HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY. 



27 



thank the able author for his luminous paper, and to express the 

 pleasure with which I have gone with him through those five funda- 

 mental Experiments. 



The remarks (p. 13) on Induction and Deduction are of great 

 value. So also is the definition (p. 14) of Reason as the " organ of 

 implied knowledge." 



Would it not, however, be better to define Psychology (p. 12) 

 as the Science of Soul — Soul including both Mind and Emotions ? 

 The term " Mind," from the Sanscrit Mena = To Know (simi- 

 larly Greek vod<} , and Latin mens), seems confined to the 

 Intellect. 



I especially like Experiment V (pp. 24, 25). The paradox called 

 " Man," when carefully studied, does undoubtedly conduct and 

 guide us into the Divine Presence. " Come, let us worship, and 

 bow down, and kneel before the Lord, our Maker ! " 



Dr. ScHOFiELD remarked that it was impossible to criticize in 

 extenso such an analytical paper, bristling with things new and old. 

 He must, in the brief time at his disposal, confine himself to asking 

 the learned lecturer some questions on six points in his interesting 

 paper. 



1. On p. 12 L observe ^vxv (mind), which on p. 13 is called ex- 

 perience ; but on p. 26 I find that a body equipped with ^vx^'j 

 is contrasted with a body equipped with Trvev/na. Is there any dis- 

 tinction drawn between the two in the paper ? Can " spirit " 

 (Truedjiia) be called "experience," or only mind (\Vf^Xv) ^ 



2. On p. 15 we read of two "middles" with different meanings. 

 Does not, however, the middle or centre of successions in time mean 

 the same as the middle or centre of extensions in space ? Is there 

 any difference in the meaning of the word " middle," whether it be 

 the middle of a century or a field ? 



3. On page 16 we read : " There are thus four great realities in the 

 Universe— Matter, Spirit (or force). Space, and Time. Consequently 

 there are four psychologies possible — four, no more, no less." 

 To me this insistence on " four " is a puzzle. 



Why are there four and not five, as laid down by Herbert Spencer 

 and generally accepted ? and why is motion, universal and perpetual, 

 excluded, when all five are found in Genesis i, 1 and 2 ? Mobility, 

 not immobility, is the fundamental law of the Universe. Why, also, 



consequently," when the four psychologies do not even correspond 



