OF MICR O- OR G AN I SMS. 1 1 5 



It appears to me that this simple-cellular psychology lacks a 

 foundation; it is a conception of the mind, rather than a study 

 based upon observed facts. 



In M. Richet's book I find no indication as to what sort of be- 

 ings he means to distinguish thereby. He contents himself (pp. 20 

 and 27) with speaking of simple beings without otherwise defining 

 them. Towards the close of his remarks upon my work, M. Richet 

 cites an instance of simple beings, viz., the bacteria; in his judg- 

 ment, chemical irritability appears to be the sole law conditioning 

 their movements. What are the movements of the bacteria, he 

 asks, if not an affinity for oxygen; in other words, the simplest and 

 most universal chemical phenomenon that exists in all nature? 



In our judgment the latter phrase is to be taken metaphorically. 

 We believe that as yet no one has demonstrated that the move- 

 ments of a living being, in moving towards a distant object, how- 

 ever simple they may be, can be explained merely by a chemical 

 affinity acting between that being and that object. It is certainly 

 not chemical affinity that is acting, but much rather a physiological 

 need. 



Psychic life, like its substratum, living matter, is, when closely 

 studied, an exceedingly complex subject. This fact is, with me, 

 a profound conviction ; it rests, not upon abstract ideas and 

 methods, but upon the observations that I have given, observa- 

 tions that are not founded upon my own personal authority alone, 

 but which are drawn from the highest authorities, and most of 

 which I have been able to verify with my own eyes. 



ALFRED BINET. 



