122 PROF. FEERIER ON KNOWING AND BEING. 



always thinks — for all our thinking, even the most abstract, implies 

 perception. Now there is no proof that the mind is ever in an 

 unthinking state ; it can never catch itself without a thought ; 

 because in catching itself, it is thinking. Will it be urged that a 

 relation implies the independent existence of the correlated terms, 

 and that the Ego and Non-ego by whose relation to one another per- 

 ception is constituted, must consequently be acknowledged as 

 independent existences ? Of course, it cannot be meant that they 

 exist independently while the perception is taking place, for they are 

 then in relation to one another. And why is it necessai'y that they 

 should have had an independent separate existence previously to their 

 becoming related ? Perception, at all events, does not bear witness 

 to this : it testifies only of the present : it reveals the relation, but 

 nothing antecedent to it. I shall not in detail pursue the various 

 possible windings of the problem into the region of mediate or infer- 

 ential knowledge. Enough to remark generally, that while on the 

 one hand it is a contradiction in terms to assert the present absolute 

 or independent existence of an Ego and a Non-ego which are in 

 relation to one another ; on the other hand, to assert their absolute 

 or independent existence prior to the formation of the relation at 

 present constituted, is to utter words without meaning. Never 

 having been conscious of the Non-ego oui of relation to Self, how can 

 we reason about the Non-ego absolutely (the Non-ego-per-se), or pro- 

 pose to prove anything respecting it, or speak of it all ? It is utterly 

 inconceivable by us. AVe may use the phrase, Non-ego-per-se ; but 

 mean nothing thereby. In like manner, never having been conscious 

 of the Ego out of relation to the Non-ego, (for all the modes of our 

 present Being involve an exercise of sensitive consciousness), how 

 can we reason about the Ego absolutely (the-Ego-per-se), or propose 

 to prove anything respecting it, or speak of it all? It is utterly 

 inconceivable by us. We may use the phrase, Ego-per-se ; but we 

 mean nothing thereby. The conclusion therefore is, that the exist- 

 ence which comes to light in the diversified operations of our con- 

 sciousness, is never either the Ego-per-se, or the Non-ego-per-se, but 

 always the one related to, or (if Professor Eerrier pleases) in 

 synthesis with, the other— the Ego in synthesis with the Non-ego, or 

 the Non-ego in synthesis with the Ego. I say or, not and : for 

 though philosophical writers commonly teach, that perception mani- 

 fests a twofold existence, the Ego existing in relation to the Non-ego, 

 and the Non-ego existing in relation to the Ego, there is in reality no 

 difference between these. Self-existing-in-relation-to-Not-self is Not- 

 eelf-existing-in-relation-to-Self. Each expression sets forth the rela- 



