LIFE AND HABIT 99 



take of his own super-abundance and give it to mankind ? " 

 There is still a lack of righteous and knightly spirit amongst 

 us, and there prevails instead a dangerous tendency to pro- 

 nounced social antitheses a world " festering with selfishness," 

 as an American writer recently put it. I believe these short- 

 comings to be largely due to a false biological basis of life, result- 

 ing in a morbid Pan-Psychism, and in a deeply-felt despondency 

 as regards the chances of social salvation by the means that our 

 instincts allow us to command. The Heavenly Way indicated 

 by Lao-Tzu seems beyond our possibilities, because we are not 

 sufficiently inspired from the best, i.e., symbiotic, sources. 

 What man is there indeed amongst us to take of his own super- 

 abundance and give it to mankind ? 



These are some of Lao-Tzu's recommendations which 

 are well worth re-emphasising : " Those who follow the 

 Way desire no excess." " In governing men and in serving 

 Heaven, there is nothing like moderation. For only by 

 moderation can there be an early return to man's normal 

 state. This early return is the same as a great storage of 

 Virtue. With a great storage of Virtue there is naught which 

 may not be achieved." The great seer of the past thus fore- 

 stalled the law of symbiotic moderation and distinctly hinted 

 at the truth that the greatest results of evolution spring from 

 symbiotic integrity. By ruling himself frugally and wisely, 

 man determines not to be pathologically, and hence tyrannically, 

 " determined." Man at any rate has it in his power consciously 

 to seek that biological and pan-psychic association, which 

 produces the maximum of individual and social health. He can 

 adopt the standard biological relation. In so doing alone can 

 he, in Lao-Tzu's words, encourage the creation of a great storage 

 of " Virtue," i.e., of cumulative symbiotic sense and lay the 

 foundation for further elevation of the human race. I cannot 

 concur with Samuel Butler in his almost fatalistic resignation 

 on the score of our liability to morbid influences. I cannot 

 agree that we are as helpless or as irresponsible in the matter as 

 he would appear to think. I am not over-awed by the powers 

 of mischief, great though they be, of the micro-organismal world. 

 It would seem to be with the conception of the absolutely small 

 " spirits " as it is with the absolutely large spirit, the " Absolute " 

 of Philosophy. Either is apt to make a bad companion of 

 morality, for this reason, that they make our autonomy look 



