Comment and Discussion. vii 



is perhaps best for that class ; and, finall}-, the thankless 

 nature of the task of teaching truths which would be cer- 

 tain to be unpopular. Briefly, the biologist of to-day is 

 shirking his duty as a teacher rather than incur odium 

 and resentment. 



"Your contention is unique to say the least of it," 

 another critic writes. " So far as I am able to follow 

 your reasoning, you fail wholly to distinguish between 

 physical and psychic powers. You treat them as if of 

 common origin, as if there were no essential difference 

 between them. This to me is chaotic and would subvert 

 psychology. You confound sentience with the insentient 

 forces of matter. You make neither distinction, nor 

 difference, between them." 



There is no difference, that is to say, none as to their 

 ultimate source or origin. There are no "insentient 

 forces of matter." Matter lives, that is, feels, and moves, 

 because it feels. Indeed, there is no such thing as matter, 

 in the former sense in which the word was used. Matter 

 is energy and is sentient to us when it is embraced within 

 the symbiotic cordon of our organic being, or self. It is 

 then us, that is, personal to us. Outside that cordon, 

 all energy appears to each one of u^ to be insentient. 

 Sentience and insentience are merely other terms for sub- 

 jectivity and objectivity, personality, and impersonality. 



