392 
Feeling and Energy. [July? 
Further, if we institute a comparison between feeling and 
energy, I think we shall find that they are wonderfully alike. 
We cannot speak of the length, breadth, or volume of 
energy or of feeling, and therefore neither can be said to be 
possessed of space-extension. But we say of energy or 
feeling equally “ it is here, it is there ” in an extended body, 
and therefore, though these affections of matter have no 
space-extension in themselves they are both related to that 
which has space-extension (as well as time-extension), viz., 
matter. But their likeness is still more confirmed when we 
remark that they possess in common other characteristics 
which we do not observe in the mere substance-matter. We 
speak of energy or feeling as being “ intense or violent, weak 
or dull,” both being qualified as manifesting degrees or 
quantity. 
Can these strong features of resemblance between feeling 
and energy justify the ascription of uniqueness to feeling or 
its opposability to all that is termed physical ? So long as 
the term physical includes energy it is evident that no such 
contrast can be legitimately drawn. If the term “ physical ” 
merely comprehended the substance-matter it would be 
legitimate to contrast feeling with matter in the same way 
that a property is distinguished from that in which the pro- 
perty inheres. But energy, being an affeCtion of matter also, 
could in the same way be distinguished from the substance 
wherein it was manifested. There is, indeed, no sense I am 
aware of in which Feeling can be contrasted with Matter 
that is not equally applicable to energy. 
But if feeling and energy are, after all, so very similar 
that we apply almost invariably the same language to each, 
I am at a loss to see wherein they should be considered so 
dissimilar as that the hypothesis of alternation I have ad- 
vanced should be deemed untenable. The language of ex- 
perience describes these two affections as differing only in 
the sense of receiving and giving. We say “ I feel, I aCt ; 
I receive an influence, I give forth an influence ; I am pas- 
sive, I am aCtive.” When we use such language we are 
describing two states of the same being ; subjecting these 
states to the only contrasts of which they are capable. My 
experience tells me of no other difference between feeling 
and energy than that the former is the aroused, awakened, 
affeCted ; the latter the arousing, awakening, affecting — 
phase of my being. 
Having met the objection of the alleged total dissimilarity 
between the mental state, feeling, and the physical state, 
energy, and endeavoured, as far as my language and logic 
