J.—PSYCHOLOGY. 189 
“I was still in the secondary state, but the other life dawned on me, 
and nothing but my will pertinaciously clung to the secondary state... . 
_ While both lives were presented to the mind, where was the possibility 
of combining them? And had not I lived and felt each life? Yet how 
could one person live and feel both lives? Here was the critical 
_ poimt... But the lives were constantly becoming more and more personal, 
until at last, by a deliberate, voluntary act, the two were seized, and 
have both remained . . ., though for some time after the recovery it was 
difficult to dovetail together the detached portions of each life so as to 
_ present a continuous history.’ ° 
An ANALOGY. 
— 
Let me return to stress once more the fact that the development of 
presentations to consciousness out of what were originally modifications 
or feelings of the conscious self is to be regarded as one of the most important 
features of mental evolution. It has occurred, as I believe, pari passu with 
the fuller development of the self and with the i increasing complexity and 
differentiation of mentallevels. The early self in more primitive organisms 
functioned in a manner so diffuse that it can barely be called unitary. Its 
later, more highly concentrated, unitary character developed with the 
differentiation of higher and lower levels and with the gradual distillation 
of supreme control into ever less diffused, loftier and more ‘ pontifical ’ 
spheres of influence. (Perhaps roughly corresponding, on the material 
side, to these primitive and later mental stages are the early plexus 
structure and the later synaptic plan of the nervous system.) 
We might compare the earliest stage with that of a primitive 
monarchical government whose king was the weak, diffusely moving 
spirit in all its varied activities. At an intermediate stage we might 
envisage a stronger government whose cabinet consisted of a large number 
of members, each, however, busily acting in considerable independence 
of his colleagues and of his chief, the prime minister. At the highest stage 
we may conceive differentiation, co-ordination and integration as having 
so harmoniously co-operated as to produce a prime minister who is in 
_ perfect sympathy with, and hence functionally identical with, the king, 
and has such complete control that he regards the more important ‘ acts ’ 
of his hierarchy of lower-level colleagues (even those of his deputy and 
assistant prime ministers) as his own ‘ presentations. By some such 
_ analogy as this, I suggest, we can dimly portray the evolution of the self, 
‘its increasing powers of control and devolution, its development of the 
- function of presentation, and its ability, in certain conditions, to look 
_ down on what appears to be itself, or on one or more other selves, acting 
s and experiencing feelings and presentations. 
se : 
4 
5 The humblest servants of such a highly complex government would be 
_ entrusted with duties which they can perfectly well perform without ever 
4 
; 
> 
; 
4 
THE Functions oF Fett Imputse AND EMOTION. 
® Multiple Personality, by B. Sidis and S. P. Goodhart. London: D. Appleton. 
1905, pp. 225, 226. 
