J.—PSYCHOLOGY. 168 
properly belong. And it is here that there emerge the significant re- 
lations of conduct to value (truth, beauty, goodness) in conscious 
reference to objects of reflection. That, in us, much integration is 
established at this level of our conscious life cannot be questioned. 
But to say that all psychical integration is established at this level 
is itself an interpretation subject to truth-value; and one is pretty safe 
in roundly asserting that it is erroneous. Now, regarded from the 
point of view of emergent evolution, just as the quality of consciousness 
is dependent on, and supervenient to, the quality of life, so too is 
reflective consciousness dependent on, and supervenient to, the prior 
development of unreflective consciousness—in human folk in large 
~ measure begotten, through perceptive imitation, of the customs of our 
‘herd.’ This unreflective process, as such, imitatively follows a lead 
which is itself the outcome of traditional habit no less unreflective. 
Bui reflective interpretation in due course supervenes when values come 
within the mental horizon; and it may be (alas often is) erroneous. 
And a leading type of false interpretation to which men are prone is 
seen in the tendency to trump up reflective motives in terms of value 
for actions determined by integration that is unreflective in character. 
As Huxley long ago put it, ‘ What we call rational grounds for our 
_ beliefs are often extremely irrational attempts to justify our instincts.’ 
How then do we stand? There is perceptive integration (con- 
sciously but not reflectively established) such as is the salient feature 
in the mental life of many animals. This passes up from its proper 
an 
level to that of reflective consciousness, and is there re-integrated in 
the new significant field of value. Then, as reflective habitudes of 
valuing get firmly rooted, such re-integration spreads downwards to 
give value to more and more of that which has been established under 
the lower and earlier integration of the perceptive order. Behaviour 
is reorganised as conduct in terms of value. 
This double process is noteworthy. When the emergent level of 
_ reflective consciousness is reached, the outcome of prior unreflective 
integration passes up from its lower level. But as re-integration at the 
upper level proceeds, more and more of the unreflective substratum 
undergoes reflective regrouping around the values which are the new 
centres of that higher re-integration. Unreflective integration ascends 
from below; reflective re-integration descends from above. But they 
are different; the new ‘form’ of integration is other than the old. 
There is always some ‘ conflict’ which has been a fruitful theme in 
drama from the time of the Greeks onwards. And in our so-called 
normal life (to say nothing of that which is abnormal) this conflict of 
systems, with different centres of grouping and fields of influence, is 
daily and hourly in evidence. 
Now carry the matter a stage lower. Unreflective integration of 
the perceptually intelligent order is consciously established in the course 
of individual life. The animal unreflectively learns to act in nice 
accordance with varying circumstances just as man learns also to act 
reflectively in relation to value. But is there not a yet deeper integra- 
tion the products of which come up from below the perceptive level ? 
Unquestionably there is, A generation ago it was regarded as purely 
