130 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IX. No. 213. 



In geonoinic bodies numbers, spaces, and mo- 

 tions are organized. In plants numbers, 

 spaces, motions, and times are organized. In 

 animals numbers, spaces, motions, times, 

 and judgments are organized. All this 

 seems to a layman to contradict the defini- 

 tion of the five constituents as necessary 

 concomitants of one another, which would 

 predicate them all even of the first term, or 

 ethereal particles, but the author could prob- 

 ably explain the apparent disci-epancy. He 

 has not done so in his book. 



He sometimes distinguishes between par- 

 ticles and bodies, and when he does so the 

 bodies are composed of particles, but in his 

 discussion of the natural bodies he ex- 

 pressly excludes the first term of the series 

 of particles, the ethereal, and begins with 

 the second, giving us celestial, terrestrial, 

 vegetal, animal, and social bodies, this last 

 being added apparent!}' to make the neces- 

 sary five. These bodies are what he calls 

 'incorporated,' and the order of the terms 

 is an ascending order in the mode or degree 

 of incorporation. This depends upon the 

 character of the respective particles. The 

 terms used describe this as follows : 



1. Celestial bodies have molecular particles. 



' 2. Terrestrial bodies have petrologic particles. 



3. Vegetal bodies have inorganic particles. 



4. Animal bodies have vegetal particles. 



5. Social bodies have ideal particles. 



He does not use these words in all cases 

 and his terminology is here mixed and 

 more or less confusing, but the above seems 

 to be a fair statement of his meaning. 



If we continue to neglect the first class, 

 ethereal bodies, and to begin with the 

 second, celestial bodies, the corresponding 

 states will be: (1) fluid; (2) solid; (3) 

 vital ; (4) motile ; (5) social. Major Powel, 

 never uses the word social nor the word col- 

 lective, although he clearly understands this 

 stage of development. His classification of 

 the sciences, or scientific hierarchy, is as 

 follows: (1) etheronomy ; (2) astronomy; 



(3) geonomy ; (4) phytonomy ; (5) zo' 

 onomy ; (6) demonomy.* "Why he did not 

 reduce this to five by combining phytonomy 

 and zoonomy under the term hionomy (since 

 from the standpoint of biology there is no 

 distinction between them) is rather sur- 

 prising, but explainable. We are here 

 concerned only with the last term, demon- 

 omy, which he prefers to socionomy, and 

 throughout expresses the conception of col- 

 lectivity by derivatives from the Greek 

 word (5-v/-'."9, using the adjective demotic, and 

 even extending it to animal societies, colo- 

 nies, etc., to which it obviously does not 

 apply. 



Passing over the animal principles, or 

 functions, and their respective organs, 

 whose bare enumeration above must suf- 

 fice, we come to the senses. Here it is im- 

 portant to point out that the senses are 

 simply the organs of the categories in their 

 numerical oi'der, thus : 



1. Taste (including smell) is the organ of kind. 



2. Touch is the organ of form. 



3. The muscular sense is the organ of force. 



4. Hearing is the organ of causation. 



5. Sight is the organ of conception. 



Major Powell does not say quite all of 

 this in terms, but it can be safely inferred 

 from the discission on page 279. 



When we come to the facidties we have 

 another example of architectonic symmetry. 

 We perceive that the faculties are simply 

 cognitions of the categories, term for term: 



1. Sensation is cognition of kind. 



2. Perception is cognition of form. 



3. Apprehension is cognition of force. 



4. Reflection is cognition of causation. 



5. Ideation is cognition of conception. 



The special treatment of the cosmic series 

 need not be carried farther, but it is of 

 interest to note a few of the more general 

 correlations that may be, with sufficient 

 pains and efi'ort, worked out of different 



* Compare the proposed classification given in the 

 American Journal of Sociology for July, 1896, Vol. II., 

 p. 82. 



