47^ Animal Life and Intellige^ice. 



in animals. The point on which I wish here to insist is 

 that, outside ourselves, we can only know metakinesis in 

 and through its correlative kinesis. Underlying kinetic 

 evolution, we see that, on the hypothesis oFmoiiism^ there 

 must have been metakinetic evolution. But of this mental 

 or metakinetic evolution we neither have nor can have 

 independent evidence. Such evolution is the inevitable 

 monistic corollary from kinetic evolution. More than this 

 it is not and cannot be. And only on the monistic 

 hypothesis, as it seems to me, is it admissibIe^Eo~believe in 

 mental evolution,* properly so called. ' " — :-- 



But does not, it may be asked, the hypothesis of 

 monism, if carried to its logical conclusion, involve the 

 belief in a world-consciousness on the one hand, and a 

 crystal-consciousness on the other? If, according to the 

 hypothesis, every form of kinesis has also its metakinetic 

 aspect, **must we not maintain," in the words~of Mr. J. A. 

 Symonds, " that the universe being in one rhythm, things 

 less highly organized than man possess consciousness in 

 the degree of their descent, less acute than man's ? Must 

 we not also surmise that ascending scales of existence^ 

 more highly organized, of whom we are at present ignorant, 

 are endowed with consciousness superior to man's ? Is it 

 incredible that the globe on which we live is vastly more 

 conscious of itself than we are of ourselves ; and that the 

 cells which compose our corporeal frame are gifted with a 

 separate consciousness of a simpler kind than ours ? " To 

 such questions W. K. Clifford replied with an emphatic 

 negative. " Unless we can show," he said, as interpreted 

 by Mr. Komanes,t *'in the disposition of the heavenly 



* I ought not to pass over without notice the " psychological scale " which 

 Mr. Romanes introduces in a table prefixed to " Mental Evolution in Animals." 

 It would be unjust to criticize this too closely, for it is admittedly provisional 

 and tentative. If such a scheme is to be framed, I wo'uld suggest that the 

 various phyla of the animal kingdom be kept distinct. I question, however, 

 whether any one can produce a scheme which any other independent observer 

 will thoroughly endorse. And I am inclined to think that the wisest plan is 

 to tabulate the kinetic manifestations which we can actually observe rather 

 than the metakineses of which we can have no indepeuilout knowledge. 



t Contemporary Review, July, 1886. See Cliiford's " Lectures and Essays," 

 vol. i. pp. 72 and 248 ; vol. ii. p. 67. 



