TIME 279
7@:c¢::¢:a—an infinite process. The final
factor is always unknowable—yet it is the
one thing known.
Afyst. And because it is always present,
therefore it is unkenned.
Scept. We are now nearer Spencer than
appeared. For the fact that it must be
there, unchanging in function, while con-
sciousness persists, gives the idea of a definite
substratum to subserve that function.
Myst. I cannot but agree; and I would
further observe that when, in Dhyana, it
ceases to examine, and apperceives, the
‘‘ relative eternity,’ z.¢., the intense vividness
of the phenomenon gives us a further argu-
ment in favour of its permanence.
Scept. But that it should persist after death
is a question which we should leave physiology
to answer, as much as the obvious question
whether sight and taste persist. And the
answer is unhesitatingly ‘* No.”
Afyst. Yet the mystic may still reply that
the association of consciousness with matter
is as incredible as the contrary conception.
Cause and effect, he will say, are if anything
less likely (@ prtorz) than concomitance or
casuality. Even occasionalism is no more
improbable than that the material should
have a manifestly immaterial function.
Scept, Yet it is so!
Myst. Ah! would it serve to reply that it is
so! Butno! the materialistic position, fully
allowed, is an admission of spirit... They
must conceive spirit and matter both as un-
knowable, as irresolvable, like x and y in a
single equation (whose counterpart we seek
in Dhyana), so that we may eternally evolve
1 Maudsley, ‘‘ Physiology of Mind,” asks why
it should be more unlikely that consciousness
should be a function of matter than that pain
should be of nervous tissue.
True. So also Huxley extended the meaning
of ‘‘nature”’ to include the ‘‘ supernatural "' in
order to deny the supernatural.
So also I (maintaining that darkness only
exists) meet the cavil of the people who insist
on the separate existence of light by showing
that light is, after all, merely a sub-section of
one kind of darkness.--A: C. This note !s of
course ironical,
values for either, but always in terms of the
other.
Scept, Just so we agreed lately about
subject and object.
Alyst. It is another form of the same
Protean problem.
Scept, Haeckel even insists upon this in
his arrogant way.
Myst. Huxley, at once the most and the
least sceptical of philosophers, urges it.
There is only one methed of investigating
this matter. Reason is bankrupt; not only
Mansel the Christian but Hume the Agnostic
has seen it.
Scept. We all see it. The Bank being
broken, we do not put what little we have
saved into the wildcat stock Iaith, as Mansel
counsels us; but add little to httle, and
hoard it in the old: stocking of Science.
Myst. Well if no holes!
Scept. We expect little, even if we hope for
much. Weare pretty safe; ‘tis the plodding
ass that is Science, and the fat priest rides
us still.
Myst. We offer you a Bank, where your
intellectual coin will breed a thousandfold.
Scept. What security do you offer? Once
bit, twice shy ; especially as your business is
known to be patronised by some very shady
customers. )
Myst. Do you offer to stop my mouth with
security? We give you all you can wish.
Let Science keep the books! Isay it in
our own interest ; the slovenly system that
has prevailed hitherto has resuited in serious
losses to the shareholders. One of our best
cashiers, Christ, went off and left mere verbal
messages, and those only too vague, as to
the business that passed through his hands.
Too many of our most brilliant research
staff keep their processes secret, and so not
only incur the suspicion of quackery, but
leave the world no wiser for their work.
Others abuse their position as directors to
further the ends of other companies not
even allied to the parent firm: as when
Mohammed, the illuminated of Allah, lent
his spiritual force to bolster-up the literal