96 SYMBIOSIS 



Symbiotists in order to live by the principle of short cuts, which 

 ij, however, economically and therefore, in my sense, morally 

 unsound, rendering them liable to the aforesaid weaknesses and 

 to extermination wherever there arises a serious clash of interests 

 with the faithful Symbiotists. 



Those beings, then, are truly " part of us " which stand in 

 a directly useful reciprocal relation to us, which relation alone 

 can assure sufficiency and permanence of association. Scavengers 

 are only slightly " part of us " and must not, by over-indulgence 

 or over- work, be allowed to increase their hold upon us. 

 Parasites are but morbidly " part of us," apt, owing to some 

 weakness on our part, to determine us bodily and mentally in 

 a pathological direction. That is to say that beings are " part 

 of us " in very different degrees, from exceedingly wholesome 

 to exceedingly noxious ; and it is of vital importance that these 

 differences should be clearly recognised. Contrary to Butler's 

 opinion, it is quite possible to draw the line between real and 

 fictitious partnerships. Butler observes rightly, though but 

 in a general way, that we are to a large extent impelled by our 

 associations to think and to act in their own rather than our 

 interest. Surely then it is incumbent upon us to discriminate 

 between good and bad associations. A man is known by his 

 friends (" Tell me with whom thou hast intercourse and I will tell 

 thee who thou art"). Organisms are largely determined by 

 habits, notably feeding habits, a fact to a certain extent acknow- 

 ledged by Butler himself when he says, in " Luck or Cunning," 

 that " Eating is a mode of love ; it is an effort after a closer union ; 

 so we say we love roast beef." Was it not Plato who spoke 

 of the " love affairs " of the body as determining our health, 

 our mental and moral disposition and, ultimately, in the aggre- 

 gate, the welfare of the city ? Was it not the view of the most 

 sagacious of Greek thinkers generally that states perish by 

 various forms of that " excess " which is universally fatal to 

 prosperous action ? Has it not been said that " on est aisement 

 le dupe de ce qu'on aime ? " And is it not indeed precisely, as 

 Butler almost suggests, that certain feeding-habits involve 

 wrongful biological intercourse ? 



What is it that can guard us against being " duped " and 

 demoralised by " liaisons " of a biologically undesirable kind ? 

 Had Butler been able to answer this question, he would no doubt 

 have given a more practical turn to his Pan-Psychism. 



