Chapter II: Part 2

Great changes in our views as to the nature or structure of the mind have taken place within the past few years. The older psychology held that the mind was a _unit_; that it was a separate thing or entity, a sort of “sphere”--which, if it could ever be caught, would reveal all the secrets of True Being! Accordingly, they tried to catch this sphere-of-being, by inward reflection or “introspection.” But it was never caught! There are many reasons why this should be so, the chief reason being that a subject cannot be an object also; it is as impossible for a thought to catch itself as it would be to turn a hollow rubber ball inside out, without tearing the cover.[1] But the newer psychology studies the mind objectively, from the outside--by means of recording instruments, and does not depend upon introspection for its results. Further, the very conception of the nature of the “self,” is different; it is not now considered an entity, as of old; but rather a compound thing, a complex, composed of a variety of elements. Instead of being considered a single gossamer thread, it is now thought to be rather a rope, composed of innumerable, interwoven elements--and these, in turn, of still finer threads, until the sub-division seems endless. The mind, in other words, is thought to be compounded of innumerable separate elements; but held together, or compounded into one, by the normal action of the will, of attention, and the grip upon the personality of the true Self. When this will is weakened, when the attention is constantly slackened, when the mind wanders, this strand of rope separates and unravels. The “threads” branch out in various directions, no longer in control of the central governing will; the Self has become _dissociated_ or split-up into various minor Selves--all but parts of the real total Self; yet separate and distinct, nevertheless. And if _enough_ of these threads become joined together, or interwoven, one with another, it can easily be imagined that this second strand of rope might become a formidable opponent to the original strand; it might become so large and strong, in fact, by the constant addition of new threads, and the dissociation of these from the first, true strand, that it would assume a _more_ important role, and become stronger, and finally even control the whole. What was originally but a single, fine, divergent thread has become, in course of time, a successful rival to the original strand of rope.

Now let us apply this analogy--which is, of course, _only_ a rough analogy--which seeks to portray briefly, in visual terms, something that seems to happen invisibly and internally in the mental life. The mind as a whole represents the rope; its elements or component parts are the threads; and, under certain abnormal conditions, these can be torn away from the original Self--like little rivulets, branching off from the main stream of consciousness, forming independent selves. This is an abnormal condition; a splitting of the mind, a dissociation of consciousness. We here enter, therefore, the domain of _Abnormal Psychology_. In such cases, we have instances of so-called “double consciousness,” of “alternating personality;” or, if there are three or more splits or cleavages, of “multiple personality.”[2]

So long as this split-off portion remains a mass of sporadic thoughts, not much damage has been done; but when they become abnormally linked or associated together, forming groups, then the abnormal conditions have begun in earnest. These masses of subconscious experiences are called “complexes,” and give rise to all sorts of trouble. It must not be thought that this complex formation is always harmful; on the contrary, this very process, when normally conducted, is the basis of our educational processes. But when they are thus conglomerated and consolidated outside the conscious mind, and function automatically, by themselves, then they have become dangerous to the mental stability. Their pressure and influence may be felt in the conscious life--in fantastic imaginations, in fears, phobias and obsessions, in morbid dreams, in morbid emotional and moral reactions throughout the entire psycho-physical life. It is these automatic, self-acting complexes which originate many of the disorders of the mind.

This theory of the dissociation of consciousness has enabled us to explain many puzzling facts, hitherto inexplicable. Thus _hysteria_, with its multiform symptoms, and its internal contradictions, has long been the stumbling-block of medicine. Now it is no longer thought to be a morbid physical state (dependent usually upon sexual disturbances), but it is regarded rather as an indication of the splitting of the mind, a dissociation which embraces all the motor, physical and psychical activities. On this theory, hysteria is readily explained, and all its multiplex symptoms understood. In treating it, the self is unified, abnormal suggestibility is removed, and the patient is cured!

_Psychaesthenia_, again, with its obsessions and fears, may be explained in the same manner, and its cure rests upon the same principles. The “attacks” cease so soon as the psychical synthesis is effected and the morbid self-consciousness removed.

_Neurasthenia_, long regarded as a pathological state, due to auto-intoxication and similar causes, is now thought to be due chiefly to dissociation, caused by excessive fatigue--one of the known contributory causes of this condition. _Psycho-epilepsy_--a sort of fictitious imitation of the real disease--is due to precisely similar causes, and may be cured in a similar manner. Hypnotism, Psycho-analysis and general psychotherapy may be employed in such cases.

ABSTRACT THOUGHT.

Two schools of philosophers--the “nominalists” and the “conceptualists”--for long waged a wordy war as to whether or not the mind could frame abstract or universal ideas. As a matter of fact, it was ideas of universal or abstract objects that was meant. These ideas dealt largely with the sense of _meaning_, the inner significance of the thing contemplated. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of mind--how such a thing as abstract meaning can exist at all, and how brain-changes can in any way account for it. McDougall, as we know, is inclined to question that they do so at all. Meaning is a thing most difficult to account for on a purely materialistic basis. Abstract thinking is supposed to be one of the highest types of thinking possible for us; it is the most impersonal form of thought, and hence, in a sense, the highest. Much has been written upon this topic in Oriental literature. This question comes up for discussion, naturally, in the Section devoted to the stream of thought, and the consciousness of self; and further discussion of it will be found in that place.

THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF.

We now approach the heart of our Problem; the central core of Being! The consciousness of self is ingrained in every one of us; we feel our own inner being, our true self, our personal identity, our individuality, as something unique and exclusive. What is this Self? What are thoughts, and who is the Thinker that thinks them? Are the two identical, or are the thoughts expressions of the flow of consciousness? What is the true Self--of what is it composed--and what relation has it to the other functions and processes of the mind which go on, and which are in some mysterious way related to it? Only a brief answer to these questions can be attempted in this Chapter; for many lengthy volumes have been written upon this question alone.

Our stream of consciousness is _continuous_ (except during sleep); states of mind tend to succeed each other. Let us grant this to begin with. The mind seems to be _selective_ in its action, it is changing within itself, as time passes; no two states of consciousness are ever precisely alike. Further, “all consciousness tends to personal form”--a very important fact indeed. A flow of more or less continuous thought goes on; these thoughts follow one another logically in sequence. (In insane patients, of course, they are not logical. I speak here merely of the normal mind. Also, it must be emphasized that nothing in this Chapter touches upon the subconscious mind, unless special mention is made of that fact.) Each thought seems to be personal to the thinker; it is not merely thought in itself. It is _my_ thought. This flow of thought is in constant change; it flows as life itself flows; on the other hand, thought is sensibly continuous! The mental life might here be compared to a river, which eddies and swirls, as it flows, but is the same water, nevertheless.

One of the objects of thinking is to reach certain conclusions. We might compare thought to a bird in flight; its object is to perch upon yon branch; its flight is a necessary transitive stage _to_ the branch. The chain of intermediate thought corresponds, on our analogy, to the bird’s flight. This flight is very different, in the case of different people; with some, it is straight and rapid; with others, it is tortuous and lengthy. That is why different people think differently. About each thought is a sort of halo of relations, dimming off, as it recedes, into other things. This is the so-called “fringe of consciousness.” All thought is related to other thought, more or less directly. Knowledge _about_ a thing is knowledge of its _relations_.

When I am thinking, I am aware of my _personal existence_; at the same time _I_ am aware. There thus seems to be a double self within the Self--the Self as known, and the Self as knower. James calls the former the “ME” and the latter the “I.” Let us consider each of these in turn.

_The Me._--This comprises all that a man can call _his_; the most important of these spiritual possessions are (1) the material me; (2) the social me; and (3) the spiritual me.

The _Material Me_ consists in (a) his body, and (b) his possessions. _The Social Me_ is the side he shows to his friends and acquaintances; this varies greatly in differing environments, so that it has been said that “a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him.” His name, fame, reputation, success, etc., are classed as parts of this Me. _The Spiritual Me_ includes passing states of consciousness; it is that part of us which “goes out” to meet other thoughts. Feelings and emotions affect this Me; self-appreciation, self-satisfaction (or the reverse), self-complacency, etc., vitally affect this Me. Self-seeking and self-preservation are a part of it. These various Selves clash and conflict, to a certain extent, among themselves; they do not all want the same thing. “Happiness” probably consists largely in having all these Selves working together in harmony, to the same end.

_The I._--This was called the “pure ego” by the older psychologists. It seems to be the background of the personality--the string upon which the pearls of thought are strung. Is there a real “string,” or are the pearls merely separate, succeeding one another, as if they were thus strung?

That is a difficult question. Passing thought appears to be a unity; yet it consists of a number of different elements; there is no “fusing” of thought. Ideas, thoughts, in this unlike material threads, cannot be woven together upon nothing; there must be some background other than themselves. The human _Soul_ has been postulated as this “permanent background,” uniting the whole, and withstanding the shock of death. If true, this would serve to explain the facts, and at the same time give us hope for survival. But whether or not such a soul exists at all is a matter of controversy! In the absence of its proof, we must, says Science--reject it. Consequently, we have today a “psychology without a soul.” Attempts have been made to explain the facts without resorting to it.

The usual argument is somewhat as follows: There seem to be single, successive pulses in the stream of thought, constituting the Ego. These vary and change; they succeed one another. May not consciousness, then, consist merely _in_ such successive states of consciousness; may it not in truth be composed of them--just as a succession of pearls may exist without a unifying string? Each thought, on this hypothesis, in some way gives birth to the next, which also inherits its content; in other words, _the thoughts themselves are the thinkers_. Were this true, we should have no “abiding entity,” but merely a successive series of thoughts, constituting the stream of consciousness; this stream in turn composing the true Self. Which of these views is the correct one can only be proved by showing that survival in some form exists; and this can only be accomplished by Psychical Research! (See my little book upon that subject, in the present series.)

* * * * *

(Mutations, multiplications, etc., of the Self, have been touched upon in the Section devoted to Abnormal Psychology; Insanity in its own section; mediumships, possessions, etc., in the book just mentioned.)

THE DUCTLESS GLANDS, AND PERSONALITY.

Within the past few years, a new school has arisen, which contends that the ductless glands in the body (or rather their secretions) affect personality to a very great extent, and that, in fact, personality is largely dependent upon them for its peculiarities and general make-up. A good example of such teaching is to be found in Dr. Louis Berman’s book, “The Glands Regulating Personality.” Here, _e. g._, we read:

“Acuteness of perception, memory, logical thought, imagination, conception, emotional expression or inhibition, and the entire content of consciousness are influenced by the internal secretions.... All the different _nuances_ of personality are expressions of a peculiar relationship, transitory or permanent, between the endocrines and the viscera and muscles. Conversely, behavior shows what a person actually _is_ chemically; that is, what endocrine and vegetative factors predominate in his make-up. The constructive imagination, one of the few truly precious gifts of a personality, is probably the expression of a certain balanced activity of the ante-pituitary and the post-pituitary (glands).... It is possible to speak of thyroid moods, adrenal moods, ante-pituitary or post-pituitary moods, gonadal moods. Each of these is the echo in the mind of cells stimulated or depressed, by concentration or dilution in the blood of particular internal secretions....”

Whether or not such arguments will “hold water” must be proved by further investigation. The _pros_ and _cons_ cannot be argued in this place. It may be said, however, that such extreme views as those outlined above are not yet generally accepted, either by the medical profession or by psychologists, and it seems an extreme statement of a partial truth. The mental life is certainly influenced by the secretion of the internal glands, but to what extent it is fundamentally altered by them is still _sub judice_.

MOTIVES.

Why do we act as we do, under certain circumstances? There is usually some “motive” at work, prompting our action. Human motives find their source in the subconscious mind of man; here they take root, and their products alone are seen by us--mostly in varied actions. Dr. James J. Jackson has written an interesting volume on “Human Motives,” in which he distinguishes two sorts of motives--motives of constructiveness and motives of adaptation. These are, of course, biological in origin. Usually, we speak of “good” and “bad” motives. They all arise from a complex of sentiments, which shape the form and tenor of the subconscious thought--which, in turn, is symbolically expressed in thought and action. Without discussing this question at greater length, it may be said that all our motives originate within the subconscious mind--which thus constitutes the spring of our thoughts and actions.

CONSCIENCE.

Conscience was for long thought to be the “voice of God” speaking to the spiritual ear of man. Nowadays, a more matter-of-fact solution has been sought, and, to a certain extent, found. Modern psychological investigations have deprived conscience of its supernatural origin.

Until these newer researches were undertaken, however, any clear understanding as to the nature of conscience was impossible. (See, _e. g._ George W. Reid’s “Conscience,” and Hastings Rashdall’s “Is Conscience an Emotion?”) With a clearer understanding of the subconscious mind, came greater light. We now believe that conscience is, very largely, the inhibitory action of a portion of the subconscious mind, which inhibition is exercised whenever the thoughts or the actions of the individual run counter to those generally accepted by the community in which he dwells, or by his own individual up-bringing, or both. It is a sort of Censor; but it is an acquired thing, which has come into being, and evolved, like everything else. What the conscience of one man would prevent him from doing, another will do without the slightest qualms. Conscience is not, therefore, a universal principle, judging good and bad, alike in all men. It is a type of repression, exercised upon us from within. Early moral precepts, etc., have much to do with its formation. Here, then, we find the psychological basis for the existence of conscience, which is more or less active in all of us, according to our heredity, environment, education, etc. It is a normal attribute of the inner man.

INTUITION.

This is the term loosely applied to certain inner feelings, giving rise to a form of conviction as to the truth and reality (or the reverse) of something then present in the mind. Intuitions are popularly supposed to be right, and women are said to experience them far more often than men! No statistical evidence is available, so far as I know, upon either of these questions; indeed, it may be said that the whole subject has been grossly neglected, from the psychological point-of-view.

Intuitions probably present themselves to the mind as the result of subconscious mentation. A hidden and unknown process has been going on within the mind, the result or product of which finally emerges in vague form into consciousness. Usually it takes the form of a more or less vague feeling. Miss Goodrich-Freer, who had experienced many such intuitions, attempted to analyze some of them, from introspection, and contributed a valuable Chapter entitled “How it Came into my Head; the Machinery of Intuitions,” in her book, “Essays in Psychical Research.” Her conclusion is approximately that mentioned above. Mr. Walter N. Weston has also written a book entitled “Intuition,” in which, however, little of value can be found.

INSPIRATION.

This term is generally employed to signify “divine” inspiration--ideas which are implanted directly into the human mind by some external Divinity. Such a conception, needless to say, is not in accord with modern thought. Throughout the ages, inspirational addresses have been heralded as evidence of the supernatural. The Pythoness at Delphi inhaled the mystic vapor, rising from a cleft in the rock, and gave forth her Oracular utterances. (See Dempsey: “The Delphic Oracle”; H. N. Bate, “The Sibylline Oracles.”) Even in our own day, “mediums” give similar inspirational addresses, at various spiritualistic centers.

It is not necessary, however, to consider such utterances divine, or supernatural, for the vast majority of them may be interpreted in terms of psychology, with relative ease. They are the products of the subconscious mind of man. George N. Raymond has written an interesting book, entitled “The Psychology of Inspiration,” to which the reader may be referred to further _data_ upon this subject. While it is somewhat religious in tone, it has some good material in it. Like Intuition, this subject has been much neglected by academic psychology, and there is much need for a careful study of its various problems.

GENIUS.

Genius is a term hard to define, though we all have a more or less clear idea as to what is meant by a genius. He is a man who stands apart from his fellows, head-and-shoulders above them, mentally or artistically. But what is it that thus causes him to rise above others? Is it vision? Is it originality? clever anticipation? breadth? constructiveness? concentration? patience? common-sense? Doubtless genius is all this, but it is also more! A genius can perform feats which another man can not, try as he will; and more than that, he performs them without effort or without training, very often! A certain type of genius amounts to what we term a “prodigy,” and then we have cases of musical, mathematical or artistic genius. These gifts are often exhibited very early in life, for no apparent reason; they last for a few years, and then disappear. Few youthful prodigies retain their gifts into adult life. Often, their possessor is not even normally gifted with reason and common-sense in other directions. Such cases as these are unusually difficult to account for. Theosophists are apt to turn to the doctrine of “reincarnation” for an explanation; but we must endeavor to seek its explanation upon more naturalistic lines.

Ostwald has contended that there are two main types of genius; the one which is emotional, erratic, temperamental, artistic, etc. This type acquires its genius without “elbow grease.” The other is the intellectual type, and hard work is essential for the creation of genius of this type.

Nordau, Lombroso, and others, have endeavored to prove that genius is closely allied to insanity. In a sense, this is true; but so are dreams, and yet perfectly normal and healthy people dream. Because certain marks of _resemblance_ may be found, this does not prove _identity_, by any means! A yellow ball may resemble an orange; but it is not identical with it--certainly not in its most essential part--its interior, and its utility.

Genius is probably hereditary, to a certain extent. Ribot has gathered together a mass of data, in this connection, which he has published in his work on “Heredity.” An interesting study of this and allied questions may also be found in N. K. Royse’s book on “Genius.”

Frederic Myers has advanced the idea that genius represents an “uprush from the subliminal consciousness” (subconsciousness) of ideas matured below the threshold. These ideas burst upon the surface, much as bubbles might be said to break upon the surface of water. When the stratum of the mind from which these ideas originate is _diseased_, we have insanity; when, on the other hand, it is _healthy_, we find the products of genius. Some such theory as this is doubtless true; but the study of genius, from the scientific point-of-view, is yet in its infancy, and the final solution of its mystery has yet to be found.

INSANITY.

Until the present generation, the word Insanity was popularly thought to mean either imbecility on the one hand, or a raving maniac on the other. We now know that this idea is quite untrue; insanity is a disease of the mind, just as small-pox is a disease of the body. Moreover, we speak of insanities, and not insanity; for there are many varieties--all shading-off one into another. A physician who deals with such cases is called an “alienist”; and the terms psychiatry, psycho-pathology, abnormal psychology, etc., are employed to designate various branches of the study of the diseased mind.

Certain types of insanity are, of course, due to actual brain disease. A degeneration of the physical substance of the brain may have taken place. In other cases, however, no such gross degeneration can be traced, and we must assume microscopic alterations, or blood changes, or nerves improperly functioning, or purely physical changes and dissociations, as explained above. There has grown-up an extensive literature on insanity, within the past few years. A good primary book of this character is Dr. Bernard Hart’s “Psychology of Insanity.” See also Dr. Charles Mercier’s “Sanity and Insanity.”

INTELLIGENCE-LEVELS.

The tests conducted upon the male adult population of the United States, during the Great War, revealed the astonishing fact that the average mental “age” was approximately twelve years; that is to say, the average adult possesses an intelligence of a boy at that age. The body may have grown, but the mind has not! Of course, many were above that level; but many fell below, and the above represented the _average_. In many other countries, the average would certainly have been far lower.

The majority, therefore, do not possess normal adult minds; there has been an arrested development. A scale of mental development was accordingly constructed, and individuals were placed somewhere in that scale. The human mind may be anything, from a genius to an idiot. In this scale, there were many “defectives.” Those individuals who possessed a mentality of from eight to twelve years, were classed as “morons”; those who ranged from three to seven years, “imbeciles”; and those of two, and under, “idiots.”

The mental-age or intelligence-level of any person may be ascertained by special tests, devised for the purpose. These tests were originated by the psychologist Binet, but Terman and others have greatly extended and amplified the original methods. Such tests have now been conducted extensively, and the results show us that surprisingly low levels of intelligence are the rule, and not the rare exception. The importance of an extensive educational campaign is therefore manifest; and the Editor of this series, Mr. Haldeman-Julius, is carrying on one of the most important campaigns in the world today--by spreading general culture and education. For, by this means alone, and by suitable eugenic measures, can the human race be elevated and improved, with each succeeding generation.

THE PRACTICAL USE OF THE MIND.

There is an old saying that a man may be worth only five dollars a day from his eyes down, but he may be worth a million dollars a year from his eyes up. That is to say, man’s value, both to himself and to the community, lies in his _brain_, and the use he makes of it. Manual labor is not well paid, proportionately, to creative brain work, so that it is to our advantage to develop and utilize our brains to the best possible advantage.

Cultivation of the mind will give us greater powers of concentration; improved memory; stronger will; more poise; soul judgment; greater wisdom; increased value. But mere book learning will not do this. We must learn how to apply the mind in a practical way, to the problems of daily life, and utilize the powers within ourselves. Curiously enough, there is no text-book of this character in use in any school or college in the world; but the necessity of such a practical work is obvious. Boys and girls emerge from College without the slightest idea as to how to apply their minds in any practical manner; their theoretical knowledge is of but slight advantage to them. A few practical hints of this character should, therefore, prove useful. I select the following passages from Christian D. Larson’s excellent little book, “Your Forces: and How to Use Them.” He says:

“To make thinking scientific, there are three leading essentials to be observed. The _first_ is to cultivate constructive mental attitudes, and all mental attitudes are constructive when mind, thought, feeling, desire and will constantly face the greater and the better. A positive and determined optimism has the same effect, and the same is true of the practice of keeping the mental eye single on the highest goal in view. To make every mental attitude constructive, the mind must never look down, and mental depression must be avoided completely....

“The _second_ essential is constructive mental imagery. Use the imagination to picture only what is good, what is beautiful, what is beneficial, what is ideal, and what you wish to realize. Mentally see yourself receiving what you deeply desire to receive. What you imagine, you will think, and what you think, you will become....

“The _third_ essential is constructive mental action. Every action of the mind should have something desirable in view and should have a definite, positive aim.... When the average man thinks of the future, he usually pictures a variety of conflicting events and conditions. He has nothing definite in mind. There is no actual leadership therefore in the mind, and nothing of great worth can be accomplished....

“Those people who fail, and who continue to fail all along the line, fail because the power of their minds is either in a habitual negative state, or is always misdirected. If the power of mind is not working positively and constructively, for a certain goal, you are not going to succeed. If your mind is not positive, it is negative, and negative minds float with the stream. We must remember that we are in the midst of all kinds of circumstances, some of which are for us and some of which are against us, and we will either have to make our own way or drift, and if we drift we go wherever the stream goes. But most of the streams of human life are found to flow in the world of the ordinary and the inferior. Therefore, if you drift, you will drift with the inferior, and your goal will be failure.”

In this connection, it is well to remember that negative people and non-constructive minds never attract that which is helpful in their circumstances. The reason why so many people fail is due to the fact that they do not fully and constructively apply the forces and powers they possess, and the reason so many succeed only to a slight degree is found in the fact that only a small fraction of their power is applied properly. The positive and constructive use of the power of mind, with a definite goal in view, will invariably result in advancement, attainment and achievement; but if we wish to use that power in its full capacity, the action of the mind must be _deep_. We must not merely think from the surface of the mind; ideas and aspirations must come from the deep within. Such ideals and thoughts only come, as a rule, after a certain period of quiet and meditation. Hence the necessity of being quite alone for a certain time each day--and utilizing that time in actual reflection, and not merely in idling the time away!

We have now learned something of the general functions and powers of the mind; how it works, its mechanisms and “faculties.” Having this ground-work, the next thing to do is to apply this knowledge in our daily life, and this can be done by following out suggestions such as those given above--provided the aspiration and the will be present, to drive us onward to achievement and success. The mind of man is assuredly his greatest possession; we must first understand it; then use it! Theoretical and applied Psychology enable us to do this.

MIND AND BRAIN.

The relationship between brain and mind is one of the most puzzling questions in the whole field of scientific and philosophic thought. For every thought we think, there is a corresponding brain-change; that we know. The problem is: What is the nature of this connection, and how can a thought (an immaterial thing, apparently) be connected in any actual sense with a brain change (which is certainly a material thing?) I have discussed this point at considerable length in my little book on “Life,” in the present series, and have therein stated the various theories so far propounded. The interested reader may refer to such books as McDougall’s “Body and Mind,” Binet’s “The Mind and the Brain,” Bain’s “Mind and Body,” Calderwood’s “The Relation of Mind and Brain,” and C. A. Strong’s “Why the Mind has a Body,” for further and detailed discussion upon this subject.

PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY.

Inasmuch as psychology deals with the mind, the spirit, the soul, (provided there be such a thing), and with purely imponderable and immaterial things generally, it is only natural that psychology and philosophy should be closely related. Many of the problems of metaphysics, as a matter of fact, deal with semi-psychological problems; among which may be mentioned the relation of brain and mind, free-will, the science of perceiving the reality of the outer world (epistemology), etc. How an external object and the “idea” of that object can ever be in any way “related” to one another, and how the mind can see a definite “sameness” or similarity between the two is, in fact, an extraordinary phenomenon. The idea of a beefsteak and the beefsteak itself are, indeed, as dissimilar as possible; and yet the two somehow correspond! This relationship is a remarkable fact, and awaits a full solution.

Again, every night when we fall asleep, we lose our individuality, in a sense; yet we are sure of waking up the next morning the same “person” who went to sleep--with its memories, thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc., practically unchanged. How do we know that we shall do so? What guarantee have we that we shall wake up the same person that went to sleep and not some one else? As a matter of fact, this _does_ sometimes happen, in cases of alternating personality; but such cases are exceptional, and the rule holds good. Yet consciousness is constantly changing. We are not the same person that we were five, ten, twenty years ago; we do not consider ourselves morally responsible, as it were, for acts committed by ourselves, when children, any more than if they had been committed by some one else. Nevertheless, underneath all these changes and modifications, there seems to flow a stream of “selfness,” or uniformity, binding the whole together, and we recognize that Self as Ourself--behind and beyond all. What is the innermost nature of that Self? What is its origin, its destiny? These are questions which only the Science of the future can decide!

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It can be shown, theoretically, that this is possible in the “fourth dimension,” but not in the third. This illustrates the difference between theory and practice--a point it might be well for Christian Scientists to keep in mind!

[2] Although this theory of the “composite” nature of mind is now generally held, Mr. Myers has contended that the Self must have some _fundamental_ unity--to enable it to withstand the shock of death--provided it does so.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Perceived typographical errors have been silently corrected.

Footnotes have been moved to the end of the text.