i88i.] 
Analyses of Books. 
hi 
and thirdly, it is used of matter and force in union, as when we 
speak of moving bodies.” There has been also an ambiguity in 
the terms “ mind ” or “ mental,” and hence has arisen a con- 
fusion in contrasting “ mind with matter,” so that it became 
doubtful wherein the relevancy of the antithesis consists. The 
author considers it as inconsistent to say “ mind is opposed to 
matter ” as to say “ dynamics is opposed to matter.” He holds 
the terms “ objective ” or “ non-ego ” as altogether out of court, 
and recognises in each living man, and therefore in all matter, 
two phases — the one mental , conscious, feeling ; the other active , 
energising , dynamical , physical. Between these two phases or 
properties he then proceeds to point out analogies. To these we 
must especially invite the attention of the student, since, if they 
can be proved to be erroneous or counterbalanced by points of 
distinction, the author’s attempt to bridge the chasm between 
physical and psychological science must be regarded as a failure. 
The first point of resemblance is that feeling and force are alike 
in themselves destitute of space extension. They are both, 
however, related to that which is extended, namely, matter. 
They may both be spoken of in the plural number. They have 
each the character of diversity applicable to them, and have each 
the quality of duration. They have each the quality of degree ; 
they are respectively capable of being combined. Feelings and 
forces are transmutable into other feelings and forces. An 
equilibrating tendency and centralisation are characteristic of 
both feelings and forces. They are each measurable as to quan- 
tity or intensity. Lastly, force is often measured by its “ com- 
panion property feeling, and feeling by its companion property 
force. The contrasts between feelings or forces, the author con- 
siders, are not greater than occur between two mental states. 
In opposition to the well-known theory of “ concomitance,” 
which holds that molecular motions and states of consciousness 
are produced simultaneously, the author proposes the theory of 
“ alternation.” “ The time of occurrence of the mental state is 
when any body, particle, or part of matter is in the attitude of 
receiving force.” 
In meeting possible objections to this new theory, the author 
is led to views on the constitution of matter which may possibly 
be deemed heretical. He holds that what we call “body” is 
merely a group of forces, more or less complex, in equilibrium. 
Motion he regards “ not as really a translation of matter, but 
simply a translation of force-groups throughout continuous and 
universal matter.” The human “ Ego,” the individual person- 
ality, he defines as “ the psychical compound, the compound of 
feelings connected with every body, organic or inorganic.” The 
so-called material change, so far from being opposed to the per- 
sistence of the Ego, is, rightly considered, necessary to such 
persistence. Mr. Duncan holds, however, that “ with death each 
human Ego perishes,” Observing how widely and increasingly 
