''DIRECTIVITY'' A WITNESS OF MIND 77 



" Hence in any exhibition of force in action we have 

 to account (i) for its production, (2) for its determina- 

 tion. ... It must be evident that whatever this cause 

 may have been, it was not an exertion of force. . . . By 

 no possible means can we conceive [original ?] determina- 

 tion to be the result of an act, or exertion of force." 



He proves this by supposing a number of bodies A, 

 B, C, etc., each acting in turn upon the other ; A being 

 the final recipient of the force. The direction of move- 

 ment of A in time and space is determined by that of 

 B, and so on backwards, till we come to the primary 

 director, so to say, or the original directivity , as some- 

 thing quite different from the actual force which sets the 

 series in movement with definite directions in time and 

 space. 



" Motion cannot possibly take place without its being 

 in some particular direction. But this does not prove 

 that the two things are the same. It only proves that 

 they are inseparably connected. 



" The mystery is not what are the forces which move 

 the particles but what is it that guides and directs the 

 action of the forces, so that they move each particle in 

 the particular manner and direction required. ... A 

 molecule may move without moving in the /rt'/'^r direc- 

 tion, . . . What is it that determines that the forces 

 shall act in the proper way ? Out of the infinite number 

 of different paths, what is it that directs the force to 

 select the right path ? It follows that there is something 

 else to be known than mere force before we can penetrate 

 the mystery of Nature. 



" The simple truth is, in attempting to account for the 

 determination of motion by referring it to 2i force, we are 

 attempting an absolute impossibility. The production of 

 motion and the determination of motion are two things 



