129 
on for ever." But, it is rightly asked, are we really to build 
on this supposition the theory that in ether beyond ether there 
exists that “ spiritual body" which receives our consciousness 
when our natural body is dissolved, and links our past with 
an ethereal future, and so secures to us a Personal Immortality? 
The practical conclusion surely is large for such shadowy 
premisses to sustain (p. 790). J 
61. In this passage the Professor treats our Consciousness as 
a term expressing the unity and simplicity of what we call the 
Personal “ Ego." In the next, he affirms its complexity ; and 
thus at least contradicts our experience, if he does not destroy 
also the force of his previous argumentum ad absurdum as to the 
Spiritual body making its appearance in the “ second ether" 
His reason for asserting this complexity is that consciousness 
accompanies its various organs. But that would seem 
(especially as consciousness actually outlives many of as «‘ s t J|° u u bt . s 
its instruments) to be rather a reason for its unity. of conscious.^ 
Ihe individual has not many consciousnesses ; but ness * 
consciousness to each ol us is one Self — it is our very own. 
After this, however, the Professor leaves reason, and has 
nothing to do but to go otf into banter; in which few would 
be so unwise as to follow him. He even suggests, with Yon 
Hartmann, that while consciousness “ cannot be left out in a fair 
estimate of the world, it may be the great mistake of the 
Universe, and not unsuitably left to the care of the devil” /— 
Is this sincere? Is this earnest writing? — Professor Clifford 
would not wish to be here judged as a scientific thinker. 
He can do better than that. Perhaps he would prefer our 
referring to his eloquent description of the course of life as 
unconscious, which seems to be his ultimatum. 
We will give him all the advantage of quoting his picture 
of what may be called the poetry of existence without con- 
sciousness.— Consider a mountain rill. It runs down in the 
sunshine, and its water evaporates ; yet it is fed bv thousands 
of tiny tributaries, and the stream flows on. The water may 
be changed again and again, yet still there is the same stream, 
but at last even the weariest river 
Winds somewhere safe to sea. 
When that happens, no drop of the water is lost, but the stream 
is dead" (p. 791). 
62 In a note at the close of Professor Clifford’s criticism, 
which we must not omit, it is admitted (and en- 
horsed apparently by the Editor) “that there was 
some initial distribution of Heat which could not a = enc y° fheat 
VOL. xi. K 
