 2, Eye-1) is put together with the dark seen through light (Fig 2, Eye-2). If this mediation or conjunction does not occur in official physical nature, then life and. culture must be allowed to complete that nature rather than be confined to the dualism of either continuing it or contradicting it. The defence will conclude with the general statement that the function of light in the cosmology of the underground was threefold, and there were perhaps three candidates for it. Lux in the radical Reformation had the same functions as the Logos in the gospel of Saint John, or as the Pneuma or breath of the neo-Platonists. Light represented the mediation of spirit versus matter (gravity) just as the word represented the mediations of thought versus deed or breath the mediation of the inside versus the outside. The three functions of light were the multiplicative (source of magnitude), the communicative (motion or change) and the mediatory (conjuction ofopposites). This Journal of Arts and Ideas 37