36 
C. L. Herrick 
^'All;’^but this would still be egocentric. There is perhaps 
some satisfaction in gathering those facts of our experience which 
appeal to our senses under one head — ^The universe’^ — and the 
postulates of our reason under another and calling it ^^God/^ but 
the dualism is in our method, not in the subject-matter. 
Of course it is soon discovered that many individuals are 
wrapped up in any one so-called individual and that units of 
a higher order (species, etc.) may be formed. But any given 
individual object, e, g., any given man, has his own individual 
formula descriptive of the totality of the reactions (or shall we 
say the trajectory or career).^^ Here is a species of social ants. 
That species refuses to exist if it does not express itself in drones, 
warriors, queens, nurses, etc.; in short the individual is not the 
unit but the society or colony. This interdependence is such that 
the species’’ cannot manifest itself except in these social terms. 
So with man. The social reaction has become necessary to the 
individual development. Life cannot continue without lateral 
reaction; most forms are dioecious and sexual relation is essential 
even to racial persistence of type. In like manner a tremendous 
range of coordinated (lateral) forces are fused in the individual 
consciousness. This transverse or social relation, then, is real. 
Our concept of a species finds its logical and metaphysical justifi- 
cation in the postulate of a unitary organism (cosmos), just as 
all other metaphysical verities must. 
Consciousness is the individualiz- 
ing moment, the intrinsic aspect of 
the career but not that career. 
Given a concentric, egocentric, or 
individualized motor complex cap- 
able of acting and reacting upon all 
other suitable complexes, one may 
discriminate between the inner equi- 
librium-stress and the reaction-phase 
of this energic unit. Thus the ac- 
companying diagram, fig. 1, illus- 
trates the locus of a certain vector 
force projected on a plane geomet- 
(centripetal) forces in equilibrium 
Cf. Psychological Review, voL 11, 1904, p. 400. 
