120 SCIENCE AND MORALS m 



ledge of my own consciousness may be assumed to 

 be adequate (and I make not the least pretension 

 to acquaintance with what goes on in my &quot; Un- 

 bewusstsein &quot;), I may be permitted to observe 

 that the first proposition appears to me to be not 

 true ; that the second is in the same case ; and 

 that, if there be gradations in untrueness, the 

 third is so monstrously untrue that it hovers on 

 the verge of absurdity, even if it does not actually 

 flounder in that logical limbo. Thus, to all three 

 theses, I reply in appropriate fashion, Ncgo I say 

 No ; and I proceed to state the grounds of that 

 negation, which the proprieties do not permit me 

 to make quite so emphatic as I could desire. 



Let me begin with the first assertion, that I 

 &quot; put aside, as unverifiable, everything which the 

 senses cannot verify.&quot; Can such a statement as 

 this be seriously made in respect of any human 

 being ? But I am not appointed apologist for 

 mankind in general; and confining my observa 

 tions to myself, I beg leave to point out that, at 

 this present moment, I entertain an unshakable 

 conviction that Mr. Lilly is the victim of a patent 

 and enormous misunderstanding, and that I have 

 not the slightest intention of putting that con 

 viction aside because I cannot &quot; verify &quot; it either 

 by touch, or taste, or smell, or hearing, or sight, 

 which (in the absence of any trace of telepathic 

 faculty) make up the totality of my senses. 



Again, I may venture to admire the clear and 



