28 
C. L. Herrick 
merit of interference or resistance we may call pure energy. Such 
a form of activity is rarely, if ever, met with in human experience. 
All activities studied in physical science are found subject to 
resistance and are called forces. All such forces are convertible 
and it is a natural inference that they maybe reduced to a common 
form. Such a primitive or fundamental form would be pure, 
i. e., there would be no mixture, there would therefore be no inter- 
ference or resistance and such a condition of force would be the 
theoretical pure energy (Pure Being of the philosophers) . Materi- 
ality is an expression of the forces in more or less permanent equi- 
librium in the individuals of experience as entering our senses. 
The degree of complexity of such equilibrium is various and this 
variety expresses itself in a series of successively higher’’ prop- 
erties. In living matter the coordination is very extensive and 
complicated, and the equilibrium very perfect and tends to be 
self-perpetuating. The various degrees or grades of conscious- 
ness are expressions of successively higher forms of the coordina- 
tion. Such expressions in our experience are found linked with 
the vital equilibrium of individuals, and the cycle of psychical 
evolution is connected with and bound up in the cycle of vital 
evolution, yet there is nothing to prove that the psychical need 
be restricted to the association with the individual with which 
it is now associated. It is conceivable that the psychical differen- 
tiation should acquire connections with other forms of body. 
To sum up this discussion : It is not true that the soul and the 
body are disparate and wholly incapable of reconcilation, for 
they are different expressions of force associated as parts of one 
system. It is not true that the two are identical, for they differ 
in form and this difference is of a nature to distinguish the physical 
from the psychical toto coelo. It is not true that the one is the 
outside and the other the inside of the same curve; they are not 
different aspects of identity, but they are parts of a single sys- 
tem and so intimately related, but being different in form they 
are in that fact different in essence. It is to be expected that the 
ideas presented may seem obscure because of their unfamiliarity, 
but the thought is after all the simplest form of an expression of 
the results of unsophisticated experience. 
On this general subject cf. also ‘‘Recent Contributions to the Body-Mind Con- 
troversy/^ Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, voL 14, no. 5 (Septem- 
ber, 1904); and “Mind and Body — The Dynamic View,’’ Psychological Review, 
vol. 11, 1904, pp. 395-409. 
