1 8 8 2 .J On Archcesthctism. 463 



may be the exhibition of a force peculiar to living beings; and 

 hence one of the " vital " group. 



III. Arch^sthetism. 



The doctrine of evolution derives the organs of special sense 

 from those of simple sensibility or touch. In other words, their 

 history has been that of other organs ; the complex have been 

 derived from the general and simple. There a*e then generalized 

 consciousness and specialized consciousness. A number of forms 

 of consciousness multiplies its vividness, the one kind reinforcing 

 the other by a slightly different appreciation of the same thing. 

 In the case of persons deprived of the sense of touch, the sense 

 of sight is not sufficient to convince them of their own existence, 

 as a matter of intellectual reflection. When there is no nervous 

 system we must suppose sensibility to be generally distributed 

 throughout the protoplasmic substance of the animal. The locali- 

 zation of consciousness must depend on a localization of the kind 

 and condition of protoplasm which sustains it; while in other 

 parts of the body the protoplasm is modified in other directions 

 and for other purposes. If this be true, the nervous tissue of the 

 higher animals should retain the characters of the lowest simple 

 organisms. In point of fact this is the case, the nucleated cell 

 being the essentially active element in the functions of brain and 

 nerve, and being more numerous in that tissue than in any other. 



The remarkable evanescence of consciousness is one of its 

 most marked characteristics. It is this peculiarity which has lead 

 many thinkers to deny its existence in the lower animals, and to 

 induce others to believe that it can have had but little place among 

 the causes of evolution. Partly for the same reason many biolo- 

 gists attempt to derive it by metamorphosis from some form of 



Hut the nature of consciousness is such that it cannot be de- 

 rived from unconsciousness, any more than matter can be derived 

 from no matter, or force from no force. The " unthinkable dogma 

 of creation" (Haeckel) cannot be applied to consciousness more 

 ^an to matter or force. It is a thing by itself, and with matter 

 and force, forms a trio of primitive things which have to be 

 accepted as ultimate facts. This is perfectly consistent with 

 th e position that consciousness is an attribute of matter, and 

 neither more nor less difficult to comprehend than the fact that 



