February, 1907.] 



KNOWLEDGE & SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 



37 



Basis of the Will. 



1-'.\K g-i-L-ater dilliculties lia\o Ix-cn met with in the 

 attempt to fathom the mysteries of psychic or conscious 

 action, than with any other branch of Elementary 

 Bioioij-y. This seems to be due to the following- 

 causes : — 



(1) Conscious action possesses no nervous grounds. 

 This gives support to the prevailing idea that, physio- 

 logically, its source is to be localised in such constitu- 

 ents as form the elements of physical or chemical action. 



(2) Conscious action, though no doubt in possession 

 of a structural basis, affords but very complex clues 

 with regard to such a basis. 



In the first place, conscious action is always synthetic 

 or complex. Conscious changes are produced without 

 anv consciousness of form. In respect to action, all 

 consciousness must be structural. For, how would it 

 be possible for changes of consciousness to occur, other- 

 wise than by means of sense of structure? But it does 

 not follow that, because all consciousness is structural, 

 structural action is conscious action. For, on the con- 

 trary, structural action is united action, a compound of 

 that which forms and that which is formed. 



Physically, there are no changes of consciousness. 

 Energy has no nervous Substance of change, otherwise 

 such change would be found to have some nervous form 

 of transmutation, which is not the case. Changes of 

 consciousness, therefore, are not relati\e of structural 

 action. What is called the " Monism of energy," re- 

 presents a fundamental jjrinciple now generally recog- 

 nised throughout the province of physics and chemistry. 



There must, therefore, be some principle to answer 

 for the action of conscious structure. The test of such 

 a principle will be in the structural difference of action. 

 Thus, the source of all changes of consciousness must 

 be a non-substantial of non-vital principle. 



Now, there is strong scientific evidence which points 

 to man as being in possession of this principle. For 

 instance, it is through him that we arrive at last to a 

 structural transmutation of consciousness, to a psychic 

 form, which, in its relation to structure, has been pro- 

 ductive of pathological results. 



In his Cumulative Evidences of Divine Revelation, 

 page 182, Mr. March Phillips gives the following signi- 

 ficant facts : — 



"There is this peculiaritv in the condition of man, 

 as compared with the other mammalia, that his life is 

 shorter now than by analogy it ought to be. In other 

 animals the period of growth is about one-tenth to one- 

 fifteenth of the whole life. The lion, which is full- 

 grown at five, lives for seventv or eighty years. The 

 dog, full grow n at eighteen months, is as old at fifteen 

 as a man at eighty. Man, li\ ing as long as the lion, is 

 not full grown till twenty. The same proix>rtion would 

 give men from three hundred and twenty to four 

 hundred years. Thus, his physical life is not in this 

 respect the normal life; it is cut very short, and its 

 brevity points to some primeval failure of vigour — to 

 the presence of some non-natural, i.e., some diseased 

 condition, sapping his vitalit)." 



Ag-ain, in his " Freedom of Science in the Modern 

 Slate," Professor Virchow says : — 



If we gather together the w hf)le sum of the fossil 

 men hitherto known, and jjut them parallel with those 

 of the present time, we can decidedly pronounce there 

 are among living men a much greater number of in- 

 dividuals who show a relatively inferior typu than 

 among the fossils known up to this time." 



Evolution, upon this evidence, can be said to have had 

 most astounding grounds for its moral tendency, from 

 such natural action as human physics here supplies. 

 However, it is not my intention to query any point of 

 physical ethics, but, rather, to bring into prominence 

 what are actually contradictory results produced under 

 similar action. Apart from reason, consciousness is 

 structurally unvarying in action — energy is monistic. 

 Combined with reason, there is conscious change of 

 action. Consequently, there must be some principle 

 through which man is structurally conscious. Physi- 

 cally, he is monistic; that is, an unvarying unity. 

 Rationally, he is a multiple, a being of character. 



Where, then, is the source of this difference? As we 

 have seen, it is not a real or structural principle. It is 

 something abstract, something foreign to his normal 

 form of vitality. It must be some phantasy or myth, 

 otherwise, what is to answer for the prevalence of such 

 a degenerate and diseased condition of his life? 



.Suppose we examine the conscious grounds of struc- 

 ture, and by this means locate the source of this evil 

 and non-natural element. 



It is by means of the sensor nerves (properties of the 

 will) that consciousness structurally acts. Sensibility 

 is responsible for all structural actions. The motor 

 nerves, which determine structural actions, act without 

 any sense of structure, yet there must be a conscious 

 basis to structural action. Structural action is not 

 physical action; that is, action of growth. For, in 

 order that action may be consciouslv formed, the sense 

 of structure must exist as a foundation. 



Consequently, structural action cannot result from 

 growth forms; but, on the contrary, these are them- 

 selves only possible through structural action. 



.Structural action is relative of the sense of induction 

 — unity. Growth action is relative of the sense of struc- 

 ture. Consequently, the conscious grounds of struc- 

 ture is a unit of consciousness or vital cell. Upon this 

 unit of consciousness all reflex action depends, and it 

 must, therefore, be held to contain the elements of all 

 structural action. 



Instinctive (adaptive) actions are never consciously 

 formed, but are relative of this unit of consciousness. 



Conscious action is, structurally, unvarying, for all 

 action of sensibility is so formed, as sense of unvarying 

 sense of form, which is consciousness of conserved 

 energy. Consequently, the conscious ground of struc- 

 ture is un\arying action of consciousness, and non- 

 cellular; that is, action of infinite reflexion. 



Upon what principle, therefore, must the ratit)nal or 

 conscious action of reflexion rest? 



It certainly is not a structural principle, for this 

 reason, structural action is unvarying- will, whilst 

 rational actions are varying of adjustment; and, con- 

 sequently, such actions must emanate from an unvary- 

 ing and not a varying unit of conscious form. 



How, therefore, can an unvarying consciousness, 

 prior to consciousness, and by which con.sciousness is 

 consciously formed, be consciouslv willed (united)? 



Rationally, not otherwise than by free will, as an 

 infinite unit of conscious structure; consequentiv, onlv 

 as a subject of structure. 



Thus, by analysis, no difference is to be found be- 

 tween instinct and reason, but, at the same time, it 

 exposes the source of the hitter's contradiction, which 

 is contained in the freedom of will. 



In conclusion, it appears hardly necessarv to add 

 that, wherever man's freedom has run counter of his 

 normal or structural sense, there has ever been li>ss not 

 gain, pain not pleasure, disease not vigour, insanity not 

 control. 



