251) A. T. SCHOFlELDj ESQ., JI.D., ETC., ON 



development of the brain from its first beginnings in the embryo, 

 and we trace back the embryo to the fusion, within the yelk, of 

 spermatozoon and germinal vesicle. N^ow, mental phenomena are 

 as much hereditary as are physical phenomena. Through what 

 paths shall we trace them to their source ? " Authorities " will 

 ask you to accept of the physical facts as proof that mind is but 

 a phase of matter. But to do so is simply to change the ineaning 

 of the word matter by including under the term something which 

 is not included in the phenomena by which matter is defined in 

 the laboratories. Dr. Schofield, supported by the authorities 

 whom he quotes, asks you to believe in unconscious mind. By 

 doing so you will change the meaning of the word mind, and tlie 

 question arises — what do you gain ? 



The Rev. Richakd Collins, M.A., writes : — 



I thank you very much for sending me a copy of Dr. Schofield's 

 paper on " The Scope of Mind." The conclusions of the paper seem 

 to me to be very valuable. But I note the expression " unconscious 

 mind." The word " mind," which carries with it always the idea 

 of the nature of mind only, seems here to be taken as embracing 

 what is evidently the whole acting absolute Ego, or self, apart fi-om 

 all that is material. What do we mean by "mind"? I do not 

 think we shall ever be able to define " mind " any further than by 

 saying that it is the cousciovs action of the self in the direction of 

 reason, choice, purpose, will. Mind is not a thiiKj ; it expresses 

 the operation of some tliiwj. That thing is the individual self, or 

 that entity which is the real centre of life and mind Ih tlio 

 individual. It is the self, surely, that works both consciously and 

 unconsciously ; but I would hesitate to speak of the self as an 

 " unconscious 7;t«uZ." The mind and will have power, no doubt, 

 beyond their ordinary routine of working, as, for instance, when 

 we will to control our breathing, or other involuntary functions, 

 by an unusual act of the will ; and we may not be able fully to set 

 limits to such power. It is the self acting on its mental side, and 

 this is a strong point in Dr. Schofield's paper. But the self cannot 

 be defined in terms of anything which is merely mental. 1 am 

 only able to think, therefore, when Dr. Schofield speaks of " nn- 

 conscitms mind " action, of the self acting uucon.sciously. Thi' 

 self acts in directions other than the merely mental. It receives, 

 for instance, through the material body certain material and 

 ethereal impressions, and intei'prets them, not as mei'c iinpressions. 



