i*4 (5 2 ) 



while it is true that, for subject to be subject, and ob- 

 ject, object, the boundless intussuscepted multiplicity 

 of the single invisible point of the one is but the dimen- 

 sionless casket into which the illimitable Genius of the 

 other must retract and withdraw itself is the differ- 

 ence of differences ; and certainly it is not internality 

 that can be abolished before externality. The proof 

 for the absoluteness of thought, the subject, the mind, 

 is, on its side, pretty well perfect. It is not necessary 

 here, however, to enter into that proof at length. Be- 

 fore passing on, I may simply point to the fact that, if 

 thought is to be called a function of matter, it must be 

 acknowledged to be a function wholly peculiar and un- 

 like any other. In all other functions, we are present 

 to processes which are in the same sense physical as 

 the organs themselves. So it is with lung, stomach, 

 liver, kidney, where every step can be followed, so to 

 speak, with eye and hand ; but all is changed when we 

 have to do with mind as the function of brain. Then, 

 indeed, as Mr. Huxley thought in his Physiology, we are 

 admitted, as if by touch of Aladdin's lamp, to a world 

 absolutely different and essentially new to a world, on 

 its side of the incommunicable cleft, as complete, en- 

 tire, independent, self-contained, and absolutely sui 

 generis, as the world of matter on the other side. It 

 will be sufficient here to allude to as much as this, with 

 special reference to the fact that, so far as this argu- 

 ment is concerned, protoplasm has not introduced any 

 the very slightest difference. All the ancient reasons 

 for the independence of thought as against organiza- 

 tion, can be used with even more striking effect as 

 against protoplasm ; but it will be sufficient to indicate 

 this, so much are the arguments in question a common 



