334 SCIENCE AND MYSTICISM 



can only reason from data and the ultimate data must 

 be given to us by a non-reasoning process — a self- 

 knowledge of that which is in our consciousness. To 

 make a start we must be aware of something. But that 

 is not sufficient; we must be convinced of the signifi- 

 cance of that awareness. We are bound to claim for 

 human nature that, either of itself or as inspired by a 

 power beyond, it is capable of making legitimate 

 judgments of significance. Otherwise we cannot even 

 reach a physical world.* 



Accordingly the conviction which we postulate is 

 that certain states of awareness in consciousness have 

 at least equal significance with those which are called 

 sensations. It is perhaps not irrelevant to note that time 

 by its dual entry into our minds (p. 51) to some extent 

 bridges the gap between sense-impressions and these 

 other states of awareness. Amid the latter must be 

 found the basis of experience from which a spiritual 

 religion arises. The conviction is scarcely a matter to 

 be argued about, it is dependent on the forcefulness of 

 the feeling of awareness. 



But, it may be said, although we may have such a 

 department of consciousness, may we not have mis- 

 understood altogether the nature of that which we 

 believe we are experiencing? That seems to me to be 

 rather beside the point. In regard to our experience of 

 the physical world we have very much misunderstood 

 the meaning of our sensations. It has been the task of 

 science to discover that things are very different from 



* We can of course solve the problem arising from certain data 

 without being convinced of the significance of the data — the "official" 

 scientific attitude as I have previously called it But a physical world 

 which has only the status of the solution of a problem, arbitrarily chosen 

 to pass an idle hour, is not what is intended here. 



