,life and ,matter              ,recent  
,works by ,sir ,oliver ,lodge           
,,school ,,teaching ,,and ,,school      
,,reform4 ,a ,course of ,four ,lectures 
on ,school  ,curricula and ,methods     
delivered to ,secondary ,teachers and   
,teachers in  ,training at ,birmingham  
during ,february #aije4 ,crown #hvo1    
cloth1 #cs4    ,,williams  ,,norgate1   
,london4      ,,easy ,,mathematics3     
,chiefly ,arithmetic4 ,being a          
,collection of ,hints to  ,teachers1    
,parents1 self-taught ,students1 and    
,adults1 and containing a  ,summary or  
,indication of most things in           
,elementary ,mathematics useful to  be  
known4 ,by ,sir ,oliver ,lodge1         
,f4,r4,s41 ,d4,sc41 ,principal of the   
,university of ,birmingham4 ,crown #hvo4
 #ds4 #f;d4    ,,macmillan  ,,co41      
,limited1 ,london4              ,life   
and ,matter        ,a ,criticism of     
,professor ,haeckel's      ,riddle of   
the ,universe        ,by      ,sir      
,oliver ,lodge        ,the expansion of 

a ,presidential ,address      to the    
,birmingham and ,midland ,institute     
,,second ,,edition         ,london      
,williams  ,norgate      #ad ,henrietta 
,street1 ,covent ,garden        #aije   
,,to      ,,john ,,henry ,,muirhead     
,,and      ,,mary ,,talbot ,,muirhead   
,,the ,,friends ,,of ,,many ,,needing   
,,help      ,,not ,,in ,,philosophy     
,,alone      ,,this ,,volume ,,is       
,,inscribed      ,,in ,,memory ,,of     
,,chandolin ,,and ,,st ,,luc #aijd      
,materialistic monism is nowadays the   
working hypothesis of      every        
scientific explorer in every department1
 whatever other      beliefs or denials 
he may1 more or less explicitly and more
 or      less consistently1 superadd4   
,materialistic monism only becomes      
false when put forward as a complete    
philosophy of the      universe1 because
 it leaves out of sight the conditions  
of      human knowledge1 which the      
special sciences may conveniently       
disregard1 but which a candid philosophy

 cannot ignore4        ,the legitimate  
materialism of the sciences simply means
      temporary and convenient          
abstraction from the cognitive          
conditions under which there are 'facts'
 or 'objects' for us at      all2 it is 
'dogmatic materialism' which is         
metaphysics of the      bad sort4       
,d4 ,g4 ,ritchie4        ,our           
metaphysics is really like many other   
sciences--only on the      threshold of 
genuine knowledge3 ,god knows if it will
 ever get      further4 ,it is not hard 
to see its weakness in much that it     
undertakes4 ,prejudice is often found to
 be the mainstay of its      proofs4    
,for this nothing is to blame but the   
ruling passion of      those who would  
fain extend human knowledge4 ,they are  
anxious      to have a grand philosophy3
 but the desirable thing is1 that it    
should also be a sound one4             
,kant4              ,preface      ,this 
small volume is in form controversial1  
but in substance it has a  more         

ambitious aim3 it is intended to        
formulate1 or perhaps rather to         
reformulate1 a certain doctrine         
concerning the nature of man and the    
interaction between mind and matter4    
,incidentally it attempts to  confute   
two errors which are rather prevalent3--
    #a4  ,the notion that because       
material energy is constant in quantity1
      therefore its transformations and 
transferences--which admittedly         
constitute terrestrial activity--are not
 susceptible      of guidance or        
directive control4    #b4  ,the idea    
that the specific guiding power which we
 call life is      one of the forms of  
material energy1 so that directly it    
relinquishes its connection with matter 
other equivalent forms      of energy   
must arise to replace it4    ,the book  
is specially intended to act as an      
antidote to the speculative  and        
destructive portions of ,professor      
,haeckel's interesting and  widely-read 
work1 but in other respects it may be   

regarded less as a  hostile attack than 
as a supplement--an extension of the    
more scientific  portions of that work  
into higher and more fruitful regions of
 inquiry4            ,,oliver ,,lodge4  
,university of ,birmingham1  ,october   
#aije4              ,contents           
,,chap4                                 
,,page       ,i   ,,monism              
#a      ,,ii   ,,the ,,law ,,of         
,,substance                             
#ad     ,,iii   ,,the ,,development ,,of
 ,,life                                 
#da      ,,iv   ,,memoranda ,,for       
,,would-,,be ,,materialists             
#fj       ,v   ,,religion ,,and         
,,philosophy                            
#ga      ,,vi   ,,mind ,,and ,,matter   
#ajj     ,,vii   ,,professor            
,,haeckel',s ,,conjectural ,,philosophy 
#abe    ,,viii   ,,hypothesis ,,and     
,,analogies ,,concerning ,,life         
#acf      ,,ix   ,,will ,,and ,,guidance
                                        
#aeb       ,x   ,,further ,,speculation 

,,as ,,to ,,the ,,origin ,,and ,,nature 
,,of ,,life    #agi              ,,life 
,,and ,,matter              ,,chapter ,i
        ,,monism      ,in his recent    
,presidential ,address before the       
,british ,association1 at  ,cambridge1  
,mr ,balfour rather emphasised the      
existence and even the  desirability of 
a barrier between ,science and          
,philosophy which recent  advances have 
tended to minimise though never to      
obliterate4 ,he  appeared to hint that  
it is best for scientific men not to    
attempt to  philosophise1 but to        
restrict themselves to their own domain2
 though1  on the other hand1 he did not 
appear to wish similarly to limit       
philosophers1 by recommending that they 
should keep themselves  unacquainted    
with scientific facts1 and ignorant of  
the theories which  weld those facts    
together4 ,indeed1 in his own person he 
is an example  of the opposite          
procedure1 for he himself frequently    
takes pleasure in  overlooking the      

boundary and making a wide survey of the
 position on  its physical side--a thing
 which it is surely very desirable for a
  philosopher to do4    ,but if that    
process be regarded as satisfactory1 it 
is surely equally  permissible for a man
 of science occasionally to look over   
into the  philosophic region1 and survey
 the territory on that side also1 so far
  as his means permit4 ,and if          
philosophers object to this procedure1  
it  must be because they have found by  
experience that men of science who  have
 once transcended or transgressed the   
boundary are apt to lose all  sense of  
reasonable constraint1 and to disport   
themselves as if they had  at length    
escaped into a region free from         
scientific trammels--a region  where    
confident assertions might be freely    
made1 where speculative  hypothesis     
might rank as theory1 and where         
verification was both  unnecessary and  
impossible4    ,the most striking       
instance of a scientific man who on     

entering  philosophic territory has     
exhibited signs of exhilaration and     
emancipation1 is furnished by the case  
of ,professor ,haeckel of ,jena4 ,in  an
 eloquent and popular work1 entitled das
 ,welt-,rthsel1 the  ,world ,problem1 or
 ,the ,riddle of the ,universe1 this    
eminent  biologist has surveyed the     
whole range of existence1 from the      
foundations of physics to the comparison
 of religions1 from the  facts of       
anatomy to the freedom of the will1 from
 the vitality of  cells to the          
attributes of ,god2 treating these      
subjects with wide  though by no means  
superhuman knowledge1 and with          
considerable  critical and literary     
ability4 ,this work1 through the medium 
of a  really excellent translation by   
,mr ,m',cabe1 and under the auspices of 
the ,rationalist ,press ,association1   
has obtained a wide circulation  in this
 country1 being purchasable for         
six-pence at any bookstall2  where one  
often finds it accompanied by another   

still more popular  and similarly-priced
 treatise by the same author1 a digest  
or  summary of the religious aspect of  
his scientific philosophy1 under  the   
title ,the ,confession of ,faith of a   
,man of ,science4    ,professor         
,haeckel's credentials1 as a learned    
biologist who introduced  ,darwinism    
into ,germany1 doubtless stand high2 and
 it is a great tribute  to his literary 
ability that a fairly abstruse work on  
so comprehensive  a subject should have 
obtained a wide notoriety1 and have been
 welcomed  by masses of thinking        
readers1 especially by many among the   
skilled  artisans1 in this country4     
,from several points of view this       
diffusion of interest is most           
satisfactory1 since the spread of       
thought on serious topics is greatly  to
 be welcomed4 ,moreover1 there is a vast
 mass of information in these  writings 
which must be new to the bulk of the    
inhabitants of these  islands4 ,there is
 also a great deal of criticism which   

should arouse  professors of dogmatic   
theology1 and exponents of practical    
religion1 to  a keener sense of their   
opportunities and responsibility4 ,a    
view of  their position from outside1 by
 an able and unsparing critic1 cannot   
but  be illuminating and helpful1       
however unpleasant4    ,moreover1 the   
comprehensive survey of existence which 
can be taken by a  modern man of science
 is almost sure to be interesting and   
instructive1  when properly interpreted 
with the necessary restrictions and     
expansions2 and if it be found that the 
helpful portions are unhappily          
accompanied by over-confident negations 
and supercilious denials of  facts at   
present outside the range of orthodox   
science1 these natural  blemishes must  
be discounted and estimated at their    
proper worth2 for it  would be foolish  
to imagine that even a diligent student 
of ,nature has  special access to the   
kind of truths which have been hidden   
from the  nominally wise and prudent of 

all time4    ,so far as ,professor      
,haeckel's writings are read by the     
thoroughly  educated and well-informed1 
they can do nothing but good4 ,they may 
not1  indeed1 convey anything           
particularly new1 but they furnish an   
interesting study in scientific history 
and mental development4 ,so far1        
however1 as they are read by unbalanced 
and uncultured persons1 with no  sense  
of proportion and but little critical   
faculty1 they may do harm1  unless      
accompanied by a suitable qualification 
or antidote1 especially  an antidote    
against the bigotry of their somewhat   
hasty and scornful  destructive         
portions4    ,to the intelligent artisan
 or other hard-headed reader who        
considers  that ,christian faith is     
undermined1 and the whole religious     
edifice  upset1 by the scientific       
philosophy advocated by ,professor      
,haeckel under  the name ,monism1 ,i    
would say1 paraphrasing a sentence of   
,mr ,ruskin's  in a preface to ,sesame  

and ,lilies3--,do not think it likely   
that  you hold in your hands a treatise 
in which the ultimate and final  verity 
of the universe is at length beautifully
 proclaimed1 and in  which pure truth   
has been sifted from the errors of all  
preceding  ages4 ,do not think it1      
friend3 it is not so4    ,for what is   
this same ,monism8    ,professor        
,haeckel writes almost as if it were a  
recent invention1 but in  truth there   
have been many versions of it1 and in   
one form or another  the idea is quite  
old1 older than ,plato1 as old as       
,parmenides4    ,the name ,monism should
 apply to any philosophic system which  
assumes  and attempts to formulate the  
essential simplicity and oneness of  all
 the apparent diversity of sensual      
impression and consciousness1  any      
system which seeks to exhibit all the   
complexities of existence1  both        
material and mental--the whole of       
phenomena1 both objective and           
subjective--as modes of manifestation of

 one fundamental reality4    ,according 
to the assumed nature of that reality1  
different brands of  monistic theory    
exist3--    #a4 ,there is the hypothesis
 that everything is an aspect of some   
unknown  absolute ,reality1 which       
itself1 in its real nature1 is far      
beyond our  apprehension or conception4 
,and within the broad area thus         
suggested may  be grouped such utterly  
different universe-conceptions as that  
of  ,herbert ,spencer and that of       
,spinoza4    #b4 ,according to another  
system the fundamental reality is       
psychical1 is  consciousness1 let us    
say1 or mind2 and the material world has
 only the  reality appropriate to a     
consistent set of ideas4 ,here we find  
again  several varieties1 ranging from  
,bishop ,berkeley and presumably ,hegel1
 on  the one hand1 to ,william          
,james--who1 in so far as he is a monist
 at all1  may ,i suppose be called an   
empirical idealist--and solipsists such 
as  ,mach and ,karl ,pearson1 on the    

other4    #c4 ,a third system1 or group 
of systems1 has been in vogue among some
  physicists of an earlier day1 and     
among some biologists now2 viz41 that   
mind1 thought1 consciousness are all    
by-products1 phantasmagoria1            
epiphenomena1 developments and          
decorations1 as it were1 of the one     
fundamental all-embracing reality1 which
 some may call matter1 some  energy1 and
 some substance4 ,in this category we   
find ,tyndall--at any  rate the ,tyndall
 of the ,belfast address--and here      
consistently do we  find ,haeckel1      
together with several other biologists4 
,this last system of ,monism1 though not
 now in favour with philosophers1  is   
the most militant variety of all2 and   
accordingly it has in some  quarters    
managed to obtain1 and it certainly     
seems anxious to obtain1 a  monopoly of 
the name4    ,but the monopoly should   
not be granted4 ,the name ,materialism  
is quite  convenient for it1 just as    
,idealism is for the opposing system2   

and if  either of these titles is       
objected to by the upholders of either  
system1  as apparently too              
thorough-going and exclusive1 whereas   
only a tendency  in one or other        
direction is to be indicated1 then the  
longer but more  descriptive titles of  
,idealistic-monism and                  
,materialistic-monism  respectively     
should be employed4 ,but neither of     
these compromises seems  necessary to   
connote the position of ,professor      
,haeckel4    ,the truth is that all     
philosophy aims at being monistic2 it is
 bound to  aim at unification1 however  
difficult of attainment2 and a          
philosopher  who abandoned the quest1   
and contented himself with a permanent  
antinomy--a universe compounded of two  
or more irreconcilable and  entirely    
disparate and disconnected              
agencies--would be held to be  throwing 
up his brief as a philosopher and taking
 refuge in a kind of  permanent         
,manichism1 which experience has shown  

to be an untenable and  ultimately      
unthinkable position4    ,an attempt at 
,monism is therefore common to all      
philosophers1 whether  professional or  
amateur2 and the only question at issue 
is what sort of  ,monism are you aiming 
at1 what sort of solution of the        
universe have you  to offer1 what can   
you hold out to us as a simple          
satisfactory  comprehensive scheme of   
existence8    ,in order to estimate the 
value of ,professor ,haeckel's scheme of
 the  universe1 it is not necessary to  
appeal to philosophers3 it is           
sufficient to meet him on scientific    
ground1 and to show that in his  effort 
to simplify and unify he has            
under-estimated some classes of fact    
and has stretched scientific theory into
 regions of guess-work and  hypothesis1 
where it loses touch with real science  
altogether4 ,the facts  which he chooses
 gratuitously to deny1 and the facts    
which he chooses  vigorously to         
emphasise1 are arbitrarily selected by  

him according as  they will or will not 
fit into his philosophic scheme4 ,the   
scheme itself  is no new one1 and almost
 certainly contains elements of truth4  
,some day  far hence1 when it is        
possible properly to formulate it1 a    
system of  ,monism may be devised which 
shall contain the whole truth4 ,at      
present  the scheme formulated by       
,professor ,haeckel must to philosophers
 appear  rudimentary and antiquated1    
while to men of science it appears      
gratuitous1 hypothetical1 in some places
 erroneous1 and altogether              
unconvincing4    ,before everything a   
philosopher should aim at being         
all-inclusive1  before everything a man 
of science should aim at being definite1
 clear1  and accurate4 ,an attempt at   
combination is an ambitious attempt1    
which  may legitimately be made1 but    
which it appears is hardly as yet given 
to  man to make successfully4 ,attempts 
at an all-embracing scheme1 which  shall
 be both truly philosophic and truly    

scientific1 must for the  present be    
mistrusted1 and the mistrust should     
extend especially to  their negative    
side4 ,positive contributions1 either to
 fact or to  system1 may be real and    
should be welcome2 but negative or      
destructive  criticism1 the eschewing   
and throwing away of any part of human  
experience1 because it is inconsistent  
with a premature and  ill-considered    
monistic or any other system1 should be 
regarded with  deep suspicion2 and the  
promulgation of any such negative and   
destructive scheme1 especially in       
association with free and easy          
dogmatism1 should automatically excite  
mistrust and repulsion4    ,there are   
things which cannot yet be fitted in as 
part of a coherent  scheme of scientific
 knowledge--at present they appear like 
fragments of  another order of things2  
and if they are to be forced into the   
scientific framework1 like portions of a
 puzzle-map1 before their true  place   
has been discovered1 a quantity of      

substantial fact must be  disarranged1  
dislocated1 and thrown away4 ,a         
premature and cheap ,monism  is         
therefore worse than none at all4       
,,chapter ,,ii        ,,the ,,law ,,of  
,,substance      ,i shall now endeavour 
to exhibit the way in which ,professor  
,haeckel  proceeds to expound his views1
 and for that purpose shall extract     
certain sentences from his work1 ,the   
,riddle of the ,universe2  giving       
references to the sixpenny translation1 
now so widely  circulated in ,england1  
in order that they may be referred to in
  their context with ease4 ,to          
scientific men the exaggeration of      
statement will in many cases be         
immediately obvious2 but in the  present
 state of general education it will     
often be necessary to  append a few     
comments1 indicating1 as briefly as     
possible1 wherein  the statement is in  
excess of ascertained fact1 however     
interesting  as a guess or speculation2 
wherefore it must be considered         

illegitimate as a weapon wherewith to   
attack other systems1 so far  as they   
too are equally entitled to be          
considered reasonable guesses  at truth4
    ,the central scientific doctrines   
upon which ,professor ,haeckel's        
philosophy is founded appear to be      
two--one physical1 the other            
biological4 ,the physical doctrine is   
what he calls the ,law of  ,substance--a
 kind of combination of the conservation
 of matter and the  conservation of     
energy3 a law to which he attaches      
extraordinary  importance1 and from     
which he draws momentous conclusions4   
,ultimately he  seems to regard this law
 as almost axiomatic1 in the sense that 
a  philosopher who has properly grasped 
it is unable to conceive the  negative4 
,a few extracts will suffice to show the
 remarkable importance  which he        
attaches to this law3--        ,all the 
particular advances of physics and      
chemistry yield in      theoretical     
importance to the discovery of the great

 law which      brings them to one      
common focus1 the 'law of substance4'   
,as      this fundamental cosmic law    
establishes the eternal persistence     
of matter and force1 their unvarying    
constancy throughout the      entire    
universe1 it has become the pole-star   
that guides our      monistic philosophy
 through the mighty labyrinth to a      
solution      of the world-problem 7p4  
#b74        ,the uneducated member of a 
civilised community is surrounded       
with countless enigmas at every step1   
just as truly as the      savage4 ,their
 number1 however1 decreases with every  
stride of      civilisation and of      
science2 and the monistic philosophy is 
ultimately confronted with but one      
simple and comprehensive                
enigma--the 'problem of substance' 7p4  
#f74        ,the supreme and            
all-pervading law of nature1 the true   
and only      cosmological law1 is1 in  
my opinion1 the law of substance2       
its discovery and establishment is the  

greatest intellectual      triumph of   
the nineteenth century1 in the sense    
that all other      known laws of nature
 are subordinate to it4 ,under the name 
of      'law of substance' we embrace   
two supreme laws of different           
origin and age--the older is the        
chemical law of the      'conservation  
of matter1' and the younger is the      
physical law of      the 'conservation  
of energy4' ,it will be self-evident to 
many      readers1 and it is            
acknowledged by most of the scientific  
men of      the day1 that these two     
great laws are essentially inseparable  
7p4 #ge74        ,the conviction that   
these two great cosmic theorems1 the    
chemical law of the persistence of      
matter and the physical law      of the 
persistence of force1 are fundamentally 
one1 is of the      utmost importance in
 our monistic system4 ,the two theories 
are      just as intimately united as   
their objects--matter and force or      
energy4 ,indeed1 this fundamental unity 

of the two laws is      self-evident to 
many monistic scientists and            
philosophers1      since they merely    
relate to two different aspects of one  
and      the same object1 the cosmos 7p4
 #gf74        ,i proposed some time ago 
to call it the 'law of substance1' or   
the 'fundamental cosmic law'2 it might  
also be called the      'universal law1'
 or the 'law of constancy1' or the      
'axiom of      the constancy of the     
universe4' ,in the ultimate analysis it 
is      found to be a necessary         
consequence of the principle of         
causality 7p4 #gf74    ,i criticise     
these utterances below1 and ,i also     
quote extracts bearing on  the subject  
from ,professor ,huxley in ,chapter     
,,iv42 but meanwhile  ,professor        
,haeckel is as positive as any          
,positivist1 and runs no risk of  being 
accused of ,solipsism3--        ,our    
only real and valuable knowledge is a   
knowledge of nature      itself1 and    
consists of presentations which         

correspond to      external things4444  
,these presentations we call true1 and  
we are convinced that their content     
corresponds to the knowable      aspect 
of things4 ,we know that these facts are
 not imaginary1      but real 7p4 #ajd74
    ,he also tends to become sentimental
 about the ultimate reality as he       
perceives it1 and tries to construct    
from it a kind of religion3--           
,the astonishment with which we gaze    
upon the starry heavens and      the    
microscopic life in a drop of water1 the
 awe with which we      trace the       
marvellous working of energy in the     
motion of matter1      the reverence    
with which we grasp the universal       
dominance of the      law of substance  
throughout the universe--all these are  
part of      our emotional life1 falling
 under the heading of 'natural          
religion' 7p4 #abb74        ,pantheism  
teaches that ,god and the world are one4
 ,the idea of      ,god is identical    
with that of nature or substance4444 ,in

      pantheism1 ,god1 as an            
intra-mundane being1 is everywhere      
identical with nature itself1 and is    
operative within the      world as      
'force' or 'energy4' ,the latter view   
alone is      compatible with our       
supreme law--the law of substance4 ,it  
follows necessarily that pantheism is   
the world-system of the      modern     
scientist 7p4 #ajb74        ,this       
'godless world-system' substantially    
agrees with the      monism or pantheism
 of the modern scientist2 it is only    
another      expression for it1         
emphasising its negative aspect1 the    
non-existence of any supernatural deity4
 ,in this sense      ,schopenhauer      
justly remarks3        ',pantheism is   
only a polite form of atheism4 ,the     
truth of      pantheism lies in its     
destruction of the dualist antithesis of
      ,god and the world1 in its        
recognition that the world exists in    
virtue of its own inherent forces4 ,the 
maxim of the pantheist1      ',god and  

the world are one1' is merely a polite  
way of giving      the ,lord ,god his   
cong' 7p4 #ajc74    ,thus we are led on1
 from what may be supposed to be a bare 
statement of  two recent generalisations
 of science1--first of all to regard    
them as  almost axiomatic or            
self-evident2 next1 to consider that    
they solve the  main problem of the     
universe2 and1 lastly1 that they suffice
 to replace  the ,deity ,himself4    ,to
 curb these extravagant pretensions it  
is only necessary to consider  soberly  
what these physical laws really assert4 
,conservation of ,energy4    ,take first
 the conservation of energy4 ,this      
generalisation asserts that  in every   
complete material system1 subject to any
 kind of internal  activity1 the total  
energy of the system does not change1   
but is subject  merely to transference  
and transformation1 and can only be     
increased or  diminished by passing     
fresh energy in or out through the walls
 of the  system4 ,so far from this being

 self-evident1 it required very careful 
measurement and experimental proof to   
demonstrate the fact1 for in  common    
experience the energy of a system left  
to itself continually to  all appearance
 diminishes2 yet it has been skilfully  
proved that when  the heat and every    
other kind of product is collected and  
measured1 the  result can be so         
expressed as to show a total constancy1 
appertaining to  a certain specially    
devised function called energy1 provided
 we know  and are able to account for   
every form into which the said energy   
can be  transformed by the activity     
going on4 ,a very important             
generalisation  truly1 and one which has
 so seized hold of the mind of the      
physicist  that if in any actual example
 a disappearance or a generation of     
energy  were found1 he would at once    
conclude either that he had overlooked  
some  known form and thereby committed  
an error1 or that some unknown form was 
present which he had not allowed for3   

thereby getting a clue which1 if        
followed up1 he would hope might result 
in a discovery4    ,but the term energy 
itself1 as used in definite sense by the
  physicist1 rather involves a modern   
idea and is itself a generalisation4    
,things as distinct from each other as  
light1 heat1 sound1 rotation1           
vibration1 elastic strain1 gravitative  
separation1 electric currents1  and     
chemical affinity1 have all to be       
generalised under the same  heading1 in 
order to make the law true4 ,until heat 
was included in the  list of energies1  
the statement could not be made2 and1 a 
short time  ago1 it was sometimes       
discussed whether life should or should 
not be  included in the category of     
energy4 ,i should give the answer       
decidedly  ,no1 but some might be       
inclined to say ,yes2 and this is       
sufficient as an  example to show that  
the categories of energy are not        
necessarily  exhausted2 that new forms  
may be discovered2 and that if new forms

  exist1 until they are discovered1 the 
law of conservation of energy as  now   
stated may in some cases be strictly    
untrue2 just as it would be  untrue1    
though partially and usefully true1 in  
the theory of machines1  if heat were   
unknown or ignored4 ,to jump1 therefore1
 from a  generalisation such as this1   
and to say1 as ,professor ,haeckel does 
on  page #e1 that the following         
cosmological theorems have already been 
amply demonstrated1 is to leap across a 
considerable chasm3--        #a4 ,the   
universe1 or the cosmos1 is eternal1    
infinite1 and      illimitable4         
#b4 ,its substance1 with its two        
attributes 7matter and energy71         
fills infinite space1 and is in eternal 
motion4        #c4 ,this motion runs on 
through infinite time as an unbroken    
development1 with a periodic change from
 life to death1 from      evolution to  
devolution4        #d4 ,the innumerable 
bodies which are scattered about the    
space-filling ether all obey the same   

'law of substance'2 while      the      
rotating masses slowly move towards     
their destruction and      dissolution  
in one part of space1 others are        
springing into new      life and        
development in other quarters of the    
universe4    ,most of this1 though in   
itself probable enough1 must1 when      
scientifically regarded1 be rated as    
guess-work1 being an overpressing  of   
known fact into an exaggerated and      
over-comprehensive form of  statement4  
,let it be understood that ,i am not    
objecting to his  speculations1 but only
 pointing out that they are             
speculations4    ,the conservation of   
energy is a legitimate enough           
generalisation3 we do  not really doubt 
its conservation and constancy when we  
admit that we  are not yet sure of      
having fully and finally exhausted the  
whole  category of energy4 ,what we do  
grant is1 that it may hereafter be      
possible to discover new forms2 and when
 new forms are discovered1 then  either 

the definition may have to be modified1 
or else the detailed  statement at      
present found sufficient will have to be
 overhauled4 ,but  after all1 this is   
not specially important3 the serious    
mistake  which people are apt to make   
concerning this law of energy is to     
imagine that it denies the possibility  
of guidance1 control1 or  directing     
agency1 whereas really it has nothing to
 say on these  topics2 it relates to    
amount alone4 ,philosophers have been   
far  too apt to jump to the conclusion  
that because energy is constant1        
therefore no guidance is possible1 so   
that all psychological or  other        
interference is precluded4 ,physicists1 
however1 know better2  though           
unfortunately ,tyndall1 in some papers  
on ,miracles and ,prayer1  thoughtlessly
 adduced the conservation of energy as  
decisive4 ,this  question of guidance is
 one of great interest1 and ,i emphasise
 the  subject further on1 especially in 
,chapter ,,ix4          ,conservation of

 ,matter4    ,take next the conservation
 of matter--which means that in any     
operation1 mechanical1 physical1 or     
chemical1 to which matter can be        
subjected1 its amount1 as measured by   
weight1 remains unchanged2 so that  the 
only way to increase or diminish the    
weight of substance inside a  given     
enclosure1 or geometrically closed      
boundary1 is to pass matter in  or out  
through the walls4    ,this law has been
 called the sheet-anchor of chemistry1  
but it is very  far from being          
self-evident2 and its statement involves
 the finding of a  property of matter   
which experimentally shall remain       
unchanged1 although  nearly every other 
property is modified4 ,to superficial   
observation  nothing is easier than to  
destroy matter4 ,when liquid--when dew1 
for  instance--evaporates1 it seems to  
disappear1 and when a manuscript is     
burnt it is certainly destroyed3 but it 
turns out that there is  something which
 may be called the vapour of water1 or  

the matter of  the letter1 which still  
persists1 though it has taken rarer form
 and  become unrecognisable4            
,ultimately1 in order to express the    
persistence  of the permanent           
abstraction called matter clearly1 it is
 necessary to  speak of the ultimate    
atoms of which it is composed1 and to   
say that  though these may enter into   
various combinations1 and thereby       
display  many outward forms1 yet that   
they themselves are immutable and       
indestructible1 constant in number and  
quality and form1 not subject to  any   
law of evolution2 in other words1       
totally unaffected by time4    ,if we   
ask for the evidence on which this      
generalisation is founded1 we  have to  
appeal to various delicate weighings1   
conducted chiefly by  chemists for      
practical purposes1 and very few of them
 really directed to  ascertain whether  
the law is true or not4 ,a few such     
direct experiments  are now1 indeed1    
being conducted with the hope of finding

 that the law  is not completely true2  
in other words1 with the hope of finding
 that  the weight of a body does depend 
slightly on its state of aggregation or 
on some other physical property4 ,the   
question has even been raised  whether  
the weight of a crystal is altogether   
independent of its  aspect3 the         
direction of its plane of cleavage with 
reference to  the earth's radius2 also1 
whether the temperature of bodies has   
any influence on their weight2 but on   
these points it may be truly  said that 
if any difference were discovered it    
would not be  expressed by saying that  
the amount of matter was different1 but 
simply that weight was not so           
fundamental and inalienable a  property 
of matter as has been sometimes assumed2
 in which case it  is clear that there  
must be a more fundamental property to  
which  appeal can be made in favour of  
constancy or persistency or             
conservation4 ,now the most fundamental 
property of matter known is  undoubtedly

 'inertia'2 and the law of conservation 
would therefore  come to mean that the  
inertia of matter was constant1 no      
matter  what changes it underwent4 ,but1
 then1 inertia is not an easy  property 
to measure1--very difficult to measure  
with great accuracy3  it is in practice 
nearly always inferred from weight2 and 
in  terms of inertia the law of         
conservation of matter cannot be        
considered really an experimental fact2 
it is1 strictly speaking1 a  reasonable 
hypothesis1 an empirical law1 which we  
have never seen  any reason to doubt1   
and in support of which all scientific  
experience may be adduced in favour4    
,it is possible1 however1 to grant to   
,professor ,haeckel--not positively1    
but for the sake of argument1 and giving
 him the benefit of our present         
ignorance--that it is unlikely that     
matter in its lowest denomination can   
by us be created or destroyed4 ,for1    
although it is now pretty well known    
that atoms of matter are not the        

indestructible and immutable things     
they were once thought 7seeing that1    
although we do not know how to  break   
them up1 they are liable every now and  
then themselves to break up  or explode1
 and so resolve themselves into simpler 
forms71 yet it can be  granted that     
these simpler forms are likewise        
themselves atoms1 in the  same sense1   
and that if they break up they will     
break up likewise into  atoms3 or       
ultimately1 it may be1 into those       
corpuscles or electrons or  electric    
charges1 of which one plausible theory  
conjectures that the  atoms of matter   
are really composed4    ,supposing an   
atom thus broken up into electrons1 its 
weight may possibly  have disappeared4  
,we simply do not know whether weight is
 a property of  the grouping called an  
atom1 or whether it belongs also to the 
individual ingredients or corpuscles of 
that atom4 ,there is at present  no     
evidence4 ,but whether weight has       
disappeared or not1 it is quite         

certain1 for definite though rather     
recondite theoretical reasons1 that  the
 inertia would not have disappeared2 and
 accordingly it may be  held1 and must  
be held in our present state of         
knowledge1 that the  constancy of       
fundamental material still holds good1  
even though the  atoms are resolved into
 electric charges--an amount of         
destruction never  contemplated by those
 chemists and physicists who promulgated
 the  doctrine of the conservation of   
matter4          ,electrical ,theory of 
,matter4    ,but then1 on the electrical
 theory of matter1 even inertia is not  
the thoroughly constant property we once
 thought it4 ,it is a  function of      
velocity for one thing1 and when speeds 
become excessive  the inertia of matter 
rises perceptibly in value4 ,the fact   
that it  would rise in value by a       
calculable amount1 and that the rise    
would  be perceptible when the speed of 
motion approached in value to  within1  
say1 a tenth of the velocity of light1  

was predicted  mathematically2#a and    
now1 strange to say1 it has recently    
become  possible to observe and actually
 measure the increase of inertia        
experimentally1 and thus to confirm the 
electrical theory not only  as          
qualitatively or approximately true1 but
 as completely and  quantitatively      
accurate4 ,a remarkable achievement all 
this6 of quite  modern times1 which has 
not excited the attention it            
deserves--save  among physicists4       
,footnote #a3 ,by ,mr ,oliver ,heaviside
 and ,professor ,j4 ,j4 ,thomson4       
,but even this is not all that can be   
said as to the fluctuating  character of
 that fundamental material quality      
inertia4 ,it appears  possible1 if      
electrons approach too near each other1 
so as to encroach  on each other's      
magnetic field as they move1 that then  
their inertia may  fall in value during 
the time they are contiguous4 ,no       
experimental fact  has yet suggested    
this at present3 it is improbable that  

even in the  tightest combinations they 
ever really approach close enough to    
each  other to make the effect          
appreciable in the slightest degree2    
still1  strictly speaking1 the inertia  
of matter is a known mathematical       
function of the distance of electrons   
apart1 compared with their size1  as    
well as of their absolute speed through 
the ether2 and hence it may  be found to
 vary from either of two distinct       
reasons4 ,nevertheless1 even  this      
variation would not be expressed as a   
failure in the conservation  of matter1 
though there is now no single material  
property that can be  specified as      
really and genuinely constant4 ,so long 
as the electric  centres of strain1 or  
whatever they are--so long as the       
electric charges  themselves--continue  
unaltered1 we should prefer to say that 
at least the  basis of matter was       
fundamentally conserved4    ,further    
than this1 however1 we cannot go2 and to
 say1 as ,professor  ,haeckel says1 that

 the modern physicist has grown so      
accustomed to the  conservation of      
matter that he is unable to conceive the
 contrary1 is  simply untrue4 ,whatever 
may be the case in real fact1 there is  
no  question with respect to the        
possibility of conception4 ,the         
electrons  themselves must be explained 
somehow2 and the only surmise which at  
present holds the field is that they are
 knots or twists or vortices1 or  some  
sort of either static or kinetic        
modification1 of the ether of  space--a 
small bit partitioned off from the rest 
and individualised by  reason of this   
identifying peculiarity4 ,it may be that
 these knots  cannot be untied1 these   
twists undone1 these vortices broken up2
 it may  be that neither artificially   
nor spontaneously are they ever in the  
slightest degree changed4 ,it may be so1
 but we do not know2 and it is  quite   
easy to conceive them broken up1 the    
identity of the electron  lost1 its     
substance resolved into the original    

ether1 without parts or  individual     
properties4 ,if this happened1 within   
our ken1 we should have  to confess that
 the properties of matter were gone1 and
 that hence  everything that could by   
any stretch of language be called matter
 was  destroyed1 since no identifying   
property remained4 ,the discovery of    
such  an event may lie in the science of
 the future2 it would be an             
epoch-making event in the history of    
science1 but no physicist would be      
upset by it--perhaps not even surprised2
 nor would any one have good  reason to 
be astonished if the correlative        
phenomenon occurred1 and  under certain 
conditions some knots or strains were   
some day caused in  the ether1 which had
 not been previously there2 and so      
matter1 or the  foundation of matter1   
artificially produced4 ,in other words1 
the  destruction and the creation of    
matter are well within the range of     
scientific conception1 and may be within
 the realm of experimental  possibility4

          ,persistence of the ,existent4
    ,is there1 then1 no meaning in the  
conception which ,professor ,haeckel and
  others have so enthusiastically       
formulated1 and which certainly commends
  itself to every one as representing in
 some sense a genuine truth1  whether it
 be called a law of substance or        
whatever it be called8  ,there does seem
 a certain plausibility in the idea1    
pure guess or  assumption though it be1 
that anything which really and          
fundamentally  exists1 in a serious and 
untrivial and non-accidental sense1 can 
be  trusted not suddenly to go out of   
existence and leave no trace behind4    
,in other words1 there seems some reason
 to suppose that anything which         
actually exists must be in some way or  
other perpetual2 that real  existence is
 not a capricious and changing          
attribute3 arbitrary  collocations and  
accidental relations may and must be    
temporary1 but  there may be in each a  
fundamental substratum which1 if it can 

be  reached1 will be found to be        
eternal4 ,i develop this idea further in
 the  sequel4 ,this is1 at any rate1    
what ,professor ,haeckel was evidently  
groping after1 as many others have      
groped before him1 and the nature of    
this fundamental persistent entity or   
entities 7for we must not assume        
without proof that there is only one3   
there may be several1 and at any  rate  
their ultimate unification may be a     
still further advanced and more         
transcendental problem7 may with some   
appropriateness be called 'the  problem 
of the universe1' since it is clearly   
the problem of existence4  ,professor   
,haeckel thinks he has solved the       
problem1 grasped the  fundamental       
reality1 and found it to be matter and  
energy and  nothing else2 though why he 
chooses to regard matter and energy as  
one thing instead of two is not         
perfectly plain to me1 nor1 ,i  venture 
to say1 is it really plain to him4      
,making the assumption1 then1 that there

 is something1 or that there are        
several things1 to be discovered1 which 
may thus have the most  fundamental     
property1 viz41 persistent immutable    
existence1 the  'problem' has resolved  
itself into the discovery of what these 
things  actually are4 ,it will not do to
 jump at some object and assume that    
that  is it4    ,a multitude of things  
obviously perish1 thereby showing       
themselves to be  trivial or accidental 
arrangements1 according to our          
hypothesis4 ,a flame  is extinguished   
and dies1 a mountain is ultimately      
ground into sand by  the slow influence 
of denudation1 a planet or a sun may    
lose its  identity by encounter with    
other bodies4 ,all these are temporary  
collocations of atoms2 and it appears   
now that an atom may break up into      
electric charges1 and these again may   
some day be found capable of  resolving 
themselves into pristine ether4 ,if so1 
then these also are  temporary1 and in  
the material universe it is the ether   

only which  persists--the ,ether with   
such states of motion or strain as it   
eternally  possesses--in which case the 
,ether will have proved itself the      
material  substratum and most           
fundamental known entity on that side4  
,but are we to conclude1 therefore1 that
 nothing else exists8 that the          
existence of one thing disproves the    
existence of others8 ,the contention    
would be absurd4 ,the category of life  
has not been touched in anything  we    
have said so far2 no relation has been  
established between life and  energy1 or
 between life and ether4 ,the nature of 
life is unknown4 ,is  life also a thing 
of which constancy can be asserted8     
,when it disappears  from a material    
environment is it knocked out of        
existence1 or is it  merely transferred 
to some other surroundings1 becoming as 
difficult to  identify and recognise as 
are the gases of a burnt manuscript or  
the  vapour of a vanished cloud8 ,is it 
a temporary trivial collocation         

associated with certain complex         
groupings of the atoms of matter1 and   
resolved into nothingness when that     
grouping is interfered with8 or is  it  
something immaterial and itself         
fundamental1 something which uses  these
 collocations of matter in order to     
display itself amid material            
surroundings1 but is otherwise          
essentially independent of them8 7,this 
idea is expanded in ,chapters ,,vi4 to  
,x41 and see note at end of present     
chapter47    ,professor ,haeckel would  
answer this question with a contemptuous
  negative2 and the treatment which he  
would thus give to life he would  also  
extend to mind and consciousness1 to    
affection1 to art1 to poetry1  to       
religion1 and all the other facts of    
experience to which in the  process of  
evolution humanity has risen3 ,i say he 
would answer the  question1 whether     
these had any real existence other than 
as a necessary  concomitant of a        
sufficiently complex material aggregate1

 with a  contemptuous negative2 but ,i  
challenge him to say by what right he   
gives  that answer4 ,his speculation is 
that all these properties are nascent   
and latent in the material atoms        
themselves1 that these have the         
potentiality of life and choice and     
consciousness1 which we perceive in     
their developed combinations4 ,as a     
speculation this is legitimate2 but  the
 only answer that can by science        
legitimately be given at the present    
time is the answer given by du          
,bois-,reymond1 ignoramus1 we do not    
know4    ,scientifically we do not2 and 
for a man of science to pretend1 or to  
assert in a popular treatise1 that we   
do1 is essentially and seriously  to    
mislead4 7,see ,chapter ,,vii4 below47  
,it may even be a question whether  the 
assertion of entire ignorance at the    
present time is completely  appropriate1
 whether we have not some positive      
evidence against  ,professor ,haeckel's 
contention4 ,i believe that we have2 and

 though ,i may  acquiesce in an         
assertion of present ignorance1 ,i am   
not at all willing  to accept the next  
sentence of ,professor du               
,bois-,reymond's answer1 and  to say    
ignorabimus1 we never shall know4       
,the matter seems to me within the      
legitimate lines of scientific  inquiry1
 and it is unwise to attempt prediction1
 especially negative  prediction1 or to 
attempt to close the door to the future 
developments  of knowledge4    ,but ,i  
am content to say for the present that  
from the point of view of  strict       
science it is not yet possible to give  
any positive answer to  these questions2
 that they must await the progress of   
discovery4 ,it  becomes a question of   
some interest1 therefore1 how it is     
possible for  ,professor ,haeckel and   
for others of his school to have arrived
 at the  idea not only that a scientific
 answer can be given1 but that already  
it  has been given1 and that they know  
distinctly what it is4          ,note on

 the ,word ,life4    ,until a term is   
accurately defined1 and even afterwards 
for some  purposes1 it is permissible to
 use a word of large significance in    
more  than one sense4 ,thus the word    
light may be considered a psychological 
term1 denoting a certain sensation1 or a
 physiological term1 signifying  the    
stimulus of certain specialised         
nerve-endings1 or a physical term1      
expressing briefly an electromagnetic   
wave-disturbance in the ether4 ,i  am   
using the word life in a quite general  
sense1 as is obvious1 for if  it be     
limited to certain metabolic processes  
in protoplasm--which is the  narrowest  
of its legitimate meanings--what ,i have
 said about its possible  existence     
apart from matter would be absurd4 ,it  
may be convenient to  employ the word   
vitality for this limited sense2 but so 
far as ,i know1  there is no general    
consensus of usage1 and the context must
 suffice to  show a friendly reader the 
connotation intended4                   

,,chapter ,,iii        ,,the            
,,development ,,of ,,life      ,this    
leads me to the second main thesis or   
central scientific doctrine  of         
,professor ,haeckel's treatise1 the     
biological one2 and it is this  which ,i
 shall now proceed to illustrate by     
further quotations1 viz41 the           
connection as he conceives it between   
life and matter4    ,his view is that   
life has arisen from inorganic matter   
without  antecedent life4 ,the          
experimental facts of biogenesis he     
discards in  favour of a hypothetical   
and at present undiscovered kind of     
spontaneous  generation4 ,he assumes    
that the chemico-physical properties of 
carbon  confer so peculiar a power on   
its albuminoid compounds that they      
develop  into living protoplasm4 ,he    
says that he formulated this view       
thirty-three years ago1 and that no     
better monistic theory has arisen to    
replace it1 while to reject some form of
 spontaneous generation is to  admit a  

miracle3--        ,the hypothesis of    
spontaneous generation1 and the allied  
carbon-theory 7viz41 that 'carbon 444   
may be considered the      chemical     
basis of life1' p4 #b7 are of great     
importance in      deciding the         
long-standing conflict between the      
teleological      7dualistic7 and the   
mechanical 7monistic7 interpretation of 
phenomena 7p4 #ia74    ,but it can      
hardly be maintained that a hypothesis  
is able to decide  any dispute4 7,see1  
however1 ,chapter ,,vi47    ,an         
unscientific reader could hardly imagine
 that the apparently detailed  account  
given in the next sentence of the       
automatic origin of life1 as  it may    
have arisen on other planes1 and as it  
must have arisen on this1  is of the    
nature of hypothesis3--        ,first   
simple monera are formed by spontaneous 
generation1 and      from these arise   
unicellular protists4444 ,from these    
unicellular protists arise1 in the      
further course of evolution1      first 

social cell-communities1 and            
subsequently tissue-forming      plants 
and animals 7p4 #aca74    ,in this      
hypothesis of automatic origin by the   
agency of matter and  energy alone1 he  
could probably find many biologists to  
agree with him  speculatively2 but he   
goes further than some of them1 for he  
does not  limit the automatic or        
material development to animal and      
vegetable life  alone3 he throws        
automatic consciousness in1 too3--      
,the 'cellular theory' 444 has given us 
the first true      interpretation of   
the physical1 chemical1 and even the    
psychological1 processes of life 7p4    
#a74        ,consciousness1 thought1 and
 speculation are functions of the       
ganglionic cells of the cortex of the   
brain 7p4 #f74        ,the peculiar     
phenomenon of consciousness is not1 as  
du      ,bois-,reymond and the dualistic
 school would have us believe1 a        
completely 'transcendental' problem3 it 
is1 as ,i showed      thirty-three years

 ago1 a physiological problem1 and as   
such1      must be reduced to the       
phenomena of physics and chemistry 7p4  
#fe74    ,holding such a view concerning
 consciousness1 in the teeth of the     
general philosophic opinion of to-day1  
it is natural to find that of  orthodox 
psychology and psychologists he is      
contemptuous3--        ,most of our     
so-called 'psychologists' have little or
 no      knowledge of these             
indispensable foundations of            
anthropology--anatomy1 histology1       
ontogeny1 and physiology4444      ,hence
 it is that most of the psychological   
literature of the day      is so much   
waste-paper 7p4 #cd74        ,what we   
call the soul is1 in my opinion1 a      
natural phenomenon2      ,i therefore   
consider psychology to be a branch of   
natural      science--a section of      
physiology4 ,consequently1 ,i must      
emphatically assert from the            
commencement that we have no            
different methods of research for that  

science than for any of      the others 
7p4 #cb74    ,in this difficult ,science
 of ,psychology he evidently feels      
himself quite  at home4 ,he assumes     
easily and gratuitously that there is a 
material  substance at the root of all  
mental processes whatever--called by    
,clifford 'mind-stuff1' 7see1 however1  
,chapter ,,iv4 below17--and he then     
proceeds to lay down the law concerning 
ancient difficulties as  follows3--     
,we shall give to this material basis of
 all psychic activity1      without     
which it is inconceivable1 the          
provisional name of      'psychoplasm4' 
,the psychic processes are subject to   
the supreme1 all-ruling      law of     
substance2 not even in this province is 
there a single      exception to this   
highest cosmological law4        ,the   
dogma of 'free-will1' another essential 
element of the      dualistic           
psychology1 is similarly irreconcilable 
with the      universal law of substance
 7p4 #cb74        ,the freedom of the   

will is not an object for critical      
scientific inquiry at all1 for it is a  
pure dogma1 based on an      illusion1  
and has no real existence 7p4 #f74      
,nevertheless1 he realises that its     
apparent existence has to be  accounted 
for somehow1 and accordingly he adopts  
the view that has  several times        
occurred to thinkers1 viz41 that the    
nucleus of all the  faculties enjoyed by
 a complete organism must be attributed 
in germ or  nucleus to the cells and    
even to the atoms out of which the      
organism is  built up4    ,his          
speculation as to the formation of a    
conscious organism1 and to the  real    
meaning of its apparent sense of right  
and wrong and its apparent  control over
 its own acts1 runs as follows1 the will
 being reduced to  attraction and       
repulsion between the atoms3--          
,vogt's pyknotic theory of substance is 
that minute parts of      the universal 
substance1 the centres of condensation1 
which      might be called pyknatoms1   

correspond in general to the            
ultimate separate atoms of the kinetic  
theory2 they differ1      however1 very 
considerably in that they are credited  
with      sensation and inclination 7or 
will-movement of the simplest           
form71 with souls1 in a certain         
sense1--in harmony with the      old    
theory of ,empedocles of the 'loves and 
hatreds of the      elements4'          
,moreover1 these 'atoms with souls' do  
not float in empty space1      but in   
the continuous1 extremely attenuated1   
intermediate      substance1 which      
represents the uncondensed portion of   
the      primitive matter 7p4 #gg74     
',attraction' and 'repulsion' seem to be
 the sources of      will--that         
momentous element of the soul which     
determines the      character of the    
individual 7p4 #de74        ,the        
positive ponderable matter1 the element 
with the feeling of      like or desire1
 is continually striving to complete the
 process of      condensation1 and thus 

collecting an enormous amount of        
potential      energy2 the negative     
imponderable matter1 on the other hand1 
offers      a perpetual and equal       
resistance to the further increase of   
its      strain and of the feeling of   
dislike connected therewith1 and thus   
gathers the utmost amount of actual     
energy4        ,i think that this       
pyknotic theory of substance will prove 
more      acceptable to every biologist 
who is convinced of the unity of        
nature than the kinetic theory which    
prevails in physics to-day      7p4     
#gh74    ,in other words1 he appeals to 
a presumed sentiment of biologists      
against the knowledge of the physicist  
in his own sphere--a strange  attitude  
for a man of science4 ,after this it is 
less surprising to find  him ignoring   
the elementary axiom that action and    
reaction are equal  and opposite1 i4e4  
that internal forces can have no motive 
power on  a body as a whole1 and making 
the grotesque assertion that matter is  

moved1 not by external forces1 but by   
internal likes and desires3--        ,i 
must lay down the following theses1     
which are involved in ,vogt's           
pyknotic theory1 as indispensable for a 
truly monistic view of      substance1  
and one that covers the whole field of  
organic and      inorganic nature3--    
#a4 ,the two fundamental forms of       
substance1 ponderable matter and        
ether1 are not dead and only moved by   
extrinsic force1 but they are           
endowed with sensation and will 7though1
 naturally1 of the lowest      grade72  
they experience an inclination for      
condensation1 a dislike      of strain2 
they strive after the one and struggle  
against the      other 7p4 #gh74    ,my 
desire is to criticise politely1 and    
hence ,i refrain from  characterising   
this sentence as a physicist should4    
,every shade of inclination1 from       
complete indifference to the            
fiercest passion1 is exemplified in the 
chemical relation of the      various   

elements towards each other 7p4 #gi74   
,on those phenomena we base our         
conviction that even the atom is        
not without a rudimentary form of       
sensation and will1 or1 as it is        
better expressed1 of feeling 7sthesis7  
and inclination      7tropesis7--that   
is1 a universal 'soul' of the simplest  
character 7p4 #hj74        ,i gave the  
outlines of cellular psychology in #ahff
 in my paper      on ',cell-souls and   
,soul-cells' 7p4 #fc74    ,thus1 then1  
in order to explain life and mind and   
consciousness by  means of matter1 all  
that is done is to assume that matter   
possesses  these unexplained attributes4
    ,what the full meaning of that may  
be1 and whether there be any            
philosophic justification for any such  
idea1 is a matter on which ,i  will not 
now express an opinion2 but1 at any     
rate1 as it stands1 it is  not science1 
and its formulation gives no sort of    
conception of what  life and will and   
consciousness really are4    ,even if it

 were true1 it contains nothing whatever
 in the nature of  explanation3 it      
recognises the inexplicable1 and        
relegates it to the  atoms1 where it    
seems to hope that further quest may    
cease4 ,instead of  tackling the        
difficulty where it actually occurs2    
instead of  associating life1 will1 and 
consciousness with the organisms in     
which  they are actually in experience  
found1 these ideas are foisted into the 
atoms of matter2 and then the properties
 which have been conferred on  the atoms
 are denied in all essential reality to 
the fully developed  organisms which    
those atoms help to compose6    ,i show 
later on 7,chapters ,v4 and ,x47 that   
there is no necessary  justification for
 assuming that a phenomenon exhibited by
 an aggregate  of particles must be     
possessed by the ingredients of which it
 is  composed2 on the contrary1 wholly  
new properties may make their           
appearance simply by aggregation2 though
 ,i admit that such a  proposition is by

 no means obvious1 and that it may be a 
legitimate  subject for controversy4    
,but into that question our author does 
not  enter2 and even when he has        
conferred on the atoms these astounding 
properties1 he abstains from what would 
seem a natural development3 for  his    
doctrine is that our power is actually  
less than that of the  atoms1--that     
instead of utilising the attractions and
 repulsions1 or  likes and dislikes1 of 
our constituent particles1 and directing
 them  by the aggregate of conscious    
will-power to some preconceived end1 we 
ourselves1 on the contrary1 are         
dominated and controlled by them2 so    
that freedom of the will is an illusion4
    ,freedom being thus disposed of1    
,immortality presents no difficulty2 a  
soul is the operation of a group of     
cells1 and so the existence of man      
clearly begins and ends with that of his
 terrestrial body3--        ,the most   
important moment in the life of every   
man1 as in that of      all other       

complex animals1 is the moment in which 
he begins his      individual existence 
coalescence of sperm cell and ovum 444  
the      existence of the personality1  
the independent individual1             
commences4 ,this ontogenetic fact is    
supremely important1 for the      most  
far-reaching conclusions may be drawn   
from it4 ,in the first      place1 we   
have a clear perception that man1 like  
all the other      complex animals1     
inherits all his personal               
characteristics1 bodily      and mental1
 from his parents2 and further1 we come 
to the momentous      conclusion that   
the new personality which arises thus   
can lay no      claim to 'immortality'  
7p4 #bb74    ,others beside ,haeckel    
have held this kind of view at one time 
or  another2 but1 unlike him1 most of   
them have recanted and seen the error   
of their ways4 ,he is1 indeed1 aware    
that several of his great ,german       
contemporaries have been through this   
phase of thought and come out on  the   

other side1 notably the                 
physiologist-philosopher ,wundt1 and he 
refers to them fairly and instructively 
thus3--        ,what seems to me of     
special importance and value in ,wundt's
 work      is that he 'extends the law  
of the persistence of force for the     
first time to the psychic world4'       
,thirty years afterwards1 in a second   
edition1 ,wundt emancipated      himself
 from the fundamental errors of the     
first1 and says that he      'learned   
many years ago to consider the work a   
sin of his youth'2      it 'weighed on  
him as a kind of crime1 from which he   
longed to free      himself as soon as  
possible4' ,in the first1 psychology is 
treated      as a physical science1 on  
the same laws as the whole of           
physiology1 of which it is only a part2 
thirty years afterwards he      finds   
psychology to be a spiritual science1   
with principles and      objects        
entirely different from those of        
physical science4        ,i myself1 says

 ,haeckel1 naturally consider the       
'youthful sin' of      the young        
physiologist ,wundt to be a correct     
knowledge of nature1      and           
energetically defend it against the     
antagonistic view of the      old       
philosopher ,wundt4 ,this entire change 
of philosophical      principles1 which 
we find in ,wundt1 as we found it in    
,kant1      ,virchow1 du ,bois-,reymond1
 ,carl ,ernst ,baer1 and others1 is very
      interesting 7p4 #cf74    ,so it   
is3 very interesting6    ,professor     
,haeckel is so imbued with biological   
science that he loses  his sense of     
proportion2 and his enthusiasm for the  
work of ,darwin  leads him to attribute 
to it an exaggerated scope1 and enables 
him to  eliminate the third of the      
,kantian trilogy3--        ,darwin's    
theory of the natural origin of species 
at once gave us      the solution of the
 mystic 'problem of creation1' the great
      'question of all questions'--the  
problem of the true character and       

origin of man himself 7p4 #bh7 cf4 p4   
#ai above4    ,it is a great deal more  
than that patient observer and deep     
thinker  ,charles ,darwin ever claimed1 
nor have his wiser disciples claimed it 
for him4 ,it is familiar that he        
explained how variations once arisen    
would be clinched1 if favourable in the 
struggle1 by the action of  heredity and
 survival2 but the source or origin of  
the variations  themselves he did not   
explain4    ,do they arise by guidance  
or by chance8 ,is natural selection akin
 to  the verified and practical         
processes of artificial selection8 or is
 it  wholly alien to them and influenced
 by chance alone8 ,the latter view  can 
hardly be considered a complete         
explanation1 though it is verbally  the 
one adopted by ,professor ,haeckel1 and 
it is of interest to see what  he means 
by chance3--        ,since impartial    
study of the evolution of the world     
teaches us      that there is no        
definite aim and no special purpose to  

be traced      in it1 there seems to be 
no alternative but to leave everything  
to      'blind chance4'        ,one     
group of philosophers affirms1 in       
accordance with its      teleological   
conception1 that the whole cosmos is an 
orderly      system1 in which every     
phenomenon has its aim and purpose2     
there is      no such thing as chance4  
,the other group1 holding a mechanical  
theory1 expresses itself thus3 ,the     
development of the universe is a        
monistic mechanical process1 in which we
 discover no aim or purpose             
whatever2 what we call design in the    
organic world is a special      result  
of biological agencies2 neither in the  
evolution of the      heavenly bodies   
nor in that of the crust of our earth do
 we find      any trace of a controlling
 purpose--all is the result of chance4  
,each party is right--according to its  
definition of chance4 ,the      general 
law of causality1 taken in conjunction  
with the law of      substance1 teaches 

us that every phenomenon has a          
mechanical cause2      in this sense    
there is no such thing as chance4 ,yet  
it is not only      lawful1 but         
necessary1 to retain the term for the   
purpose of      expressing the          
simultaneous occurrence of two          
phenomena1 which are      not causally  
related to each other1 but of which each
 has its own      mechanical cause1     
independent of that of the other4       
,everybody knows that chance1 in this   
monistic sense1 plays an      important 
part in the life of man and in the      
universe at large4      ,that1 however1 
does not prevent us from recognising in 
each      'chance' event1 as we do in   
the evolution of the entire cosmos1 the 
universal sovereignty of nature's       
supreme law1 the law of      substance  
7p4 #ig74      ,illegitimate ,negations4
    ,with regard to the possibility of  
,revelation1 or information derived     
from super-human sources1 naturally he  
ridicules the idea2 but in  connection  

with the mode of origin and development 
of life on this  planet he makes the    
following sensible and noteworthy       
admission3--        ,it is very probable
 that these processes have gone on      
likewise on      other planets1 and that
 other planets have produced other types
 of      the higher plants and animals1 
which are unknown on our earth2         
perhaps from some higher animal stem1   
which is superior to the      vertebrate
 in formation1 higher beings have arisen
 who far      transcend us earthly men  
in intelligence4    ,exactly2 it is     
quite probable4 ,it is1 in fact1        
improbable that man is  the highest type
 of existence4 ,but if ,professor       
,haeckel is ready to  grant that        
probability or even possibility1 why    
does he so strenuously  exclude the idea
 of revelation1 i4e41 the acquiring of  
imparted  information from higher       
sources8 ,savages can certainly have    
revelation from civilised men4 ,why1    
then1 should it be inconceivable  that  

human beings should receive information 
from beings in the  universe higher than
 themselves8 ,it may or may not be the  
case that  they do2 but there is no     
scientific ground for dogmatism on the  
subject1 nor any reason for asserting   
the inconceivability of such a  thing4  
,professor ,haeckel would no doubt reply
 to some of the above criticism  that he
 is not only a man of science1 but also 
a philosopher1 that he  is looking      
ahead1 beyond ascertained fact1 and that
 it is his  philosophic views which are 
in question rather than his scientific  
statements4 ,to some extent it is both1 
as has been seen2 but if even  the above
 be widely known--if it be generally    
understood that the most  controversial 
portions of his work are mainly         
speculative and  hypothetical1 it can be
 left to its proper purpose of doing    
good rather  than harm4 ,it can only do 
harm by misleading1 it can do           
considerable  good by criticising and   
stimulating and informing2 and it is an 

interesting fact that a man so well     
acquainted with biology as  ,professor  
,haeckel is should have been so strongly
 impressed with the  truth of some      
aspect of the philosophic system known  
as ,monism4 ,many  men of science have  
likewise been impressed with the        
probability1 or  possibility1 of some   
such ultimate unification4    ,the      
problem to be solved--and an old-world  
problem indeed it is--is the  range1 and
 especially the nature1 of the          
connection between mind and  matter2 or1
 let us say1 between the material       
universe on the one hand1  and the      
vital1 the mental1 the conscious and    
spiritual universe or  universes1 on the
 other4    ,it would be extremely       
surprising if any attempt yet made had  
already  been thoroughly successful1    
though the attack on the idealistic side
  appears to many of us physicists to be
 by far the most hopeful line of        
advance4 ,an excessively wide knowledge 
of existence would seem to be  demanded 

for the success of any such most        
ambitious attempt2 but1  though none of 
us may hope to achieve it1 many may     
strive to make some  contribution       
towards the great end2 and those who    
think they have such  a contribution to 
make1 or such a revelation entrusted to 
them1 are  bound to express it to the   
best of their ability1 and leave it to  
their  contemporaries and successors to 
assimilate such portions of it as are   
true1 and to develop it further4 ,from  
this point of view ,professor  ,haeckel 
is no doubt amply justified in his      
writings2 but1  unfortunately1 it       
appears to me that although he has been 
borne forward  on the advancing wave of 
monistic philosophy1 he has1 in its     
specification1 attempted such precision 
of materialistic detail1 and  subjected 
it to so narrow and limited a view of   
the totality of  experience1 that the   
progress of thought has left him1 as    
well as his  great ,english exemplar1   
,herbert ,spencer1 somewhat high and    

dry1 belated  and stranded by the tide  
of opinion which has now begun to flow  
in  another direction4 ,he is1 as it    
were1 a surviving voice from the middle 
of the nineteenth century2 he           
represents1 in clear and eloquent       
fashion1 opinions which then were       
prevalent among many leaders of         
thought--opinions which they themselves 
in many cases1 and their  successors    
still more1 lived to outgrow2 so that by
 this time ,professor  ,haeckel's voice 
is as the voice of one crying in the    
wilderness1 not as  the pioneer or      
vanguard of an advancing army1 but as   
the despairing  shout of a              
standard-bearer1 still bold and         
unflinching1 but abandoned  by the      
retreating ranks of his comrades as they
 march to new orders in  a fresh and    
more idealistic direction4              
,,chapter ,,iv    ,,memoranda ,,for     
,,would-,,be ,,materialists      ,the   
objection which it has been found       
necessary to express concerning         

,materialism as a complete system is    
based not on its assertions1 but on  its
 negations4 ,in so far as it makes      
positive assertions1 embodying the      
results of scientific discovery and even
 of scientific speculation  based       
thereupon1 there is no fault to find    
with it2 but when1 on the  strength of  
that1 it sets up to be a philosophy of  
the universe--all  inclusive1 therefore1
 and shutting out a number of truths    
otherwise  perceived1 or which appeal to
 other faculties1 or which are equally  
true and are not really contradictory of
 legitimately materialistic             
statements--then it is that its         
insufficiency and narrowness have to be 
displayed4    ,it will be probably      
instructive1 and it may be sufficient1  
if ,i show  that two great leaders in   
scientific thought 7one the greatest of 
all  men of science who have yet lived71
 though well aware of much that  could  
be said positively on the materialistic 
side1 and very willing to  admit or even

 to extend the province of science or   
exact knowledge to  the uttermost1 yet  
were very far from being philosophic    
,materialists or  from imagining that   
other modes of regarding the universe   
were thereby  excluded4    ,great       
leaders of thought1 in fact1 are not    
accustomed to take a narrow  view of    
existence1 or to suppose that one mode  
of regarding it1 or one  set of formul  
expressing it1 can possibly be          
sufficient and complete4  ,even a sheet 
of paper has two sides3 a terrestrial   
globe presents  different aspects from  
different points of view2 a crystal has 
a  variety of facets2 and the totality  
of existence is not likely to be  more  
simple than any of these--is not likely 
to be readily expressible  in any form  
of words1 or to be thoroughly           
conceivable by any human  mind4    ,it  
may be well to remember that ,sir ,isaac
 ,newton was a ,theist of the  most     
pronounced and thorough conviction1     
although he had a great deal  to do with

 the reduction of the major ,cosmos to  
mechanics1 i4e4 with  its explanation by
 the elaborated machinery of simple     
forces2 and he  conceived it possible   
that1 in the progress of science1 this  
process of  reduction to mechanics would
 continue till it embraced nearly all   
phenomena4 7,see extract below47 ,that1 
indeed1 has been the effort of  science 
ever since1 and therein lies the        
legitimate basis for  materialistic     
statements1 though not for a            
materialistic philosophy4    ,the       
following sound remarks concerning      
,newton are taken from ,huxley's  ,hume1
 p4 #bdf3--        ,newton demonstrated 
all the host of heaven to be but the    
elements      of a vast mechanism1      
regulated by the same laws as those     
which      express the falling of a     
stone to the ground4 ,there is a passage
 in      the preface to the first       
edition of the ,principia1 which shows  
that ,newton was penetrated1 as         
completely as ,descartes1 with the      

belief that all the phenomena of nature 
are expressible in terms of      matter 
and motion3--        ',,would ,,that    
,,the ,,rest ,,of ,,the ,,phenomena ,,of
 ,,nature ,,could ,,be ,,deduced        
,,by ,a ,,like ,,kind ,,of ,,reasoning  
,,from ,,mechanical ,,principles4 ,,for 
,,many      ,,circumstances ,,lead ,,me 
,,to ,,suspect ,,that ,,all ,,these     
,,phenomena ,,may      ,,depend ,,upon  
,,certain ,,forces1 ,,in ,,virtue ,,of  
,,which ,,the ,,particles ,,of          
,,bodies1 ,,by ,,causes ,,not ,,yet     
,,known1 ,,are ,,either ,,mutually      
,,impelled      ,,against ,,one         
,,another1 ,,and ,,cohere ,,into        
,,regular ,,figures1 ,,or ,,repel ,,and 
,,recede ,,from ,,one ,,another2 ,,which
 ,,forces ,,being ,,unknown1            
,,philosophers      ,,have ,,as ,,yet   
,,explored ,,nature ,,in ,,vain4 ,,but  
,i ,,hope ,,that1 ,,either ,,by         
,,this ,,method ,,of ,,philosophising1  
,,or ,,by ,,some ,,other ,,and ,,better1
 ,,the      ,,principles ,,here ,,laid  

,,down ,,may ,,throw ,,some ,,light     
,,upon ,,the ,,matter4'    ,here is a   
full-blown anticipation of an           
intelligible exposition of the          
,universe in terms of matter and force3 
the substantial basis of what  smaller  
men call materialism and develop into   
what they consider to be  a             
materialistic philosophy4 ,but there is 
no necessity for anything of  the kind2 
a systematic expression of facts in     
terms of one of their  aspects does not 
exclude expression in terms of other and
 totally  different aspects also4       
,denial of all sides but one1 is a poor 
kind of  unification4 ,denial of this   
sort is the weakness and delusion of the
  people who call themselves ',christian
 ,scientists'3 they have hold of  one   
side of truth--and that should be       
granted them1--but they hold it  in so  
narrow and insecure a fashion that1 in  
self-defence1 they think  it safest     
strenuously to deny the existence of all
 other sides4 ,in this  futile          

enterprise they are imitating the       
attitude of the philosophic             
,materialists1 on the other side of the 
controversy4    ,and then1 again1       
,professor ,huxley himself1 who is      
commonly spoken of by  half-informed    
people as if he were a philosophic      
materialist1 was  really nothing of the 
kind2 for although1 like ,newton1 fully 
imbued  with the mechanical doctrine1   
and1 of course1 far better informed     
concerning the biological departments of
 ,nature and the discoveries  which have
 in the last century been made1 and     
though he rightly  regarded it as his   
mission to make the scientific point of 
view clear  to his benighted            
contemporaries1 and was full of         
enthusiasm for the  facts on which      
materialists take their stand1 he saw   
clearly that these  alone were          
insufficient for a philosophy4 ,the     
following extracts from  the ',hume'    
volume will show1 first1 that he        
entirely repudiated  materialism as a   

satisfactory or complete scheme of      
things2 and1  secondly1 that he         
profoundly disagreed with the position  
which now  appears to be occupied by    
,professor ,haeckel4 ,especially is he  
severe on  gratuitous denials applied to
 provinces beyond our scope1 saying3--  
that while it is the summit of human    
wisdom to learn the limit of      our   
faculties1 it may be wise to recollect  
that we have no more      right to make 
denials1 than to put forth affirmatives1
 about what      lies beyond that limit4
 ,whether either mind or matter has a   
'substance' or not is a problem which we
 are incompetent to      discuss2 and it
 is just as likely that the common      
notions upon the      subject should be 
correct as any others4444 ',the same    
principles      which1 at first view1   
lead to scepticism1 pursued to a certain
      point1 bring men back to common   
sense' 7p4 #bhb74    ,and on p4 #bhf he 
speaks concerning substance--that       
substance which  constitutes the        

foundation of ,haeckel's                
philosophy--almost as if he  were       
purposely confuting that rather         
fly-blown production3--        ,thus1 if
 any man think he has reason to believe 
that the      'substance' of matter1 to 
the existence of which no limit can be  
set either in time or space1 is the     
infinite and eternal substratum      of 
all actual and possible existences1     
which is the doctrine of                
philosophical materialism1 as ,i        
understand it1 ,i have no objection     
to his holding that doctrine2 and ,i    
fail to comprehend how it can      have 
the slightest influence upon any ethical
 or religious views he      may please  
to hold4444        ,moreover1 the       
ultimate forms of existence which we    
distinguish in      our little speck of 
the universe are1 possibly1 only two out
 of      infinite varieties of          
existence1 not only analogous to matter 
and      analogous to mind1 but of kinds
 which we are not competent so much     

as to conceive--in the midst of which1  
indeed1 we might be set      down1 with 
no more notion of what was about us1    
than the worm in a      flower-pot1 on a
 ,london balcony1 has of the life of the
 great city4        ,that which ,i do   
very strongly object to is the habit1   
which a      great many                 
non-philosophical materialists          
unfortunately fall into1      of        
forgetting all these very obvious       
considerations4 ,they talk as      if   
the proof that the 'substance of matter'
 was the 'substance' of      all things 
cleared up all the mysteries of         
existence4 ,in point of      fact1 it   
leaves them exactly where they were4444 
,your religious and      ethical        
difficulties are just as great as mine4 
,the speculative      game is drawn--let
 us get to practical work 7p4 #bhf74    
,and again on pp4 #bea and #bgi3--      
,it is worth any amount of trouble to   
444 know by one's own      knowledge the
 great truth 444 that the honest and    

rigorous      following up of the       
argument which leads us to 'materialism'
      inevitably carries us beyond it   
7p4 #bea74        ,to sum up4 ,if the   
materialist affirms that the universe   
and all      its phenomena are          
resolvable into matter and motion1      
,berkeley      replies1 ,true2 but what 
you call matter and motion are known to 
us      only as forms of consciousness2 
their being is to be conceived or       
known2 and the existence of a state of  
consciousness1 apart from a             
thinking mind1 is a contradiction in    
terms4        ,i conceive that this     
reasoning is irrefragable4 ,and1        
therefore1 if      ,i were obliged to   
choose between absolute materialism and 
absolute      idealism1 ,i should feel  
compelled to accept the latter          
alternative      7p4 #bgi74    ,let the 
jubilant but uninstructed and           
comparatively ignorant amateur          
materialist therefore beware1 and       
bethink himself twice or even thrice    

before he conceives that he understands 
the universe and is competent  to pour  
scorn upon the intuitions and           
perceptions of great men in what  may be
 to him alien regions of thought and    
experience4    ,let him explain1 if he  
can1 what he means by his own identity1 
or the  identity of any thinking or     
living being1 which at different times  
consists of a totally different set of  
material particles4 ,something  there   
clearly is which confers personal       
identity and constitutes an  individual3
 it is a property characteristic of     
every form of life1  even the humblest2 
but it is not yet explained or          
understood1 and it  is no answer to     
assert gratuitously that there is some  
fundamental  substance or material basis
 on which that identity depends1 any    
more  than it is an explanation to say  
that it depends upon a soul4 ,these  are
 all forms of words4 ,as ,hume says1    
quoted by ,huxley with approval in  the 
work already cited1 p4 #aid3--          

,it is impossible to attach any definite
 meaning to the word      'substance1'  
when employed for the hypothetical      
substratum of soul      and matter4444  
,if it be said that our personal        
identity requires      the assumption of
 a substance which remains the same     
while the      accidents of perception  
shift and change1 the question arises   
what      is meant by personal          
identity8444 ,a plant or an animal1 in  
the      course of its existence1 from  
the condition of an egg or seed to      
the end of life1 remains the same       
neither in form1 nor in      structure1 
nor in the matter of which it is        
composed3 every      attribute it       
possesses is constantly changing1 and   
yet we say that      it is always one   
and the same individual 7p4 #aid74      
,and in his own preface to the ',hume'  
volume ,huxley expresses himself        
forcibly thus1--equally antagonistic as 
was his wont to both ostensible  friend 
and ostensible foe1 as soon as they got 

off what he considered  the straight    
path3--        ,that which it may be    
well for us not to forget is1 that the  
first-recorded judicial murder of a     
scientific thinker ,socrates      was   
compassed and effected1 not by a despot1
 nor by priests1 but      was brought   
about by eloquent demagogues4444 ,clear 
knowledge of      what one does not know
 just as important as knowing what one  
does      know4444        ,the          
development of exact natural knowledge  
in all its vast range1      from physics
 to history and criticism1 is the       
consequence of the      working out1 in 
this province1 of the resolution to     
'take nothing      for truth without    
clear knowledge that it is such'2 to    
consider all      beliefs open to       
criticism2 to regard the value of       
authority as      neither greater nor   
less1 than as much as it can prove      
itself to be      worth4 ,the modern    
spirit is not the spirit 'which always  
denies1'      delighting only in        

destruction2 still less is it that which
 builds      castles in the air rather  
than not construct2 it is that spirit   
which works and will work 'without haste
 and without rest1'      gathering      
harvest after harvest of truth into its 
barns1 and      devouring error with    
unquenchable fire 7p4 viii474    ,the   
harvesting of truth is a safe enough    
enterprise1 but the devouring  of error 
is a more dangerous pastime1 since      
flames are liable to spread  beyond our 
control2 and though1 in a world         
overgrown with weeds and  refuse1 the   
cleansing influence of fire is a        
necessity1 it would be  cruel to apply  
the same agency again at a later stage1 
when a fresh  young crop is springing up
 in the cleared ground4                 
,,chapter ,v    ,,religion ,,and        
,,philosophy      ,the aphorism         
sometimes encountered1 that whatever    
properties appertain  to a whole must   
essentially belong to the parts of which
 it is  composed1 is a fallacy4 ,a      

property can be possessed by an         
aggregation  of atoms which no atom     
possesses in the slightest degree4      
,those who  think otherwise are         
unacquainted with mathematical laws     
other than  simple proportion or some   
continuous or additive functions2 they  
are  not aware of discontinuities2 they 
are not experienced in critical  values1
 above which certain conditions obtain1 
while below them there  is suddenly     
nothing4 ,to refute them an instance    
must suffice3--    ,a meteoric stone may
 seem to differ from a planet only in   
size1 but the  difference in size       
involves also many other differences1   
notably the  fact that the larger body  
can attract and hold to itself an       
atmosphere--a circumstance of the utmost
 importance to the existence of  life on
 its surface4 ,in order1 however1 that a
 planet may by  gravitative attraction  
control the roving atoms of gas1 and    
confine  their excursions to within a   
certain range of itself1 it must have a 

very considerable mass4    ,the earth is
 big enough to do it2 the moon is not4  
,by simply piling  atoms or stones      
together into a mighty mass there comes 
a critical  point at which an atmosphere
 becomes possible2 and directly an      
atmosphere exists1 all manner of        
phenomena may spring into existence1    
which without it were quite impossible4 
,so1 also1 it may be said that a sun    
differs from a dark planet only in      
size2 for it is just the fact of great  
size which enables its                  
gravitative-shrinkage and               
earthquake-subsidence to generate an    
immense  quantity of heat and to        
maintain the mass for ons at an         
excessively  high temperature1 thereby  
fitting it to become the centre of light
 and  life to a number of worlds4 ,the  
blaze of the sun is a property which is 
the outcome of its great mass4 ,a small 
permanent sun is an  impossibility4     
,wherefore1 properties can be possessed 
by an aggregate or assemblage of        

particles which in the particles        
themselves did not in the slightest     
degree exist4    ,if1 however1 we       
reverse the aphorism and say that       
whatever is in a part  must be in the   
whole1 we are on much safer ground4 ,i  
do not say that it  cannot be pressed   
into illegitimate extremes1 but in one  
and that the  simplest sense it is      
little better than a platitude4 ,the    
fact that an  apple has pips legitimises
 the assertion that an apple-tree has   
pips1  and that the peculiar property of
 pips represents a faculty enjoyed by   
the vegetable kingdom as a whole2 but it
 would be a childish  misunderstanding  
to expect to find actual pips in the    
trunk of a tree  or in all vegetables4  
,there is a tendency to call the        
argument or statement that whatever     
faculty man possesses the ,deity must   
have also2 by the name                  
,anthropomorphism2 but it seems to me a 
misnomer1 and to convey quite  wrong    
ideas4 ,the argument represented by ,he 

that formed the eye1 shall  he not see8 
he that planted the ear1 shall he not   
hear8 need not  assume for a moment that
 ,god has sense organs akin to those of 
man1 or  that ,he appreciates ethereal  
and aerial vibrations in the same sort  
of  way4 ,it is not an assertion of     
similarity between ,god and man1 but    
merely a realisation that what belongs  
to a part must be contained in  the     
whole4 ,it is not even necessarily      
pantheistic3 it would hold  equally well
 on a ,theistic interpretation4         
,regarded pantheistically it  is obvious
 and requires no stating3 regarded      
,theistically1 it is a  perception that 
faculties and powers which have come    
into existence1  and are actually at    
work in the universe1 cannot have arisen
 without  the knowledge and sympathy and
 full understanding of the ,sustainer   
and  ,comprehender of it all4 ,nor can  
functions be expected in the creature   
which transcend the power of the        
,creator4    ,all our faculties1        

sensations1 and emotions must therefore 
be  understood1 and in a sense          
possessed1 in some transcendental and to
 us  unimaginable form1 by the ,deity4  
,i know that it is possible to deny ,his
 existence1 just as it is  possible to  
deny the existence of an external world 
or to maintain that  reality is limited 
to our sensations4 ,if the ,deity has a 
sense of  humour1 as undoubtedly ,he    
has1 ,he must be amused at the          
remarkable  philosophising faculty      
recently developed by the creature which
 on this  planet has become most        
vigorously self-conscious and is in the 
early  stages of progress towards higher
 things--a philosophising faculty so    
acute as to lead him to mistrust and    
throw away information conveyed to  him 
by the very instruments which have      
enabled him to become what he  is2 so   
that having become keenly alive to the  
truth that all we are  directly aware of
 is the fruit of our own sensations and 
consciousness1  he proceeds to the      

grotesque supposition that these        
sensations and  consciousness may be all
 that really exists1 and that the       
information  which for ages our senses  
have conveyed to us concerning external 
things may be illusory1 not only in form
 and detail and appearance1 but  in     
substantial fact4    ,he must be        
pleased1 also1 with the enterprise of   
those eager  philosophers who are so    
strenuously impressed with the truth of 
some  ultimate monistic unification1 as 
to be unwilling to concede the          
multifariousness of existence--who      
decline to speak of mind and matter1  or
 of body and spirit1 or of ,god and the 
world1 as in any sense  separate        
entities--who stigmatise as dualistic   
anything which does not  manifestly and 
consciously strain after an ultimate    
monistic view--and  who then1 as a      
climax1 on the strength of a few years' 
superficial  experience on a planet1 by 
the aid of the sense organs which they  
themselves perceive to be illusory      

whenever the actual reality of  things  
is in contemplation1 proceed to develop 
the theory that the  whole has come into
 being without direct intelligence and  
apart from  spiritual guidance1 that it 
is managed so well 7or so ill7 that it  
is  really not managed at all1 that no  
,deity exists1 and that it is absurd  to
 postulate the existence of a           
comprehensive and all-inclusive guiding 
,mind4    ,to be able to perceive       
comprehensively and state fully not only
 what  is1 but also what is not1 is a   
wonderful achievement4 ,i do not think  
that such a power has yet been acquired 
by any of the sons of men2 nor  will the
 semi-educated readers of this country  
be wise if they pin  their faith and    
build their hopes on the utterances of  
any man1 however  eminent1 who makes    
this superhuman claim4    ,now1 in all  
charity1 it must be admitted that in    
some passages  ,professor ,haeckel puts 
himself under the ban implied by the    
above  paragraph1 inasmuch as he        

conducts a sort of free and easy attack 
on  religion1 especially on what he     
conceives to be the fundamental         
doctrines of ,christianity4 ,but1 after 
all1 it can be perceived that his       
attack1 so far as it is really an attack
 on religion1 is evidently  inspired by 
his mistrust and dislike1 and to some   
extent fear1 of  ,ecclesiasticism1      
especially of the ,ultramontane movement
 in ,germany1  against which he says    
,prince ,bismarck began a struggle in   
#ahgb4 ,it is  this kind of             
semi-political religion that he is      
really attacking1 more  than the pure   
essence of ,christianity itself4 ,he    
regards it as a  bigoted system hostile 
to knowledge--which1 if true1 would     
amply  justify an attack--and he says on
 page #aah3--        ,the great struggle
 between modern science and orthodox    
,christianity has become more           
threatening2 it has grown more          
dangerous for science in proportion as  
,christianity has found      support in 

an increasing mental and political      
reaction4    ,this may seem an          
exaggerated fear2 but the following     
extract from a  ,pastoral address by the
 ,bishop of ,newport1 which accidentally
 ,i saw  reported in ,the ,tablet1 shows
 that the danger is not wholly          
imaginary1 if unwise opinions are       
pressed to their logical practical      
issue3--        ,if the formulas of     
modern science contradict the science of
      ,catholic dogma1 it is the former 
that must be altered1 not the           
latter4#b          ,footnote #b3 ,in    
case it is unfair to wrench a sentence  
like         this from its context1 ,i  
quote the larger portion of that        
instructive report in this note3--      
,extract from ,the ,tablet1 ,aug4 #bgth1
 #aijd--;,an ,address            by the 
,bishop of ,newport4              ,if   
the ,abb ,loisy has followers within the
 ,church1 as we are            informed 
he has1 it cannot be doubted that the   
danger for            ,catholics is by  

no means imaginary4 ,for ,loisy teaches 
that            the dogmatic definitions
 of the ,church on the ,incarnation1    
although the best that could be given at
 the time and under            the      
circumstances1 are only a most          
inadequate expression of            the 
real truth1 which they represent merely 
relatively and            imperfectly4  
,these definitions1 he says1 should now 
be stated            afresh1 because the
 traditional formula no longer          
corresponds            to the way in    
which the mystery is regarded by        
contemporary            thought4 ,in his
 view1 our present knowledge of the     
universe            should suggest to   
the ,church a new examination of the    
dogma            of ,creation2 our      
knowledge of history should make her    
revise            her ideas of          
revelation2 and our progress in         
psychology and            moral         
philosophy should suggest to her to     
re-state her            theology of the 

,incarnation4 ,every one can see that   
there is            a grain of truth in 
this kind of talk4 ,but it is1 on the   
whole1 a pestilent and dangerous heresy4
 ,if the formulas of            modern  
science contradict the science of       
,catholic dogma1 it            is the   
former that must be altered1 not the    
latter4 ,if modern                      
metaphysics are incompatible with the   
metaphysical terms and                  
expressions adopted by councils and     
explained by the ,catholic              
schools1 then modern metaphysics must be
 rejected as            erroneous4 ,the 
,church does not change her ,christian  
philosophy to suit the world's          
speculations2 she teaches the           
world1 by her theological definitions1  
what true and sound                     
philosophy is4 ,whilst every effort     
should be made by ,catholic             
apologists to smooth the way for a      
genuine understanding of            the 
,church's dogmatic terminology1 two     

things must never be            lost    
sight of1 first1 that this terminology  
expresses real            objective     
truth 7however inadequate the expression
 may be to            the full meaning1 
as ,god sees it1 of any given mystery72 
and1            secondly1 that such     
truth is expressed in terms of sound    
philosophy which will not be given up1  
and which may be            called the  
,christian philosophy4    ,professor    
,haeckel continues his criticism of     
,official ,christianity in  the         
following vein3--        ,the so-called 
',peace between ,church and ,state' is  
never more than      a suspension of    
hostilities4 ,the modern ,papacy1 true  
to the      despotic principles it has  
followed for the last #afjj years1 is   
determined to wield sole dominion over  
the credulous souls of men2      it must
 demand the absolute submission of the  
cultured ,state1      which1 as such1   
defends the rights of reason and        
science4 ,true and      enduring peace  

there cannot be until one of the        
combatants lies      powerless on the   
ground4 ,either the ,church wins1 and   
then farewell      to all 'free science 
and free teaching'--then are our        
universities      no better than gaols1 
and our colleges become cloistral       
schools2 or      else the modern        
rational ,state proves victorious--then1
 in the      twentieth century1 human   
culture1 freedom1 and prosperity will   
continue their progressive development  
until they far surpass even      the    
height of the nineteenth century4       
,in order to compass these high aims1 it
 is of the first importance      that   
modern science not only shatter the     
false structures of      superstition   
and sweep their ruins from the path1 but
 that it also      erect a new abode for
 human emotion on the ground it has     
cleared--a      'palace of reason1' in  
which1 under the influence of our new   
monistic views1 we do reverence to the  
real trinity of the      nineteenth     

century--the trinity of 'the true1 the  
good1 and the      beautiful' 7p4 #aai74
    ,these are the bases of religion1   
adopted from ,goethe1 which in          
,haeckel's view should entirely replace 
what he calls the ,trinity of  ,kant1   
viz41 ,god1 ,freedom1 and               
,immortality--three ideas which he      
regards  as mere superstition or as so  
enveloped in superstition as to be      
worthless4    ,occasionally1 however1 he
 attacks not solely ecclesiastical      
,christianity--in which enterprise he is
 entirely within his  rights1--but he   
goes further and abuses some of its more
 primitive  forms1 and to some extent   
its practical fruits also4 ,for         
instance3--        ,primitive           
,christianity preached the worthlessness
 of earthly life1      regarding it     
merely as a preparation for an eternal  
life beyond4      ,hence it immediately 
followed that all we find in the life of
 a man      here below1 all that is     
beautiful in art and science1 in public 

and      in private life1 is of no real 
value4 ,the true ,christian must avert  
his eyes from them2 he must think only  
of a worthy preparation for      the    
life beyond4 ,contempt of nature1       
aversion from all its      inexhaustible
 charms1 rejection of every kind of fine
 art1 are      ,christian duties2 and   
they are carried out to perfection when 
a man      separates himself from his   
fellows1 chastises his body1 and spends 
all his time in prayers in the cloister 
or the hermit's cell4444 ,a             
,christian art is a contradiction in    
terms 7p4 #abj74    ,i think it may     
without offence be said that if he means
 by ,primitive  ,christianity the       
teachings of ,christ1 he is mistaken1   
and has  something to learn as to what  
those teachings really were4 ,if he     
means  the times of persecution under   
the ,roman empire1 he could hardly      
expect  much concentration on artistic  
pursuits or much enjoyment of           
terrestrial existence when it was liable

 to be violently extinguished  at any   
moment3 sufficient that the early       
,church survived its struggle  for      
existence4 ,but if he is referring to   
medival ,christianity1 of any  other    
than a debased kind1--common knowledge  
concerning medival art  and architecture
 sufficiently rebuts the indictment4 ,so
 much so1 that  one may almost wonder if
 by chance he happened to be thinking of
  ,mohammedanism rather than of         
,christianity4    ,but he continues1 in 
a more practical and observant vein3--  
,christianity has no place for that     
well-known love of animals1      that   
sympathy with the nearly-related and    
friendly mammals 7dogs1      horses1    
cattle1 etc47 which is urged in the     
ethical teaching of      many of the    
older religions1 especially ,buddhism4  
7,unfortunately1      ,descartes gave   
some support to the error in teaching   
that man only      has a sensitive soul1
 not the animal47 ,whoever has spent    
much time      in the south of ,europe  

must have often witnessed those         
frightful      sufferings of animals    
which fill us friends of animals with   
the      deepest sympathy and           
indignation4 ,and when one expostulates 
with      these brutal ',christians' on 
their cruelty1 the only answer is1      
with a laugh3 ',but the beasts are not  
,christians' 7p4 #abf74    ,this1 if    
true1 and ,i have heard it from other   
sources1 does constitute  rather a      
serious indictment against the form of  
practical ,christianity  understood by  
the ignorant classes among the ,latin   
races4    ,to return1 however1 to the   
concluding paragraph of the extract     
quoted  above 7on page #ha7 from his    
page #aai3--    ,no one can have any    
objection to raise against the dignity  
and  worthiness of the three great      
attributes which excite ,professor      
,haeckel's1 as they excited ,goethe's1  
worship and admiration1 viz41 the  three
 goddesses1 as he calls them3 ,truth1   
,goodness1 and ,beauty2 but  there is no

 necessary competition or antagonism    
between these and the  other three great
 conceptions which aroused the          
veneration of ,kant3  ,god1 ,freedom1   
and ,immortality2 nor does the upholding
 of the one triad  mean the overthrow of
 the other3 they may be all co-eternal  
together  and co-equal4 ,nor are either 
of these triplets inconsistent with some
  reasonable view of what may be meant  
by the ,christian ,trinity4 ,the  total 
possibility of existence is so vast that
 no simple formula1 nor  indeed any form
 of words1 however complex1 is likely to
 be able to sum  it up and express its  
essence to the exclusion of all other   
modes of  expression4 ,it is a pity1    
therefore1 that ,professor ,haeckel     
should  think it necessary to decry one 
set of ideas in order to support        
another set4 ,there is room for all in  
this large universe--room for           
everything1 except downright lies and   
falseness4    ,concerning ,truth there  
is no need to speak3 it cannot but be   

the breath  of the nostrils of every    
genuine scientific man2 but his ideas of
 truth  should be large enough to take  
into account possibilities far beyond   
anything of which he is at present sure1
 and he should be careful to be         
undogmatic and docile in regions of     
which at present he has not the  key4   
,the meaning of ,goodness1 the whole    
domain of ethics1 and the higher        
possibilities of sainthood of which the 
human spirit has shown itself  capable1 
are at present outside his domain2 and  
if a man of science  seeks to dogmatise 
concerning the emotions and the will1   
and asserts  that he can reduce them to 
atomic forces and motions1 because he   
has  learnt to recognise the undoubted  
truth that atomic forces and motions    
must accompany them and constitute the  
machinery of their manifestation  here  
and now1--he is exhibiting the smallness
 of his conceptions and  gibbeting      
himself as a laughing-stock to future   
generations4    ,the atmosphere and full

 meaning of ,beauty also he can only    
dimly grasp4  ,if he seeks to explain it
 in terms of sexual selection1 or any   
other  small conception which he has    
recently been able to form in connection
  with vital procedure on this planet1  
he is explaining nothing3 he is  merely 
showing how the perception of beauty may
 operate in certain  cases2 but the     
inner nature of beauty and the faculty  
by which it is  perceived are utterly   
beyond him4 ,he cannot but feel that the
  unconscious and unobtrusive beauty of 
field and hedgerow must have  originated
 in obedience to some primal instinct or
 in fulfilment of  some immanent desire1
 some lofty need quite other than       
anything he  recognises as human4       
,and if a poet witnessing the colours of
 a sunset1 for instance1 or the         
profusion of beauty with which snow     
mountains seem to fling themselves  to  
the heavens in districts unpeopled and  
in epochs long before human             
consciousness awoke upon the earth3 if  

such a seer feels the revelation  weigh 
upon his spirit with an almost sickening
 pressure1 and is  constrained to       
ascribe this wealth and prodigality of  
beauty to the joy  of the ,eternal      
,being in ,his own existence1 to an     
anticipation as it  were of the         
developments which lie before the       
universe in which ,he is  at work1 and  
which ,he is slowly tending towards an  
unimaginable  perfection--it behooves   
the man of science to put his hand upon 
his  mouth1 lest in his efforts to be   
true1 in the absence of knowledge1 he   
find himself uttering1 in his ignorance1
 words of lamentable folly or           
blasphemy4      ,man and ,nature4       
,consider our own position--it is surely
 worth considering4 ,we are  a part of  
this planet2 on one side certainly and  
distinctly a part  of this material     
world1 a part which has become          
self-conscious4 ,at  first we were a    
part which had become alive2 a          
tremendous step  that--introducing a    

number of powers and privileges which   
previously  had been impossible1 but    
that step introduced no responsibility2 
we  were no longer1 indeed1 urged by    
mere pressure from behind1 we were      
guided by our instincts and appetites1  
but we still obeyed the  strongest      
external motive1 almost like            
electro-magnetic automata4 ,now1        
however1 we have become conscious1 able 
to look before and after1 to  learn     
consciously from the past1 to strive    
strenuously towards the  future2 we have
 acquired a knowledge of good and evil1 
we can choose  the one and reject the   
other1 and are thus burdened with a     
sense of  responsibility for our acts4  
,we still obey the strongest motive     
doubtless1 but there is something in    
ourselves which makes it a motive  and  
regulates its strength4 ,we can drift   
like other animals1 and  often do2 but  
we can also obey our own volition4    ,i
 would not deny the rudiments of        
self-consciousness1 and some of what  it

 implies1 to certain domestic animals1  
notably the dog2 but  domestication     
itself is a result of humanity1 and     
undoubtedly the  attributes we are      
discussing are chiefly and almost solely
 human1 they  can hardly be detected in 
wild nature4 ,no other animal can have a
 full  perception of its own            
individuality and personality as        
separate from  the rest of existence4   
,such ideas do not occur in the early   
periods of  even human infancy3 they are
 a later growth4 ,self-consciousness    
must  have become prominent at a certain
 stage in the evolutionary process4     
,how it all arose is a legitimate       
problem for genetic psychology1 but to  
the plain man it is a puzzle2 our       
ancestors invented legends to account   
for it--legends of apples and serpents  
and the like2 but the fact is  there1   
however it be accounted for4 ,the truth 
embedded in that old  ,genesis legend is
 deep2 it is the legend of man's        
awakening from a  merely animal life to 

consciousness of good and evil1 no      
longer obeying  his primal instincts in 
a state of thoughtlessness and          
innocency--a  state in which deliberate 
vice was impossible and therefore higher
 and  purposed goodness also            
impossible1--it was the introduction of 
a new  sense into the world1 the sense  
of conscience1 the power of deliberate  
choice2 the power also of conscious     
guidance1 the management of things  and 
people external to himself1 for         
preconceived ends4 ,man was  beginning  
to cease to be merely a passenger on the
 planet1 controlled  by outside forces2 
it is as if the reins were then for the 
first time  being placed in his hands1  
as if he was allowed to begin to steer1 
to  govern his own fate and destiny1 and
 to take over some considerable  part of
 the management of the world4    ,the   
process of handing over the reins to us 
is still going on4 ,the  education of   
the human race is a long process1 and we
 are not yet fit  to be fully trusted   

with the steering gear2 but the words of
 the old  serpent were true enough3 once
 open our eyes to the perception and    
discrimination of good and evil1 once   
become conscious of freedom of  choice1 
and sooner or later we must inevitably  
acquire some of the  power and          
responsibility of gods4 ,a fall it might
 seem1 just as a  vicious man sometimes 
seems degraded below the beasts1 but in 
promise  and potency a rise it really   
was4    ,the oneness between ourselves  
and ,nature is not a thing to be        
deplored2  it is a thing to rejoice at1 
when properly conceived4 ,it awakens a  
kind  of religious enthusiasm even in   
,haeckel1 who clearly perceives but a   
limited aspect of it2 yet the perception
 is vivid enough to cause him1  this    
so-called ,atheist1 to close his        
,confession of ,faith with words  such  
as these3--        ,now1 at last1 it is 
given to the mightily advancing human   
mind to      have its eyes opened2 it is
 given to it to show that a true        

knowledge of nature affords full        
satisfaction and inexhaustible          
nourishment not only for its searching  
understanding1 but also for      its    
yearning spirit4        ,knowledge of   
the true1 training for the good1 pursuit
 of the      beautiful3 these are the   
three great departments of our monism2  
by      the harmonious and consistent   
cultivation of these we effect at       
last the truly beatific union of        
religion and science1 so painfully      
longed after by so many to-day4 ,the    
,true1 the ,beautiful1 and the          
,good1 these are the three august       
,divine ,ones before which we bow       
the knee in adoration4444        ,in the
 hope that free research and free       
teaching may always      continue1 ,i   
conclude my monistic ,confession of     
,faith with the      words3 ',may ,god1 
the ,spirit of the ,good1 the           
,beautiful1 and the      ,true1 be with 
us4'    ,this is clearly the utterance  
of a man to whose type ,i unconsciously 

referred in an article written two years
 ago 7,hibbert ,journal1  ,january      
#aijc71 from which ,i now make the      
following appropriate  extract3--       
,looking at the loom of nature1 the     
feeling not of despair1 but of what  has
 been called atheism1 one ingredient of 
atheism1 has arisen3 atheism  never     
fully realised1 and wrongly so          
called--recently it has been  called    
severe ,theism1 indeed2 for it is joyful
 sometimes1 interested  and placid      
always1 exultant at the strange         
splendour of the spectacle  which its   
intellect has laid bare to              
contemplation1 satisfied with the       
perfection of the mechanism1 content to 
be a part of the self-generated         
organism1 and endeavouring to think that
 the feelings of duty1 of  earnest      
effort1 and of faithful service1 which  
conspicuously persist in  spite of all  
discouragement1 are on this view        
intelligible as well as  instinctive1   
and sure that nothing less than         

unrepining unfaltering  unswerving      
acquiescence is worthy of our dignity as
 man4    ,the above ',confession of     
,faith1' then1 is very well2 for the man
  himself very well indeed1 but it is   
not enough for the race4 ,other  parts  
of ,haeckel's writings show that it is  
not enough1 and that his  conception of 
what he means by ,godhead is narrow and 
limited to an  extent at which instinct1
 reason1 and experience alike rebel4 ,no
 one  can be satisfied with conceptions 
below the highest which to him are      
possible3 ,i doubt if it is given to man
 to think out a clear and  consistent   
system higher and nobler than the real  
truth4 ,our highest  thoughts are likely
 to be nearest to reality3 they must be 
stages in  the direction of truth1 else 
they could not have come to us and been 
recognised as highest4 ,so1 also1 with  
our longings and aspirations  towards   
ultimate perfection1 those desires which
 we recognise as our  noblest and best3 
surely they must have some              

correspondence with the  facts of       
existence1 else had they been           
unattainable by us4 ,reality is  not to 
be surpassed1 except locally and        
temporarily1 by the ideals of  knowledge
 and goodness invented by a fraction of 
itself2 and if we  could grasp the      
entire scheme of things1 so far from    
wishing to                shatter it to 
bits and then      ,remould it nearer to
 the heart's desire1    we should hail  
it as better and more satisfying than   
any of our random  imaginings4 ,the     
universe is in no way limited to our    
conceptions3 it  has a reality apart    
from them2 nevertheless1 they themselves
 constitute  a part of it1 and can only 
take a clear and consistent character in
 so  far as they correspond with        
something true and real4 ,whatever we   
can  clearly and consistently conceive1 
that is ipso facto in a sense  already  
existent in the universe as a whole2 and
 that1 or something  better1 we shall   
find to be a dim foreshadowing of a     

higher reality4                         
99      99      99      99      99      
,,explanatory ,,note ,,on ,,constructive
 ,,thought ,,and ,,optimism4    7,partly
 reprinted from ,mind47    ,it may be   
worth while to explain how it is that1  
to a physicist  unsmitten with any taint
 of solipsism1 a well-elaborated scheme 
which  is consistent with already known 
facts necessarily seems to correspond1  
or have close affinity1 with the truth4 
,it is the result of experience  of a   
mathematical theorem concerning unique  
distributions4 ,for  instance1 it can be
 shown that in an electric field1       
however  complicated1 any distribution  
of potential which satisfies boundary   
conditions1 and one or two other        
essential criteria1 must be the actual  
distribution2 for it has been rigorously
 proved that there cannot be  two or    
more distributions which satisfy those  
conditions1 hence if one  is arrived at 
theoretically1 or intuitively1 or by any
 means1 it must  be the correct one2 and

 no further proof is required4    ,so1  
also1 in connection with analogies and  
working models3 although  they must     
necessarily be imperfect1 so long as    
they are only analogies1  yet the making
 or imagining of models 7not necessarily
 or usually a  material model1 but a    
conceptual model7 is a recognised way of
 arriving  at an understanding of       
recondite and ultra-sensual processes1  
occurring  say in the ether or          
elsewhere4 ,as an addition to evidence  
derived from  such experiments as have  
been found possible1 and as a supplement
 to  the experience out of which1 as out
 of a nucleus1 every conception must    
grow1 the mind is set to design and     
invent a self-coherent scheme which     
shall imitate as far as possible the    
results exhibited by nature4 ,by  then  
using this as a working hypothesis1 and 
pressing it into extremes1  it can be   
gradually amended until it shows no sign
 of discordance or  failure anywhere1   
and even serves as a guide to new and   

previously  unsuspected phenomena4 ,when
 that stage is reached1 it is           
provisionally  accepted and tentatively 
held as a step in the direction of the  
truth2  though the mind is always kept  
ready to improve and modify and enlarge 
it1 in accordance with the needs of more
 thorough investigation and  fresh      
discovery4 ,it was so1 for instance1    
with ,maxwell's  electromagnetic theory 
of light2 and there are a multitude of  
other  instances4    ,in the            
transcendental or ultra-mundane or      
supersensual region there is  the       
further difficulty to be encountered1   
that we are not acquainted  with        
anything like all the 'boundary         
conditions1' so to speak2 we only  know 
our little bit of the boundary1 and we  
may err egregiously in  inferring or    
attempting to infer the remainder4 ,we  
may even make a  mistake as to the form 
of function adapted to the case4        
,nevertheless  there is no better clue1 
and the human mind is impelled to do the

 best  it can with the confessedly      
imperfect data which it finds at its    
disposal4 ,the result1 therefore1 in    
this region1 is no system of  definite  
and certain truth1 as in ,physics1 but  
is either suspense of  judgment         
altogether1 or else a tentative scheme  
or working hypothesis1  to be held      
undogmatically1 in an attitude of       
constant receptiveness for  further     
light1 and in full readiness for        
modification in the direction  of the   
truth4    ,so far concerning the        
ascertainment of truth alone1 in        
intangible  regions of inquiry4 ,the    
further hypothesis that such truth when 
found  will be most satisfactory1 or in 
other words higher and better than any  
alternative plan1--the conviction that  
faith in the exceeding grandeur  of     
reality shall not be                    
confounded1--requires further           
justification2  and its grounds are not 
so easy to formulate4 ,perhaps the      
feeling is  merely human and            

instinctive2 but it is existent and     
customary ,i  believe among physicists1 
possibly among men of ,science in       
general1  though ,i cannot speak for    
all2 and it must be based upon          
familiarity  with a mass of experience  
in which1 after long groping and        
guess-work1  the truth has ultimately   
been discovered1 and been recognised as 
'very  good4' ,it is illustrated1 for   
instance1 by the words in which ,tyndall
  closes the first edition of his book  
on ,sound1 wherein1 after  explaining   
,helmholtz's brilliant theory of        
,corti's organ and the  musical         
mechanism of the ear1--a theory which1  
amid the difficulties of  actual        
observation1 was necessarily at first   
saturated with hypothesis1  and is not  
even yet fully verified1--he says3--    
,within the ears of men1 and without    
their knowledge or      contrivance1    
this lute of #cjjj strings has existed  
for ages1      accepting the music of   
the outer world1 and rendering it fit   

for      reception by the brain4444 ,i  
do not ask you to consider these views  
as established1 but only as probable4   
,they present the phenomena in      a   
connected and intelligible form2 and    
should they be doomed to                
displacement by a more correct or       
comprehensive theory1 it will           
assuredly be found that the wonder is   
not diminished by the      substitution 
of the truth4          ,,chapter ,,vi   
,,mind ,,and ,,matter      ,what1 then1 
is the probable essence of truth in     
,professor ,haeckel's  philosophy8 for  
it is not to be supposed that the       
speculations of an  eminent man are     
baseless1 or that he has been led to his
 view of what  he conceives to be the   
truth by some wholly erroneous path2 his
  intuitive convictions are to be       
respected1 for they are based on a far  
wider experience and knowledge of fact  
than is given to the average  man2 and  
for the average man to consider it      
likely that there is no  foundation     

whatever for the life convictions of a  
great specialist is  as foolish as to   
suppose it probable that they are       
certain and  infallible1 or that they   
are uncritically to be accepted even in 
regions beyond those over which his     
jurisdiction extends4    ,first as to   
the law of substance1 by which he sets  
so much store2 the  fact which he is    
really1 though indistinctly1 trying to  
emphasise1 is  what ,i have preferred to
 formulate as the persistence of the    
really  existent1 see page #cd2 and1    
with that modification1 we can agree    
with  ,haeckel1 or with what ,i take to 
be his inner meaning1 to some extent4   
,we may all fairly agree1 ,i think1 that
 whatever really and fundamentally      
exists must1 so far as bare existence is
 concerned1 be independent of  time4 ,it
 may go through many changes1 and thus  
have a history2 that is  to say1 must   
have definite time relations1 so far as 
its changes are  concerned2 but it can  
hardly be thought of as either going out

 of  existence1 or as coming into       
existence1 at any given period1 though  
it  may completely change its form and  
accidents2 everything basal must  have a
 past and a future of some kind or      
other1 though any special  concatenation
 or arrangement may have a date of      
origin and of  destruction4    ,a crowd1
 for instance1 is of this fugitive      
character3 it assembles and  it         
disperses1 its existence as a crowd is  
over1 but its constituent  elements     
persist2 and the same can be said of a  
planet or a sun4 ,yet  for some soul or 
underlying reality even in these        
temporary  accretions there is          
permanence of a sort3--,tyndall's streak
 of morning  cloud1 though it may have  
melted into infinite azure1 has not     
thereby become non-existent1 although as
 a visible object it has  disappeared   
from our ken and become a memory only4  
,it is true that it  was a mere         
aggregate or accidental                 
agglomeration--it had developed no      

self-consciousness1 nothing that could  
be called personality or  identity      
characterised it1--and so no individual 
persistence is to be  expected for it2  
yet even it--low down in the scale of   
being as it  is--even it has rejoined   
the general body of aqueous vapour      
whence1  through the incarnating        
influence of night1 it arose4 ,the thing
 that  is1 both was and shall be1 and   
whatever does not satisfy this          
condition must be an accidental or      
fugitive or essentially temporary       
conglomeration or assemblage1 and not   
one of the fundamental entities  of the 
universe4 ,it is interesting to remember
 that this was one of the  opinions     
strongly held by the late ,professor    
,tait1 who considered that  persistence 
or conservation was the test or         
criterion of real  existence4    ,the   
question1 ,how many fundamental entities
 in this sense there are1  and what they
 are1 is a difficult one4 ,many people1 
including such  opposite thinkers as    

,tait and ,haeckel1 would say matter and
 energy2  though ,haeckel chooses1 on   
his own account1 to add that these two  
are  one4 7,perhaps ,professor ,ostwald 
would agree with him there2 though to   
me the meaning is vague47 ,physical     
science1 pushed to the last resort1     
would probably reply that1 within its   
sphere of knowledge at the  present     
stage1 the fundamental entities are     
ether and motion2 and  that of other    
things at present it knows next to      
nothing4 ,if physical  science is       
interrogated as to the probable         
persistence1 i4e41 the  fundamental     
existence1 of life or of mind1 it ought 
to reply that  it does not know2 if     
asked about personality1 or souls1 or   
,god1--about all of which ,professor    
,haeckel has fully-fledged  opinions--it
 would have to ask for a definition of  
the terms1 and would  speak either not  
at all or with bated breath concerning  
them4    ,the possibility that life may 
be a real and basal form of existence1  

and therefore persistent1 is a          
possibility to be borne in mind4 ,it may
  at least serve as a clue to           
investigation1 and some day may bear    
fruit2  at present it is no better than 
a working hypothesis4 ,it is one that on
  the whole commends itself to me2 for  
,i conceive that though we only  know of
 it as a function of terrestrial matter1
 yet that it has another  aspect too1   
and ,i say this because ,i see it       
arriving and  leaving--animating matter 
for a time and then quitting it1 just as
 ,i  see dew appearing and disappearing 
on a plate4 ,apart from a solid         
surface1 dew cannot exist as such2 and  
to a savage it might seem to  spring    
into and to go out of existence--to be  
an exudation from the  solid1 and       
dependent wholly upon it2 but we happen 
to know more about  it3 we know that it 
has a permanent and continuous existence
 in an  imperceptible1 intangible1      
supersensual form1 though its visible   
manifestation in the form of mist or dew

 is temporary and evanescent4  ,perhaps 
it is permissible to trace in that      
elementary phenomenon some  superficial 
analogy to an incarnation4    ,the fact 
concerning life which lies at the root  
of ,professor ,haeckel's  doctrine about
 its origin1 is that living beings have 
undoubtedly made  their appearance on   
this planet1 where at one time they     
cannot be  suspected of having existed4 
,consequently that whatever life may be1
 it  is something which can begin to    
interact with the atoms of terrestrial  
matter1 at some period1 or state of     
aggregation1 or other condition of      
elaboration1--a condition which may     
perhaps be rather definite1 if only  we 
were aware of what it was4 ,but that    
undoubted fact is quite  consistent with
 any view as to the nature of life1 and 
even with any  view as to the mode of   
its terrestrial commencement2 there is  
nothing  in that to say that it is a    
function of matter alone1 any more than 
the  wind is a function of the leaves   

which dance under its influence2 there  
is nothing even to contradict the notion
 that it sprang into existence  suddenly
 at a literal word of command4 ,the     
improbability or absurdity  of such a   
conception as this last1 except in the  
symbolism of poetry1  is extreme1 and it
 is unthinkable by any educated person2 
but its  improbability depends upon     
other considerations than biologic ones1
 and  it is as repugnant to an          
enlightened ,theology as to any other   
science4    ,the mode in which          
biological speculation as to the        
probable development  of living out of  
dead matter1 and the general relation of
 protoplasm to  physics and chemistry1  
can be surmised or provisionally        
granted1  without thereby concurring in 
any destructive criticism of other facts
  and experiences1 is explained in      
,chapter ,x4 on ,life1 further on3 and  
there ,i emphasise my agreement with    
parts of the speculative  contentions of
 ,professor ,haeckel on the positive    

side4      ,soul and ,body4    ,let us  
consider what are the facts             
scientifically known concerning the     
interaction between mind and matter4    
,fundamentally they amount to this3     
that a complex piece of matter1 called  
the brain1 is the organ or  instrument  
of mind and consciousness2 that if it be
 stimulated mental  activity results2   
that if it be injured or destroyed no   
manifestation  of mental activity is    
possible4 ,moreover1 it is assumed1 and 
need not  be doubted1 that a portion of 
brain substance is consumed1 oxidised   
let  us say1 in every act of mentation3 
using that term in the vaguest and  most
 general sense1 and including in it     
unconscious as well as  conscious       
operations4    ,suppose we grant all    
this1 what then8 ,we have granted that  
brain is the  means whereby mind is made
 manifest on this material plane1 it is 
the  instrument through which alone we  
know it1 but we have not granted that   
mind is limited to its material         

manifestation2 nor can we maintain  that
 without matter the things we call mind1
 intelligence1  consciousness1 have no  
sort of existence4 ,mind may be         
incorporate or  incarnate in matter1 but
 it may also transcend it2 it is through
 the  region of ideas and the           
intervention of mind that we have become
 aware  of the existence of matter4 ,it 
is injudicious to discard our primary   
and  fundamental awareness for what is  
after all an instinctive inference  or  
interpretation of certain sensations4   
,the realities underlying those         
sensations are only known to us by      
inference1 but they have an independent 
existence3 in their inmost  nature they 
may be quite other than what they seem1 
and are in no way  dependent upon our   
perception of them4 ,so1 also1 our      
actual personality  may be something    
considerably unlike that conception of  
it which is  based on our present       
terrestrial consciousness--a form of    
consciousness  suited to1 and developed 

by1 our temporary existence here1 but   
not  necessarily more than a fraction of
 our total self4    ,take an analogy3   
the eye is the organ of vision2 by it we
 perceive  light4 ,stimulate the retina 
in any way1 and we are conscious of the 
sensation of light2 injure or destroy   
the eye1 and vision becomes  imperfect  
or impossible4 ,if eyes did not exist we
 should probably know  nothing about    
light1 and we might be tempted to say   
that light did not  exist4 ,in a sense1 
to a blind race1 light would not        
exist--that is to  say1 there would be  
no sensation of light1 there would be no
 sight2 but  the underlying physical    
cause of that sensation--the ripples in 
the  ether--would be there all the time4
 ,and it is these ethereal ripples      
which a physicist understands by the    
term light4 ,it is quite  conceivable   
that a race of blind physicists would be
 able to devise  experimental means     
whereby they could make experiments on  
what to us is  luminous radiation1 just 

as we now make experiments on electric  
waves1  for which we have no sense      
organ4 ,it would be absurd for a        
psychologist  to inform them that light 
did not exist because sight did not4    
,the  term might have to be reconsidered
 and redefined2 indeed1 most  likely a  
polysyllabic term would be employed1 as 
is unfortunately usual  when a thing of 
which the race in general has no        
intimate knowledge  requires            
nomenclature4 ,but the thing would be   
there1 though its mode of  manifestation
 would be different2 a term like vision 
might still be  employed1 to signify our
 mode of perceiving and experiencing the
 agency  which now manifests itself to  
us through our eyes2 and plants might   
grow by the aid of that agency just as  
they do now4    ,so1 also1 brain is     
truly the organ of mind and             
consciousness1 and to a  brainless race 
these terms1 and all other terms1 would 
be meaningless2  but no one is at       
liberty to assert1 on the strength of   

that fact1 that  the realities          
underlying our use of those terms have  
no existence apart  from terrestrial    
brains4 ,nor can we say with any        
security that the  stuff called brain is
 the only conceivable machinery which   
they are  able to utilise3 though it is 
true that we know of no other4 ,yet it  
would seem that such a proposition must 
be held by a materialist1 or by  what   
can be implied by the term monist1 used 
in its narrowest and  most unphilosophic
 sense--a sense which would be better   
expressed by  the term                  
materialistic-monist1 with a limitation 
of the term matter to  the terrestrial  
chemical elements and their             
combinations1 i4e41 to  that form of    
substance to which the human race has   
grown accustomed--a  sense which tends  
to exclude ethereal and other           
generalisations and  unknown            
possibilities such as would occur to a  
philosophic monist of  the widest kind4 
,for that it may ultimately be          

discovered that there is some intimate  
and necessary connection between a      
generalised form of matter and some     
lofty variety of mind is not to be      
denied2 though also it cannot be        
asserted4 ,it has been surmised1 for    
instance1 that just as the  corpuscles  
and atoms of matter1 in their intricate 
movements and  relations1 combine to    
form the brain cell of a human being2 so
 the  cosmic bodies1 the planets and    
suns and other groupings of the ether1  
may perhaps combine to form something   
corresponding as it were to the  brain  
cell of some transcendent ,mind4 ,the   
idea is to be found in  ,newton4 ,the   
thing is a mere guess1 it is not an     
impossibility1 and it  cannot be        
excluded from a philosophic system by   
any negative statement  based on        
scientific fact4 ,in some such sense as 
that1 matter and mind  may be1 for all  
we know1 eternally and necessarily      
connected2 they  can be different       
aspects of some fundamental unity2 and a

 lofty kind  of monism can be true1 just
 as a lofty kind of pantheism can be    
true4  ,but the miserable degraded      
monism and lower pantheism1 which limits
  the term god to that part of existence
 of which we are now  aware--sometimes1 
indeed1 to a fraction only of           
that--which limits the  term mind to    
that of which we are ourselves          
conscious1 and the term  matter to the  
dust of the earth and the other visible 
bodies1 is a  system of thought         
appropriate1 perhaps1 to a fertile and  
energetic  portion of the nineteenth    
century1 but not likely to survive as a 
system of perennial truth4    ,the term 
organ itself should have given pause to 
anyone desirous of  promulgating a      
scheme such as that4    ,organ is a name
 popularly given to an instrument of    
music4 ,without  it1 or some other      
instrument1 no material manifestation or
 display of  music is possible2 it is an
 instrument for the incarnation of      
music--the means whereby it interacts   

with the material world and  throws the 
air and so our ears into vibration1 it  
is the means whereby  we apprehend it4  
,injure the organ and the music is      
imperfect2 destroy  it and it ceases to 
be possible4 ,but is it to be asserted  
on the  strength of that fact that the  
term music has no significance apart    
from its material manifestation8 ,have  
the ideas of ,sir ,edward ,elgar no     
reality apart from their record on paper
 and reproduction by an  orchestra8 ,it 
is true that without suitable           
instruments and a suitable  sense organ 
we should know nothing of music1 but it 
cannot be supposed  that its underlying 
essence would be therefore extinct or   
non-existent  and meaningless4 ,can     
there not be in the universe a multitude
 of things  which matter as we know it  
is incompetent to express8 ,is it not   
the  complaint of every genius that his 
material is intractable1 that it is     
difficult to coerce matter as he knows  
it into the service of mind as  he is   

conscious of it1 and that his           
conceptions transcend his powers of     
expression8    ,the connection between  
soul and body1 or more generally between
  spiritual and material1 has been      
illustrated by the connection between   
the meaning of a sentence and the       
written or spoken word conveying that   
meaning4 ,the writing or the speaking   
may be regarded as an incarnation  of   
the meaning1 a mode of stating or       
exhibiting its essence4 ,as  delivered1 
the sentence must have time relations2  
it has a beginning1  middle1 and end2 it
 may be repeated1 and the same general  
meaning may  be expressed in other      
words2 but the intrinsic meaning of the 
sentence  itself need have no time      
relations1 it may be true always1 it may
  exist as an eternal now1 though it may
 be perceived and expressed by  humanity
 with varying clearness from time to    
time4    ,the soul of a thing is its    
underlying permanent reality--that which
  gives it its meaning and confers upon 

it its attributes4 ,the body is an      
instrument or mechanism for the         
manifestation or sensible presentation  
of what else would be imperceptible4 ,it
 is useless to ask whether a  soul is   
immortal--a soul is always immortal     
where a soul can be  discerned3 the     
question to ask concerning any given    
object is whether  it has a soul or     
meaning or personal underlying reality  
at all4    ,those who think that reality
 is limited to its terrestrial          
manifestation doubtless have a          
philosophy of their own1 to which they  
are entitled and to which at any rate   
they are welcome2 but if they set  up to
 teach others that monism signifies a   
limitation of mind to the               
potentialities of matter as at present  
known2 if they teach a pantheism  which 
identifies ,god with nature in this     
narrow sense2 if they hold  that mind   
and what they call matter are so        
intimately connected that no            
transcendence is possible2 that1 without

 the cerebral hemispheres1              
consciousness and intelligence and      
emotion and love1 and all the higher    
attributes towards which humanity is    
slowly advancing1 would cease to  be2   
that the term soul signifies a sum of   
plasma-movements in the  ganglion cells2
 and that the term ,god is limited to   
the operation of  a known evolutionary  
process1 and can be represented as the  
infinite  sum of all natural forces1 the
 sum of all atomic forces and all ether 
vibrations1 to quote ,professor ,haeckel
 7,confession of ,faith1 p4 #gh72  then 
such philosophers must be content with  
an audience of uneducated  persons1 or1 
if writing as men of science1 must hold 
themselves liable  to be opposed by     
other men of science1 who are able1 at  
any rate in  their own judgment1 to take
 a wider survey of existence1 and to    
perceive possibilities to which the said
 narrow and over-definite  philosophers 
were blind4      ,life and ,guidance4   
,matter possesses energy1 in the form of

 persistent motion1 and it is  propelled
 by force2 but neither matter nor energy
 possesses the power  of automatic      
guidance and control4 ,energy has no    
directing power 7this  has been         
elaborated by ,croll and others3 see1   
for instance1 p4 #bd1 and  a letter in  
,nature1 vol4 #dc1 p4 #dcd1 thirteen    
years ago1 under the  heading ,force and
 ,determinism74 ,inorganic matter is    
impelled solely  by pressure from       
behind1 it is not influenced by the     
future1 nor does  it follow a           
preconceived course nor seek a          
predetermined end4    ,an organism      
animated by mind is in a totally        
different case4 ,the  intangible        
influences of hunger1 of a call1 of     
perception of something  ahead1 are then
 the dominant feature4 ,an intelligent  
animal which is  being pushed is in an  
ignominious position and resents it2    
when led1 or  when voluntarily obeying a
 call1 it is in its rightful attitude4  
,the essence of mind is design and      

purpose4 ,there are some who deny that  
there is any design or purpose in the   
universe at all3 but how can that  be   
maintained when humanity itself         
possesses these attributes8 7cf4  pp4   
#ed1 #gd74 ,is it not more reasonable to
 say that just as we are  conscious of  
the power of guidance in ourselves1 so  
guidance and  intelligent control may be
 an element running through the         
universe1 and  may be incorporated even 
in material things8    ,a traveller who 
has lost his way in a mountain district1
 coming across  a path1 may rejoice1    
saying1 ,this will guide me home4 ,a    
materialist1  if he were consistent1    
should laugh such a traveller to scorn1 
saying1  ,what guidance or purpose can  
there be in a material object8 there is 
no guidance or purpose in the universe2 
things are because they  cannot be      
otherwise1 not because of any intention 
underlying them4 ,how  can a path1 which
 is little better than the absence of   
grass or the  wearing down of stones1   

know where you live or guide you to any 
desired  destination8 ,moreover1        
whatever knowledge or purpose the path  
exhibits  must be in the path1 must be a
 property of the atoms of which it is   
composed4 ,to them some fraction of     
will1 of power1 of knowledge1 and  of   
feeling may perhaps be attributed1 and  
from their aggregation  something of the
 same kind may perhaps be deduced4 ,if  
the traveller can  decipher that1 he may
 utilise the material object to his     
advantage2 but  if he conceives the path
 to have been made with any teleological
 object  or intelligent purpose1 he is  
abandoning himself to superstition1 and 
is as likely to be led by it to the edge
 of a precipice as to anywhere  else4   
,let him follow his superstition at his 
peril6    ,this is not a quotation1 of  
course3 but it is a parable4    ,matter 
is the instrument and vehicle of mind2  
incarnation is the mode  by which mind  
interacts with the present scheme of    
things1 and thereby  the element of     

guidance is supplied2 it can1 in fact1  
be embodied in an  intelligent          
arrangement of inert inorganic matter4  
,even a mountain path  exhibits the     
property of guidance1 and has direction3
 it is an  incorporation of             
intelligence1 though itself inert4      
,direction is not a function of energy4 
,the energy of sound from an  organ is  
supplied by the blower of the bellows1  
which may be worked by  a mechanical    
engine2 but the melody and harmony1 the 
sequence and  co-existence of notes1 are
 determined by the dominating mind of   
the  musician3 not necessarily of the   
executant alone1 for the composer's     
mind may be evoked to some extent even  
by a pianola4 ,the music may be  said to
 be incarnate in the roll of paper which
 is ready to be passed  through the     
instrument4 ,so also can the conception 
of any artist  receive material         
embodiment in his work1 and if a picture
 or a  beautiful building is destroyed  
it can be made to rise again from its   

ashes provided the painter or the       
architect still lives3 in other  words1 
his thought can receive a fresh         
incarnation2 and a perception of  the   
beautiful form shall hereafter1 in a    
kindred spirit1 arouse similar  ideas4  
,there is thus a truth in materialism1  
but it is not a truth readily to  be    
apprehended and formulated4 ,matter may 
become imbued with life1 and  full of   
vital association2 something of the     
personality of a departed  owner seems  
to cling sometimes about an old garment1
 its curves and  folds can suggest him  
vividly to our recollection4 ,i would   
not too  blatantly assert that even a   
doll on which much affection had been   
lavished was wholly inert and material  
in the inorganic sense4 ,the  tattered  
colours of a regiment are sometimes     
thought worthy to be hung  in a church4 
,they are a symbol truly1 but they may  
be something more4 ,i  have reason to   
believe that a trace of individuality   
can cling about  terrestrial objects in 

a vague and almost imperceptible        
fashion1 but to  a degree sufficient to 
enable those traces to be detected by   
persons  with suitable faculties4       
,there is a deep truth in materialism2  
and it is the foundation of the         
material parts of worship--sacraments   
and the like4 ,it is possible to        
exaggerate their efficacy1 but it is    
also possible to ignore it too          
completely4 ,the whole universe is      
metrical1 everything is a question of   
degree4 ,a property like radio-activity 
or magnetism1 discovered  conspicuously 
in one form of matter1 turns out to be  
possessed by  matter of every kind1     
though to very varying extent4    ,so it
 would appear to be with the power      
possessed by matter to  incarnate and   
display mind4    ,there are grades of   
incarnation3 the most thorough kind is  
that  illustrated by our bodies2 in them
 we are incarnate1 but probably not     
even in that case is the incarnation    
complete4 ,it is quite credible  that   

our whole and entire personality is     
never terrestrially manifest4    ,there 
are grades of incarnation4 ,some of the 
personality of an ,old  ,master is      
locked up in a painting3 and whoever    
wilfully destroys a  great picture is   
guilty of something akin to murder1     
namely1 the  premature and violent      
separation of soul and body4 ,some of   
the soul of  a musician can be occluded 
in a piece of manuscript1 to be         
deciphered  thereafter by a perceptive  
mind4    ,matter is the vehicle of mind1
 but it is dominated and transcended by 
it4 ,a painting is held together by     
cohesive forces among the atoms of  its 
pigments1 and if those forces rebelled  
or turned repulsive the  picture would  
be disintegrated and destroyed2 yet     
those forces did not  make the picture4 
,a cathedral is held together by        
inorganic forces1 and  it was built in  
obedience to them1 but they do not      
explain it4 ,it may  owe its existence  
and design to the thought of someone who

 never  touched a stone1 or even of     
someone who was dead before it was      
begun4  ,in its symbolism it represents 
,one who was executed many centuries    
ago4  ,death and ,time are far from     
dominant4    ,are we so sure that when  
we truly attribute a sunset1 or the     
moonlight  rippling on a lake1 to the   
chemical and physical action of material
  forces--to the vibrations of matter   
and ether as we know them1 that we  have
 exhausted the whole truth of things8   
,many a thinker1 brooding over  the     
phenomena of ,nature1 has felt that they
 represent the thoughts of a  dominating
 unknown ,mind partially incarnate in it
 all4          ,,chapter ,,vii          
,,professor ,,haeckel',s ,,conjectural  
,,philosophy    ,a reply to ,mr         
,m',cabe4          ,part of the         
preceding1 so far as it is a criticism  
of ,haeckel1 was      given by me in the
 first instance as a ,presidential      
,address to the      ,members of the    
,birmingham and ,midland ,institute2 and

 the greater      portion of this       
,address was printed in the ,hibbert    
,journal for      ,january #aije4 ,mr   
,m',cabe1 the translator of ,haeckel1   
thereupon took      up the cudgels on   
behalf of his ,chief1 and wrote an      
article in the      following ,july     
issue2 to the pages of which references 
will be      given when quoting4 ,a few 
observations of mine in reply to this   
article emphasise one or two points     
which perhaps previously were      not  
quite clear2 and so this reply1 from the
 ,october number of the      ,hibbert   
,journal1 may be conveniently here      
reproduced4    ,i have no fault to find 
with the tone of ,mr ,m',cabe's         
criticism of my  criticism of ,haeckel1 
and it is satisfactory that one who has 
proved  himself an enthusiastic         
disciple1 as well as a most industrious 
and  competent translator1 should stand 
up for the honour and credit of a       
foreign ,master when he is attacked4    
,but in admitting the appropriateness   

and the conciliatory tone of his        
article1 ,i must not be supposed to     
agree with its contentions2 for         
although he seeks to show that after all
 there is but little difference  between
 myself and ,haeckel--and although in a 
sense that is true as  regards the      
fundamental facts of science1           
distinguishing the facts  themselves    
from any hypothetical and interpretative
 gloss--yet with  ,haeckel's            
interpretations and speculative         
deductions from the facts1  especially  
with the mode of presentation1 and the  
crude and unbalanced  attacks on other  
fields of human activity1 my feeling of 
divergence  occasionally becomes        
intense4    ,and it is just these       
superficial1 and as ,mr ,m',cabe now    
admits  hypothetical1 and as they seem  
to me rather rash1 excursions into side 
issues1 which have attracted the        
attention of the average man1 and have  
succeeded in misleading the ignorant4   
,if it could be universally recognised  

that        it is expressly as a        
hypothesis that ,haeckel formulates his 
conjecture as to manner of the origin of
 life 7p4 #gdd71    and if it could be  
further generally admitted that his     
authority  outside biology is so weak   
that        it is mere pettiness to carp
 at incidental statements on matters    
on which ,haeckel is known to have or to
 exercise no peculiar      authority1 or
 to labour in determining the precise   
degree of      evidence for the monism  
of the inorganic or the organic world   
7p4      #gdh71    ,i should be quite   
content1 and hope that ,i may never find
 it necessary  to carp at these things  
again4 ,also ,i entirely agree with ,mr 
,m',cabe1  though ,i have some doubt    
whether ,professor ,haeckel would       
equally agree  with him1 that           
there remain the great questions whether
 this mechanical evolution      of the  
universe needed intelligent control1 and
 whether the mind of      man stands out
 as imperishable amidst the wreck of    

worlds4 ,these      constitute the      
serious controversy of our time in the  
region of      cosmic philosophy or     
science4 ,these are the rocks that will 
divide      the stream of higher        
scientific thought for long years to    
come4 ,to      many of us it seems that 
a concentration on these issues is as   
much      to be desired as sympathy and 
mutual appreciation 7p4 #gdh74    ,this 
is excellent2 but then it is surely true
 that ,professor ,haeckel  has taken    
great pains to state forcibly and       
clearly that these great  questions     
cannot by him be regarded as open2 in   
fact ,mr ,m',cabe himself  says--       
,haeckel's position1 if expressed at    
times with some harshness1 and      not 
always with perfect consistency1 is well
 enough known4 ,he      rejects the idea
 of intelligent and benevolent guidance1
 chiefly on      the ground of the facts
 of dysteleology1 and he fails to see   
any      evidence for exempting the     
human mind from the general law of      

dissolution 7p4 #gdh74    ,ultimately1  
however1 he appears to have been driven 
to a singularly  unphilosophic view1 of 
which ,mr ,m',cabe says--        ,it is 
interesting to note that in his latest  
work ,haeckel regards      sensation 7or
 unconscious sentience7 as an ultimate  
and irreducible      attribute of       
substance1 like matter 7or extension7   
and force 7or      spirit7 7p4 #geb74   
,i call this unphilosophical            
because--omitting any reference here to 
the  singular parenthetical explanations
 or paraphrases1 for which ,i suppose   
,haeckel is not to be held              
responsible--this is simply abandoning  
all  attempt at explanation2 it even    
closes the door to inquiry1 and is      
equivalent to an attitude proper to any 
man in the street1 for it  virtually    
says3 ,here the thing is anyhow1 ,i     
cannot explain it4  ,however legitimate 
and necessary such an attitude may be as
 an  expression of our ignorance1 we    
ought not to use the phrase ultimate    

and irreducible1 as if no one could ever
 explain it4    ,moreover1 if it be true
 that--        ,haeckel does not        
teach--never did teach--that the        
spiritual      universe is an aspect of 
the material universe1 as his critic    
makes      him say1 it is his           
fundamental and most distinctive idea   
that both      are attributes or aspects
 of a deeper reality 7p4 #gde7--    in  
that case there is1 indeed1 but little  
difference between us4 ,but  no reader  
of ,haeckel's ,riddle would have        
anticipated that such a  contention     
could be made by any devout disciple2   
and ,i wonder whether  ,mr ,m',cabe can 
adduce any passage adequate to support  
so estimable a  position4 ,surely it is 
difficult to sustain in face of         
quotations such  as these3--        ,the
 peculiar phenomenon of consciousness is
 444 a physiological      problem1 and  
as such must be reduced to the phenomena
 of physics      and chemistry 7p4 #fe74
        ,i therefore consider           

,psychology a branch of natural         
science--a      section of              
physiology4444 ,we shall give to the    
material basis of      all psychic      
activity1 without which it is           
inconceivable1 the      provisional name
 of psychoplasm 7p4 #cb74      ,life and
 ,energy4    ,the one and only point on 
which ,i think it worth while to express
  decided dissidence is to be found in  
the paragraph where ,mr ,m',cabe  makes 
a statement concerning what he calls    
vital force1--a term ,i do  not remember
 to have ever used in my life4 ,he      
claims for ,haeckel what  is represented
 by the following extracts from his     
article 7pp4 #gde1 #f1  #g73--          
,he does not say that life is 'knocked  
out of existence' when the      material
 organism decays4 ,he says that the     
vital energy no longer      exists as   
such1 but is resolved into the inorganic
 energies      associated with the gases
 and relics of the decaying body4 ,thus 
the      matter looks a little different

 when ,sir ,oliver comes to 'challenge  
him to say by what right he gives that  
answer4' ,he gives it on this      plain
 right1 that science always finds these 
inorganic energies to      reappear on  
the dissolution of life1 and has never  
in a single      instance found the     
slightest reason to suspect 7if we make 
an      exception for the moment of     
psychical research7 that the vital      
force as such has continued to exist4   
,the italics are mine4 ,a little further
 on he continues3--        ,there is no 
serious scientific demur to ,haeckel's  
assumption of a      monism of the      
physical world1 and his identification  
of vital force      with ordinary       
physical and chemical forces4           
,sir ,oliver seems to admit1 indeed1    
that the vital force is not in      its 
nature distinct from physical force1 but
 holds that it needs      'guidance4'   
,on all sides we hear the echo of       
,professor ,le ,conte's words3          
',vital force may now be regarded as so 

much force withdrawn from      the      
general fund of chemical and physical   
forces4'    ,very well then1 here is no 
conflict on a matter of opinion or      
philosophic speculation1 but divergence 
on a downright question of  scientific  
fact 7let it be noted that ,i do not    
wish to hold ,professor  ,haeckel       
responsible for these utterances of his 
disciple3 he must  surely know better71 
and ,i wish to oppose the fallacy in the
 strongest  terms4    ,if it were true  
that vital energy turned into or was    
anyhow convertible  into inorganic      
energy1 if it were true that a dead body
 had more  inorganic energy than a live 
one1 if it were true that these         
inorganic  energies always or ever      
reappear on the dissolution of life1    
then  undoubtedly cadit qustio2 life    
would immediately be proved to be a     
form of energy1 and would enter into the
 scheme of physics4 ,but  inasmuch as   
all this is untrue--the direct contrary 
of the truth--,i  maintain that life is 

not a form of energy1 that it is not    
included  in our present physical       
categories1 that its explanation is     
still to  seek4 ,and ,i have further    
stated--though there ,i do not          
dogmatise--that  it appears to me to    
belong to a separate order of existence1
 which  interacts with this material    
frame of things1 and1 while there1      
exerts  guidance and control on the     
energy which already here exists 7cf4 p4
  #bd72 for1 though they alter the      
quantity of energy no whit1 and though  
they merely utilise available energy    
like any other machine1 live  things are
 able to direct inorganic terrestrial   
energy along new and  special paths1 so 
as to achieve results which without such
 living  agency could not have          
occurred--e4g4 forests1 ant-hills1      
birds'  nests1 ,forth bridge1 sonatas1  
cathedrals4    ,i have never taught1 nor
 for a moment thought1 that vital force 
is  akin to physical force1 but that it 
needs guidance 7p4 #gdg72 the  phrase   

sounds to me nonsense4 ,i perceive1 not 
as a theory1 but as a  fact1 that life  
is itself a guiding principle1 a        
controlling agency1  i4e4 that a live   
animal or plant can and does guide or   
influence the  elements of inorganic    
nature4 ,the fact of an organism        
possessing life  enables it to build up 
material particles into many notable    
forms--oak1  eagle1 man1--which material
 aggregates last until they are         
abandoned by  the guiding principle1    
when they more or less speedily fall    
into decay1  or become resolved into    
their elements1 until utilised by a     
fresh  incarnation2 and hence ,i say    
that whatever life is or is not1 it is  
certainly this3 it is a guiding and     
controlling entity which interacts  with
 our world according to laws so         
partially known that we have to say     
they are practically unknown1 and       
therefore appear in some respects       
mysterious4 ,if it be thought that ,i   
mean by this something  superstitious1  

and for ever inexplicable or            
unintelligible1 ,i have no  such        
meaning4 ,i believe in the ultimate     
intelligibility of the  universe1 though
 our present brains may require         
considerable  improvement before we can 
grasp the deepest things by their aid2  
but  this matter of vitality is probably
 not hopelessly beyond us2 and it  does 
not follow1 because we have no theory of
 life or death now1 that  we shall be   
equally ignorant a century hence4    ,my
 chief objection to ,professor          
,haeckel's literary work is that he is  
dogmatic on such points as these1 and   
would have people believe1 what         
doubtless he believes himself1 that he  
already knows the answer to a  number of
 questions in the realms of physical    
nature and of philosophy4  ,he writes in
 so forcible and positive and determined
 a fashion1 from  the vantage ground of 
scientific knowledge1 that he exerts an 
undue  influence on the uncultured among
 his readers1 and causes them to fancy  

that only benighted fools or credulous  
dupes can really disagree with  the     
historical criticisms1 the speculative  
opinions1 and philosophical1  or perhaps
 unphilosophical1 conjectures1 thus     
powerfully set forth4          ,,chapter
 ,,viii    ,,hypothesis ,,and           
,,analogies ,,concerning ,,life         
,the view concerning ,life which ,i have
 endeavoured to express is that it  is  
neither matter nor energy1 nor even a   
function of matter or of  energy1 but is
 something belonging to a different     
category2 that by  some means at present
 unknown it is able to interact with the
 material  world for a time1 but that it
 can also exist in some sense           
independently2 although in that         
condition of existence it is by no      
means apprehensible by our senses4 ,it  
is dependent on matter for its          
phenomenal appearance--for its          
manifestation to us here and now1 and   
for all its terrestrial activities2 but 
otherwise1 ,i conceive that it  is      

independent1 that its essential         
existence is continuous and  permanent1 
though its interactions with matter are 
discontinuous and  temporary2 and ,i    
conjecture that it is subject to a law  
of  evolution--that a linear advance is 
open to it--whether it be in its        
phenomenal or in its occult state4      
,it may be well to indicate what ,i mean
 by conceiving of the possibility  that 
life has an existence apart from its    
material manifestations as we  know them
 at present4 7,remember note on p4 #dj47
 ,it is easy to imagine  that such a    
view is a mere surmise1 having no       
intelligible meaning1 and  that it is   
merely an attempt to clutch at human    
immortality in an  emotional and        
unscientific spirit4 ,to this1 however1 
,i in no way plead  guilty4 ,my ideas   
about life may be quite wrong1 but they 
are as  cold-blooded and free from bias 
as possible2 moreover1 they apply not   
to human life alone1 but to all life--to
 that of all animals1 and even  of      

plants2 and they are held by me as a    
working hypothesis1 the only  one which 
enables me to fit the known facts of    
ordinary vitality into a  thinkable     
scheme4 ,without it1 ,i should be met by
 all the usual  puzzles3--7#a7 as to the
 stage at which existence begins1 if it 
can be  thought of as beginning at      
all2#c 7#b7 as to the nature of         
individuality1 in the midst of diversity
 of particles1 and the  determination of
 form irrespective of variety of food2  
7#c7 the  extraordinary rapidity of     
development1 which results in the       
production  of a fully endowed          
individual in the course of some        
fraction of a  century4                 
,footnote #c3 ,i doubt whether existence
 can be begun at all1        save as the
 result of a juxtaposition of elements1 
or of a        conveyance of otion4 ,we 
can put things together1 and we can set 
things in motion1--statics and          
kinetics1--can we do more8 ,ether       
can be strained1 matter can be moved3 ,i

 doubt whether we see        more than  
this happening in the whole material    
universe4 ,this        dictum is        
elaborated elsewhere4    ,with it1 ,i   
cannot pretend that all these things are
 thoroughly  intelligible1 but the lines
 on which an explanation may be         
forthcoming  seem to be laid down3--the 
notion being that what we see is a      
temporary  apparition or incarnation of 
a permanent entity or idea4    ,it is   
easiest to explain my meaning by aid of 
analogues1--by the  construction1 as it 
were1 of models1 just as is the custom  
in ,physics  whenever a recondite idea  
has to be grasped before it can be      
properly  formulated and before a theory
 is complete4    ,i will take two       
analogies3 one from ,magnetism and one  
from ,politics4    ,parliament1 or the  
,army1 is a body which consists of      
individual  members constantly changing1
 and its existence is not dependent on  
their existence3 it pre-existed any     
particular set of them1 and it can      

survive a dissolution4 ,even after a    
complete slaughter1 the idea of the     
,army would survive1 and another would  
come into being1 to carry on the        
permanent traditions and life4          
,except as an idea in some sentient     
mind1 it could not be said to exist  at 
all4 ,the mere individuals composing it 
do not make it3 without the  idea they  
would be only a disorganised mob4       
,abstractions like the  ,british        
,constitution1 and other such things1   
can hardly be said to have  any         
incarnate existence4 ,these exist only  
as ideas4    ,parliament exists         
fundamentally as an idea1 and it can be 
called into  existence or re-incarnated 
again4 ,whether it is the same          
,parliament or  not after a general     
election is a question that may be      
differently  answered4 ,it is not       
identical1 it may have different        
characteristics1  but there is certainly
 a sort of continuity2 it is still a    
,british  ,parliament1 for instance1 it 

has not changed its character to that of
  the ,french ,assembly or the ,american
 ,congress4 ,it is a permanent entity   
even when disembodied2 it has a past and
 it has a future2 it has a              
fundamentally continuous existence      
though there are breaks or  dislocations
 in its conspicuous activity1 and though
 each incarnation  has a separate       
identity or personality of its own4 ,it 
is larger and  more comprehensive than  
any individual representation of it2 it 
may be  said to have a subliminal self1 
of which any septennial period sees  but
 a meagre epitome4    ,some of those    
epitomes are more1 some less1 worthy2   
sometimes there  appears only a poor    
deformity or a feeble-minded attempt1   
sometimes a  strong and vigorous        
embodiment of the root idea4    ,as to  
its technical continuity of existence   
and actual mode of  reproduction1 ,i    
suppose it would be merely fanciful to  
liken the  ,crown to those germ-cells or
 nuclei1 whose existence continues      

without break1 which serve the purpose  
of collecting and composing the  somatic
 cells in due season4    ,other         
illustrations of the temporary          
incarnation of a permanent idea  are    
readily furnished from the domain of    
,art2 but1 after all1 the best  analogy 
to life that ,i can at present think of 
is to be found in the  subject of       
,magnetism4    ,at one time it was      
possible to say that magnetism could not
 be produced  except by antecedent      
magnetism2 that there was no known way  
of  generating it spontaneously2 yet    
that1 since it undoubtedly occurs in    
certain rocks of the earth1 it must have
 come into existence somehow1  at date  
unknown4 ,it could also be said1 and it 
can be said still1 that1  given an      
initial magnet1 any number of others can
 be made1 without loss  to the          
generating magnet4 ,by influence or     
induction exerted by  proximity on other
 pieces of steel1 the properties of one 
magnet can be  excited in any number of 

such pieces1--the amount of magnetism   
thus  producible being infinite2 that   
is1 being strictly without limit1 and   
not dependent at all on the very finite 
strength of the original  magnet1 which 
indeed continues unabated4 ,it is just  
as if magnetism  were not really        
manufactured at all1 but were a thing   
called out of  some infinite reservoir3 
as if something were brought into active
 and  prominent existence from a        
previously dormant state4    ,and that  
indeed is the fact4 ,the process of     
magnetisation1 as conducted  with a     
steel magnet on other pieces of         
previously inert steel1 in no  case     
really generates new lines of magnetic  
force1 though it appears to  generate   
them4 ,we now know that the lines which 
thus spring into  corporeal existence1  
as it were1 are essentially closed      
curves or  loops1 which cannot be       
generated2 they can be expanded or      
enlarged to  cover a wide field1 and    
they can be contracted or shrunk up into

  insignificance1 but they cannot be    
created1 they must be pre-existent2     
they were in the non-magnetised steel   
all the time1 though they were so  small
 and ill-arranged that they had no      
perceptible effect whatever2  they      
constituted a potentiality for          
magnetism2 they existed as  molecular   
closed curves or loops1 which1 by the   
operation called  magnetisation1 could1 
some of them1 be opened out into loops  
of finite  area and spread out into     
space1 where they are called lines of   
force4  ,they then constitute the region
 called a magnetic field1 which remains 
a seat of so-called permanent magnetic  
activity1 until by lapse of  time1      
excessive heat1 or other circumstance1  
they close up again2 and  so the magnet1
 as a magnet1 dies4 ,the magnetism      
itself1 however1 has  not really died1  
it has a perpetual existence2 and a     
fresh act of  magnetisation can recall  
it1 or something indistinguishable from 
it1  into manifest activity again2 so   

that it1 or its equivalent1 can once    
more interact with the rest of material 
energies1 and be dealt with by          
physicists1 or subserve the uses of     
humanity4 ,until that time of           
re-appearance its existence can only be 
inferred by the thought of the          
mathematician3 it is indeed a matter of 
theory1 not necessarily  recognised as  
true by the practical man4    ,our      
present view is that the act of         
magnetisation consists in a             
re-arrangement and co-ordination of     
previously existing magnetic  elements1 
lying dormant1 so to speak1 in iron and 
other magnetic  materials2 only a very  
small fraction of the whole number being
 usually  brought into activity at any  
one time1 and not necessarily always the
  same actual set4 ,only a small and    
indiscriminate selection is made from   
all the molecular loops2 and it can be a
 different group each time1 or  some    
elements may be different and some the  
same1 whenever a fresh  individual or   

magnet is brought into being4    ,all   
this can be said concerning the old     
process of magnetisation--the  process  
as it was doubtless familiar to the     
unknown discoverer of the  lodestone1 to
 the ancient users of the mariner's     
compass1 and to ,dr  ,gilbert of        
,colchester1 the discoverer of the      
magnetised condition of  the ,earth4    
,but within the nineteenth century a    
fresh process of magnetisation has  been
 discovered1 and this new or electrical 
process is no longer  obviously         
dependent on the existence of antecedent
 magnetism1 but seems  at first sight to
 be a property freshly or spontaneously 
generated1 as  it were4 ,the process was
 discovered as the result of setting    
electricity into motion4 ,so long as    
electricity was studied in its          
condition at rest on charged conductors1
 as in the old science of               
electrostatics or frictional            
electricity1 it possessed no magnetic   
properties whatever1 nor did it encroach

 on the magnetic domain3 only  vague    
similarities in the phenomena of        
attraction and repulsion aroused        
attention4 ,but directly electricity was
 set in motion1 constituting  what is   
called an electric current1 magnetic    
lines of force instantly  sprang into   
being1 without the presence of any steel
 or iron2 and in  twenty years they were
 recognised4 ,these electrically        
generated lines  of force are similar to
 those previously known1 but they need  
no matter  to sustain them4 ,they need  
matter to display them1 but they        
themselves  exist equally well in       
perfect vacuum4    ,how did they manage 
to spring into being8 ,can it be said   
that they too  had existed previously in
 some dormant condition in the ether of 
space8  ,that they too were closed loops
 opened out1 and their existence thus   
displayed1 by the electric current8     
,that is an assertion which might       
reasonably be made3 it is not the only  
way of regarding the matter1 however1   

and the mode in which a magnetic  field 
originates round the path of a moving   
charge--being generated  during the     
acceleration-period by a pulse of       
radiation which travels  with the speed 
of light1 being maintained during the   
steady-motion  period by a sort of      
inertia as if in accordance with the    
first law of  motion1 and being         
destroyed only by a return pulse of     
re-radiation  during a                  
retardation-period when the moving      
charge is stopped or  diverted or       
reversed--all this can hardly be fully  
explained until the  intimate nature of 
an electric charge has been more fully  
worked out2  and the subject now        
trenches too nearly on the more advanced
 parts of  ,physics to be useful any    
longer as an analogue for general       
readers4    ,indeed it must be          
recollected that no analogy will bear   
pressing too  far4 ,all that we are     
concerned to show is that known magnetic
 behaviour  exhibits a very fair analogy

 to some aspects of that still more     
mysterious entity which we call life2   
and if anyone should assert  that all   
magnetism was pre-existent in some      
ethereal condition1 that it  would never
 go out of essential existence1 but that
 it could be brought  into relation with
 the world of matter by certain         
acts1--that while  there it could       
operate in a certain way1 controlling   
the motion of  bodies1 interacting with 
forms of energy1 producing sundry       
effects for  a time1 and then           
disappearing from our ken to the        
immaterial region  whence it came1--he  
would be saying what no physicist would 
think it  worth while to object to1 what
 many indeed might agree with4    ,well1
 that is the kind of assertion which ,i 
want to make1 as a working  hypothesis1 
concerning life4    ,an acorn has in    
itself the potentiality not of one      
oak-tree alone1 but  of a forest of     
oak-trees1 to the thousandth generation1
 and indeed of  oak-trees without end4  

,there is no sort of law of conservation
 here4  ,it is not as if something were 
passed on from one thing to another4 ,it
  is not analogous to energy at all1 it 
is analogous to the magnetism  which can
 be excited by any given magnet3 the    
required energy1 in both  cases1 being  
extraneously supplied1 and only         
transmuted into the  appropriate form by
 the guiding principle which controls   
the operation4    ,we do not know how to
 generate life without the action of    
antecedent  life at present1 though that
 may be a discovery lying ready for us  
in  the future2 but even if we did1 it  
would still be true 7as ,i think7  that 
the life was in some sense pre-existent1
 that it was not really  created de     
novo1 that it was brought into actual   
practical every-day  existence          
doubtless1 but that it had pre-existed  
in some sense too3  being called out1 as
 it were1 from some great reservoir or  
storehouse  of vitality1 to which1 when 
its earthly career is ended1 it will    

return4    ,indeed1 it cannot in any    
proper sense be said ever to have left  
that  storehouse1 though it has been    
made to interact with the world for a   
time2 and1 if we might so express it1 it
 may be thought of as carrying  back    
with it1 into the general reservoir1 any
 individuality1 and any  experience and 
training or development1 which it can be
 thought of as  having acquired here4   
,such a statement as this last cannot be
 made of  magnetism1 to which no known  
law of evolution and progress can be    
supposed to apply2 but of life1 of      
anything subject to continuous          
evolution or linear progress embodied in
 the race1 of any condition not         
cyclically determinate and returning    
into itself1 but progressing and        
advancing--acquiring fresh              
potentialities1 fresh powers1 fresh     
beauties1 new characteristics such as   
perhaps may never in the whole  universe
 have been displayed before--of         
everything which possesses such  powers 

as these1 a statement akin to the above 
may certainly be made4  ,to all such    
things1 when they reach a high enough   
stage1 the ideas of  continued          
personality1 of memory1 of persistent   
individual existence1  not only may1 but
 ,i think must1 apply2 notwithstanding  
the admitted  return of the individual  
after each incarnation to the central   
store  from which it was differentiated 
and individualised4    ,even so a       
villager1 picked out as a recruit and   
sent to the seat of  war1 may serve his 
country1 may gain experience1 acquire a 
soul and a  width of horizon such as he 
had not dreamt of2 and when he returns1 
after the war is over1 may be merged as 
before in his native village4  ,but the 
village is the richer for his presence1 
and his individuality  or personality is
 not really lost2 though to the eye of  
the world1  which has no further need   
for it1 it has practically ceased to be4
          ,,chapter ,,ix    ,,will ,,and
 ,,guidance    7,partially read to the  

,synthetic ,society in ,february #aijc47
      ,the influence of the divine on   
the human1 and on the material world1   
has been variously conceived in         
different ages1 and various forms of    
difficulty have been at different times 
felt and suggested2 but always  some    
sort of analogy between human action and
 divine action has had  perforce to be  
drawn1 in order to make the latter in   
the least  intelligible to our          
conception4 ,the latest form of         
difficulty is  peculiarly deep-seated1  
and is a natural outcome of an age of   
physical  science4 ,it consists in      
denying the possibility of any guidance 
or  control1--not only on the part of a 
,deity1 but on the part of every one  of
 his creatures4 ,it consists in pressing
 the laws of physics to what  may seem  
their logical and ultimate conclusion1  
in applying the  conservation of energy 
without ruth or hesitation1 and so      
excluding1 as  some have fancied1 the   
possibility of free-will action1 of     

guidance1 of  the self-determined action
 of mind or living things upon matter1  
altogether4 ,the appearance of control  
has accordingly been considered         
illusory1 and has been replaced by a    
doctrine of pure mechanism1  enveloping 
living things as well as inorganic      
nature4    ,and those who for any reason
 have felt disinclined or unable to     
acquiesce in this exclusion of          
non-mechanical agencies1 whether it be  
by reason of faith and instinct or by   
reason of direct experience and         
sensation to the contrary1 have thought 
it necessary of late years to  seek to  
undermine the foundation of ,physics1   
and to show that its  much-vaunted laws 
rest upon a hollow basis1 that their    
exactitude is  illusory1--that the      
conservation of energy1 for instance1   
has been too  rapid an induction1 that  
there may be ways of eluding many       
physical  laws and of avoiding          
submission to their sovereign sway4     
,by this sacrifice it has been thought  

that the eliminated guidance and        
control can philosophically be          
reintroduced4    ,this1 ,i gather1 may  
have been the chief motive of a critical
  examination of the foundations of     
,physics by an ,american author1 ,j4    
,b4 ,stallo1 in a little book called the
 ,concepts of ,physics4 ,but  the worst 
of that book was that ,judge ,stallo was
 not fully familiar  with the teachings 
of the great physicists2 he appears to  
have  collected his information from    
popular writings1 where the doctrines   
were very imperfectly laid down2 so that
 some of his book is  occupied in       
demolishing constructions of straw1     
unrecognisable by  professed physicists 
except as caricatures at which they also
 might  be willing to heave an          
occasional missile4    ,the armoury     
pressed into the service of ,professor  
,james ,ward's not  wholly dissimilar   
attack on ,physics is of heavy calibre1 
and his  criticism cannot in general be 
ignored as based upon inadequate        

acquaintance with the principles under  
discussion2 but still his  ,gifford     
lectures raise an antithesis or         
antagonism between the  fundamental laws
 of mechanics and the possibility of any
 intervention  whether human or divine4 
,if this antagonism is substantial it is
 serious2 for ,natural  ,philosophers   
will not be willing to concede          
fundamental inaccuracy or  uncertainty  
about their recognised and              
long-established laws of motion1  when  
applied to ordinary matter2 nor will    
they be prepared to tolerate  any the   
least departure from the law of the     
conservation of energy1  when all forms 
of energy are taken into account4       
,hence1 if guidance  and control can be 
admitted into the scheme by no means    
short of  undermining and refuting those
 laws1 there may be every expectation   
that the attitude of scientific men will
 be perennially hostile to the  idea of 
guidance or control1 and so to the      
efficacy of prayer1 and to  many another

 practical outcome of religious belief4 
,it becomes  therefore an important     
question to consider whether it is true 
that  life or mind is incompetent to    
disarrange or interfere with matter at  
all1 except as itself an automatic part 
of the machine1--whether in  fact it is 
merely an ornamental appendage or       
phantasmal accessory of  the working    
parts4    ,now experience--the same kind
 of experience as gave us our scheme of 
mechanics--shows us that to all         
appearance live animals certainly can   
direct and control mechanical energies  
to bring about desired and  preconceived
 results2 and that man can definitely   
will that those  results shall occur4   
,the way the energy is provided is      
understood1 and  its mode of application
 is fairly understood2 what is not      
understood is  the way its activity is  
determined4 ,undoubtedly our body is    
material  and can act on other matter2  
and the energy of its operations is     
derived from food1 like any other       

self-propelled and fuel-fed  mechanism2 
but mechanism is usually controlled by  
an attendant4 ,the  question is whether 
our will or mind or life can direct our 
body's  energy along certain channels to
 attain desired ends1 or whether--as in 
a motor-car with an automaton           
driver--the end and aim of all activity 
is wholly determined by mechanical      
causes4 ,and a further question         
concerns the mode whereby vital control1
 if any1 is achieved4    ,answers that  
might be hazarded are3        7a7 ,that 
life is itself a latent store of energy1
 and achieves      its results by       
imparting to matter energy that would   
not otherwise      be in evidence3 in   
which case life would be a part of the  
machine1      and as truly mechanical as
 all the rest4    ,experiment lends no  
support to this view of the relation    
between life  and energy1 and ,i hold   
that it is false2 because the essential 
property  of energy is that it can      
transform itself into other forms1      

remaining  constant in quantity1 whereas
 life does not add to the stock of any  
known form of energy1 nor does death    
affect the sum of energy in any  known  
way4        7b7 ,that life is something 
outside the scheme of mechanics--outside
      the categories of matter and      
energy2 though it can nevertheless      
control or direct material              
forces--timing them and determining     
their place of application1--subject    
always to the laws of energy      and   
all other mechanical laws2 supplementing
 or accompanying these      laws1       
therefore1 but contradicting or         
traversing them no whit4    ,this second
 answer ,i hold to be true2 but in order
 to admit its truth  we must recognise  
that force can be exerted and energy    
directed1 by  suitable adjustment of    
existing energy1 without any            
introduction of  energy from without2 in
 other words1 that the energy of        
operations  automatically going on in   
any active region of the universe--any  

region  where transformation and        
transference of energy are continuously 
occurring whether life be present or    
not--can be guided along paths  that it 
would not automatically have taken1 and 
can be directed so as  to produce       
effects that would not otherwise have   
occurred2 and this  without any breakage
 or suspension of the laws of dynamics1 
and in full  correspondence with both   
the conservation of energy and the      
conservation of momentum4    ,that is   
where ,i part company with ,professor   
,james ,ward in the second  volume of   
,naturalism and ,agnosticism2 with whom 
nevertheless on many  broad issues ,i   
find myself in fair agreement4 ,those   
who find a real  antinomy between       
mechanism and morals must either throw  
overboard the  possibility of           
interference or guidance or willed      
action altogether1  which is one        
alternative1 or must assume that the    
laws of ,physics are  only approximate  
and untrustworthy1 which is the other   

alternative--the  alternative apparently
 favoured by ,professor ,james ,ward4 ,i
 wish to  argue that neither of these   
alternatives is necessary1 and that     
there  is a third or middle course of   
proverbial safety3 all that is necessary
  is to realise and admit that the laws 
of ,physical ,science are  incomplete1  
when regarded as a formulation and      
philosophical summary  of the universe  
in general4 ,no ,laplacian calculator   
can be supplied  with all the data4     
,on a stagnant and inactive world life  
would admittedly be powerless3 it  could
 only make dry bones stir in such a     
world if itself were a form of  energy2 
,i do not suppose for a moment that it  
could be incarnated on  such a world2 it
 is only potent where inorganic energy  
is mechanically  available--to use ,lord
 ,kelvin's term1--that is to say1 is    
either  potentially or actually in      
process of transfer and transformation4 
,in  other words1 life can generate no  
trace of energy1 it can only guide  its 

transmutations4    ,it has gradually    
dawned upon me that the reason why      
,philosophers who  are well acquainted  
with ,physical or ,dynamical ,science   
are apt to fall  into the error of      
supposing that mental and vital         
interference with the  material world is
 impossible1 in spite of their clamorous
 experience to  the contrary 7or else1  
on the strength of that experience1 to  
conceive  that there is something the   
matter with the formulation of physical 
and  dynamical laws71 is because all    
such interference is naturally and      
necessarily excluded from scientific    
methods and treatises4    ,in pure      
,mechanics1 force is treated as a       
function of configuration  and momentum3
 the positions1 the velocities1 and the 
accelerations of a  conservative system 
depend solely on each other1 on initial 
conditions1  and on mass2 or1 if we     
choose so to express it1 the            
co-ordinates1 the  momenta1 and the     
kinetic energies1 of the parts of any   

dynamical system  whatever1 are all     
functions of time and of each other1 and
 of nothing  else4 ,in other words1 we  
have to deal1 in this mode of regarding 
things1 with a definite and completely  
determinate world1 to which  prediction 
may confidently be applied4    ,but this
 determinateness is got by refusing to  
contemplate anything  outside a certain 
scheme3 it is an internal truth within  
the assigned  boundaries1 and is quite  
consistent with psychical interference  
and indeterminateness1 as soon as those 
boundaries are ignored2  determinateness
 is not part of the essence of dynamical
 doctrine1  it is arrived at by the     
tacit assumption that no undynamical or 
hyperdynamical agencies exist3 in short1
 by that process of abstraction  which  
is invariably necessary for simplicity1 
and indeed for  possibility1 of         
methodical human treatment4 ,everyone   
engaged in  scientific research is aware
 that if exuberant charwomen1 or        
intelligent but mischievous students    

7who for the moment may be taken  to    
represent life and mind respectively7   
are admitted into a laboratory  and     
given full scope for their activities1  
the subsequent scientific               
results--though still1 no doubt1 in some
 strained sense1 concordant  with law   
and order--are apt to be too complicated
 for investigation2  wherefore there is 
usually an endeavour to exclude these   
incalculable  influences1 and to make a 
tacit assumption that they have not been
 let  in4    ,there is a similar tacit  
assumption in treatises on ,physics and 
,chemistry2 viz41 that the laws of      
automatic nature shall be allowed       
unrestricted and unaided play1 that     
nothing shall intervene in any          
operation from start to finish save     
mechanical sequent and                  
antecedent1--that it is permissible in  
fact to exercise abstraction1 as  usual1
 to the exclusion of agents not         
necessarily connected with the  problem1
 and not contemplated by the equations4 

,in text-books of ,dynamics and in      
treatises of ,natural ,philosophy that  
is a perfectly legitimate procedure2#d  
but when later on we come to            
philosophise1 and to deal with the      
universe as a whole1 we must forgo  the 
ingrained habit of abstraction1 and must
 remember that for a  complete treatment
 nothing must permanently be ignored4   
,so if  life and mind and will1 and     
curiosity and mischief and folly1 and   
greed  and fraud and malice1 and a whole
 catalogue of attributes and things  not
 contemplated in ,natural               
,philosophy--if these are known to have 
any  real existence in the larger world 
of total experience1 and if there is    
any reason to believe that any one of   
them may have had some influence  in    
determining an observed result1 then it 
is foolish to exclude these  things from
 philosophic consideration1 on the      
ground that they are out  of place in   
the realm of ,natural ,philosophy1 that 
they are not allowed  for in its scheme1

 and therefore cannot possibly be       
supposed capable of  exerting any       
effective interference1 any real        
guidance or control4          ,footnote 
#d3 ,it is on a similar basis that there
 is a science of        rigid dynamics1 
with elasticity and fluidity excluded2  
and thus        also can there be a     
hydrodynamics in which the consequences 
of        viscosity are ignored4    ,my 
contention then is--and in this         
contention ,i am practically speaking   
for my brother physicists--that whereas 
life or mind can neither  generate      
energy nor directly exert force1 yet it 
can cause matter to  exert force on     
matter1 and so can exercise guidance and
 control3 it can  so prepare any scene  
of activity1 by arranging the position  
of existing  material1 and timing the   
liberation of existing energy1 as to    
produce  results concordant with an idea
 or scheme or intention3 it can1 in     
short1 aim and fire4    ,guidance of    
matter can be affected by a passive     

exertion of force  without doing work2  
as a quiescent rail can guide a train to
 its  destination1 provided an active   
engine propels it4 ,but the analogy of  
the rail must not be pressed3 the rail  
guides by exerting force  perpendicular 
to the direction of motion1 it does no  
work but it  sustains an equal opposite 
reaction4#e ,the guidance exercised by  
life  or mind is managed in an unknown  
but certainly different fashion3        
determination can sustain no            
reaction--if it could it would be a     
straightforward mechanical agent--but it
 can utilise the mechanical  properties 
both of rail and of engine2 it arranged 
for the rail to be  placed in position  
so that the lateral force thereby       
exerted should  guide all future trains 
to a desired destination1 and it further
 took  steps to design and compose      
locomotives of sufficient power1 and to 
start them at a prearranged time4 ,it   
employs mechanical stress1 as a         
capitalist employs a labourer1 not doing

 anything itself1 but directing  the    
operations4 ,it is impossible to explain
 all this fully by the laws  of         
mechanics alone1 that is to say1 no     
mechanical analysis can be  complete and
 all-embracing1 though the whole        
procedure is fully subject  to those    
laws4          ,footnote #e3 ,it is well
 to bear in mind the distinction between
        force and energy4 ,these terms  
have been so popularly confused         
that it may be difficult always to      
discriminate them1 but in               
,physics they are absolutely            
discriminated4 ,we have a direct sense  
of force1 in our muscles1 whether they  
be moving or at rest4 ,a        force in
 motion is a power1 it does work and    
transfers energy        from one body to
 another1 which is commonly though      
incorrectly        spoken of as         
generating energy4 ,but a force at      
rest--a mere        statical stress1    
like that exerted by a pillar or a      
watershed--does        no work1 and     

generates or transfers no energy2 yet   
the one        sustains a roof which    
would otherwise fall1 thereby screening 
a        portion of ground from         
vegetation2 while the other deflects a  
rain-drop into the ,danube or the       
,rhine4 ,this latter is the kind        
of force which constrains a stone to    
revolve in a circle instead        of a 
straight line2 a force like that of a   
groove or slot or        channel or     
guide4    ,to every force there is an   
equal opposite force or reaction1 and a 
reaction may be against a live body1 but
 it is never suspected of being  against
 the abstraction life or mind--that     
would indeed be enlarging  the scope of 
mechanics6--the reaction is always      
against some other  body4 ,all stresses 
as a matter of fact occur in the ether2 
and they all  have a material terminus  
at each end 7or in exceptional cases a  
wave-front or some other recondite      
ethereal equivalent71 that is to say    
something possessing inertia2 but the   

timed or opportune existence of  a      
particular stress may be the result of  
organisation and control4  ,mechanical  
operations can be thus dominated by     
intelligence and  purpose4 ,when a stone
 is rolling over a cliff1 it is all the 
same to  energy whether it fall on point
 ,a or point ,b of the beach4 ,but at ,a
  it shall merely dent the sand1 whereas
 at ,b it shall strike a detonator  and 
explode a mine4 ,scribbling on a piece  
of paper results in a certain           
distribution of fluid and production of 
a modicum of heat3 so far as  energy is 
concerned it is the same whether we sign
 ,andrew ,carnegie or  ,alexander       
,coppersmith1 yet the one effort may    
land us in twelve months'  imprisonment 
or may build a library1 according to    
circumstances1 while  the other achieves
 no result at all4 ,john ,stuart ,mill  
used to say that  our sole power over   
,nature was to move things2 but strictly
 speaking  we cannot do even that3 we   
can only arrange that things shall move 

each  other1 and can determine by       
suitably preconceived plans the kind and
  direction of the motion that shall    
ensue at a given time and place4        
,provided always that we include in this
 category of things our  undoubtedly    
material bodies1 muscles and nerves4    
,but here is just the puzzle3 at what   
point does will or determination  enter 
into the scheme8 ,contemplate a brain   
cell1 whence originates a  certain      
nerve-process whereby energy is         
liberated with some resultant  effect2  
what pulled the detent in that cell     
which started the impulse8  ,no doubt   
some chemical process3 combination or   
dissociation1 something  atomic1        
occurred2 but what made it occur just   
then and in that way8    ,i answer1 not 
anything that we as yet understand1 but 
apparently the  same sort of            
pre-arrangement that determined whether 
the stone from the  cliff should fall on
 point ,a or point ,b--the same sort of 
process that  guided the pen to make    

legible and effective writing instead of
  illegible and ineffective scrawls--the
 same kind of control that  determines  
when and where a trigger shall be pulled
 so as to secure the  anticipated       
slaughter of a bird4 ,so far as energy  
is concerned1 the  explosion and the    
trigger-pulling are the same identical  
operations  whether the aim be exact or 
random4 ,it is intelligence which       
directs2  it is physical energy which is
 directed and controlled and produces   
the  result in time and space4    ,it   
will be said some energy is needed to   
pull a hair-trigger1 to open  the       
throttle-valve of an engine1 to press   
the button which shall  shatter a rock4 
,granted3 but the work-concomitants of  
that energy are  all familiar1 and      
equally present whether it be arranged  
so as to  produce any predetermined     
effect or not4 ,the opening of the      
throttle-valve for instance demands just
 the same exertion1 and results  in just
 the same imperceptible transformation  

of fully-accounted-for  energy1 whether 
it be used to start a train in          
accordance with a  time-table and the   
guard's whistle1 or whether it be pushed
 over1 as if  by the wind1 at random4   
,the shouting of an order to a troop    
demands  vocal energy and produces its  
due equivalent of sound2 but the        
intelligibility of the order is         
something superadded1 and its result    
may be to make not sound or heat alone1 
but ,history4    ,energy must be        
available for the performance of any    
physical  operation1 but the energy is  
independent of the determination or     
arrangement4 ,guidance and control are  
not forms of energy1 nor need  they be  
themselves phantom modes of force3 their
 superposition upon the  scheme of      
,physics need perturb physical and      
mechanical laws no whit1  and yet it may
 profoundly affect the consequences     
resulting from those  same laws4 ,the   
whole effort of civilisation would be   
futile if we could  not guide the powers

 of nature4 ,the powers are there1 else 
we should be  helpless2 but life and    
mind are outside those powers1 and1 by  
pre-arranging their field of action1 can
 direct them along an organised  course4
                         99      99     
99      99      99    ,and this same    
life or mind1 as we know it1 is         
accessible to petition1  to affection1  
to pity1 to a multitude of non-physical 
influences2 and  hence1 indirectly1 the 
little plot of physical universe which  
is now  our temporary home has become   
amenable to truly spiritual control4    
,i lay stress upon a study of the nature
 and mode of human action of the        
interfering or guiding kind1 because by 
that study we must be led if we  are to 
form any intelligent conception of      
divine action4 ,true1 it might  be      
feasible to admit divine agency and yet 
to deny the possibility of  any human   
power of the same kind1--though that    
would be a nebulous and  at least       
inconclusive procedure2 but if once we  

are constrained to  admit the existence 
and reality of human guidance and       
control1  superposed upon the physical  
scheme1 we cannot deny the possibility  
of  such power and action to any higher 
being1 nor even to any totality of      
,mind of which ours is a part4    ,i do 
not see how the function claimed can be 
resented1 except by those  who deny life
 to be anything at all4 ,if it exists1  
if it is not mere  illusion1 it appears 
to me to be something whose full        
significance lies  in another scheme of 
things1 but which touches and interacts 
with this  material universe in a       
certain way1 building its particles into
 notable  configurations for a          
time--without confounding any physical  
laws1--and  then evaporating whence it  
came4 ,this language is vague and       
figurative  undoubtedly1 but1 ,i        
contend1 appropriately so1 for we have  
not yet a  theory of life--we have not  
even a theory of the essential nature of
  gravitation2 discoveries are waiting  

to be made in this region1 and it  is   
absurd to suppose that we are already in
 possession of all the data4  ,we can   
wait2 but meanwhile we need not pretend 
that because we do not  understand them1
 therefore life and will can accomplish 
nothing2 we  need not imagine that      
life--with its higher developments and  
still  latent powers--is an impotent    
nonentity4 ,the philosophic attitude1   
surely1 is to observe and recognise its 
effects1 both what it can and  what it  
cannot achieve1 and to realise that our 
present knowledge of it  is extremely   
partial and incomplete4                 
99      99      99      99      99      
,,note ,,on ,,free ,,will ,,and         
,,foreknowledge4    ,in the above       
chapter ,i must not be understood as    
pretending to settle  the thorny        
question of a reconciliation between    
freedom of choice and  pre-determination
 or prevision4 ,all ,i there contend for
 is that no  mechanical or scientific   
determinism1 subject to special         

conditions in  a limited region1 can be 
used to contradict freedom of the will1 
under  generalised conditions1 in the   
,universe as a whole4    ,nevertheless  
there are things which may perhaps be   
usefully said1 even  on the larger and  
much-worn topic of the present note4 ,if
 we still  endeavour to learn as much as
 possible from human analogies1 examples
  are easy3--    ,an architect can draw 
in detail a building that is to be2 the 
dwellers  in a valley can be warned to  
evacuate their homesteads because a city
  has determined that a lake shall exist
 where none existed before4  ,doubtless 
the city is free to change its mind1 but
 it is not expected  to2 and all        
predictions are understood to be made   
subject to the  absence of disturbing1  
i4e4 unforeseen1 causes4 ,even the      
prediction  of an eclipse is not free   
from a remote uncertainty1 and in the   
case of  the return of meteoric showers 
and comets the element of contingency is
  not even remote4    ,but it will be   

said that to higher and superhuman      
knowledge all  possible contingencies   
would be known and recognised as part of
 the  data4 ,that is quite possibly1    
though not quite certainly1 true3 and   
there comes the real difficulty of      
reconciling absolute prediction of      
events with real freedom of the actors  
in the drama4 ,i anticipate that  a     
complete solution of the problem must   
involve a treatment of the  subject of  
time1 and a recognition that time1 as it
 appears to us1  is really part of our  
human limitations4 ,we all realise that 
the past  is in some sense not          
non-existent but only past2 we may      
readily surmise  that the future is     
similarly in some sense existent1 only  
that we  have not yet arrived at it2 and
 our links with the future are less     
understood4 ,that a seer in a moment of 
clairvoyance may catch a glimpse  of    
futurity--some partial picture of what  
perhaps exists even now in  the         
forethought of some higher mind--is not 

inconceivable4 ,it may be  after all    
only an unconscious and inspired        
inference from the present1  on an      
enlarged and exceptional scale2 and it  
is a matter for  straightforward        
investigation whether such prevision    
ever occurs4    ,the following article1 
on the general subject of ,free ,will   
and  ,determinism1 reprinted from the   
,contemporary ,review for ,march #aijd1 
may conveniently be here reproduced3--  
,the conflict between ,free ,will and   
,determinism depends on a      question 
of boundaries4 ,we occasionally ignore  
the fact that there      must be a      
subjective partition in the ,universe   
separating the      region of which we  
have some inkling of knowledge from the 
region      of which we have absolutely 
none2 we are apt to regard the portion  
on our side as if it were the whole1 and
 to debate whether it must      or must 
not be regarded as self-determined4 ,as 
a matter of fact any                    
partitioned-off region is in general not

 completely      self-determined1 since 
it is liable to be acted upon by        
influences      from the other side of  
the partition4 ,if the far side of the  
boundary is ignored1 then an observer on
 the near side will      conclude that  
things really initiate their own motion 
and act      without stimulation or     
motive1 in some cases1 whereas the fact 
is      that no act is performed without
 stimulus or motive2 even               
irrational acts are caused by something1
 and so also are rational      acts4    
,madness and delirium are natural       
phenomena amenable to law4        ,but  
in actual life we are living on one side
 of a boundary1 and are      aware of   
things on one side only2 the things on  
this side appear to      us to          
constitute the whole universe1 since    
they are all of which we      have any  
knowledge1 either through our senses or 
in other ways4      ,hence we are       
subject to certain illusions1 and feel  
certain      difficulties1--the illusion

 of unstimulated and unmotived freedom  
of action1 and the difficulty of        
reconciling this with the felt          
necessity for general determinism and   
causation4        ,if we speak in terms 
of the part of the universe that we know
 and      have to do with1 we find free 
agencies rampant among organic life2    
so that freedom of action is a definite 
and real experience1 and      for       
practical convenience is so expressed4  
,but if we could seize      the entirety
 of things and perceive what was        
occurring beyond the      range of our  
limited conceptions we should realise   
that the whole      was welded together1
 and that influences were coming through
 which      produced the effects that we
 observe4        ,those philosophers1 if
 there are any1 who assert that we are  
wholly      chained bound and controlled
 by the circumstances of that part of   
the ,universe of which we are directly  
aware--that we are the slaves      of   
our environment and must act as we are  

compelled by forces      emanating from 
things on our side of the boundary      
alone1--those      philosophers err4    
,this kind of determinism is false2 and 
the reaction against it has      led    
other philosophers to assert that we are
 lawlessly free1 and      able to       
initiate any action without motive or   
cause1--that each      individual is a  
capricious and chaotic entity1 not part 
of a ,cosmos      at all6        ,it may
 be doubted whether anyone has clearly  
and actually      maintained either of  
these theses in all its crudity2 but    
there are      many who vigorously and  
cheaply deny one or other of them1 and  
in      so denying the one conceive that
 they are maintaining the other4        
,both the above theses are false2 yet   
,free ,will and ,determinism are        
both true1 and in a completely known    
universe would cease to be              
contradictories4        ,the            
reconciliation between opposing views   
lies in realising that      the         

,universe of which we have a kind of    
knowledge is but a portion      or an   
aspect of the whole4        ,we are     
free1 and we are controlled4 ,we are    
free1 in so far as our      sensible    
surroundings and immediate environment  
are concerned2 that      is1 we are free
 for all practical purposes1 and can    
choose between      alternatives as they
 present themselves4 ,we are controlled1
 as      being intrinsic parts of an    
entire cosmos suffused with law and     
order4        ,no scheme of science     
based on knowledge of our environment   
can      confidently predict our        
actions1 nor the actions of any         
sufficiently intelligent live creature4 
,for mind and will have      their roots
 on the other side of the partition1 and
 that which we      perceive of them is 
but a fraction of the whole4            
,nevertheless1 the      more developed  
and consistent and harmonious our       
character becomes1      the less liable 
is it to random outbreaks1 and the more 

certainly      can we be depended on4   
,we thus1 even now1 can exhibit some    
approximation to the highest state--that
 conscious unison with the      entire  
scheme of existence which is identical  
with perfect freedom4        ,if we     
could grasp the totality of things we   
should realise that      everything was 
ordered and definite1 linked up with    
everything else      in a chain of      
causation1 and that nothing was         
capricious and      uncertain and       
uncontrolled4 ,the totality of things   
is1 however1 and      must remain1      
beyond our grasp2 hence the actual      
working of the      process1 the nature 
of the links1 the causes which create   
our      determinations1 are frequently 
unknown4 ,and since it is necessary     
for practical purposes to treat what is 
utterly beyond our ken as      if it    
were non-existent1 it becomes easily    
possible to fall into      the erroneous
 habit of conceiving the transcendental 
region to be      completely            

inoperative4          ,,chapter ,x      
,,further ,,speculation ,,as ,,to ,,the 
,,origin ,,and ,,nature ,,of ,,life#f   
,preliminary ,remarks on ,recent ,views 
in ,chemistry4      ,it is a fact       
extremely familiar to chemists that the 
groupings possible  to atoms of carbon  
are exceptionally numerous and          
complicated1 each  carbon atom having   
the power of linking itself with others 
to an  extraordinary extent1 so that it 
is no exceptional thing to find a       
substance which contains twenty or      
thirty atoms of carbon as well as  other
 elements linked together in its        
molecule in a perfectly definite  way1  
the molecule being still classifiable as
 that of a definite  chemical compound4 
,but there are also some non-elementary 
bodies which1  although they are        
chemically complete and satisfied1      
retain a  considerable vestige of power 
to link their molecules together so as  
to  make a complex and massive compound 
molecule2 and these are able not  only  

to link similar molecules into a more or
 less indefinite chain1  but to unite   
and include the saturated molecules of  
many other  substances also into the    
unwieldy aggregate4          ,footnote  
#f3 ,an article reprinted from the      
,north ,american        ,review for ,may
 #aije4    ,of the non-elementary bodies
 possessing this property1 water appears
  to be one of the chief2 for there is  
evidence to show that the ordinary      
,h-#b-,o molecule of water1 although it 
may be properly spoken of as a          
saturated or satisfied compound1 seldom 
exists in the simple isolated  shape    
depicted by this formula1 but rather    
that a great number of such  simple     
molecules attach themselves to each     
other by what is called  their residual 
or outstanding affinity1 and build      
themselves up into a  complex aggregate4
    ,the doctrine of residual affinity  
has been long advocated by ,armstrong2  
and the present writer has recently     
shown that it is a necessary            

consequence of the electrical theory of 
chemical affinity1#g and that  the      
structure of the resulting groupings1 or
 compound aggregates1 may  be partially 
studied by means of floating magnets1   
somewhat after the  manner of ,alfred   
,mayer4#h          ,footnote #g3 ,see   
,nature1 vol4 #gj1 p4 #agf1 ,june #bc1  
#aijd4          ,footnote #h3 ,see an   
article on ,modern ,views of ,chemical  
,affinity        by the present writer  
in a magazine called ,technics1 for     
,september #aijd4    ,it may be well    
here to explain to students that one of 
the lines of  argument which lead to the
 conclusion that the water molecule1 as 
it  ordinarily exists1 is really complex
 and massive1 is based upon             
measurements of the ,faraday dielectric 
constant for water2 for this  constant1 
or specific inductive capacity1 is found
 to be very large1  something like #ej  
times that of air or free ether2 whereas
 for glass it  is only #e or #f times   
that of free space4 ,the dielectric     

constant of a  substance generally      
increases with the density or           
massiveness of its  molecule1--indeed1  
the value of this constant is one of the
 methods  whereby matter displays its   
interaction with and loading of the free
  ether of space1--and any such density 
as the conventional nine times  that of 
hydrogen for the molecule of water would
 be wholly unable to  explain its       
immense dielectric constant4    ,the    
influence of the massiveness of a water 
molecule is also displayed  in its power
 of tearing asunder or dissociating any 
salts or other  simple chemical         
substance introduced into it2 common    
salt1 for  instance1 is found always to 
have a certain percentage of its        
molecules  knocked or torn asunder      
directly it is dissolved in water1 so   
that1 in  addition to a number of salt  
molecules in solution1 there are a few  
positively charged sodium atoms and a   
few negatively charged chlorine  atoms1 
existing in a state of loose attraction 

to the water aggregate1  and amenable to
 the smallest electric force2 which1    
when applied1 urges  the chlorine one   
way and the sodium the other way1 so    
that they can be  removed at an         
electrode and their place supplied by   
freshly dissociated  molecules of salt1 
thus bringing about its permanent       
electro-chemical  decomposition1 and    
enabling the water to behave as an      
electrolytic  conductor directly a      
little salt or acid is dissolved in it4 
,the power of the water molecule to     
associate itself with molecules of      
other substances is illustrated by the  
well-known fact that water is an  almost
 universal solvent4 ,it is its residual 
affinity which enables it  to enter into
 weak chemical combination with a large 
number of other  substances1 and thus to
 dissolve those substances4 ,the        
dissolving power  usually increases when
 the temperature is raised1 possibly    
because the  self-contained or          
self-sufficient groupings of the water  

molecules are  then to some extent      
broken up and the fragments enabled to  
cling on to  the foreign or introduced  
matter instead of only to each other4   
,the  foreign substance is apt to be    
extruded again when the liquid cools1   
and when the affinity of the            
water-aggregates for each other resumes 
its sway4 ,very hot water can dissolve  
not only the substances  familiarly     
known to be soluble in water1 but it can
 dissolve things  like glass also2 so   
that glass vessels are unable to retain 
water kept  under high pressure at a    
very high temperature1 approaching a red
 heat4    ,another material which also  
seems to have the power of combining    
with a  number of other bodies1 under   
the influence of the loose mode of      
chemical combination spoken of as       
residual affinity1 is carbon2 so that  a
 block of charcoal can absorb hundreds  
of times its own bulk of  certain gases4
    ,indeed1 ,sir ,james ,dewar has     
recently employed this absorbing power  

of  very cold carbon to produce a       
perfect kind of vacuum1 which may1      
perhaps1 be the nearest approach to     
absolute vacuum that has yet been       
attained3 probably higher than can be   
attained by any kind of  mechanical or  
mercury pump4      ,unexpected          
,influence of ,size4    ,suppose now a  
substance contains a great number of    
carbon molecules and  a great number of 
water molecules1 each of which has this 
residual  affinity or power of clinging 
together well developed1 what may be    
expected to be the result8 ,surely1 the 
formation of a molecule  consisting of  
thousands or hundreds of thousands of   
atoms1 constituting  substances more    
complex even than those already known to
 or analysable  by organic chemistry2   
and if these complex molecules likewise 
possess  the adhesive faculty1 a        
grouping of millions or even billions of
 atoms  may ultimately be formed4 7,a   
billion1 that is a million millions1 of 
atoms is truly an immense number1 but   

the resulting aggregate is still        
excessively minute4 ,a portion of       
substance consisting of a billion  atoms
 is only barely visible with the highest
 power of a microscope2  and a speck or 
granule1 in order to be visible to the  
naked eye1 like a  grain of             
lycopodium-dust1 must be a million times
 bigger still47 ,such a  grouping is    
likely to have properties differing not 
only in degree but  in kind from the    
properties of simple substances4    ,for
 it must not be thought that aggregation
 only produces quantitative  change and 
leaves quality unaltered4 ,fresh        
qualities altogether are  liable to be  
introduced or to make their appearance  
at certain  stages--certain critical    
stages--in the building up of a complex 
mass  7cf4 p4 #ga74    ,the habitability
 of a house1 for instance1 depends on   
its possessing a  cavity of a certain   
size2 there is a critical size of       
brick-aggregate  which enables it to    
serve as a dwelling4 ,nothing much      

smaller than this  would do at all4 ,the
 aggregate retains this property1 thus  
conferred  upon it by size1 however big 
it may be made after that2 until it     
becomes a palace or a cathedral1 when it
 may perhaps reach an upper  limit of   
size at which it would be crushed by its
 own weight1 or at  which the span of   
roof is too great to be supported4 ,but 
the  difference1 as regards             
habitability1 between a palace and a    
hovel is  far less than that between a  
hovel and one of the air-holes in a     
brick  or loaf1 or any other cavity too 
small to act as a human habitation4     
,the difference as regards habitability 
is then an infinite difference4    ,to  
take a less trivial instance2 a planet  
which is large enough to  retain an     
atmosphere by its gravitative attraction
 differs utterly1 in  potentiality and  
importance1 from the numerous lumps of  
matter  scattered throughout space1     
which1 though they may be as large as a 
haystack or a mountain or as the        

,british ,isles1 or even ,europe1 are   
yet  too small to hold any trace of air 
to their surface1 and therefore  cannot 
in any intelligible sense of the word be
 regarded as habitable4  ,one of the    
lumps of matter in space can become a   
habitable planet only  when it has      
attained a certain size1 which          
conceivably it might do by  falling     
together with others into a complex     
aggregate under the  influence of       
gravitative attraction4 ,the asteroids  
have not succeeded  in doing this1 but  
the planets have2 and1 accordingly1 one 
of them1 at  any rate1 has become a     
habitable world4    ,but observe that   
the great size and the consequent       
retention of an  atmosphere did not     
generate the inhabitants2 it satisfied  
one of the  conditions necessary for    
their existence4 ,how they arose is     
another  matter4 ,all that we have seen 
so far is that an aggregate of bodies   
may  possess properties and powers which
 the separate bodies themselves  possess

 in no kind or sort of way4 ,it is not a
 question of degree1 but  of kind4      
,so also1 further1 if the aggregate is  
large enough1 very much larger  than any
 planet1 as large as a million earths   
aggregated together1 it  acquires the   
property of conspicuous radio-activity1 
it becomes a  self-heating and          
self-luminous body1 able to keep the    
ether violently  agitated in all space  
round it1 and thus to supply the        
radiation  necessary for protecting the 
habitable worlds from the cold of space 
to  which they are exposed1 for         
maintaining them at a temperature       
appropriate to organic existence1 and   
likewise for supplying and  generating  
the energy for their myriad activities4 
,it has become in  fact a central sun1  
and source of heat1 solely because of   
its enormous  size combined with the    
fact of the mutual gravitative          
attraction of its  own constituent      
particles4 ,no body of moderate size    
could perform this  function1 nor act as

 a perennial furnace to the rest4       
,application to ,protoplasm4    ,very   
well then1 return now to our complex    
molecular aggregate1 and ask  what new  
property1 beyond the province of        
ordinary chemistry and  physics1 is to  
be expected of a compound which contains
 millions or  billions of atoms attached
 to each other in no rigid1 stable1     
frigid  manner1 but by loose unstable   
links1 enabling them constantly to      
re-arrange themselves and to be the     
theatre of perpetual change1            
aggregating and reaggregating in various
 ways and manifesting ceaseless         
activities4 ,such unstable aggregates of
 matter may1 like the water of a  pond  
or a heap of organic refuse1 serve as   
the vehicle for influences  wholly novel
 and unexpected4    ,too much           
agitation--that is1 too high a          
temperature--will split them up  and    
destroy the new-found potentiality of   
such aggregates2 too little             
agitation--that is1 too low a           

temperature--will permit them to begin  
to  cohere and settle down into frozen  
rigid masses insusceptible of  manifold 
activities4 ,but take them just at the  
right temperature1 when  sufficiently   
complex and sufficiently mobile2 take   
care of them1 so to  speak1 for the     
structure may easily be killed2 and what
 shall we find8  ,we could not infer or 
guess what would be the result1 but we  
can  observe the result as it is4       
,the result is that the complexes group 
themselves into minute masses  visible  
in the microscope1 each mass being      
called by us a cell2 that  these cells  
possess the power of uniting with or    
assimilating other  cells1 or fragments 
of cells1 as they drift by and come into
 contact  with them2 and that they      
absorb into their own substance such    
portions  as may be suitable1 while the 
insufficiently elaborated portions--the 
grains of inorganic or over-simple      
material--are presently extruded4  ,they
 thus begin the act of feeding4         

,another remarkable property also can be
 observed2 for a cell which thus  grows 
by feeding need not remain as one       
individual1 but may split into  two1 or 
into more than two1 which may cohere for
 a time1 but will  ultimately separate  
and continue existence on their own     
account4 ,thus  begins the act of       
reproduction4    ,but a still more      
remarkable property can be observed in  
some of the  cells1 though not in all2  
they can not only assimilate a fragment 
of  matter which comes into contact with
 them1 but they can sense it1           
apparently1 while not yet in contact1   
and can protrude portions of  their     
substance or move their whole bodies    
towards the fragment1 thus  beginning   
the act of hunting2 and the incipient   
locomotory power can  be extended till  
light and air and moisture and many     
other things can  be sought and moved   
towards1 until locomotion becomes so    
free that it  sometimes seems apparently
 objectless--mere restlessness1 change  

for  the sake of change1 like that of   
human beings4    ,the power of          
locomotion is liable1 however1 to       
introduce the cell to  new dangers1 and 
to conditions hostile to its continued  
aggregate  existence4 ,so1 in addition  
to the sense of food and other desirable
  things ahead1 it seems to acquire1 at 
any rate when still further  aggregated 
and more developed1 a sense of shrinking
 from and avoidance  of the hostile and 
the dangerous1--a sense as it were of   
pain4    ,and so it enters on its long  
career of progress1 always liable to    
disintegration or death2 it begins to   
differentiate portions of  itself for   
the feeding process1 other portions for 
the reproductive  process1 other        
portions again for sensory processes1   
but retaining the  protective sense of  
pain almost everywhere2 until the spots 
sensitive  to ethereal and aerial       
vibrations--which1 arriving as they do  
from a  distance1 carry with them so    
much valuable information1 and when duly

  appreciated render possible perception
 and prediction as to what is           
ahead--until these sensitive spots have 
become developed into the  special      
organs which we now know as the eye and 
the ear4 ,then1  presently1 the power of
 communication is slowly elaborated1    
speech and  education begin1 and the    
knowledge of the individual is no longer
  limited to his own experience1 but    
expands till it embraces the past       
history and the condensed acquisition of
 the race4 ,and thus gradually  arises a
 developed self-consciousness1 a        
discrimination between the  self and the
 external world1 and a realisation of   
the power of choice  and freedom1--a    
stage beyond which we have not travelled
 as yet1 but a  stage at which almost   
all things seem possible4    ,the first 
two properties1 assimilation and        
reproduction1 overshadowed  by the      
possibility of death1 are properties of 
life of every kind1  plant life as of   
all other4 ,the power of locomotion and 

special senses1  overshadowed by the    
sense of pain1 are the sign of a still  
further  development into what we call  
animal life4 ,the further development1  
of mind1 consciousness1 and sense of    
freedom1 overshadowed by the            
possibility of wilful error or sin1 is  
the conspicuous attribute  of life which
 is distinctively human4    ,thus1 our  
complex molecular aggregate has shown   
itself capable of  extraordinary and    
most interesting processes1 has proved  
capable of  constituting the material   
vehicle of life1 the natural basis of   
living  organisms1 and even of mind2    
very much as a planet of certain size   
proved capable of possessing an         
atmosphere4    ,but is it to be supposed
 that the complex aggregate generated   
the  life and mind1 as the planet       
generated its atmosphere8 ,that is the  
so-called materialistic view1 but to the
 writer it seems an erroneous  one1 and 
it is certainly one that is not proven4 
,it is not even certain  that every     

planet generated all the gases of its   
own atmosphere3 some  of them it may    
have swept up in its excursion through  
space4 ,what is  certain is that it     
possesses the power of retaining an     
atmosphere2 it  is by no means so       
certain how all the constituents of that
 atmosphere  arrived4      ,questions   
concerning the ,origin and ,nature of   
,life4    ,all that we have actually    
experienced and verified is that a      
complex  molecular aggregate is capable 
of being the vehicle or material basis  
of life2 but to the question what life  
is we have as yet no answer4  ,many have
 been the attempts to generate life de  
novo1 by packing  together suitable     
materials and keeping them pleasantly   
warm for a long  time2 but1 if all germs
 of pre-existing life are rigorously    
excluded1  the attempt hitherto has been
 a failure3 so far1 no life has made its
  appearance under observation1 except  
from antecedent life4    ,but1 to       
exclude all trace of antecedent life1 it

 is necessary not only  to shut out     
floating germs1 but to kill all germs   
previously existing  in the material we 
are dealing with4 ,this killing of      
previous life is  usually accomplished  
by heat2 but it has been argued that    
strong heat  will destroy not only the  
life but the potentiality for life1 will
  break up the complex aggregate on     
which life depends1 will deprive the    
incubating solution not only of life but
 of livelihood4 ,there is some  force in
 the objection1 and it is an            
illustration of the difficulty          
surrounding the subject4 ,but ,tyndall  
showed that antecedent life could  be   
destroyed1 without any very high        
temperature1 by gentle heat             
periodically applied3 heat insufficient 
to kill the germs1 but  sufficient to   
kill the hatched or developed organisms4
 ,periodic heating  enables the germs of
 successive ages to hatch1 so to speak1 
and the  product to be slain2 and1      
although some each time may have        

reproduced  germs before slaughter--eggs
 capable of standing the warmth--yet a  
succession of such warmings would       
ultimately be fatal to all1 and that    
without necessarily breaking up the     
protoplasmic complex aggregates on  the 
existence of which the whole vital      
potentiality depends4    ,so far1       
however1 all effort at spontaneous      
generation has been a  failure2 possibly
 because some essential ingredient or   
condition was  omitted1 possibly because
 great lapse of time was necessary4 ,but
  suppose it was successful2 what then8 
,we should then be reproducing in  the  
laboratory a process that must at some  
past age have occurred on  the earth2   
for at one time the earth was certainly 
hot and molten and  inorganic1 whereas  
now it swarms with life4    ,does that  
show that the earth generated the life8 
,by no means2 no more  than it need     
necessarily have generated all the gases
 of its  atmosphere1 or the meteoric    
dust which lies upon its snows4    ,life

 may be something not only              
ultra-terrestrial1 but even immaterial1 
something outside our present categories
 of matter and energy2 as real  as they 
are1 but different1 and utilising them  
for its own purpose4  ,what is certain  
is that life possesses the power of     
vitalising the  complex material        
aggregates which exist on this planet1  
and of  utilising their energies for a  
time to display itself amid terrestrial 
surroundings2 and then it seems to      
disappear or evaporate whence it  came4 
,it is perpetually arriving and         
perpetually disappearing4 ,while it  is 
here1 if it is at a sufficiently high   
level1 the animated material  body moves
 about and strives after many objects1  
some worthy1 some  unworthy2 it acquires
 thereby a certain individuality1 a     
certain  character4 ,it may realise     
itself1 moreover1 becoming conscious of 
its own mental and spiritual existence2 
and it then begins to explore  the ,mind
 which1 like its own1 it conceives must 

underlie the material  fabric--half     
displayed1 half concealed1 by the       
environment1 and  intelligible only to a
 kindred spirit4 ,thus the scheme of law
 and  order dimly dawns upon the nascent
 soul1 and it begins to form clear      
conceptions of truth1 goodness1 and     
beauty2 it may achieve something  of    
permanent value1 as a work of art or of 
literature2 it may enter  regions of    
emotion and may evolve ideas of the     
loftiest kind2 it may  degrade itself   
below the beasts1 or it may soar till it
 is almost  divine4    ,is it the       
material molecular aggregate that has of
 its own unaided  latent power generated
 this individuality1 acquired this      
character1  felt these emotions1 evolved
 these ideas8 ,there are some who try to
  think that it is4 ,there are others   
who recognise in this extraordinary     
development a contact between this      
material frame of things and a  universe
 higher and other than anything known to
 our senses2 a universe  not dominated  

by ,physics and ,chemistry1 but         
utilising the interactions  of matter   
for its own purposes2 a universe where  
the human spirit is  more at home than  
it is among these temporary collocations
 of atoms2 a  universe capable of       
infinite development1 of noble          
contemplation1 and  of lofty joy1 long  
after this planet--nay1 the whole solar 
system--shall  have fulfilled its       
present spire of destiny1 and retired   
cold and  lifeless upon its endless way4
                         99      99     
99      99      99    ,,printed ,,by    
,,neill ,,and ,,co41 ,,ltd41            
,,edinburgh4