MENDEL'S EXPLANATION i6i 



one it would follow that the deeper we probed, 

 that is, the nearer we got to the underlying truth, 

 the more closely we should agree. The very reverse 

 of this is, however, the case. The further we leave 

 the crust of phenomena behind, and the more we 

 approach fundamentals, the more are we at variance 

 with one another. The extent to which we agree 

 with one another is not directly, but inversely, pro- 

 portional to the depth to which we probe. And 

 when we reach the most fundamental questions of all, 

 such as the theory of the relation between spirit 

 and matter, so far from finding unanimity, we 

 find the profoundest and widest gulf of disagree- 

 ment. 



True it is, that when we try to explain the things 

 which reach us through our senses, we leave the crust 

 of indisputable phenomena behind. But we do not 

 leave it behind, above us, by burrowing beneath it ; 

 we leave it behind in the other direction by retreating 

 into the recesses of our own minds. And the further 

 we retreat into these recesses, the more does our 

 explanation become an expression of our own mind, 

 and the less relation does it bear to anything in the 

 world outside. That is why the " deeper " we probe 

 the more violently do we disagree with one another. 

 It is only so long as we stick to the crust that we 

 agree. 



We may regard the facts described by Mendel as 

 established. The theory which he put forward to 

 explain them is probably a very close approximation 



