REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 



158 



caused by something, as Mill pointed out when discussing sensation. 

 Mr. Klein has hardly called sufficient attention to muscular action 

 in connection with form and distance. Perception, to which he 

 refers, p. 133, is a bad master, but a very useful servant. We must 

 not disparage the use of our senses, especially when their evidence 

 converges. 



P. 134, " man became a living Soul." Mr. Klein here departs from 

 Paul's interpretation in i Cor. xv. We have to discern between 

 Soul and Spirit. I wish I could be as optimistic as Mr. Klein is on 

 that page. A day spent in the dens and alleys of London (say with 

 a City Missionary) shows that Progress is very slow and there are 

 many adversaries. I think a little qualification is needed on p. 137, 

 with respect to the omnipresence and omniscience of our real per- 

 sonality. By cutting off patches of brain, Mr. Klein tells us, 

 patches of the ego are destroyed. Certainly the brain is the 

 condition of our physical life but not the cause of it. It is the nursery 

 of the soul and of character, and free-will, which is reduced to a 

 minimum on p. 146, is vital for the formation of character and so of 

 destiny. 



Let me close by saying what a pleasure it is to read such a medi- 

 tative paper as this, even though at times one is inclined to question 

 certain expressions. I wish the last line had been added to the 

 closing text : " But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." 

 (I. Cor. ii, 10.) 



The Secretary read the following extract from a letter he had 

 received from an Associate who was unable to attend : — 



" I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed Mr. Klein's paper. 

 He seemed to be clothing in words for me, thoughts of mine that 

 had never ' broken through language and escaped ' ; or to use his 

 own illustration, I found myself (the receiver) vibrating in perfect 

 sympathy with him (the transmitter) nearly all through. The first 

 thing that struck me as a probable point for discussion is his table 

 of negatives on p. 131. Negative is not the same as opposite, is it 1 

 I mean is evil the negative of good, isn't it something much more 

 active than not-good 1 Further on he talks of ' progression and 

 stagnation ' not retrogression. This point of view interests me 

 because it is Browning's solution of the problem of evil. Compare 

 the end part of the paragraph on p. 135, beginning ' If man became 

 a conscious being ' with : 



