﻿THE 
  UNIQUENESS 
  OF 
  LIFE 
  167 
  

  

  hypothesis 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  nature 
  of 
  the 
  difference 
  between 
  stone 
  

   and 
  tree, 
  between 
  boomerang 
  and 
  homing 
  bird, 
  in 
  being 
  

   content 
  with 
  holding 
  to 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  new 
  aspects 
  of 
  reality 
  

   have 
  somehow 
  risen 
  to 
  the 
  surface 
  and 
  demand 
  other 
  than 
  

   mechanical 
  formulation. 
  Learning, 
  choosing, 
  struggling, 
  and 
  

   the 
  like 
  appear 
  to 
  transcend 
  mechanism. 
  

  

  The 
  third 
  theory 
  asserts 
  that 
  something 
  not 
  really 
  belong- 
  

   ing 
  to 
  the 
  natural 
  order, 
  something 
  not 
  material, 
  is 
  present 
  

   in 
  living 
  creatures, 
  informing 
  them, 
  underpinning 
  them, 
  

   inspiring 
  them. 
  The 
  ' 
  biological 
  5 
  view 
  differs 
  from 
  this 
  in 
  

   keeping 
  to 
  the 
  idea 
  of 
  continuity, 
  in 
  supposing 
  that 
  aspects 
  

   of 
  reality 
  which 
  in 
  azoic 
  days 
  were 
  only 
  implicit 
  became 
  

   explicit 
  in 
  the 
  first 
  living 
  creatures, 
  and 
  have 
  become 
  more 
  

   and 
  more 
  patent 
  as 
  evolution 
  has 
  gone 
  on. 
  

  

  We 
  are 
  here 
  in 
  the 
  difficult 
  position 
  of 
  agreeing 
  on 
  the 
  

   one 
  hand 
  with 
  the 
  positive 
  vitalists 
  in 
  their 
  emphasis 
  on 
  

   the 
  uniqueness 
  of 
  organisms 
  as 
  compared 
  with 
  not-living 
  

   things, 
  and 
  yet 
  of 
  disagreeing 
  with 
  them 
  (or 
  many 
  of 
  

   them) 
  in 
  their 
  emphasis 
  on 
  discontinuity. 
  It 
  is 
  plain 
  from 
  

   our 
  argument 
  that 
  our 
  understanding 
  of 
  the 
  facts 
  of 
  the 
  

   case 
  leads 
  us 
  to 
  a 
  high 
  appreciation 
  of 
  the 
  apartness 
  of 
  

   organisms 
  and 
  to 
  a 
  conviction 
  that 
  living 
  transcends 
  all 
  

   mechanical 
  description, 
  but 
  we 
  are 
  not 
  compelled 
  by 
  this 
  

   to 
  a 
  rejection 
  of 
  the 
  central 
  idea 
  of 
  Evolution, 
  which 
  is 
  

   continuity. 
  

  

  To 
  ignore 
  distinctions 
  yields 
  false 
  simplicity; 
  to 
  exag- 
  

   gerate 
  them 
  yields 
  false 
  complexity. 
  There 
  is 
  very 
  little 
  

   individuality 
  in 
  the 
  inorganic 
  domain, 
  but 
  it 
  must 
  be 
  re- 
  

   membered 
  that 
  gold 
  and 
  iron, 
  phosphorus 
  and 
  sulphur, 
  

   oxygen 
  and 
  nitrogen 
  remain 
  quite 
  distinct 
  things 
  with 
  prop- 
  

   erties 
  and 
  ways 
  of 
  their 
  own, 
  specific 
  like 
  organisms, 
  " 
  each 
  

   something 
  of 
  a 
  law 
  unto 
  itself 
  ". 
  There 
  are, 
  indeed, 
  logical 
  

  

  