1882.] On Archasthetism. 469 



trition, which resists death, maintain the same primitive and un- 

 formed constitution capable of exhibiting it. 



Of course there is no evidence in our own memory of the 

 existence of our personality prior to our human experience. No 

 one on awaking from unconsciousness remembers having been 

 anywhere in particular during the interval. These facts may be 

 harmonized with the theory here presented, on the supposition 

 that memory is lost on a transfer of consciousness from one physi- 

 cal basis to another. The arguments in favor of a transfer of 

 consciousness do not sustain the idea of a transfer of memory. 

 Memory requires an arrangement of molecules or atoms which 

 when finished no longer exhibits consciousness. With proper 

 stimulus, when the proper kind of force conversion is set up in 

 them, consciousness extends into them, and taking their form, 

 produces reminiscence or conscious memory. The molecular 

 arrangement would be probably lost on a transfer of conscious- 

 ness to a new material basis. It might then be supposed that with 

 every such transfer a new personality is established. Though 

 the correct definition of personality includes memory as well as 

 consciousness, when viewed as an objective concept, it may be 

 questioned whether memory is necessary to the subjective belief 

 in one's own personality. Those insane persons who believe that 

 they have lost their personality, and think that they are some one 

 else, nevertheless recognize the fact that what they now are has 

 a continuity of existence with what they once were. The mate- 

 rial limitations of consciousness are the authors of the kind of 

 personality it presents. A limitation or an expansion of its range 

 would not destroy the idea of personality, but would simply 

 restrict or extend it. The possible confluence of many person- 

 alities would not destroy them, but each one would regard the 

 others as additions to himself, and himself, therefore, as so much 

 the greater being. 



As a summary of the preceding conclusions, the following 

 analysis of metaphysical systems may be given. It defines the 

 Place of the doctrine of archsesthetism, above proposed, as dis- 

 tinguished from the opposing view of metaesthetism, which is 

 held by many monists : 

 '• Consciousness (« spirit ") is independent of matter Dualism. 



i Consciousness is a product of the evolution of matter and force 



