becomes at last self-conscious, is a pure assumption. The idealistic view, that the world of phenomena has no existence save as a fiction of my own mind, is, once more, a pure assumption. It is not a question of making or of not making an initial assumption; that we must do in any The question is-Which assumption yields the most consistent and harmonious results?

case.

Again, an answer will, no doubt, be demanded by some people to the question-How does that which, objectively considered, is neurosis become subjectively felt as psychosis? Is not the identification of neurosis and psychosis a begging of the question, unless the how, the modus operandi, is explained? If, in the latter query, by "begging the question" the adoption of an initial assumption is meant, I have already answered it in the affirmative. To the direct question-How does the objective neurosis become conscious as a subjective psychosis ?-while freely admitting that I do not know, I enter the protest that it is philosophically an illegitimate question; for an answer is impossible without transcending consciousness. An illustration will, perhaps, make my meaning clear. Suppose that a sentient being be enclosed within a sphere of opaque but translucent ground glass, into the substance of which there are wrought certain characters. Suppose that external to this there is another similar but larger sphere, similarly inscribed, and that a second sentient being is enclosed in the space between the two spheres. By an attentive study of the two spheres, this second sentient being arrives at the conclusion that the markings on the convex surface of the inner sphere answer to the markings on the concave surface of the outer sphere; and he is led to the conviction that what he sees as markings on the convex, the being within the sphere sees as markings on the concave. He is, however, perplexed by the question-How can this be? He is acquainted with a certain inner surface and a certain outer surface. He is led to correlate the markings of the one with the markings of the other. But the question how the two can have such different aspects is beyond his solution. Puzzle as he

may, he can never solve it. It can only be solved (and how simple then the solution!) by a being outside both spheres, who can see what the enclosed being, "cabin'd, cribb'd, confined," could never see, namely, that the characters were wrought in the translucent glass of the spheres. By which parable, imperfect as it is, I would teach that we can never learn how kinetic manifestations have a metakinetic aspect without getting outside ourselves to view kinesis and metakinesis from an independent standpoint. Or, in the words of Sir W. R. Hamilton,* "How consciousness in general is possible; and how, in particular, the consciousness of self and the consciousness of something different from self are possible . . . these questions are equally unphilosophical, as they suppose the possibility of a faculty exterior to consciousness and conversant about its operations."

The only course open to us, then, in this difficult but important problem is to make certain assumptions, and see how far a consistent hypothesis may be based upon them. I make, therefore, the following assumptions: First, that there is a noumenal system of "things in themselves" of which all phenomena, whether kinetic or metakinetic, are manifestations. Secondly, that whenever in the curve of noumenal sequences kinetic manifestations (convexities) appear, there appear also concomitant metakinetic manifestations (concavities). Thirdly, that when kinetic manifestations assume the integrated and coordinated complexity of the nerve-processes in certain ganglia of the human brain, the metakinetic manifestations assume the integrated and co-ordinated complexity of human consciousness. Fourthly, that what is called "mental evolution" is the metakinetic aspect of what is called brain or interneural evolution.

It would require far more space than I can here command to deal adequately with these assumptions, and meet the objections which have been and are likely to be raised against them. I must content myself with drawing atten* Quoted in Professor Veitch's "Hamilton,” p. 77.

tion to one or two which seem at once obvious and yet easily met.

It may be asked-What advantage has such a view over realistic materialism? Why not assume that neural processes, when they reach a certain complexity, give rise to or produce consciousness?

First of all, I think, the objection raised by Mr. Wallace, in the passage before quoted, to materialism is unanswerable. Secondly, realistic materialism ignores the fact that kinetic manifestations for us human-folk are phenomena of consciousness. To this we will return presently. Thirdly, realistic materialism, and any view which regards the physical series as one which is independent of the psychical accompaniments, and which regards consciousness as in any sense a by-product of neural processes, are open to an objection which was forcibly stated by the late Professor Herbert.*"It is clearly impossible," he says, "for those . . . who teach that consciousness is [a by-product and] never the cause of physical change, to dispute that the actions, words and gestures of every individual of the human race would have been exactly what they have been in the absence of mind; had mind been wanting [had the by-product never emerged], the same empires would have risen and fallen, the same battles would have been fought and won, the same literature, the same masterpieces of painting and music would have been produced, the same religious rites would have been performed, and the same indications of friendship and affection given. To this absurdity physical science [realistic materialism] stands committed." I believe that Professor Herbert's argument, of which this passage is a summary, is, as against realistic materialism, sound and unanswerable. Finally, as Professor Max Müller has well observed,† "Materialism may in one sense be said to be a grammatical blunder; it is a misapplication of a word which can be used in an oblique

*T. M. Herbert, "The Realistic Assumptions of Modern Science Examined," 2nd edit., p. 123.

"Science of Thought," p. 571.

sense only, but which materialists use in the nominative. In another sense it is a logical blunder, because it rests on a confusion between the objective and the subjective. Matter can never be a subject, it can never know, because the name was framed to signify what is the object of our knowledge or what can be known." Materialism, then, for more than one sufficient reason, stands condemned.

It should be stated, however, that Professor Herbert seems to regard the monistic view I am advocating as committed to the absurdity indicated in the passage I have quoted. I am convinced that he was here in error. Indeed, he seems to have failed to see the full bearing of the monistic hypothesis; for while he combats it, he comes very near adopting it himself. With this, however, I have no concern. I have only to show that, on the assumptions above set down, we are not committed to the "absurdity" of supposing that intelligence and consciousness have had no influence on the course of events in organic evolution— that they have only felt the inevitable sequence of physical phenomena without in any way influencing it. According to the monistic hypothesis, kinesis and metakinesis are coordinate. The physiologist may explain all the activities of men and animals in terms of kinesis. The psychologist may explain all the thoughts and emotions of man in terms of metakinesis. They are studying the different phenomenal aspects of the same noumenal sequences. It is just as absurd to say that kinetic manifestations would have been the same in the absence of metakinesis, as to say that the metakinetic manifestations, the thoughts and emotions, would have been the same in the absence of kinesis. It is just as absurd to say that the physical series would have been the same in the absence of mind, as to say that the mental series would have been the same in the absence of bodily organization. For on this view consciousness is no mere by-product of neural processes, but is simply one aspect of them. You cannot abstract (except in thought and by analysis) metakinesis from kinesis; for when you

have taken away the one, you have taken the other also. To speak of the organic activities being conceivably the same in the absence of consciousness, is like saying that the outer curve of a soap-bubble would be the same in the absence of the inner curve. Whatever hypothetical existences this statement may be true of, it assuredly is not true of soap-bubbles.

To pass on from this point to another, it is possible-I trust not probable, but still not impossible-that some one may say, "But how, on this view, can perception be accounted for? Granted that in the neural processes of the individual organism kinesis is accompanied by those metakinetic manifestations which we term 'consciousness,' how will this account for our perception of a distant object? Yonder scarlet geranium is a centre of kinetic manifestations; it is fifty yards and more away. How can I here, by any metakinetic process, perceive the kinesis that is going on out there ?"

For one who can ask this question, I have written the chapter on "Mental Processes in Man," and have used the term "construct," in vain. In vain have I endeavoured to explain that the seat of all mental processes is somewhere within the brain; in vain have I indicated the nature of localization and outward projection; in vain have I reiterated that the object is a thing we construct through a (metakinetic) activity of the mind; in vain have I insisted that our knowledge is merely symbolic of the noumenal existence; and perhaps in vain shall I again endeavour to make my meaning clear.

When we say that we perceive an object, the mental process (perception) is the metakinetic equivalent of certain kinetic changes among the brain-molecules. The object, as an object (as a phenomenon or appearance), is there generated. As before stated, I assume the existence of a noumenal system of which the noumenal existence, symbolized as object, is a part. But what we term the object is a certain phase of metakinesis accompanying certain kinetic nerve-processes in the brain. In other words,