MASTER NEGA TIVE NO. 91-80174 I MICROFILMED 1991 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code -- concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would mvolve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR : L, B. TITLE: DOCTRINE OF ENERGY; A THEORY OF REALITY . PLACE: LONDON DA TE : 1898 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT BIBLIOGRAPHIC MTCROFORM TAR^FT Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record Master Negative # (8 L., B. ^'' . Dociime ot rsalliy... London 18^6. L. of enerou, a iln eor / 1 B. 9 t 108 P' '. Restrictions on Use: TECHMCAL~MiCROFORM DATA ~ FILM SIZE:___3S-^r::V^_ REDUCTION RATIO- U )( IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA TiIa) IB IIB u^xiuiN KAUO. VA Sfx^iL r^^^°--^^X INITIALS 1^1^ FILMED BY: RESEARCH PI /bLICATION.S. T NC WOnnRiirnnp7FT c Association for Information and image IManagement 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 1 2 3 Lil llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I [ Inches T 5 6 7 8 iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilii ni M^ 1.0 M 1.25 9 10 iiiliiiiliiiilini 11 1 1 1 1 1 15.6 3.2 163 3.6 4.0 1.4 2.5 2.2 2.0 .8 1.6 12 13 14 15 mm iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliml 5 1 MflNUFPCTURED TO RUM STfiNDRRDS BY fiPPLIED IMAGE. INC. IL immf^ J *H The Doctrine -■'..f OF Energy ilf--. '-*--' 11^ Kegan Paul,Trench,TrUbner§C? i—<»» TT& BIT ill tftc (jUittj of l^cttr ^JovTi library GIVEN BY PTotJM.Caltell. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. Small Crown 8vo. ^'^^'^^ ^^^ ENERGY: Are these two Beal Things m the Physical Universe ? Beinj? an examination of the fundamental conceptions of Physical Science. By an areument which is well worthy of attention, he seeks to show that all matter of which we have any knowledge IS merely a manifestation of Energy, and in tact, that Matter is moribund, and Energy 'the real *rJ^?.**' J^® future.' . . . The little book is very read- able. — Scotsman. *v" Pi® hrochure is the work of a man conversant with the data of the problem he aims to solve, and is written with considerable ability. Most of its philosophic readers would be tempted to class it with Berkeley's Idealism, but the author deprecates such a classiflca- tion. We are Ukely to hear more of this subject, pro- bably, also, more of B. L, Jj."— Academy. " A bold attempt and one not without interest. . . . It seems a pity that the writer of a book which claims to be an important addition to scientific literature, should not give the world the satisfaction of knowing his name."— Bradford Observer. "We hope it will be as widely read and as much appre- ciated as it undoubtedly deserves."— Literary World. " A bright and clever little essay."- I>«nde« Advertiser. A few copies of this work can still be had on appli- cation to the publishers. Price 5/- each nett. I THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY J THEORY OF REALITY BY B. L. L. i < > I " Philotophff did ttrain Her lidlest eyes for thee." Sesllbt. LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd. Pateenosteb House, Chabinq Cross Road 1898 C7 A LONDON . PRINTED BY GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, LD., ST. JOHN'S HOUSE, CLERKENWELL ROAD, E.O iq yap a^puM-aToc rc koX aax^^arterrof xai aya^Tjc ovaia omut oScra i^vxfc Kv/ScpfT^ri; /utofip 0eai7) vw, rrcpl j^f to t^s dAi]0ovs eirto'Ti]/uii]; Y«Vof, TOVTOi' exet toi' ronov, — Ph£DBVS. " Substance in space we are cognizant of only through forces operative in it, either drawing others towards itself (attraction), or preventing others from forcing into itself (repulsion and impene- trabiUty). We know no other properties that make up the con- ception of substance phsenomenal in space, and which we term matter."— Kakt, " Critique." "What we think under the conception matter, is the residue which remains over after bodies have been divested of their shape and of all their specific quaUties ; a residue which precisely on that account must be identical in all bodies. Now these shapes and qualities which have been abstracted by us, are nothing but the peculiar, specially defined way in which the$e bodies act, which con- stitutes precisely their difference. If, therefore, we leave these shapes and qualities out of consideration, there remains nothing but mere activity in general, pure action as such, causality fitself, objectively thought — that is the reflection of our own Understand- ing, the externalized image of its sole fimction; and Matter is throughout pure Causality, its essence is Action in general." — SCHOPEWHAUEE, " Poujfold ROOt." 269500 INTRODUCTION. In 1887 the author of the following pages published an essay entitled : "Matter and Energy: Are these Two Real Things in the Physical Universe ? " He believes it was the first published argument in support of the theory that the conception of Energy recently postu- lated on behalf of Physical Science really embraces and supersedes the conception of Matter, and by itself adequately explains the real element in all physical phenomena. Subsequent study has in several direc- tions advanced the writer's conception of the theory and confirmed his conviction of its truth, and in the following pages Vlll INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION IX an attempt is made to present it as viewed from a metaphysical standpoint. Want of leisure debars the author from stating his argument in a less imperfect form, but it has been carefully considered, and he believes that the conclusions sub- mitted have both validity and value. It is now many years since the author firet recognized the significance of Activity as an element of Experience, indeed, a key to its interpretation quite as important as Sensation. Such recog- nition has lately been more marked in the writings of leading metaphysicians. As an example, reference may be made to Professor Seth*s recently published volume, "Mans Place in the Cosmos," containing several very able and useful chapters. Professor Seth seems to coun- tenance the doctrine that as an Idea must be an image or likeness of its original, we can have no ideas of the causative agent or of its acts, which latter therefore can ^iK'- i I only be presented in the system of our knowledge as Notions which the mind by immediate intuition recognizes or by a process of inference is obliged to frame in order to explain the constituents of Experience. What truly experience contains in the shape of immediate recognition of Activity other than its accompanying sensations is not here to be discussed ; but it is surely of first importance to note that the Human Mind has at all times postulated two such agents,— an Ego and a Non-ego : and the recognition of this Dualism should be an essential feature in the study of Activity. A few notes on the conception of Matter, regarded historically, are ap- pended,— with apologies for any traces of repetition, which it is difiicult alto- gether to avoid. c ERRATA. Page ii, line 3, for " these " reaA " there." Page vii, line 3, jor " these " readi, *' there." Page 33, line 20, jor " transmutatious " reacZ *♦ trans- mutations." Page 54, line 11, jor •' brokens " reaH " broken." Page 58, line 1, jor ''of" read. " or." Page 60, line 10, jor "attentions " read " attention." Page 88, line 10, jor " as " read. " of." Page 93, line 4, /or " reason " read "reasoned." I I .^ THE DOCTRINE OF ENEEGY The problem of Metaphysics — the nature of Reality — still presses for a solution. Agnosticism is but a cautious idealism — a timid phenomenalism. That philo- sophy, however named, which proclaims that the experience of life is nothing more than a vain show, a pantomime of sensations distinguished only from ideas by their greater intensity and distinct- ness, is not only a confession of failure. It is a denial of fact. To know the nature of the Absolute as such, to present the Absolute to finite minds as it must be presented, if that be possible, to the Absolute itself, must ever remain impossible to man. But it B I 2 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY is equally true that to attempt such a task has never been the urgent mission of Philosophy. The distinction between the Ideal and the Real, between the conceptual and the perceptual, is quite certainly and incessantly recognized. Agnosticism can neither deny the fact successfully, nor solve the speculative difficulties which its recognition raises up. The Real and the Ideal, essentially distinct yet mockingly similar, for ever blend and intermingle in the composite experience of life. Truly to discrimi- nate and unravel these, validly to separate the Ideal element which im- pregnates that Reality which we are for ever compelled to postulate and recognize, still remains the great problem of Philo- sophy—humbler perhaps, and more practical, but not less profound than any vain attempt to discover to finite con- ception the Absolute as it is in itself. Therefore it is that the efforts of THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY ^ negative and agnostic criticism to dis- pense with the recognition of Reality a» a necessary postulate of our activity are foredoomed to failure. They leave us not a solitude which we might pretend to be peace, but a seething sea of troubles calling loudly for a new attempt to reveal the unity which must underlie the infinite diversity of experience. Such, indeed, seems to us the present position of Metaphysics ; and, what is- more important, it appears to react with increasing force upon the theories and investigations of science. The problem of Reality is thus at present not without a special and in- creasing interest for the students of physical science. Until lately they have been taught and have always main- tained that Matter is the direct object of sense-perception. No doubt it is long since Philosophy has urged that our conceptions of the external world are a 4 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY mentally constructed system. But this doctrine has made but little impression upon the students of Natural Science. The objective origin of our sensations and the apparently objective reality also of the intelligible qualities and operative laws of the external world are too strongly impressed upon their minds. Idealism and transcendentalism have carried no conviction to them. Still, the difficulties of common sense have continued to grow. Recent develop- ments of scientific theorv have increased the urgency of the problem, but they seem to us also to suggest a solution the beneficial results of which affect the whole of Metaphysics. We refer to the doctrine of Energy, which occupies now as great a place in the physical sciences as the doctrine of Evolution does in the zoological sciences. Natural philosophers have for some THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY time taught that there are two real THINGS in the physical imiverse — Matter and Energy. It seems a very striking theorv. Has it received the attention it deserves from the students of Meta- physics ? We are convinced that it has not; and the most obvious reason for this neglect that will occur to us is probably that the student of Metaphysics thinks that, as a purely scientific doctrine it does not come within his sphere. Science, he will say, deals with the phenomenal world internally con- sidered ; philosophy with the relations of the phenomenal world to Reality, and with the nature of the transcendental elements in our knowledge. This may be generally true. Never- theless, Philosophy and Science have surely concepts in common, ^i hey both refer to the same thing when they speak of Space ; we presume also when they speak of Matter. Indeed, Philo- <) THE DOOTKIXE OF ENERGY sophy analyzes the conceptions involved not only in scientific reasoning, but in the most common and ordinary mental processes. It analyzes them with reference to the particular question of the relations between the Ideal, or the Phenomenal, and the Real — a question, which in ordinary circumstances, though it always lies latent, does not arise in urgent form. It is therefore evident that the fundamental conceptions of Science do fall within the purview of Philosophy. The. study of physics can be carried on practically as a study of phenomena — of Heat, Colours, Sounds, Forces, &c., all of which are kinds of phenomena — without the expression of any dogmatic and formulated opinion as to their rela- tion with Reality. Physics can speak of mass and weight and avoid all reference to Matter ; but there always is, in scien- tific reasoning, a more or less explicit THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 7 reference to Reality, and it accords more with this mental tendency, and facilitates, therefore, the expression of scientific reasoning, when the account of a physical process is stated with reference to a supposed reality such as Matter. And in making such reference science is thinking of the thing-in-itself. It is a reference beyond phenomena. In point of fact the ordinary scientific theory of Matter still is, or until lately has been, pretty much the conception of John Locke, which, with all its strange inconsistencies, is pre-eminently a theory of the real physical entity. Heat, Light, Sound, Force, are names of classes of phenomena, and the great discovery of Physics during the nine- teenth century has been that these are all transformable into each other, and bear definite numerical relations to each other in proportion to which such transforma- tions take place. Science, availing itself 8 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY of this discovery, unifies its conceptioir of Nature and gives expression to the doctrine of the inter-transmutability of the various classes of physical phenomena by postulating an entity called Energy, and regarding the various classes of phenomena as modes or transmutations which this entity undergoes. But Science has been reluctant to recognize that it is now entitled to dispense with the postulation of Matter. The theory, as announced bv the leadinsr men of science, has therefore been to the effect that there exist in the physical universe two real things — Matter and Energy — in place of one only, as conunonly supposed for so long. We have elsewhere attempted to show that such a statement of scientific theory is erroneous and redundant ; that Science is not necessitated to postulate two such entities ; that the postulation of Energy supplies all her requirements ; and that THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY D the postulation of that conception obviates the very serious contradictions which are involved in any assumption of a real entity of the nature of Matter as ordinarily understood — a conception of which the very descriptiofi involves difficulties which have perplexed think- ing men for more than two centuries. Our argument on this point involves consideration of the place occupied by Energy in a potential form. Whilst the transformability of Heat, Light, Sound, and other such phenomena in definite numerical ratios has led to their being all regarded as actual mani- festations of transmutations proceeding in one real thing, occasionally there is a seeming break in the catena ; no pheno- menon, can be detected into which the heat or light or other immediately pre- ceding manifestation has been trans- formed ; but later on the co-relative re-appears and by an argument as strong / 10 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY as that which asserts the continuous identity of an intelligence before, during, and after a temporary suspension of consciousness, the student of Physics maintains the continued existence in posse, if not in esse, of the Energy which by appropriate action he can again reveal in an active or kinetic manifesta- tion. Hence arises the conception of potential Energy. The Energy to which we attribute the force of cohesion which any particular body can on occasion manifest, we believe to exist potentially whilst that body continues unacted upon. Our belief is confirmed by our experience of the certainty with which, on the recurrence of the given conditions, the force always again manifests itself. In like manner the potential Energy to which we attribute the Force of Gravita- tion we believe to exist at all times, even when not kinetically active. In fact, it only manifests itself when a transmuta- THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 11 tion is taking place into some other form of Energy. Now it is the universal association of these two forms of poten- tial Energy with the common and funda- mental data of our sense-experience that has mainly suggested the construction in our minds of the conception of Matter, and furnished us with the ideas of solidity, impenetrability, and weight which consti- tute its ground-work. Our view, therefore, is that the con- ception of materiality and of real Matter can, in the way just indicated, be in aU cases analyzed into, and derived from the conception of Energy ; and that Science, if consistent, cannot postulate the reality of Matter as well. Potential Energy adequately supplies the conception of a real substratum of which phenomena are the manifestation. The foregoing argument has elsewhere leen supported by us at more length from the standpoint of physical Science, 12 THE DOCTRIXE OF ENERGY bat the whole question is very well worth attention, not only from scientific students but from metaphysicians. The inquiry will derive distinct gain if it receive auxiliary attention from those who have studied the process by which we form our mental conceptions, and whilst the students of Physics deserve the honour of discovery and formulation, they should not and cannot safely dispense with such assistance, for which the present confused and inconsistent state of the fundamental definitions of physical Science most urgently calls. There is here a neglected but very interesting field for the metaphysician's efforts. Recent scientific writings contain enough to show us that men of science are already beginning to recognize not only the inconsistency of the theory of two real things, but the dominating significance of the conception of Energy, and are gradually coming to claim for THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY ]3 the conception of Matter little more than recognition as the vehicle of energetic transmutation. We shall again advert to this view, and shall direct attention to the inevitable admissions to which it leads ; we now propose to accept the position that Science — ridding itself of redundant theory — postulates Energy as the real thing-in-itself, in terms of which it frames its statement of the transmuta- tions which constitute physical pheno- mena, and to examine briefly the effects which the acceptance of this new postu- late is likely to have on philosophic speculation. All my Presentment, all the content of my sense-experience, according to this theory, I attribute lo a vast, multifarious, continuous series of transmutations con- stantly proceeding in some portion of the system of Energy which constitutes the real substratum of physical pheno- mena, and I learn to study, measure, 14 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY classify, and know the different species of these transmutations, to associate particular sensations and classes of sensa- tions with particular transmutations, and to infer from the former the existence in posse or in esse of more or less Energy in some particular form transmuting itself according to some one or other definite physical law. I infer also the existence of various supplies of potential Energy constantly available, and of other intelli- gent agents like myself. I associate every such intelligent agent with a particular succession or group of my sense-experiences, and further I learn to consider that the world as his present- ment, consists for him in a similar multi- farious series of transmutations continu- ously going on in that portion of the energetic system which I associate with and believe to be revealed to me by the particular sensations, visual, tactual,^ &c., which I group together as representing THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 15 such person's bodily organism. Thus, by the same process of reasoning by which I am led to believe that my own whole immediate presentment consists in the multifarious series of transmutations proceeding in that portion of the energetic system which constitutes the real sub- stratum of my bodily organism, I explain the universality of the experience of all intelligent agents. In my own case, by the mysterious union of intelligence (or whatever we call the manifestation of the egoistic thing-in-itself) with physical energy which constitutes life, I am immediately related with that portion of the unextended, unperceived, physical, energetic system which is the real substratum of my organism, and am conscious of the whole multifarious senes of transmutations occurring at that particular point in it which is repre- sented by my brain. In the case of others, from certain of the transmuta- 16 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY tions occurring in my Presentment, I am led to infer the existence of other similar microcosmic systems in the energetic macrocosm of the physical universe. This is all very well as a theory, but, if it be true, if all I know is the series of transmutations occurring in the portion of the system of Energy related directly to my intelligence, how did I ever learn to infer from these transmutations the existence of that Energy underlying them, and still more of the whole ener- getic system extending far beyond my organism ? How do I deduce from trans- mutations proceeding in the portion of the energetic system which constitutes the real substratum of my organism the existence, not only of that substratum itself, but of other portions of the system similarly related to other intelligences, and of the vast energetic system as a whole ? How do I get beyond my Pre- THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 17 sentment ? How pass from Ideality to Ex- istence ? I ansn^er that I never could by any chance or possibility have got beyond it or got any suggestion of the Reality had I been merely related to my Presentment as a passive and percipient subject. We have not space here to elaborate this vital and fundamental part of the argument. Briefly the answer is that I am in relation with the energetic system not merely or primarily as an intelligence percipient of the transmutations proceed- ing in it at a particular point, butalsoas a Will initiative to some extent of such transmutations and capable of influencing and directing the physical process. Life necessarily involves a process of energetic transmutation constantly proceedino- at that point in the system of Energy which constitutes the real substratum of my organism, and I am there related as Will with a larger system which embraces the part in relation to which alone the EGO is developed also as intelligence. c 18 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY Fundcimen tally, life manifests itself in all grades of the zoologic hierarchy as a union of Volition (or what appears in action as Volition) with some particular point in the universe of physical Energy, the union constituting what we call a livino: orf^anism. Despite its profound importance to us personally and to our race, we should not forget that scientifically, objectively considered, the brain in man and the higher animals is merely a special organ highly developed by use, as the trunk is in the elephant, the middle phalanx in the horse, or wings in the bird. Intel- ligence is hardly to any extent a neces- sity of the vital union of the will with the energetic system. It is not at all deve- loped in the vegetable kingdom, hardly at all in some branches of the animal, and there may conceivably be an infinite number of other " kingdoms ** in which it may either be undeveloped, or very differ- ently developed, or superseded by some THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY Id other manifestation by us unimaginable. Its development, indeed, seems to be con- current with the development of a locomo- tive faculty, — a striking confirmation of the theory that it is in our activity that we derive the suggestions which call forth the exercise of the Understanding and transform sensation into perception. It is only with a comparative fraction of the organism, and indeed of that small part which is the substratum of what I call my brain, that I am related as a pas- sively percipient and actively thinking intelligence. I am directly or indirectly related as Will, as an originative cause of activity, with a larger portion of my organism, many parts of which are quite distinct from the cognitive portion. Now it is from my relation as Will with energy other than and beyond the portion of the energetic system the transmuta- tions of which constitute my Presentment that there is derived the primordial dis- f 20 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY closure to my Intelligence of the real energetic system, as a substratum or real thing— beyond, underlying and by its transmutations constitutive of my Pre- sentment. Many of the transmutations which occur in my Presentment I recog- nize as attributable to my own volitional activity operating upon my energetic organism, and in my activity there is thm^ suggested to me a source of phenomena lyivg beyond these phenomena themselves. A transmutation directly initiated in my cerebral system is a pure idea. The key which sufffrests to me the real world is CO the occurrence of transmutations ascrib- able to my activity from beyond the sphere which constitutes my Presentment. It is in this way, fundamentally and originally, that I discover the real energetic substratum to the phenomenal world of my Presentment, and learn, from the variations which occur in the transmutations constitutive of that pre- sentment, to infer the real agency and THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 21 operation of the underlying energy, and gradually to construct my whole sys- tematic conception of the real world in which I live and move and have my being. This theory of my activity and of the consequences of my relation as Will to the whole energetic system represented by my organism, including the portion thereof related to my intelligence, seems to us well worthy the attention of philosophical thinkers as a key to the inevitable reference of thoughts to things. We cannot illustrate this argument here at great length. I distinguish in my active experience a clear difference between wishing and willing, and further between willing and effective action. My Power — the Energy related to my Will — the exertion of which is necessary to an overt result — is a limited and quantifiable thing, and that such a hidden energetic medium or substratum underlies all phenomena is 22 THE DOCTIilNE OE ENERGY evident from the fact that I do not will directly the appearance of any given phenomenon. I may tvish that. But when the Volition is reached and the wish transformed into overt exertion I find myself involved in the multifarious processes of an energetic system which I may so far influence, but which is never- theless in many ways constantly going on irrespective of my Volition. I may^ wish to avoid pain and may ivill certain exertions with that view, but the con- sequences may be the reverse of what I wished. At any rate, I do not primarily will an exertion in direct reference to the resulting sensation. Originally my volitional activity responds to the feeling accompanying the antecedent presentation. As consciousness develops there is a dual development of my volitional activity. In the case of cer- tain actions, as it becomes habitual, the process abbreviates into reflex action. THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 23 In the case of others my ideative activity develops the purposive action of de- liberate Volition. In all cases between Volition and overt result there seems to be erected and con- stantly maintained around me a vast energetic system only a small part of which (the Energy of my organism) can be influenced directly by my will, whilst even in immediate relation with that part other transmutations are constantly proceeding, and the transmutations in that particular section of my organism which is directly connected with my intelligence are affected by the trans- mitted impulses of a whole system of related processes and operations. In- deed, what fundamentally distinguishes Volition from Desire is its relation to the energetic system. The doctrine of Energy therefore puts in a new and clearer light the whole theory of Causality. It is common for philosophers to talk 24 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY of invariable sequence as the criterion of Causality. But, in fact, this is quite absurd. No one ever regards a pheno- menon as the cause of another pheno- menon. We ascribe Causality to the energetic transmutation which in some form or other we inevitably believe to accompany the appearance of every phenomenon. We never postulate a causal relation between day and night — the most notable case of invariable sequence. When we say the fire warms the room, or the horse draws the cart, or the sun ripens the com, it is the Energy which we rightly or wrongly associate with the visual sensation re- ferred to in the words " fire " and "horse," and *' sun '' of which we are thinking, and by no means of these visual sensations themselves. As has been well said, we never suppose the leading carriage of the train draws those behind it, although their relation of THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 25 f sequence is quite as close to it as to the engine. True, it is and must be by and through phenomena only that I infer the operation and measure the transmuta- tions of Energy, but the operations so measured are operations of the real thing-in-itself postulated by Science and suggested primarily to me in my ex- perience of my own activity in which I recognize my power of doing work — a quantifiable and measurable thing, and which Science has shown to be homo- geneous with the physical Energy in respect of which Science can state the relations and conditions of all physical phenomena. My most incessant mental act is that by which, on the analogy of my oicn active experience^ I refer all phenomena to the underlying energetic system. This reference it is which trans- forms sensation into perception ; and the constant affirmation of this reference 2G THE DOCTRINE OF ENEUGV is the great function of the synthetic mental activity of the understanding; and is at once the origin and explana- tion of that imperative mental tendency which metaphysicians call the law of causality. How, then, does this doctrine affect the theory of the nature of Space ? If it be true that the world as my presentment consists in the transmuta- tions occurring in that particular part of the energetic system which constitutes the real substratum of what I know phenomenally as my brain, then pheno- mena as a whole, my Presentment, must consist of a process of transmutation or motion or change, a process of Becoming rather than of Being, and our complex intellectual and visual conception of Space is the content, the condition, in which the process proceeds. The laws of Space, therefore, are laws, so to speak, of motion, not of position. The most THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY j:i absolutely still and motionless visual presentation is really a series of con- stantly proceeding transmutations of Energy, and Space is constituted by the laws of transmutation which are thus at once the necessary and inevitable con- ditions of my perception and at the same time the universal 'and indepen- dently real conditions of all sense-per- ception. Space, therefore, does not contain the non-egoistic real thing any more than the egoistic real thing. It is the universal condition of the transmu- tations of this real thing, which trans- mutations constitute phenomena ; and it therefore '^contains'' all these pheno- mena, including my body as phenomenon and only as phenomenon. This view of the nature of Space, by relating its forms and laws with the non- egoistic and a-logical thing-in-itself in virtue of the transmutations of which our sense-experience occurs, relieves an 28 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY obvious diflSculty which must always have been felt in accepting without qualification the purely Kantian view of it as a category imposed by the Intelli- gence upon the otherwise unknowable world of sense. The most ardent assertors of the ideality of Space have hitherto apparently had difficulty in avoiding the tendency to conceive it as the persistent all- embracing objective content of the thino*- o in-itself, not merely of the phenomenon, although the latter only might enter into knowledge. The doctrine, however, which presents Space as a function of the cerebral Energy not only establishes its ideality and at the same time explains the relation which its form nevertheless bears to the objective material laws of the sensible presentation, but it liberates the mind from the oppressive necessity to regard Space as still somehow objec- tively extending and containing the real THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 29 world. It also relieves an obvious difficulty which confronts the Philosophy of Schopenhauer in locating those trans- cendental forms of the phenomenon which are imposed d priori upon the presentation and yet are not to be found in the pure Volition. Of course, it must never be forgotten that my whole sentient experience con- sists primarily of the series of energetic transmutations occurring at that part of the energetic system which is in immedi- ate vital relation with my intelligence, that is to say, at that centre of energetic transmutation which constitutes the real substratum of my brain. It is my power of active exertion, of moving, speaking, &c., which gives a suggestion of the real energetic world. The real Energy of the world beyond my body never enters my Consciousness. Even transmutations arising beyond my body only enter the presentation by influencing the cerebral oO THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 31 process. The luminous undulation and the sound-wave must both produce trans- mutation of the cerebral Energy in order to reach Consciousness. Yet the various characters of the transmitted impulses are distinguishable in the resultant cerebral transmutations. Thus I only feel sensations — hardness, rouo-hness pain, colour, sound, &c. It is by a process of mental construction solely that I associate these with the conception of more or less Energy, and thus frame my conceptions of real bodies in the world around me ;— those which I more directly associate with the Energy subject to my Volition being conceived as repre- senting my body. For reasons of con- venience I refer these conceptions chiefly to the vast co-ordinated visual presenta- tion, and thus build up my conception of the extended world of material things. Science is possible because all transmuta- tions of Energy take place according to definite numerical laws and ratios. The whole work of Science is to explain every phenomenon in terms of its definite transmutation of Energy. These definite numerical laws and processes are charac- teristic of all Energy transmutation, and thus regulate the experience of every intelligent being. It is in virtue of these that our separate systems of knowledge correspond, and that wc are thus pre- sented each with corresponding aspects of one outer world. The particular mathematical laws of energetic trans- mutation which regulate the cerebral changes that accompany sense-presenta- tion are for me the necessary a priori laws of all perception; they constitute the Space which contains my sensible world. It is because these laws operate in common in all brains that community of intercourse is possible amongst man- kind. It is because of the further fact that the whole transmutations of tlie .1^; ''^-: S-2 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 1 : ' universe of Energy which constitute physical phenomena are a numerically inter-related and regulated system that Science and rational knowledo-e are possible to the intellect of man. Our knowledge is what we are obliged to think and assert regarding experience ; but the necessity of the universality of experience is not explained merely by the common nature and general laws of Intelligence, but depends also on the generality of the laws under which the transmutations of Energy proceed. We are now, therefore, by the aid of the doctrine of Energy better able than before to distinguish accurately between the Ideal and the Real as contrasted elements in our experience. My Presentment as a whole consists in the transmutations and processes — in the sensations, feelings, perceptions, images, ideas — in short, in all that is going on at the point where — (I necessarily express THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY myself in terms of spacial relations, though in this connection these are figurative) the union constituted by vitality is established between the Ego developed as Intelligence, and that part of the constantly-transmuting system of physical Energy, the transmutations of which constitute my cerebral activity. My whole Presentment is, therefore, in one sense subjective, or as some would say, ideal. For me, my Presentment is- the impression produced on— the condi- tion established in my Intelligence in virtue of what is going on at what we may figuratively call the point of contact. What we mean, therefore, by the subjectivity or ideality of the Present- ment is that the aspect of the energetic transmutations as affecting my intelli- gence, and thus constituting my Present- ment, is quite different from their obverse aspect as transmutations in the non- 1) mp 34 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 35 egoistic system, and is only found where energetic transmutations are organically related to Consciousness. As mv Present- ment, they are all subjective or ideal, and it is in this reference that Berkeley and Hume, for instance, speak of ideas of sense, such as the colour blue, the heat of the fire, the pain of a blow. These, constituting the bulk of my Presentment, they distinguish from what Berkeley calls ideas of the imagination — those stimulated or originated, or, as he said, ^' excited " by the intelligence itself ; and ^vhilst he contended that both classes are ideal or subjective, in respect that they are constituents of my mental Present- ment, the latter have an additional title to subjectivity in respect of origin, and constitute what are called " ideas " when the w^ord is used in contradistinction to sensations — such ideas proper occurring in response to a purely subjective impulse, operating within the portion of % the energetic system which constitutes my cerebral organism. On the other hand, there is a sense in which my Presentment, even including ideas proper, is, if not real, at least, actual and objective. So far as we know, the Ego never develops as Intelligence except in con- junction with an organism, that is, in vital relation with physical Energy. My Presentment is constituted by the occur- rence and depends upon the continuance of the transmutations or operations proceeding at the related point in the energetic system. Even ideas proper, though subjective not only in regard to aspect, but in regard to their egoistic origination, are objective in respect that they also consist in an induced energetic transmutation. Herein lies the germ of truth to be discovered even in the unintelligent dogmatism of the so-called philosophers 36 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 37 of common sense. They asserted the- absolute Reality of my Presentment, as such — not merely its actuality. But it is comparatively seldom, either in Science- or Philosophy, that a thinker appears sufficiently purblind to go so far as that. Most take refuge in a distinction between primary and secondary qualities of bodies, classing my sensations as non- resembling secondary qualities, which they admit cannot be conceived to exist without the mind in the form in whicli they make up my Presentment, but reserving five or six primary qualities — solidity, extension, figure, motion, rest — which they conceive to exist indepen-^ dently, just as they enter into my Presentment. In point of fact, however, these so-called primary qualities are not the names of any sensible intuitions, but are abstractions or generalizations of the most general and necessary elements in my visual Presentment, in reference to- which chiefly I mentally construct my world. The transmutations of Energy are not a never-repeated accidental kaleidoscope. They proceed according to constant, definite, measurable laws, and though subordinate variations are infinite and make up the details of my Presentment, the general laws and con- ditions according to which Energy (and particularly the Energy of my cerebral organism) transmutes are definite, and constitute the general features or qualities of my Presentment, and these are the so-called primary qualities of bodies re- garded in the light of the doctrine of Energy. The primary quality of extension, in particular, is a conception resulting from the association of my visual Presentment with my power of active exertion, and the delusive tendency to regard this quality as in some sense primarily and fundamentally real is due to the uncon- i 38 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 3^) scious recognition of the fact that it is in virtue of my power, or association as an agent with the energetic system, that I derive a suggestion of the real world beyond the phenomena which constitute my experience. I cannot exist without some develop- ment of activity. Hence are derived the conceptions of free space and of resistance between bodies. My primary sensations are the sensations of touch, and the primary impulse of thought when it comes into operation is to relate these with my active exertions. When sight is first restored to the blind the first impulse is to regard the new sensa- tion as a form of touch. Its intel- lectual suggestiveness is a development. The system or stream of transmutations in which my volitional activity princi- pally takes part is that represented by the operation of the forces of Gravitation and Cohesion ; the system which in- fluences my visual sensations is a quite different series, and as it happens, the changes in this latter series by their greater rapidity enable me to anticipate the other series, and for this and other reasons, I employ these sensations to signalize and symbolize the transmuta- tions proceeding in the series with which I am more fundamentally related as an active and ^' willino^ " accent. All trans mutations, if they result in sensations, must do so by producing changes in the Energy of my organism, and must there- fore be conditioned by the general laws which regulate the changes which occur there, or, in other words, must be con- tained within a self- consistent spacial condition, but the differences in the characters of visual space, as it is called, and the spacial content of my activity, reflect the differences in the series of energetic transmutations with which they are respectively connected. THE DOCTRINE OF E.VERGY We see more clearly, therefore, with the aid of the doctrine of Energy, the import of the theory of transcendental aesthetic enunciated by Kant, who first pointed out that there are elements, and those the most necessary and universal, in the sense-presentation which bear the character of ideality as fully as the most subjective efforts of our ideative activity. More particularly do we illustrate the ideality of Space as a cognition precedent to experience. It is because general laws constantly operative regulate the transmutations which constitute the individual's Presentment that it is pos- sible for him to abstract and generalize the data of sense; and it is because the subjective process of Ideation, by which we mean our representative mental activity in its widest sense, consists also in transmutations under the same general laws of the same portion of the energetic organism, that it is THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 41 possible to frame general or abstract ideas. These general laws of cerebral transmutation are the d priori con- ditions of the necessary determination in time of all existences in the world of phenomena. The form, therefore, of the phenomenon, in the language of Kant, is constituted by the laws of the transmutations of the Energy immediately related to my con* sciousness (my cerebral Energy) ; the matter of the phenomenon is constituted by the varieties produced in these in accordance with the constant variation in the transmitted transmutations from the Energy beyond — just as the musician may produce a constant variety of harmonies upon his instrument, but all must be conditioned by the relations iixed and established between the notes of which the instrument is composed. Transmutations of the cerebral Energy may be stimulated not only from without, [if 42 THE DOCTUIXE OF EXEUGV THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 43 i\ i but by subjective impulse from within ; but in either case the laws of these transmutations are the necessary form of experience, and it is the possibility of transmutation upon an internal and subjective impulse which makes possible the formation of synthetical judgments a priori. It is as if the organ were not only responsive to impressions upon its key-board from without, but were also automotive and could originate har- monies in its own notes; and as if, moreover, it were endowed with con- sciousness so as to receive an intuition of both classes of music. The former would correspond to sensations, the latter to ideas ; and we might imagine such an instrument by presenting to itself its own system of notes, contriving thus to frame d priori a synthetical system of these general musical laws which would con- stitute the necessary and imiversal form of its whole musical experience. To complete the perhaps fantastic analogy we must imagine the world to be one co-ordinated musical system, and our instrument to be endowed with the power of playing upon the other key- boards ; of thence deriving the suggestion of the distinction between the internal and external impulses which respectively awakened harmonies within itself; and lastly, of thus at length conceiving in the spirit of science that the necessary and universal laws which it recognized as the most subjective and fundamental conditions of its own manifestation were at the same time the necessary and universal laws regulating the manifes- tations of the entire musical universe. How natural it would be for such an intelligent musical instrument, if unhappily endowed with common sense, to believe and assert that the real substance of the universe consisted solely of sounds. Yet how evident would it be M( 44 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY to US from our standpoint of more absolute knowledge that the whole orchestra of sounds, although actual and quite distinct from consciousness, was still merely phenomenal, and yet withal, in its every expression revealed the laws and structure of reality-of the system of things in themselves~a system, the reahty of which was utterly dissimilar to those appearances, though all its laws and structure could be studied and derived from them. Berkeley, therefore, erred seriously when he described the idea as a fainter sensation. Faint subjective reproduc- tions of our sensations, as of blue, green, or the like, constitute a very insignificant element in our mental furniture. We seldom pursue so far into detail the ideative effort. Severely and effectively as Berkeley criticized Locke's account of abstract ideas, the fact remains that abstraction or generalization is the main THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 45 and primary feature of our whole con- ceptual system ; and the abstractable elements of the sensible presentation being the necessary constituents of all ideative representation are properly denominated ideal. The one element of particularity which every idea lacks is the reference to the particular trans- mitted transmutation to which the sensible phenomenon owes its origin. We derive such reference to the external solely from the experiences furnished by our activity, without which we could derive no suggestion of the non-ego, and in particular no suggestion of the d5niamic element which fundamentally distinguishes things from thoughts. The empirical content of experience — the so-called secondary qualities of bodies — are called in their subjective aspect ideal because the mental impression is obviously very different from the trans- mutation objectively regarded. The -t 46 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY primary qualities, being the necessary and general laws according to which the transmutations of cerebral Energy pro- ceed, are in a higher sense ideal, being the necessary conditions under which both sense-presentation and ideative representation proceed. Whilst, there- fore, as Kant maintained, they are the d priori element in perception— the condition precedent to sense-presentation, at the same time as they constitute thj laws which regulate all Energy trans- mutation within our world, including not only the transmutations of our cerebral Energy, but the Energy trans- mutations which are resultant upon our activity and the transmutations of the ^vhole energetic world in which we are involved, there is an aspect of truth also in the Lockean view which regards them as the primary or fundamental qualities of a real material world of sense. We hold, therefore, to the Platonic THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 47 doctrine that whilst, on the one hand, the sensible is only an object of thought in so far as it partakes of the intelligible, on the other hand the idea is not only a type for the individual mind, but is partaker also of the laws which pene- trate the system of things. Idealism as ii Philosophy, in denying the validity of any reference of the content of the Presentment to a further existence out- side the subjective experience, has authorized that wider use of the term idea which applies it to the whole actuality of experience in its subjective aspect. With the advance of Philosophy we must revert to that more ancient use of the term idea which confines its extension into the realm of the per- ceptual to those elements of the sensible presentation which can be reproduced by the activity of the subject, and which in asserting, for instance, the ideality of Space, reminds us at the same 48 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 49 'I time that Ideality implies not merely subjectivity, but the expression or repre- sentation also of some aspect of those laws which regulate the system of Reality. But is not common sense right after all? Do I really mean to say that tables, chairs, houses, mountains — the whole world of my Presentment, are to be regarded as shrivelled up and located in my brain, or in the energetic correla- tive of my brain? Is the whole Uni- verse, as known to me or conceived by me, contained within a minute portion of itself — the brain ? Now Science does say something very like this, and the logical difficulties of the position are very pressing, but they cannot be got over by attempting to revert to common sense^ because to assert that all my conceived Universe is immediately perceived by me as it exists would seem to involve a diffusion of my intelligence throughout Space which is still more inconceivable and self-contradictory: besides which, the assumption of the Reality of the phenomenal world destroys itself. To assume the Reality of so-called material particles is to lay the foimdation of an argument which surely leads to the con- clusion that the whole world of my consciousness is produced by and consists in motions in that certain small group of these same molecules which is assumed to make up my brain. The solution is only reached when we discover that the €rror lies in forgetting that the Reality which is the seat of what constitutes my Presentment is itself unperceived, and that what I commonly call a body and a brain are simply the phenomena occurring in my Presentment which I associate with the existence of other such real organic entities, just as I believe that my organism would similarly afffect the Presentments of others, by originatino- energetic changes which are transmitted K 50 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY to and so aifect the organisms of such other persons. The real substratum of my Presentment is a part of the energetic Universe, which is constantly undergoing transmutations, and at the points where it is in union as organism with in- telligence these transmutations, as affect- ing and perceived by such intelligence, constitute its Presentment or sense- experience ; and aided by the construc- tive activity of thought expand, as it were, subjectively into a whole world of experience, as the electric current vibrating darkly along the narrow confines of the wire suddenly expands at the carbon point into the luminous un- dulations which light a city. We admit, therefore, to the full the actuality and objectivity of the sensible presentation. We only deny that it is the real thing-in-itself. The latter is not dis- covered by sense. My energetic organ- ism is like a well-fitting garment ; I do THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 51 not feel it at all. I feel only changes or transmutations taking place in it. Be not alarmed, therefore, for your common sense world. We leave it to you intact and actual — not deducting even a single primary quality. Allowing fully for the extent to which, little suspected by you^ it is a mentally constructed system, its elements are still actual and non-egoistic ; they are modes of Reality; extension and the other primary qualities are qualities of these modes. Moreover, the Ego, I, myself, as Will, as a continuously identic intelligent agent, am not given to myself immediately in my Presentment, any more than the non-egoistic real thing. The existence of my Ego, of my soul, Is an inference which I am com^ pelled to draw from the facts of my mental activity. Similarly, my energetic organism is the real a-Wical thino--in- Itself which I am compelled to postulate IP order to explain my perception of 52 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 53 physical phenomena in the light of my physical activity. We have not time to explain in detail the unique position in our Presentment occupied by the visual presentation. Its universality, simultaneousness, minute accuracy, quantifiability, &c., are such that it is really to the visual Presentment that I refer all other elements in my sense-experience. I think of them with reference to it. It is in connection with it that I mentally construct my whole world. Above all, I can associate with some modification of the visual presentation the phenomena resultant upon the energetic activity of my own organism, and the other forces and potential Energies which that activity reveals and suggests. It is thus that I derive the compound idea of Body as consisting of Figure, Extension, and Solidity. The continued appearance in my visual presentation of the grey colour which I am now seeinof is to me the sijm of the continued persistence of that potential Energy in virtue of which I regard it as the appearance of a solid, extended stone wall. Everything is referred to the visual presentation, and it is in reference to it that the mind works in constructing its world. The whole theory of molecular action is a theory constructed in reference to the visual presentation — the reality of which, strangely, it seems to result in overthrowing. A born-blind man could never have invented the conception of atoms or molecules. This is Avell worth thinking over. The few boni-blind persons do not possess our ideas of Space and Extension. The visual presentation is not really fundamental ; and we must undo the inversion induced by its great convenience whereby we refer to it all the other elements of our sense- experience and conceive of our activity and our 54 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 55 whole actual world by reference to the visible sign. It is in consequence of this reference to the visual that bodies, objects, appear as discrete units, so that it is difficult to conceive that the real thing in virtue of which we experience the perception of, say, a heap of stones, is truly more or less potential Energy, just as the continuous process of thought is very different from the discrete and brokens symbols of speech. I naturally and habitually refer to the visual extended image presented to sight as the primary basis of my idea of the world, or of any particular part of the world, such as my dining-room. Why ? Simply because, for the reasons already noted, the sense of sight is the sense of universal reference. In prin- ciple it is the same habitual tendency which makes me associate every element of my world with its appropriate name. It is different in other cases. When I am ^absent from Niagara I do not, in thinking of it, primarily associate it with the roar of sound. I never fall to the same extent into the error of thinking of the sound, as such, continuing, although I am not pre- sent to hear it. I think of certain events proceeding which, if I were present, would occasion the subjective sensations of sound. But for the habitual tendency arisins: from the universal reference to the visible I would do the same in the case of the visual image. All I am necessitated to think is a real event — a real, energetic, physical, dynamical trans- mutation, — proceeding quite independ- ently of my perception or presence, and if I can only manage to realize that I must, for philosophical purposes, eliminate my reference to visual sensations with equal stringency, as in the case of audible or other sensations, I will understand that all I am entitled to, and all I can, without hopeless contradiction, postulate as real i « 56 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 57 thing existing and occurring indepen- dently of my perception, is a transmuta- tion of Energy. This Energy is real, in- dependently existent, unextended, un- figured, yet by no means a mere logical or mental necessity or associative tendency, though it is by an imperative mental necessity that I am still obliged, by infer- ence from my experiences as an active and percipient agent, vitally related to my energetic and sentient organism, to postu- late the energetic system in which I am involved, and with one particular centre in which I am organically and so actively and percipiently related. But we recall at this point that Science says she must still postulate Matter as the vehicle of Energy. But what does that mean except that the subject of her studies is the sensible presentation which, itself consists of energy transmutation in. part constantly changing but with rela- tively permanent and recurrent elements^ and in which she involuntarily includes the mentally constructed system of beliefs and postulates which, associated with the more permanent elements of that presen- tation, constitute what we call bodies? If the sensible presentation consisted of one continuous, unchanging phenomenon, Reason would never be stimulated, and Personality, Cause, Power would never have been postulated or conceived. But the transmutation is constantly being •* accelerated," incessantly fluctuates, and varies. Certain of these variations I recognize as related to my own voli- tional activity, and thus I am furnished with a key which enables me, by a sym- pathetic analogy, to attribute all the changes in my experience to various ao'ents, now all (including those asso- ciated with my Volition) related to each other as transmutations of physical Energy, some of which I can further trace to the initiative of Volition of my- 58 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY self of other persons ; others I can only recognize as integral parts of the vast energetic system of Nature, the stimulus of which I cannot follow further. The reality of Matter is said to be proved by its indestructibility ; but this characteristic can easily be resolved into the indestructibility of Space and Exten- sion (which we have seen to be merely another name for the necessity or in- evitable universality of the general laws and conditions of Energy transmutation Avithin the organism), together with the indestructibility of the Energy to the transmutations of which we attribute the forces of Cohesion and Gravitation. All vital activity is but a producing of changes in the stream of transmuta- tion. We never do, nor in the nature of things do we ever try to, increase or diminish the quantity of the real Energy itself. We instinctively recognize the objective source of our physical power, THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 59 and this has led some thinkers to suppose that the indestructibility of Matter is an a priori datum of thought, but as we have already seen in the case of space the a 'priority and necessity of this con- ception are derived from the necessary laws of the energetic organism, the transmutations of which, however stimulated from beyond its own limits, themselves alone constitute the entire sensible presentation. Many a long contest between the supporters of a priori and experiential knowledge can be set at rest by this view of the mediating functions of the energetic organism. We cannot enlarge here upon the wide subject suggested by our reflections. The scientific doctrine of Energy would seem to be pregnant with momentous consequences for Philosophy, and it is worth while for metaphysicians to devote to this subject the deepest and most GO THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGT THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 61 deliberate thought. The results cannot easily be grasped by a mere cursory perusal of memoranda, in which we have only sketched a few salient aspects of the doctrine. We deprecate unwarrantable assurance, and are fully conscious of the difficulty of adequately expressing thought on such a theme ; but we have not written rashly nor without good grounds for asking attentions. Science, it seems to us, postulates in Energy an a-logical, unextcnded, real thing-in-itself in terms of which the phenomena of Physics can be adequately and quantifiably stated, and at the same time furnishes Philosophy with a theory of the non-egoistic real thing-in-itself which satisfies those necessities of thought by which we are constrained to interpret our sense-experience by a constant reference to a Reality beyond it (a necessity due to our association as Will with an Energy beyond that which is the seat of our Presentment), which wholly avoids the incurable difficulties and con- tradictions involved in any theory of the realitv of extended material substance (of any theory indeed, which asserts the reality— as presented — of any element of the sensible presentation), which is con- sistently thinkable as co-existent with the thing-in-itself— be it ultimately In- telligence or Volition — of which our cog- nitive and conative existence is a ma- nifestation ;— and which by explaining all phenomena as transmutations pro- ceeding (according to the definite mathe- matical laws prevailing throughout the whole Universe of Energy) at that point in the system which is organically related to Consciousness accounts at once for the apparent d priority and necessity of the qualities of Space and at the same time for their evident universality and objectivity. In a word, it would rather seem as if Science, unconscious of its pregnant T 62 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY bo possibilities, has not only formulated a theory which co-ordinates and unifies the entire fabric of physical knowled In many of the earlier Greek philo- sophers, notably in Pythagoras and Heraclytus, we find anticipations of the theory of Energy, but their speculations were subjective, unscientific, and in- capable of definite and permanent scientific statement. Indeed, the contrast between ancient and modem methods is very clearly seen by contrasting the speculations of the old Pythagoreans, men by no means destitute of high philosophic genius, with the scientific thought of the great mathematicians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries — Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. Both were engaged in the task of formulat- ing an explanation or philosophy of Nature by the aid of the study of numbers, and it is not quite enough to say that the former employed a priori reasoning, whilst the latter followed the Baconian method of inductive observation of Nature herself. Both observed Nature, and both employed and applied their reason in and to their observations, and in both cases the speculations were carried on by men of the highest genius. But the real difiference is simply, that the mathematicians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries quantified their observations by the aid of reference to 86 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY n\ I independent standards, instruments, or other standards, whereby their judgments and observations were strictly measured and compared. Possibly also the genius of the men was, especially in the case of Kepler and Newton, greater than that of any of the early Greek philosophers we have named ; but the absence of quanti- fication is the chief reason why the specu- lations of the former soon began to run riot according to the varieties of indi- vidual fancy and diverged into moral analogies, transient and unfruitful, whilst the modem speculation has permanently revolutionized man's conception of Nature, and produced in the Copernican theory of astronomy and the law of Gravitation the most splendid, and one of the most truly philosophic contributions which have ever been made to the struc- ture of human knowledge. The defects and hopeless inconsistencies of the "material*' theory were soon THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 87 noticed by and have formed the theme of many modem philosophers, yet rather than adopt the alternative suggestion of Berkeley and others that physical pheno- mena are directly produced by Mind, by Intelligence in some form or other, men have preferred to cling to the conception of solid and substantial Matter. Not until the doctrine of Energy arose, by which the physical Entity was conceived as powerful, efficient, causative, and quantifiable yet unextended, not until then could there be any hope of a middle course being discovered. We are by its aid enabled to realize the subjectivity of Space, and to conceive of its all-contain- ingness as merely phenomenal. We can realize this actually, veritably, definitely, only by carefully going over the analysis and criticism of Berkeley, demolishing, firstly, its third dimension, and then easily showing its entire dependence upon a percipient mind. It was in re- 88 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 8i> lating this world of sense-phenomena to- their objective correlative that Berkeley broke down, entirely we believe owing to his having failed to analyze the particulars^ of our active, causative experience in the same thorough way in which he analyzed those of our passive and percipient life. " We are conscious," he says (" Siris," 291), *^that a spirit can begin, alter, or determine motion ; but nothing as this appears in body. Nay, the contrary is- evident both to experience and reflec- tion." And he, therefore, assumes that the cause or objective correlative of our sense-experience must be a spirit. He omitted, we say, to analyze in detail the way in which we do, in fact, be^in, alter, or determine Motion. He omitted to analyze the experience which we undergo when we either move our own or other bodies. He forgot that " body " is impregnated by Vis Viva. He overlooked the operation of the forces of Natui'e, the presence of hostile power opposed to, and confronting our own, whenever we exert our will, the difference between mere willing and actual canying out of our will, the fact that changes in our sense- experience do not always occur when we will, that often our volitions, even if apparently actually carried out, produce a very different change in our sensations from what we anticipated, the fact that a vast quantity of sensation changes are constantly going on around us, apart from the exercise of our volition, but apparently associated with similar mani- festations of power. All these important facts, utterly overlooked by Berkeley and Hume, suggest the presence of a potential Entity intervening between the mind and its sensations and containing within itself the power to originate phenomenal changes, an Entity indestructible, efficient, and some of which, in fluctuating quan- tity, is under the direction of our active 90 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY will, whilst much more surrounds us everywhere, but is beyond our power. When Science actually carries its inves- tif^ations so far as to be able to name and identify this Entity ; to measure its quantity, and to adopt a unit for its calculation, Philosophy has undoubtedly gained the assistance of a fresh ally. Habituated to the conception of Matter we find it very difficult to realize that this Energy is not space-contained. We must endeavour to understand that it is and must be so. Assume the reality of all-containing Space and visible things. These are evidently seen to be the direct objects of our sense-experience; but if we now assume them to be also objectively real, and on that assumption proceed with our scientific inquiry, we are forced, by our knowledge of the familiar conditions under which the organs of sense receive and transmit their impressions, to the THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 91 conclusion that the mind is never truly in direct contact with these objects or phenomena, these visible things at all, but that they are produced in it by certain changes which occur in a small group or section of these supposed real, visible things, namely, the section which we call the individual brain ; but the observer must remember that this con- clusion must apply to himself. If so, he himself is merely conscious of the changes which occur in his own brain, and does not contemplate directly any of those objects which seem to make up his sense- experience on the objective reality of which his whole argument is founded. He has no right to assume that the consti- tuent particles in his brain, the changes in which result in the sense-phenomena whose reality he assumed are, in fact, self- existent entities, exactly resembling the phenomena which their action appears to produce in his Consciousness. 92 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY The conclusion of many is that we can know nothing of the real cause of these phenomena. But the reason does, in fact, assume such a cause, and our contention is that what we actually postulate is an unextended energy, quite free from the contradictions so frequently superinduced upon it by the theory of the reality of extended Matter and at the same time free from the deficiencies of the Berkeleyan theory that ascribes such phenomena in the direct action of an Intelligence. We should never forget that, although our conceptions of this efficient, potential Entity are derived from our sense-expe- rience, they are reasoned inferences from this experience and not actually a portion thereof, and it is, therefore, erroneous, though natural, to regard them when once formed in our minds, constituents of that world of as sense-experience from the observation of which they are by early and almost un- ^mnrii THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 93 conscious mental inference deduced. We are apt thus to project into the changing world of subjective sensations the reason and inferential notions of Solidity, &c., which our mind derives from these experiences, and, as our Consciousness is itself awakened by, and amidst these sense-experiences we are even impelled to regard, not only our own bodies but ourselves, as space- contained. The difficulty of the investigation is got over when we succeed in realizing the possibility of existence imconditioned by Space and in conceiving of Space and extension as qualifying only the sensible impression produced upon our conscious- ness by the activity of the principle of transmutation wnich interpenetrates all Energy and stimulates the motions of the potential world. The omission which we have empha- sized in Berkeley was xmfortunately perpetuated by Hume. 94 THE DOCTRINE OF ENEKGY He denies that Berkeley had any right to suggest spirit as a cause of motion, " which might as easily arise," he said, ** from impulse J as from volition. All we know is * our profound ignorance/ " We are, of course, only entitled to argue from experience of our own individual Consciousness, but an analysis of our active Consciousness will show how it is that we are enabled, in a way which did not occur to Hume, to appoint their respective functions to Impulse and to Volition in the origination of the phenomena of Motion. " Suppose," says Hume, " suppose a person, though endowed with the strongest faculties of reason and reflec- tion, to be brought on a sudden into this world. He would immediately observe a succession of objects, and one event following another ; but, he would not be able to discover anything further . . . their conjunction may be arbitrary and THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 95 casual. There may be no reason to infer the appearance of the one from the appearance of the other. . . . Suppose, again, that he has acquired more experience and has lived so long in the world as to have observed similar objects or events to be constantly conjoined together, what is the consequence of this experience ? He immediately infers the existence of the one object from the appearance of the other. Yet, he has not, by all his experience, acquired any idea or knowledge of the secret power by which the one object produces the other, nor is it by any process of reasoning he is engaged to draw the inference, but still he finds himself somehow determined to draw it. . . . There is some other principle which determines him to form such a conclusion. This principle is cus- tom or habit. , . . Perhaps we can push our inquiries no farther. All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of 96 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY custom, not of reasoning. Custom, then, is the great guide of human life.'* ' Our contention is that by attending to the neglected facts of our active expe- rience we can push our inquiries farther, and we do obtain a knowledge of the secret power by which one object produces the other, or rather in the first instance, of the secret power through the interme- diation of which we can, ourselves, so far change and vary the current of events, and to whose agency we come to attri- bute all changes which we do find to occur. We do not suggest that we attain to any transcendental knowledge of this secret power or of what it is in itself. Its existence is an inference of the reason, and is not directly revealed, nor capable of intuition. But we are ccnnpelled by direct and necessary infer- ence to believe in its existence, in our possession of some of it in limited and THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 97 ever-varying quantity, and of the exis- tence of other quantities not under our control. In the facts of our active experience we find a principle deter- mining us to draw this inference ; and it is to be noted that our knowledge of, and belief in, the other possible agent, viz. Volition, the will of the Ego, is itself merely a very similar inference of the Reason. The existence of myself is not a fact of experience intuitively revealed, but an inference from the experiences of my mental activity. Gogito, ergo sum. In like manner the relation which we con- ceive to subsist between Power or Energy and the changes in our sense- experience is a result of rational inference from experience, and is quantifiable and capable of scientific calculation. It is hence that we derive our notion of what we caU a cause. What ontological Be- yond may remain unexplored it is not for us to say ; but the main point we H 98 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY have gained is the explanation of the origin of our belief in a power entitled to the attribute of Reality, entitled to be viewed as an independent, at least of us independently existing Entity in whose changes and modifications we find a rational explanation of sensible pheno- mena. We, therefore, deny Hume's propo- sition that our notion of Causality is derived from any mere customary associa- tion of recurrent sensations. We deny that mankind, we deny that any sinf^le man ever did or does regard any sensa- tion as the cause of any other. To suppose that he does so is to ignore the duplex element in our conception of Matter and in our use of words. In common language, we may say that the sun is the cause of the com ripening, and it may be true that the appearance of the visual sensations we associate with the sun precedes the visual sensations we THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 99 associate with ripened com ; but when the ordinary man speaks in such a case of the sun ripening the grain, he is not thinking of the visual sensations associ- ated with the sun, but of certain powers or qualities which, rightly or wrongly, he also believes to be inherent in that material substratum which he likewise associates with the name sun. It is the same in every case. If a horse and cart pass us, we say that the horse is the cause of its own and the cart's motion ; but we do not say so, because the visual sensations associated with the name horse precede those associated with the name cart ; in making the statement we do not refer to the visual sensations associated with the word " horse " at all, but to the unseen Power or Energy which we all believe to be, in some way, also included in the notion or idea of a horse. It is admitted that, in many of the very commonest cases, we do not attribute any THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY causal nexus to the successive appearance of sensations. We do not do so in the case of Day and Night ; we never dream of saying that Day is the cause of Night, or Night of Day ; and no good reason is furnished by Hume to explain why we should do so in some cases and not in others as strong or stronger. In point of fact, we allege and fearlessly maintain that, in no single case does any man ever regard a sensation as a cause of another sensa- tion. Oiir ivhole conception of Cause is detivedfrom the revelations of our active existence^ revelations received in the dawn of Consciousness and subsequently obscured and requiring to be again analyzed. In our earliest experiences, we recog- nize Volition as a spring and initiative of Motion, but we early find the marked and emphatic difference between mere willing and wishing, on the one hand, and actual realized attainment of the desired change, on the other. We find the suc- THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 101 ^ y cess or failure of our efibrts depends on the amount of what we call our Power, a possession of our own, a thing of va- riable and fluctuating quantity which is increased by rest and food, and is steadily consumed by being used. We find this a measurable and quantifiable thing ; we find its exertion, in greater or less amount, necessary to every change which we can effect ; we find it opposed often by other power, which may be gi'eater or smaller, and which must be overcome if our object is to be attained. Its complete dis- tinctness from mere Volition is discovered in the fact that its exertion often pro- duces, not the result which we antici- pated, but other results, which we did not anticipate and could not anticipate. The exertion of looking over a wall results in the experiencing of certain visual sensations which we could not have anticipated if we had never seen over that wall before. The mere open- '■41- It w - 1- ^ * ^ 102 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY ing of our eyes in the morning results in sensations which, to a certain extent, we never can anticipate, and which, if we have been travelling over-night, may be wholly different from any which we had ever experienced before. We say that seeing is believing, and it is doubtless our commonest and our usually sufficient test. But now and then we experience sensations as to which, even with the aid of sight, we are puzzled to decide whether or no they should be correlated in our mind with any real substratum,— some deceptive piece of painting, some desert mirage or some vivid and alarming dream which en- velops us in a surrounding of experiences at once seemingly real and at the same time fearful and improbable. How do we proceed to determine whether our experience is " Real " or not ? Do we not proceed to " feel," as we say, that is, to exert our active power of move- THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 103 ment in order to ascertain whether other opposing power or force is to be associ- ated with the sense-experience which envelops us ? That is what we do, for though we say "feel," we mean "make an active exertion." We may be expe- riencing tactual sensations in plenty without any active motion, but that is not enough. We endeavour to ascer- tain the presence or absence of some of this unseen Power or Energy, It is in the analysis of these expe- riences of our active and causative being, wholly ignored by Berkeley and Hume, that we derive the explanation of our conception of Power and of Cause and of the true meaning and nature of the real entity which imderlies the phenomena of sensitive life. The passing phenomena of Sensations and Ideas are all that we directly expe- rience. Agnostics maintain that we can know no more. But even in maintaining 104 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY thatj they must reason and thus admit the validity of Reasoning. Now, in the natural use of our Reason we all assume the existence of certain hyper- physical realities. Philosophy is a careful examination ab initio of the grounds of these assumptions. Descartes formulated one great inference which this examination had confirmed, Cogito, — ergo sum. This expresses the ground of our belief in a Mental Real Entity, — our conscious- ness of its activity. Ago, ergo jpossum might express the ground of the other great proposition which affirms the reality of a Non-Mental Entity, based also on our consciousness of its activity. The influence of modem Science on Philosophy may be traced not only in (1) the effect which the Copemican theory had in developing the concep- tion of all-containing Space, but also in (2) the Discovery of Gravitation and other THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 105 physical forces which showed men thr.t Will, Intelligence, Mind, was not always or only the originator of Motion — of changes in phenomena. It is to these two influences that modem Materialism owes its existence. Berkeley unfortunately ignored at least the latter, and attributed, as we have seen, all origination of Motion to Spirit. It is undoubtedly the fact that some motions are originated by Volition, and whilst others are attributable to Natural Force, it must be admitted that if we could trace the matter farther, we might find these others also ultimately attri- butable to Volition. To believe that we would is Theism. All those motions, which Volition of Conscious Beings does originate, are nevertheless dependent on their being in connection with more or less of an unseen enerojetic substratum, whose transmuta- T M . 106 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY tions the Volition merely initiates and directs, and it is natural to suppose that all the motions and transmutations of this unseen Entity are similarly originated by a supreme Intelligence or Will. Intelligence — active and percipient — and this unseen vXt;, or substratum, on which its actions are exerted, and out of which its perceptions are derived — these, neither of them objects of Sense — are the two great real entities which Reason is always compelled to predicate, though our notions of them may be obscure and confused by Sense, and our beliefs im- perfect. CogitOy ergo sum; Ago ergo possum^ express the conclusions at which Reason has always unreflectively arrived. The world of sense-phenomena is the resultant on the subject of their inter- action ; Space is a mere quality of that phenomenal world, a category which THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY 107 contains neither of the real entities which Reason reveals. It is not necessary to suggest to the reader the assistance which such a theory affords to a greatly canvassed portion of Kant's doctrine. Kant maintained that all we know is from within — " subjective sensational states (due certainly to ex- ternal antecedents, which nevertheless are absolutely unknown) realized into an objective system of experience by sub- jective intellectual faculties." The con- ception of Energy supplies a clue to these unknown external antecedents — it corre- lates them with the subjective intellectual faculties by which feeling is realized into knowledge — it suggests the way in which, by virtue of our organic relation to these external antecedents, the category of Space becomes imposed upon our Intel- ligence, and thus affords an explanation of the mysterious joint relation which ' '^ — - — - ~ - ^^^ 108 THE DOCTRINE OF ENERGY that category appears to maintain with the Intellect, on the one hand, and the Sensation, and its external antecedent, on the other. THE END. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES V \' 1010658343 CD CD \ ]■ "!•>,