An unorthodox conception of being; a synthetic philosophy of ontology

QfnrncU aUnittwaitg ffiibrarg

Mifaca, ^tta $ntk

THE GIFT OF

Cornell University Library
BD331 .H55

Unorthodox conception of being: a synthe

oiin

3 1924 028 943 425

The original of tiiis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028943425

An Unorthodox
Conception of Being

A Synthetic Philosophy of Ontology

By
William Ellsworth Hermance

G. P. Putnam's Sons

New York and London
XTbe IRnicfterbocfter iPress

1912

COFVKIGHT, igi3
BY

WILLIAM ELLSWORTH HERMANCE

TEbe Imfcfeerboclter liress, new Jlotk

PREFACE

THE first draft of this work was written in the latter
part of the nineteenth century. During the decade
or more since its inception a wider reading has revealed
to the author that, although the ideas herein expressed
are independent, they, with few exceptions, have
already been expressed by others. This might be
taken as demonstrating that "There is nothing new
under the sun," but this is true only in part. There
certainly are new forms. Not only new forms in the
arrangement of the material, but also new forms of
the expression of ideas. Although each idea embraced
in the composition of a conception might be old, yet
a different combination of these ideas wotdd give a
philosophy of existence differing in many respects
from any philosophy heretofore given and possibly
more nearly in accord with the actual facts of Being.

We grant that the ordinary material elements are
not new; that they have been known for centuries, and
have existed from infinity; yet combinations of these
elements are constantly being made, giving us com-
pounds that in all probability have not before existed
on this earth.

The developer of a new chemical combination or the
inventor of a new mechanical arrangement is a practical
benefactor, giving forth material facts that can be easily
understood and appreciated, but the formulator o^

IV

Preface

ideas, the philosopher, the theorist, the metaphysician
is accounted nothing more than a dreamer, for whom
the ordinary, practical man has but contempt. This
is a superficial view to take, for metaphysics has the
same relation to physics that the foimdation has to
the building, and although the foundation may be hid-
den and obscure, primarily on the correct laying of the
fotmdation depends the durability of the building.
Making this illustration logical, we must conclude that
in the history of man, physics came first, for the first
building had no foundation. The ideas of existence
conceived by primeval man were no doubt as crude as
their mud huts and as devoid of fotmdation. The
material existed at that time for the modem skyscraper,
but the form as a building did not exist. The same
natural processes existed at that time as at present,
but the ideas of them in their proper relation, or as laws,
did not then exist in the human mind.

Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Dar-
win, and a host of such minds perceived ideas nearer
to the reality of existence, and knowledge was increased
in the world, but these ideas were essentially meta-
physical. Not one of these men acquired fame by
originating a new material combination or form, but
each became famous because he perceived ideas of
existence which men now accept as being more nearly
in accord with the facts of Being than the ideas men
previously held.

Thousands of years ago men were bom, lived, and
died after the same manner as they do now. Millions
are now living who know not, neither do they care,
whether the earth rotates or "the Sun do move";
whether things fall because they are heavy or are heavy
because they fall; whether their weight depends on the

Preface v

square of the distance or inversely upon the cube of
the distance; whether the universe was made in six
days or was ever made at all ; and to come to the point,
these millions live their days as full of contentment as
you or I. Why, then, do we take the trouble to elu-
cidate an idea? Because you and I believe that mate-
rial existence is not all that is necessary for man's
development; that the aspiration and the inspiration
of the mental and spiritual are what makes him more
than an animal. Also as Heine says:

We do not take possession of our ideas, but are possessed

by them.
They master us and force us into the arena,
Where, like gladiators, we must fight for them.

As one author excellently expresses it :

The inward life of thinking for one's self, the within or
behind tradition constitutes the very Spirit of Truth him-
self in our own spirit, and the coming of the spirit, in so far
as it occurs at all, never seems to any of us dreary.

As for the fine drawn distinctions and airy abstractions,
no distinction is ever too subtile for you at the moment
when it occtirs to you to make that distinction for yourself,
and not merely to hear that somebody else has made it,
and no abstraction seems too airy in the hour when you
rise upon your own wings to the region where just that
abstraction happens to be an element in the concrete ful-
filment of your thoughtful life.

Now it chances to be a truth of metaphysics, as it is an
experience of religion, that just when you are most indivi-
dual, most alone as it were in your personal thinking about
tiltimate and divine matters, you are most completely at
one with the universal Spirit of Truth, of which we just
spoke. Hence, not the character of the principle of which
we think, but rather our own sluggishness in thinking is

vi Preface

responsible for the supposed dreariness of the theory of
Being. The dreariness which we often- impart to meta-
physics is merely the dreariness of not understanding the
subject. A sort of dreariness for which indeed there is no
help, except learning to understand.

The mental and spiritual development of man in-
creases in a direct ratio, as he perceives ideas which
are in accord with the facts and truth of Being and
Existence.

Philosophical ideas are, of course, expressed only as
theories or hypotheses. The theory which more nearly
accords with all known facts shotdd be the acceptable
theory. The hypothesis most easily workable should
be the one chosen. Experience will eventually prove
the truth or falsity of any theory or hypothesis.

But not wishing to wait upon experience, and without
adequate material measures to test philosophical ideas,
it might be suggested that to be correct ideas must be
absolutely logical and absolutely consistent. It may
be some time before we reach the absolute, but it is
obvious that the nearer we approach the standard, the
nearer we are to a correct knowledge of the true rela-
tion of the various aspects of Being.

Did we not believe that the ideas as herein combined
are a nearer approach to the truth, there would be no
excuse for their being published. Should the author
appear dogmatic or prove to be incorrect in any parti-
cular, he wishes it understood that he realizes and
wishes to be guided by the fact that the fundamental
principle of scholarship is loyalty to truth, wheresoever
it leads and whatsoever it involves.

Some common nouns used as specific terms are
capitalized. By so doing it is not the intention always

Preface vii

to deify their meaning but to emphasize the word in
the connection used.

Power and Force, Desire and Pear are no more when
capitalized than when not, but these words are used
with such a distinctive meaning that it is necessary to
use some method of holding the attention to these dis-
tinctions. It is necessary to use certain terms with a
distinctive meaning in order to be logical and consistent
and give a definite philosophy.

A dictionary is the chief authority for our defini-
tion of words, but when the lexicographers disagree,
who shall decide? When any dictionary gives several
definitions of a word, the most that can reasonably be
asked is that the writer take any one of the definitions
and consistently use the word according to that
definition.

The specific object of the author in writing this book
is to give expression to his ideas regarding man's exist-
ence and environment. It is a conception of Being not
exactly orthodox according to any of the general beliefs,
therefore, he calls the conception Unorthodox.

He thinks that if he points out to some extent a few
of the so-caUed facts and the fallacies of the modern
physics and metaphysics before giving his own ideas,
the contrast will give additional weight to the opinion
herein expressed.

In criticising the opinions or conceptions of others,
their right to have and believe those opinions is not
challenged. Perfect liberty in the reception and ex-
pression of thought is essential to the best mental
and spiritual development.

W. E. H.

Norfolk, Va.
June, 1913,

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I Metaphysics

PAGE
I

II

Physics

17

III

Undulatory Theory

24

IV

Theology

45

V

Power .

51

VI

Consciousness.

69

VII

Memory

86

VIII

Volition

98

IX

Desire .

124

X

Force .

142

XI

The Senses .

169

XII

Sound .

183

XIII

Light .

195

XIV

Magnetism .

217

XV

Electricity .

262

XVI

Dissipation of Energy

284

XVII

Earth ....

294

X Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

XVIII Biology 307

XIX Ego 323

XX Devil 338

XXI Jesus Christ 345

XXII Faith 366

XXIII Equity 375

XXIV Liberty 388

XXV Man 408

XXVI Ontology 430

Index ~ . . . .443

An Unorthodox Conception of Being

An Unorthodox Conception
of Being:

A Synthetic Philosophy of Ontology

CHAPTER I

METAPHYSICS

THE different conceptions of Being, now orthodox,
may be classified under four general hypotheses:

I. Idealism. That objective Being is wholly vision-
ary — ^an illusion ; that it is no more real substance than
a dream. This Idealistic view has been held by many
from the followers of Buddha to the Christian Scientist.

II. Materialism. That Being is solely material;
the matter taking shape mechanically, according to an
absolute law; that all change is infallibly linked as
cause and effect. This Materialistic view is held as
ptire science.

III. Dualism. That Being was created and given
form by a Power exterior to and separable from the
matter of which the forms are composed. "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
This orthodox, Theistic view has been and probably is
yet held by the great majority of the people.

2 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

IV. Monism. That Being is the manifestation of
power; that primarily the forms are the effect of the
spontaneous movement of forces inherent in the mate-
rial. This Positivistic view is held by probably an
ever-increasing number of people.

Any two persons classified under any one of the hypo-
theses might differ more widely in their specific beHefs
than two people classified under dififerent headings.
In fact, the more nearly persons are in accord in their
fundamental beliefs, the more strongly will they mag-
nify their differences, and frequently they are at greater
enmity than those who radically differ. It is well known
that factional quarrels are the most bitter. As widely
different as these four general hypotheses may appear,
I am under the impression that the wide difference
we give to 'the interpretation of similar words cause
the beliefs based upon them to appear more diverse than
they really are. "Define terms, and discussion ceases "
might be true if it were possible to define terms.

Consistency has been mentioned as a vital point in
philosophy, but so rare is this that it has given rise to
the saying, "Consistency, thou art a jewel." My idea
of consistency is not to get in a rut and consistently
remain there. It is to recognize the proper relation of
things and to relate things properly, no matter how
diverse they may seem. To hold to one point of view
is narrow-minded. To get at the viewpoint of others
is broad-minded.

You may recall the legend of the Knights and the
Shield, where the contestants fought on account of
their difference in opinion, and in the end each found
that the other was right. One of the most common
statements, "I am right, and therefore, you who differ
with me are wrong," generally contains a fallacy.

Metaphysics 3

To illustrate: You have seen those signs which
appear different at diflEerent angles of observation.
"A" was standing in front of one of these signs and
read, "Man is but grass"; "B," on his right, read,
"Man is an animal"; "C," on his left, read, "Man is
a God." Each asserted that he read the sign aright,
and therefore, the other must be wrong in his reading.
Each was right in his first proposition, but wrong in
the second. " A " doubted his infallibility and put him-
self in "B's" place and perceived that both were right
and wrong. "A" wanted " B " to look at it from " A's"
former position, but " B " said that to do so would be to
show a doubt, which he was not willing to do. When
"C" heard "A's" statement, he also doubted his own
infallibility, and moved around and found that the
sign was far more complex than he at first supposed,
and, continuing to investigate, came to the conclusion
that the sign itself was contradictory. "A" continued
the investigation, and, whUe admitting that the sign
was apparently not absolutely consistent in its state-
ment, yet thought if they could comprehend the mean-
ing of each statement, they would ultimately find out
that each was true.

You may readily recognize in this illustration the
various positions taken by different persons on any
question. It is evident that "A" and "C" by doubt-
ing their infallibiUty are willing to change positions,
and are more apt to gain new knowledge and have a
better chance of reaching ultimate truth than "B,"
who dogmatically asserts that he is right and the others
are wrong.

It is evident that to an investigator no statement is
authoritative. A premise based on a mere statement
is fallible.

4 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

When it was the general opinion that the earth was
flat, premises were based on that idea. There was no
demonstration made to show that it was flat; it was
taken for granted. When some minds recognized
facts that did not correspond with the idea of a flat
earth, they sought for a theory that would correspond
with the recognized facts. When the theory was stated
that the earth was round, the premise was then taken
by those who opposed the theory, that "I am standing
with my head up, and if the earth is round and people
are on the opposite side, they must be standing with
their heads hanging down, a position plainly impossible,
therefore, contradicting the theory." This argument
at one time was unanswerable, for the facts were not
yet recognized that made it known that up and down
were positions, relative not to each of us but to a com-
mon centre. No matter how strongly we find ourselves
entrenched in the propositions of our premises, a newly-
recognized truth may show that we are mistaken. To
me this chronic state of doubt does nor necessarily show
incapacity, but may designate a willingness to advance
to new positions, grasping the truth recognized in fact,
for to know the truth is essential to knowledge. Every
fact must be a part of the truth, and to ignore it is to
faU that far short of perfection.

It seems quite natural that in the search for knowl-
edge fallacies should be more numerous than facts, but
it is necessary to recognize the fallacies in order to know
the facts.

The first step in advancement is to doubt. This
seems contrary to the general idea, which puts faith as
the essential to salvation; but let us take man on any
plane of intelligence, and if he has perfect confidence
that his knowledge and behefs are correct, there will

Metaphysics 5

be no change. If he is wrong in any way, he can know
it only by recognizing his fallibility, and to do that is
to doubt his infaUibiUty ; thus, to doubt is the first step
toward a broader intelligence. This would not be nec-
essary if man were correct in his conception from the
beginningi but experience shows that he is not.

It is not necessary to doubt to the extent of an
Agnostic, that is, to "know nothing." It is much
better to say with Cicero, "I wiU never be ashamed to
confess that I know not that which I do not know,"
than to say with Socrates, "The one thing I know, is
this, that I know nothing."

One must discriminate between infallible facts and
fallible beliefs. There can be no rule laid down by which
we can correctly discriminate, any more than one can
be given to make all think aUke; but the more knowl-
edge we get, the more facts we recognize as a common
basis for our varied ideas. Though we deduce various
theories from the same facts, yet, as we approach the
truth, we get nearer together in our conclusions, and
finally, man may be of one mind on essentials and can
co-operate on any work for which he exists.

The submission to authoritative opinion is one thing
that has kept people from progressing more rapidly
towards a universal conception of Being. Aristotle was
authority for many minds, and when young Galileo
pointed out his errors in regard to the velocity of falling
bodies, and even proved his point so none ought to deny,
yet so strong was the respect for authority, that on ac-
count of his presumption Galileo was forced to vacate
his position as professor in the University of Pisa. The
critic now meets with about the same reception as in
the days of Galileo, People dislike to change their
minds or remodel their theories. In science they are

6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

often forced to do so, but a metaphysical or religious
theory generally runs its course, long or short, accord-
ing to whether or not it forms a reasonable working
hypothesis.

If, in a proposition of Newton's, a school child detects
and proves a mathematical or logical error, is n't he of
equal authority on the point of issue? It is much easier
to detect errors than it is to evolve an acceptable theory.
Theories, to be accepted as facts, should satisfactorily
account for all phenomena in connection with the
events which they endeavor to explain. One of the
common errors is teaching theories or beliefs as facts.
This is seen not only in religious teachings, but in scien-
tific text-books.

Many words are used by scientists to denote theo-
retical conditions, and these words are copied by some
metaphysical writers to designate known states; it is
as though they used "X" to designate a definite, known
condition because they have seen it frequently used,
but yet without knowing that it means "Unknown."
Until in the evolution of man, thought-transference
shall become a practical way of communication, we will
have to depend on language for an interchange of ideas.
If language is God-given and perfect, then man's per-
ception of its meaning is imperfect, for certain it is that
we do not thoroughly comprehend the speech of our
fellow men.

It has been said, "Language was given to conceal
thought," but for whatever purpose it was given, it is
very frequently used to conceal the lack of thought.

To know that one is logical and consistent, the lan-
guage must be definite. Wherein lies the cause of
vagueness? When we read a book or an article and fail
to comprehend just what the writer means, it may be

Metaphysics 7

our lack of comprehension or the weakness of language,
but I believe it is frequently because the writer himself
does not comprehend, or at least fails to comprehend,
his idea in its proper relation to other ideas or facts.
Instead of describing facts of reality as he supposes,
he is describing imaginary conditions, which, though
they may be facts of consciousness, are not facts that
can be demonstrated to others. Though this is a com-
mon failing of all classes, it is a typical fault of the
Idealist, which would naturally arise from a belief that
demonstrable facts do not exist.

In Materialism or pure science there are.used to a large
extent symbols and technical language, which admit of
so Uttle chance of misinterpretation that science has a
reputation for accuracy, which by comparison seems
to be absolute. But a close analysis will demonstrate
that even science is far from absolute accuracy.

In the concrete we have a ready means of reference,
while in the abstract, once lost, we do not know whether
it is ourself or the other who is astray. My little child
said at the table, "Please, give me a bot boll." "I
don't know what you mean," said I. She immediately
pointed to a hot roll and I instantly tmderstood. Had
it been an abstraction, it would have taken some time
to have reached an understanding.

Some words have various definitions or interpreta-
tions, and much ambiguity comes from using the same
word in the same connection, but with a different mean-
ing. Such words as Spirit, Sotd, Life, and Mind are so
much used, or rather misused, that they have no de-
finite meaning. To express ideas accurately we must
use our words with a more strictly definite meaning.

There is a common misuse of the word "Cause."
In the ordinary usage it does not make much difference,

8 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

but in philosophical works it is the source of many
illogical conclusions. Every phenomenon has two as-
pects : the Space aspect and the Time aspect. " Cause "
corresponds to the Space aspect and usually answers
the question, "How?" "Occasion" corresponds to the
Time aspect and usually answers the question, "Why?"
That is, it gives the specific reason for the initiation of
a specific movement. I wiU give two illustrations:

1. How are the tides caused.? By attraction.
Why are there specific movements or variations in the
tides? Because' the attracting bodies are periodically
changing their relation. This periodicity being a time
relation "occasions" the high and low tides.

2. What caused the explosion of the charge of the
gun? One might say "a signal," "an action of a
finger," "a movement of the trigger," "the falling of
the hammer." Let us take these given causes (?) in
turn. A signal could not cause an action of a finger
although it might occasion the action. The action of
the finger might cause the movement of the trigger, but
the movement of the trigger is inadequate to cause the
falling of the hammer. The movement of the trigger
occasioned the movement of a spring whose action
caused the fall of the hammer. The fall of the hammer
is not sufficient to account for the restdt following the
explosion. But without defining each intermediate
step we might say it "occasioned a change in the rela-
tion of the forces in the powder, which change is mani-
fest as the explosion." The only adequate cause of the
explosion is the forces changing relation, that is, a
relative change in the form of motion. The so-called
causes previously given are only successive occasions

' " Because" is equally applicable to " for the reason " as to " by the
cause."

Metaphysics 9

for various actions which terminated in the explosion.
If you asked why the powder exploded, meaning at
that time, it is pertinent to say, the given signal — ^the
action of the finger — ^the movement of the trigger — or
the falling of the hammer. But if you ask how the
powder exploded, we readily see that these answers are
not sufficient and that what occasions the phenomenon
is not the cause of the phenomenon.

It is impossible to do the best work with a poor tool.
Language becomes a good tool for expressing ideas in
the proportion to which it is made definite.

Primarily, language, as weU as ideas, is vague. The
evolution is from the vague to the definite. The less
intellectual the person, the more easily is he satisfied
with illogical theories. The masses of people are not
only satisfied with illogical theories, but they do not
even reaUze that their ideas are illogical. Any apparent
contradictions in their conception of Being are taken for
granted as a proof of the finiteness of man.

Early philosophers were and stiU are considered great,
not because they are definite, but because they grasped
new ideas of the relation of Being. Compared to the
crude ideas or lack of ideas then commonly existing,
the various philosophers expressed ideas that were
comparatively rational, and in fact many that were
not so definite as to be capable of being proved false,
are still current. Diogenes is famous for his tub and
lantern, but he was one of the first to put forth ideas of
"Soul," "Principle of Life," "Vital Force," etc., words
of absolutely no definite meaning, because they are
subject to various interpretations.

There is one society, whose alleged millions of mem-
bers accept "Vital Force" as quite a concrete thing,
and start with the proposition that to know the secret

lo An Unorthodox Conception of Being

of "Vital Force" would be to obtain perpetual life.
They then say the thing that gives vitality is "Glame"
and by obeying the laws of nature and continuing to
breathe as they direct, life will be prolonged, say, two
hundred years, though that is not really given as a hmit.
If one dies before that time, he has disobeyed the laws of
nature or ceased to breathe as they direct, and, of course,
under such circumstances they cannot be held account-
able. The use of the word "Glame" simply mystifies.
Until we know the cause of life, how can we know the
cause of vitality, which is simply the prolongation of
life? And how can we obey the laws of nature xmtil we
know them, and to know the laws of nature is to know
the truth, i. e., to have knowledge.

The effort to describe one abstraction by the use of
another is futile. The effort to show that one abstrac-
tion is the cause of another is useless, because it is in-
capable of any reasonable proof. I suppose it is so
constantly used because to an equal extent it is as
incapable of disproof. The tendency of modem
thought is to eliminate all unnecessary and extraneous
abstractions.

An early theory regarding the existence of the earth
was that it was held up by an elephant, which in turn
rested on the back of a turtle. The first and second
unknown causes seemed to satisfy the philosophers of
that day, and even now there are many philosophers
who have at least two abstractions, one behind the
other, primary and secondary unknown causes. Did
I find it necessary to resort to a cause so remote, I
would not leave it so quickly. I would say, "The earth
rested on an elephant, and the elephant stood on a
turtle, and the turtle sat on a log, and the log floated
on the water, which in its depths became attenuate

Metaphysics 1 1

into the ethereal ether that forms the astral body of
the universe"; and that description wotild be as concise
and definite as are many of the descriptions of the
mystic-scientific writers of the day. But would such
a description come any nearer to relating the earth
properly to the other facts of Being?

Idealism, from its very nattire, gives rise to more
vagueness than any other conception. Idealistic con-
ceptions are amenable to no rules or regulations. Al-
though the ideas are wonderfully diverse, they are
usually expressed by positive statements. Their as-
sumptions are based on hypothetical ideas and their
conclusions may or may not conform to the facts of
Being. If not, so much the worse for the facts. From
the standpoint of a htiman being many of the assump-
tions seem to be misstated. "All is God"; "God is
perfect"; "Then aU that has real existence must be
perfect"; therefore, "We who are not perfect do not
exist." The correct form of the statement should
begin with the speaker, "We do not exist," and this is
a negation. These propositions are a sample of the
Idealistic philosophy and while incapable of proof,
they cannot be refuted. It is simply a question of
belief.

The very fact that abstractions are so mobile has
caused the philosophies of the Idealists to be the most
complete, comprehensive theory of existence from a
purely abstract conception. "Karma," "Nirvana,"
and such words express and embrace more abstract
ideas than we can do with words in our language.
Unadulterated Idealism has been perfected by the
Orientals as a working hypothesis to a degree of con-
sistency that the Anglo-Saxon race can never expect
to attain. That a large portion of the human race is

12 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

not satisfied that this is the true conception of Being
is sufficient reason for the dissatisfied turning to some
other hypothesis.

By the very nature of our conception of ideas, they
are first Idealistic. When ideas are properly formu-
lated they are ideal. When we get our ideas or an idea
properly related to the facts of Being it ceases to be an
ideal, and becomes real.

Materialism has been established on a solid basis
and has become the storehouse for our facts and there
we have accumulated a great fund of knowledge. But
the acquisition of this knowledge is due not nearly so
much to one fact leading to the discovery of another
fact (arguing from the known to the unknown), as it
is on accoui;it of the Idealistic theories conceived by
the Scientists, but being Materialists instead of Idealists,
they put forth their effort to demonstrate their theories
by mechanics and mathematics instead of being satis-
fied with an abstract elucidation of the ideas. In the
history of scientific acquisitions we find that exploded
theories and discarded hypotheses form quite a large
ratio to those which are now accepted.

Simply the cognition of sense impression does not
constitute knowledge. A recognition of these impres-
sions singly would not aid, as our senses constantly
deceive us. It is the relation of sense impressions;
the realization that they are persistent under certain
circumstances; the summing up of these impressions
under the head of experience and properly relating
them, that constitutes knowledge. We do not know
that the mental states are real, any more than we know
that the causes of sense impressions are real. A mental
state or a sense impression by itself has no real meaning.
It is only by relating it to something else that it can

Metaphysics 13

have meaning. On account of this, inteUigent people
doubt the statement of events called supernatural and
miraculous. They beKeve that all events are related
by cause and effect.

It is not an easy thing to differentiate what we
know from what we beUeve. There may be incon-
sistencies in what we believe, but there should be
no contradiction in what we know. It is a prime re-
quisite of belief in vague theories that the believer
shall be blind to the inconsistencies. When one
sees the inconsistencies, it is to admit of a doubt of
the truth of the belief. Many evade this by claim-
ing that the inconsistencies are only apparent, owing
to the inability of the mind of the believer to cor-
relate the apparent inconsistencies, and not in the
statement or philosophy of the belief.

Unless we can arrive at some agreement as to what is
an absolute truth, it is plainly impossible for us to
arrive at any common conclusion. An absolute truth
in statement and idea is essential for a base. We may
draw different inferences from this truth, but to make
a conflicting statement would invalidate the argument
and the agreement. I say that the shortest distance
between two points is a straight line. "B" admits it
but says also that the shortest distance between two
points is a curved Une. I say the two statements are
inconsistent. "B" says they are only apparently in-
consistent, because we have not developed sufficiently
yet to comprehend the truth of both statements. I
cannot prove this is not so, for it is impossible to define
the limits of human development, but under such cir-
cumstances, I cannot come to an agreement with "B."
As I have said before, it is, therefore, essential that we
have some ftmdamental truths admitted in order to

14 An. Unorthodox Conception of Being

come to an agreement, and that these truths once
admitted be not controverted or contradicted or even

evaded.

We must accept as an axiom of our philosophy the
statement that "Human knowledge exists." This
statement may be denied but not disproved. To deny
it is to deny any sure basis of agreement and leave no
ground for argument. To accept it is to admit that
such human knowledge as exists is infallible. This
does not limit the probable fallibility of the human
mind but does limit "knowledge" to that which is true.
Much of which passes current for knowledge is simply
beUef, supposition, theory, opinion, etc.

A great fallacy is giving to a premise the weight of
an absolute truth. The nearest we can come to defin-
ing this terifi is as follows: "An absolute truth is that
which has been gained through experience, and from
which there has been no deviation and from which it is
not reasonable or desirable that there ever should be
any deviation." This embraces what we term knowl-
edge or known facts. Statements of absolute truths
are often given in what we term axioms, but each state-
ment called an axiom is not necessarily an absolute
truth. A safe philosophy woiald be to take the known
truths and argue from the known to the imknown to
elucidate a theory, although the theory in its first con-
ception may be wholly ideal. Some take a premise
and from that evolve a theory that shall be sufficient
grotind for a hypothesis upon which a belief can be
founded, which they insist must be accepted as a fact.
Many metaphysical theories are as absolutely vague
from premise to conclusion, as the above sequence
would indicate.

No matter how perfect an Idealistic conception of

Metaphysics 15

Being may be as a theory, the negation of the imperfect
conditions, such as exist now, invalidates it as a work-
ing hypothesis by which to give us a conception of
Being, embracing in its proper relation the present
condition.

It is a fact that I believe -matter exists (the word
matter being properly defined) and not only exists but
is indestructible. Now, I am not able to spontaneously
change my belief, and really believe that this is an il-
lusion. What is the cause of my believing as I do, if
it has no basis in fact? If this belief is an imperfection,
the hypothesis of an illusion does not satisfactorily
account for the imperfection.

Dreams are real, even if the substance of a dream is
not real, and if the dreams persist in being unpleasant,
we try to find the cavise and by so doing are able to
remove the unpleasantness of the dream. It may be
indigestion causing nightmare, or drugs causing hallu-
cination, but we always premise a cause. If man's
condition is not perfect, what is the cause of the imper-
fection? If his beliefs are not perfect, what is the
cause? We do not want to wait until the hereafter to
know; we want to know now.

I believe in Idealism, but I am of the opinion that
many of the theories are more in the nature of ultimate
truths than primary truths. They may be truths, but
it wiU take time to properly prove them as such. I do
not expect to know all the truths now; to know the
proper relation of the tmiverse of things would require
an eternity. It is essential to tmderstand the probleriS
of human life as it is, and to do that, it is necessary
to have a definite conception of the relation of
things that are pertinent to the present just as they
now exist.

i6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

My conceptions are Idealistic in theory; Material-
istic in fact ; Dualistic in energy, and Monistic in action,
but as combined the conception is different from that
of the adherents of any one of these schools. ^

' As the author beheves it embraces the essential truths in each of the
other conceptions, he thinks it is entitled to be called "comprehensive."

CHAPTER II

PHYSICS

WITH these few cursory criticisms on metaphysical
ideas we will leave, for the present, the Idealistic
conception and take up the Materialistic conception.
Here we are supposed to be on solid ground, in the world
of facts, where nothing exists but matter and energy;
where the law of cause and effect is stronger than that
of the Medes and Persians.

But what causes such a wonderful variety in the
forms of matter and energy? such a co-ordinated
scheme of things? such a co-operation of the working
parts? This is so apparent as to lead some of the
Materialists, in an unguarded moment, to say that it
might easily be taken for the work of some Supreme
Intelligence. Science is not prepared to answer this.
Materialism has nothing to do with metaphysics or
first causes; at least Materialists are supposed to confine
themselves to facts. In reality they do not do so.
Idealists may theorize in metaphysics, but they are
generally practical in their daily lives; so Materialists
may insist that they Hve only on facts, but the most
successful of them theorize and perform mental and
spiritual gymnastics equal to any metaphysician.
From my limited observation, I think that if the aver-
age Materialist were placed beside the average Idealist,

a 17

1 8 An Ur^orthodox Conception of Being

they could not be told apart, unless labelled. The
general opinion seems to be that the one should look
like a pugilist, and the other like a seraph. He is
mistaken who thinks that the Materialists confine
themselves to facts for their conception of Being.

Theories regarding the relation of things generally
precede the actual knowledge of such relation. To
illustrate : The law of gravitation is supposed to be the
most firmly established fact of all the so-called laws of
nature. Judging from the literature on the subject,
the popular conception of its discovery seems to be
about like this : Newton wanting to know what kind of
law governed the motions of the bodies composing the
solar system, sat down and figured day and night for
twenty years, and then exultingly shouting, "Eureka,"
waved to all anxiously-awaiting public the answer:
The law of gravitation ; bodies are drawn toward each
other according to the product of their masses and
inversely to the square of their distance. Such a
sequence of events is not only an absiirdity, it is an
impossibility. When Newton was asked by what
method he arrived at his discoveries, , he answered,
"By always thinking to them, I keep the subject
constantly before me, and wait till the first dawn-
ings open slowly, little by little, into a clear and full
light."

His conception of the law which would apply alike
to apple and moon was precedent to the demonstration.
In his first application of the law to the motion of the
moon there was a failure to accord with the apparent
facts or known quantities which are : velocity of falling
bodies; (Had Newton believed Aristotle instead of Gali-
leo this would not have been correct.) distance of the
bodies; volume of the bodies. Of the latter it would

Physics 19

seem that there might be less known ot the moon than
the earth, but the mistake came from accepting the
authoritative "sixty miles to the degree" as the circum-
ference of the earth. That his faith in his opinion was
stronger than his belief in the supposed facts is shown
by his action on hearing that Picard had determined
a degree to be 69.5 miles. Newton with feverish haste
resumed his calculations. He applied his law as a known
quantity accounting for the momentary deflection of
the moon's curvilinear orbit from the direct line of the
tangent. He anticipated the result and was so over-
powered by nervous agitation that he was unable to go
on, and requested a friend to finish it for him. When
finished, it exactly established the inverse square as
the true measure of the moon's gravitation, thus
furnishing the key to the whole system.

Others may have before this stated the law as a
theory. One at least took the theory that "according
to the cube of the distance" was correct, as solids were
proportionate to their cubes, but the specific gravity
so discovered would hardly be within reason. Newton's
conception of the law of gravitation was Idealistic.
The first statement of it was a philosophical theory.
Newton always referred to it as a theory.

Many philosophers would have been satisfied with
such a statement, or, at most, showing why such a law
should apply. Newton was not solely a philosopher,
but a scientist, and was not satisfied with simply stat-
ing a theory. If it was capable of demonstration, he
must demonstrate it and so at intervals for twenty
years he worked to give a mathematical demonstration
that the celestial bodies were related and moved ac-
cording to a given law. Newton never said that these
bodies moved or possessed mass because of this law.

20 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

The law is simply a description of a certain relation of
these bodies. If you asked a person why a car was
moving on a track, and he told you that it was because
it was going sixty rmles an hour, you would probably
think him a fool, or that he was jesting. Ask any one
what causes a body to fall to the earth, and the chances
are that you will be told that it is the law of gravitation
which causes it.

Newton, the demonstrator of this law, said, that, to
him, it was utterly inconceivable how an apple could
faU to the ground ; how one body could influence another
body through space. Once, when I repeated this
statement of Newton's one man replied that Newton
must have been a fool not to know that the apple fell
because it was heavier than the air. This answer is
about as satisfactory as that it fell because of the law
of gravitation.

My illustration shows that the idea of the relation
came before the acceptation of it as a fact, and before
it could be known as a fact to the demonstrator. I wish
now to bring out a point to which I shall make more or
less frequent reference; viz., the distortion of facts.
We all agree that the law of gravitation is a fact (within
certain limitations which I wiU hereafter mention), but
a fact of what? Not a fact of cause. We give no ex-
planations as to the cause. It is simply a fact of
relation. Glance over the historical references to this
discovery, and what do we find? Materialists pro-
claiming that the motions of the heavenly bodies are
now fully accoimted for without the necessity of an
ultimate cause, and the theologians bringing down
anathemas on their heads for doing away with their
God. Galileo was damned for making the earth move,
and now Newton was equally damned for showing how

Physics 21

it moved, i. e., that its motion was definitely related to
the motions of other bodies.

The use of the expression "law of gravitation" as a
cause instead of a relation is pernicious. One scientist,
whom I criticised regarding this, said, "You should no
more object to the use of that expression in that way,
than you would to the expression, ' sunrise, ' and ' stm-
set': every one knows what is meant." I would also
object to these expressions, only they are such a fixed
part of our language as to make it useless to object.
No statement should be made, if it can be avoided,
which distorts facts and gives an incorrect idea of the
true conception of Being. Some may object that this
is simply quibbling over non-essentials, but I think
whoever makes incorrect statements, or, I should say,
statements incorrectly (one being a lie, and the other
a mistake) is like one of my pupils, who seemed to give
the correct answer to his problems, but when I looked
over them, I could not comprehend them. He ex-
plained that he made a 5 for a 2, and a 2 for a 3, and a
3 for a 5. • He knew what he meant, but I did not.
This is the impression given by many of the so-called
popular scientific articles.

The arithmetic from which I taught the boy just
mentioned had the rule for subtraction, from which
this is an extract: "If any figure of the subtrahend is
larger than the figure of the minuend, borrow ten and
add to that figure of the minuend before subtracting,
then carry one and add to the next figure of the sub-
trahend." An inconsistent conglomeration, but fol-
lowing the rule will bring the answer, and that seemed
sufficient reason for its persistence, for all the arith-
metics I ever saw until those of recent date had a like
rule

22 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

The geography said that the earth rotated on its axis
once each day, and revolved around the sun once each
year. I often wondered what the author thought would
happen if it should get a little ahead or behind time.

The text-books on physics said that air was perfectly
elastic; that water was perfectly elastic; that sound
travelled through water faster than through air, be-
cause of its greater elasticity.

These are samples of the distortion of facts. Scient-
ists may disclaim responsibility for such errors, but
even if the Materialistc conception of Being were true,
a distortion of the facts would prevent a conception of
the facts in their true relation.

We will take up another of the great triumphs of
Materialism: evolution. With the exception of the
change wrought by the recognition of the true relation
of the attraction and motion of celestial bodies, no
one thing has had such an effect on the ideas of men as
the modem conception of their relation to other animate
beings. Once again belief in the power of God was dis-
carded for the force of the law. Scientists proclaimed '
the first cause Materialistic and theologians bewailed
the waning power of God.

What is evolution? It is not a cause. It is an effect
or result. Referring to a revolution we would say,
"What was the cause or reason of the revolution?"
So of evolution, we should speak of it as something
accomplished. Evolution was no new idea even in
Darwin's time, but previous to that time it was only a
philosophical idea. As a philosophical idea it was not
very disturbing. As the Church told one of the sci-
entists in substance: "It is alright to make your state-
ments as philosophical theories, but when you attempt
to demonstrate them as facts,. it is all wrong."

Physics 23

Darwin, being a scientist, wished to demonstrate, so
he secured as much evidence as possible to show that
evolution as a condition was the result of material causes.
His hypothesis, elaborated by others, was that evolu-
tion was caused by natural selection and survival of the
fittest; meaning that heredity and environment were
sufficient to account for all of the various differences
of animate being. No need of any special creations
here. We know what ' ' environment " is, but who knows
what "heredity" is? Heredity is as incomprehensible
as attraction. Darwin tried no more to show the
cause of heredity than Newton did to show the cause
of gravitation.

Here we have a condition with one of its supposed
causes acknowledged as incomprehensible, and yet this
word, "evolution," is used as though it were the "open
sesame" to all biological knowledge.

CHAPTER III

UNDULATORY THEORY

IT is taken for granted that certain inconsistencies
may exist in our theological beliefs because of our
inability to comprehend the nature of God and man's
true relation to Him, but when it comes to physics it is
equally taken for granted that the facts (?) taught in
our text-booKs are consistent.

We might make a statement of belief that would
perfectly satisfy a primitive Christian, but such a state-
ment might not at all satisfy a Christian of advanced
ideas. In stating his advanced idea enough of the
idioms would be retained to maintain orthodoxy, but
the interpretation of them would be so different as to
amount to a different belief.

It is just the same with various sci<^ntists. Haeckel
says, "Science never retreats from a position once
taken. ' ' The meaning conveyed is that any theory once
acceptable to science is never given up until it is proved
a fact. What he reaUy means (though it does not sound
so grand), is that when science once discovers a fact it
becomes a part of knowledge and is indestructible.

Bacon says, "If false facts in Nature be once on foot,
what through neglect of examination, the countenance
of antiquity, and the use made of them in discourse,
they are scarce ever retracted."

24

Undulatory Theory 25

It is much easier for advanced Christians to interpret
differently the tenets of their belief than to discard
them entirely; so it is much easier for a scientist to re-
interpret a theory that has become current than to
discard the idioms of that theory.

In order to be specific I will consider the phenomena
of sound according to the undulatory or wave theory
of transmission.

The pertinent point of this theory is the definition of
the term "wave." Tyndall, Helmholtz, Mayer, and
many others have defined and described it, and any
text-book on physics will show a repetition of one or
the other of these definitions.

Ask one of the scientists of advanced ideas to define
a wave, he will reply by giving a geometrical formula
and possibly describe it in words by saying "a wave
is anything periodic both in time and space." In
refusing to be any more definite he will affirm that
it is incomprehensible that a wave, according to the
ordinary conception of the word, could occur in
a medium and account for the various facts of the
phenomena.

In other words, they mean that by defining and de-
scribing the sound-wave the scientists of the past and
the majority of the present have taken a position which
is imtenable. But rather than repudiate the commonly
accepted and continuously taught and supposedly
comprehensible wave theory, they reinterpret the
definition of wave, and in order to be orthodox still
maintain the integrity of the wave theory.

According to the limited definition of wave given
above, there is absolutely no attempt to define the
mechanism of the transmission of the sound.

The current theory of sound does attempt to do this,

26 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

and in my criticism of what I think is an erroneous
conception, I admit that advanced physicists recognize
these errors.

I will quote as briefly as possible the current theory
of sound and call attention to the point, that where
the language is definite it is inconsistent; and when
indefinite, it is interpreted in more than one way; and
as a mechanism, it is not consistent with mechanical
laws.

The chief inconsistency is in not discriminating
between the mechanical movement of the air and the
atomic movement of its particles. The fundamental
error is in assuming that sound and its transmission are
due to such mechanical movements of the air as are
demonstrated to occur.

If we say a'table is in motion, meaning that only the
atoms of the table are in motion, we are by such a
statement distorting the fact, because usually when we
say "a table," we mean the form or body and not the
material of which the body or form is composed.

When we say undulations of the air, we must con-
sistently mean movements of the mass of the air and
not an atomic movement such as causes or occasions
osmose.

In the following description of sound, you will note
that sometimes it indicates a motion of the air and
sometimes a motion of the atom ; sometimes an undula-
tion of the mass and sometimes a vibration of the
particles.

Tyndallsays:

Amid the grosser phenomena of acoustics the mind was
first disciplined, conceptions being thus obtained from direct

Undulatory Theory 27

observation, which afterward applied to phenomena of a
character far too subtile to be observed directly. '

So I will start with this theory of sottnd, which is
the acknowledged basis for other theories of physical
phenomena. Authorities agree, and their phraseology
is similar, as to the theory of sound, so I will quote
Tyndall further as an illustration. '

Sound we know to be due to vibratory motion. A
vibratory tuning-fork, for example, moulds the air around
it into imdulations or waves, which speed away on all sides
with a certain measured velocity, impinge upon the drum
of the ear, shake the auditory nerve, and awake in the brain
the sensation of sound. When sufficiently near a sounding
body we can feel^ the vibrations of the air. A deaf man, for
example, plunging his hand into a bell when it is sounded,
feels through the common nerves of his body those tremors,
which, when imparted to the nerves of healthy ears, are
translated into sound. There are various ways of render-
ing those sonorous vibrations, not only tangible, but visible;
and it was not tmtil numberless experiments of this kind
had been executed that the scientific investigator abandoned
himself wholly, and without a shadow of misgiving, to the
conviction that what is sound within us, is outside of us,
a motion of the air.

It is made very plain that by this theory (which is
the theory commonly taught for a fact), sound is a
vibration of the air that can be actually felt by the hand,
and which, when intercepted by the ear, is translated
into that audibility of which we are conscious through
the sense of hearing.

It is recognized that sound is applied first as a term

' Fragments of Science, page 80.
" In each instance the italic is mine.

28 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

representing the motion of the air, and second, as that
of which we are conscious as being audible. When
there is not a constant relation between the different
methods of appHcation, there must arise ambiguity,
unless they are identified. I will call the first the
" sound-wave" and the second, simply "sound."

Physics treats of the sound-wave, and its laws are
based in accordance with the laws of physics. Our
consciousness of sotind is on account of its audibility.

Let us take the laws of sound (i. e., sound-wave),
and apply them to sound. I will quote Tyndall again.
He gives in this illustration the explosion of a toy
balloon :

In the case of our exploding balloon the wave of sound
expands on all sides, the motion produced by the explosion
being thus diffused over a continually augmenting mass of
air. It is perfectly manifest that this cannot occur without
an enfeeblement of the motion. Take the case of a thin
shell of air with a radius of one foot, reckoned from the
centre of explosion. A shell of air of the same thickness,
but of two feet radius, will contain four times the quantity
of matter; if its radius be three feet, it will contain nine
times the quantity of matter; if four feet, it wiU contain
sixteen times the quantity of matter, and so on. Thus the
quantity of matter set in motion augments as the square of
the distance from the centre of explosion. The intensity
or loudness of sound diminishes in the same proportion.
We express this law by saying that the intensity of the
sound varies inversely as the square of the distance. '

Let us test this law. Standing first one foot from a
person speaking in an ordinary tone of voice, we judge
of its loudness, and then move to ten feet and find that

^ Sound, page 41.

Undulatory Theory 29

the voice is only a hundredth part as loud; or to invert
the experiment we stand ten feet from a person speaking,
and upon advancing nine feet, we find that the voice
is one hundred times louder. Try the law another
way. A whistle at one foot would sound just as loud
as one hundred such whistles at ten feet. You do not
believe it? Open any text-book on "Sound" and see
if that is not the law.

Again, you are one hundred feet from a band playing^
but when you move up to ten feet, it sounds equal to
one hundred such bands, and if you should have the
temerity to advance within one foot, it would be one
thousand times louder than at first. Abstird? Un-
doubtedly, and it would be even more absurd if the law
were made logical.

Tyndall says, "Take a thin shell of air at one foot,
and a thin shell of air at two feet. "Thin," according
to his law, must mean of no measurable thickness, but
every particle of air between the one and two feet radius
is moved. Suppose you try to move a ball of matter
whose radius is twice that of another ball, would you
need only to exert four times the force ? Try it, and you
will find that the balls are proportionate to the cubes of
their radius, instead of proportionate to their squares.

While the perception of various persons vary, the
average or normal person is the judge as to the intensity
of sound, and when theory says "the intensity of sound
varies inversely as the square of the distance from its
source," we know that it is not so. If the physicist
should say, "the intensity of mechanical vibration of
the mass of the conducting material, which is incident
upon the generation of the phenomena which we call
sound, decreases inversely as the square of the dis-
tance," it would be a correct statement.

30 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

According to the undulatory theory of sound, thou-
sands of tons of air are set in motion by a bird singing,
and the text-book remarks that it is wonderful how
much energy can originate in the throat of a Httle bird.
It is indeed wonderful, and if it were so stated in the
Bible, instead of a text-book on physics, it would be
called a miracle.

It has been estimated what is the least amount of
energy that wiU set in vibration the tympanum of the
ear, and from the result of this, which may be found in
a Harvard University text-book, it is estimated that a
locust which can be heard one mile must exert energy
enough to lift or set into vibration (which means to lift
for a measurable distance, which distance, is called the
amplitude), over sixty million tons.

If scientists can accept a theory which necessitates
such admissions, they ought not to hesitate to believe
that the walls of Jericho fell at the blast of the horns.

The undulatory, or "wave" theory, of soimd is based
on the ideas of waves on the surface of the water, which
radiate from a central disturbance. These waves have
a length (from crest to crest is a wave length) and an
amplitude, which is the depth of the wave from crest
to depression or vaUey.

There is always a certain proportion or relation
maintained between the length and height of a water
wave, or, as we have termed it, between the length and
the amplitude. In the soimd-wave the air is supposed
to be condensed to a maximum, -then it reacts, causing
a rarefaction. The wave-length is from condensation
to condensation, but there is no amplitude to this
wave. The amplitude refers to the vibration of the
source of the air wave, and the particles composing the
air wave, and there is no relation preserved between

Undulatory Theory 31

the wave-length and the amplitude. The amplitude
of vibration of one ttming-fork may produce air waves
of twice the length of an equal amplitude in another
tuning-fork.

Suppose we have one tuning-fork giving two hun-
dred vibrations a second, and another one giving four
hundred vibrations a second, but of equal length of
vibration (amplitude), it would necessitate one fork
vibrating faster than the other one. In the first case
the wave-length would be about five feet, and in the
second about half that. It is plain that the analogy
of waves of water to waves of air is not logical unless
all the relations are preserved. The use of the word
"amplitude" not having any fixed relation to the wave-
length is apt to be indefinite. In the undulatory theory
of sound the particles of air are supposed to move only
a short distance when the resistance of the other air
particles force them to stop, and then to recoil. This
motion, Uke a penduliim, is accelerated and retarded,
having a maximum velocity at a certain point. I will
quote again:

"The intensity of the sound is proportional to the
square of this maximum velocity."'

"The distance through which the air particle moves
to and fro, when the sound-wave passes it, is called the
amplitude of the vibration. The intensity of the sound
is proportional to the square of the amplitude."

It is plain from the wording of the above laws (which
being quoted verbatim from an authoritative source
ought to be definite), that velocity and amplitude
must bear a fixed relation, for if intensity is proportional
to the square of each of them, then when intensity
varies, each must vary in a like degree {i. e., the relation

' Sound, page 42.

32 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

must be constant) ; but we have seen from the illustra-
tion previously given that velocity may be doubled
and the amplitude remain the same, and the intensity
(or loudness) would not necessarily be changed.

That which would be changed is called the "pitch."
If the pitch remains constant, then the law might
apply to the mechanical movement.

There seem to be three terms necessary in the eluci-
dation of theories of the propagation of sotmd- waves ;
— ^velocity, amplitude, and wave-length. Velocity is
the essential in the corpuscular theory, amplitude is
the essential in the vibratory theory, and wave-length
is the essential in the undulatory theory.

The condensation and rarefaction of the air with its
accompanying generation of heat and cold is the key
to the undulatory theory. But look through the
illustrations of experiments and you will find none of
them will work, if carried beyond where there is an
actual mechanical disturbance of the air. For instance,
let an instrument be fixed to give out twenty beats a
second at fixed intervals, which would give wave-
lengths of about fifty feet; let us fix a thermopile at
four wave-lengths, and see if there is any variation in
heat; let us fix the condenser and see if we can focus
the sound-waves; let us fix an instrument that wiU cut
a wave in half, in front of our ear, and see if our ear will
detect . the variation. The mere statement of these
experiments is sufficient to convince any one that they
would be futile.

Returning to Tjmdall again, we find this:

Thus each shell of air, if I may use the term, surround-
ing the balloon took up the motion of the shell next
preceding, and transmitted it to the next succeeding shell,

Undulatory Theory 33

the motion being thus propagated as a pulse or wave through
the air.

The motion of the pulse must not be confounded with the
motion of the particles which at any moment constitute the
pulse. For while the wave moves forward considerable
distances, each particular particle of air makes only a
small excursion to and fro. '

This is quite plain that it is the pulse or wave that
propagates the sound. He then proceeds to illustrate
by a series of balls what he means by particles.

The process may be readily represented by the propaga-
tion of motion through a row of glass balls, such as are
employed in the game of solitaire. Placing the balls along
a groove, each of them touching its neighbor, and urging
one of them against the end of the row; the motion thus
imparted to the first ball is delivered to the second, the
motion of the second is delivered to the third, the motion of
the third is imparted to the fourth ; each ball, after having
given up its motion, returning itself to rest. The last ball
only of the row flies away. In a similar way is sound con-
veyed from particle to particle through the air. The particles
which fill the cavity of the ear are finally driven against the
tympanic membrane which is stretched across the passage
leading from the external ear toward the brain.

This makes it quite plain that it is the particles that
convey the sotind.

Unless there is a difference between the meaning of
the words "propagate" and "convey," there must be
no difference as to the method of transmission; yet, we
are cautioned not to confound the "motion" of the
particles with the "motion" of the pulse. If we use
the "pulse," it is the wave theory. If we use the

' Sound, page 32.

3

34 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

"particles," it is the vibratory theory. There is ab-
solutely no fixed relation of one to the other, nor is
there any continuity of explanation in the text-books,
as the author shifts from one to the other.

Why, it may be asked, is there this lack of definiteness
and consistency in a theory so commonly accepted?
Simply because the theory has no more bearing on
practical life than the various reHgious theories or
beliefs have.

When we come to the manufacture of musical instru-
ments, and practical acoustics, no attention is paid to
these theories and laws of sound. Theory and practice
in this respect absolutely do not accord. If a pipe-
organ were built according to the laws of sound, as
taught in our text-books, it would be of no practical
use. Then what is the use of the text-book theories?
Can any one tell?

In the last quotation of Tyndall he says it is the
"particles" which affect the tympanic membrane.
In his previous quotation, he says, it is the "undulations
or waves" which impinge upon the drum of the ear.
Now, we might not think this made much difference,
but you see we have been cautioned not to confound one
motion with the other. You might say this ambiguity
is the fault of the author from whom I quote, but no
other writer that I have read is more definite.

As I have said before, some advanced physicists
escape the dilemma by refusing to be definite.

The fault is with the theory, which if incorrect,
must of necessity be indefinite in shifting from one
phenomenon to another.

The theory of transmission of sound is the same
whether the medium is air, liquid, or solid. If, in the
foregoing definition, we substitute the word "iron"

Undulatory Theory 35

where "air" is used, the absurdity of the description
will be evident.

I will now refer to the velocity of the particle in the
amplitude:

When a common pendulum oscillates it tends to form
a condensation in front and a rarefaction behind. But it
is only a tendency; the motion is so slow, and the air is so
elastic, that it moves away in front before it is sensibly con-
densed, and fills the space behind before it can become
sensibly dilated. Hence waves or pulses are not generated
by the pendulum. It requires a certain sharpness of shock
to produce the condensation and rarefaction which consti-
tute a wave of sound in the air. "■

When Tyndall says the motion of the pendulum is
too slow, as a contrast, he should have said it required
a "swifter motion," instead of saying a "sharpness of
shock." This is remedied on page 95 where he says:

How are we to picture to ourselves the condition of the
air through which this musical sotmd is passing? Imagine
one of the prongs of the vibrating fork swiftly advancing;
it compresses the air immediately in front of it, and when it
retreats it leaves a partial vacutun behind, the process
being repeated by every subsequent advance and retreat.
The whole function of the tuning-fork is to carve the air
into these condensations and rarefactions, and they, as
they are formed, propagate themselves in succession through
the air. A condensation with its associated rarefaction
constitutes, as already stated, a sonorous wave.

Here he mentions the "prongs swiftly advancing"
as accounting for the condensation. Now as a matter
of fact the prongs of a tuning-fork do not move through

' Sound, page 35.

36 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

space with as great a velocity as the pendulum. It is in
various places stated that the velocity of the moving par-
ticles is dependent on the velocity of vibration of the
fork, and this would seem to be a mechanical necessity.
As a wave is composed of these vibrating particles how
can the wave have any greater velocity than the particles?
Yet we know that velocity of transmission of sound is
not dependent on the velocity of the initial vibration.

It is stated that velocity of transmission is dependent
on the elasticity and density of the transmitting
medium. But that statement in no way aids to a
comprehension of the mechanism of the transmission.

The essential part of the undulatory or wave theory
is the condensations and rarefactions. It is plain that
without these there could be no wave in the substance.
The chief way in which the physicists claim to have
demonstrated these waves is by so-called interference.
In the experiments on interference in sotmd there is
no demonstration but what is misstated or misleading.
When a student tries these experiments and does not
get the authorized result, he does not say that authority
is mistaken, but thinks, of course, he himself is in error
from inaccuracy. When authority says, "turn the
tuning-fork so the comers of the fork are toward the
ear and absolute silence results," and the student does
this and gets only comparative silence, he thinks he or
the fork is to blame, for surely authority knows the
difference between ' ' absolute ' ' and ' ' comparative. ' ' The
student has been told that this "absolute silence," (?)
when the comers of the fork are turned toward the ear,
is caused by the wave from one prong interfering with
the wave from the opposite prong, i. e., condensation
from one prong coinciding with the rarefaction from
the other prong. If the student happens to notice that

Undulatory Theory 37

the same result occurs when there is only one prong or
single vibrating bar, i. e., at certain angles the intensity
of the sound is less, he may wonder where the inter-
ference comes from, but as there is comparative silence
he supposes it must come from somewhere and
so accepts interference as a necessary cause and
investigates no farther.

In all cases of the so-called demonstrations of the wave
theory by interference, the comparative lessening of
sound can be explained in other ways, and many cases of
lessening intensity of sound cannot be at all explained by
using the interference interpretation of the wave theory.

Many other criticisms could be made of the un-
dulatory theory of the transmission of sound but space
forbids. It is hardly likely that any scientist will
change his opinion on account of these criticisms, for
psychology shows that when one absolutely believes
in a thing or theory it is difificult to receive any exterior
suggestion contrary to that belief.

I win go one step farther on this subject of sotmd.
We finally reached the tympanum of the ear, by which-
ever route you prefer, "particles" or "waves." How
the sound-wave is translated into soimd is more
of a study in physiology than physics. About the
only attempt at explanation of the fimction of any
of the various organs in the translation is the theory
that the Corti cords vibrate in synchronism with
the various sound-waves that enter the ear. When
it is objected that it is a physical impossibility
for a definite number of fixed cords of definite size to
vibrate in an infinite variety of ways, the physiologist
explains that some auditory nerve perceives the pitch,
and excites a muscle, which regulates the tension of
the cords. While this is theoretically possible, it is

38 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

practically Impossible; but even if it were possible, of
what use would the cords be if there is a nerve which
could perceive and recognize the variation in pitch,
previous to the action of the Corti cords?

Rather than accept such a crude explanation, it were
better to leave it and say with Tyndall, "it is a mystery
which the human mind cannot fathom."

In leaving the subject of sotmd, I wish to emphasize
one point: when we, as human beings, speak of sound,
we ordinarily mean that which is audible; which is
perceived as sensation through the sense of hearing,
and we may through this sense of hearing perceive
sound, when no motion of any kind can be detected
by any instrument made by man.

I wiU endeavor later to give a consistent theory of
the transmission of sovmd.

In taking up the subject of light, I will quote again
from Tyndall:

We never could have measured the waves of light, nor
even imagined them to exist, had we not previously exer-
cised ourselves among the waves of sound. Sound and
light are mutually helpful, the conceptions of each being
expanded, strengthened, and defined by the conceptions
of the other.

The ether which conveys the pulses of light and heat not
only fills celestial space, swathing suns, and planets, and
moons, but it also encircles the atoms of which these bodies
are composed. It is the motion of these atoms, and not that
of any sensible parts of bodies that the ether conveys.
This motion is the objective cause of what, in our sensa-
tion, are light and heat. An atom, then sending its pulses
through the ether, resembles a tuning-fork sending its
pulses through the air. '

' Fragments of Science, page 83.

Undulatory Theory 39

You will notice that the undulatory theory of light
is based on that same theory of sound, and all the
arguments that might be used against the validity of
such a theory applies here. Then it will be noticed
that the same ambiguity is present as to whether it is
the motion of the particles {i. e., atomic vibration), or
the waves or pulse which occasions this conveyance.

In addition, with the effect of intensifying the ambi-
guity already existing, a new medium is brought into
existence to perfect the undulatory theory of light.
This medium, called the " luminif erous ether," is some-
thing which has not been described except in a
self-contradictory way, which is acknowledged to be
absolutely inconceivable as a substance, and which is
not supposed to be at all necessary except as a part
of the undulatory theory of light.

What do we ordinarily mean by light? We mean
that which is perceived by our consciousness as lumi-
nosity. When we talk about the "invisible light
waves," it is a paradox.

We frequently see the assertion that heat, electricity,
and ligh't are interchangeable; but light is not inter-
changeable with heat as may be shown by two illu-
strations:

1. Before an ordinary ray of the stm or electric
lamp, place a screen of a proper iodide compound and
the luminous portion of the ray is cut off, but the heat
and actinic rays are uninterrupted.

2. On placing a proper ammonia compound in the
ray, the heat and actinic rays are cut off while the
luminous rays pass.

In hundreds of recorded tests of these experiments,
there is in the first no measurable loss of energy by the
abstraction of the light rays; and in the second there

40 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

is no way of measuring the intensity of the light rays,
as there is present in these rays no measurable amount
of energy. Regarding these experiments I insert this
quotation from Molecular Physics'^ :

In other words, the luminous radiation intercepted,
though competent to excite vividly the sense of vision,
was, when expressed in terms of actual energy, absolutely
incapable of measurement.

We find it is true of light as of sound that the organs
of sense can detect forms of energy which are absolutely
immeasurable by any instrument made by man. Be-
cause rays are known to exist and instruments are
made to detect heat, actinic, and various other rays of
which we would otherwise be unconscious, some jump
to the conclusion that these instruments are more sensi-
tive than the eye. But the eye is no more intended to
detect any ray but the luminous ray, than the nose is
made to see. Quite to the contrary, the eye is especially
formed to cut off any other kind of ray. In the first
experiment, just stated, the non-luminous rays with an
intensity sufficient to kindle wood or melt iron might
be focused directly into the pupil of the eye, and no effect
would be perceived; that is, no sensation would result.

It can be seen that light can be separated from the
heat and actinic rays which usually accompany it,
and that there is no measurable relation between them;
yet, all the laws, rules, and regulations are made from
observed measurements of heat or actinic rays, and
then by analogy applied to light. When the law thus
derived tells us that one candle at one foot from the
eye is as bright as one hundred candles at ten feet,
our sense of sight does not sanction the law.

' Page 266.

Undulatory Theory 41

I will consider the part of physics called heat.

The subject of heat is so thoroughly complicated
and indefinite that I hardly know how to approach it.
There is no authoritative definition of heat. Most
people would say, "It is the higher variations of tem-
perature." It is frequently inferred as a cause, by
the expression, "the expansive power of heat." It is
scientifically accepted as a "mode of motion." If we
accept heat as a "mode of motion," what definite terms
have we to apply to "the force of expansion," "the
repulsive power," "the innate elasticity," etc.?

This word heat has no constant definition. Ex-
pressing either cause or effect, and frequently expressing
both in the same sentence, it is useless to try to give
any common conception of heat. But whatever the
conception we must take the language as we find it.

"Radiation of heat" is a frequent expression. Tyn-
dall said:

Ages ago the elementary constituents of our rocks clashed
together and produced the motion of heat, which was taken
up by the ether and carried away through stellar space.
It is lost forever as far as we are concerned.

Proctor says':

It may be asked what becomes of the heat that is radiated
from the sun and other stellar bodies? We cannot tell,
all we know is that it is not lost.

That reminds me of the little boy, who, when cross-
ing the ocean, dropped his knife overboard, and being
twitted upon having lost it, he answered: "It is not
lost, for I know right where I dropped it." So of the

'Other Worlds than Ours, page 91.

42 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

heat which scientists say has for endless ages been
radiating into space. We know it is all out there in
space, because it could not get away. It may be "lost
to us forever," but it is there. A satisfactory sort of
conception, is n't it?

I wish to insert here an extract from a work of Sir
Oliver Lodge':

Heat like water can travel in only two ways, by conduc-
tion and by convection. Radiation is not conveyance
of heat. If water were dissociated in one planet and carried
to another planet as gas and there recombined as water it
would not be water travelling from one planet to another.
Nor would that which travelled obey the laws of the motion
of water.

What is it that has travelled? For water and gas
we have a common name, "Matter." Have physicists
a common name for "heat" and "radiation"?

Let us examine this radiating closer, and see if we
can find out how it is done. The definition of radiation
is "shooting out" or "throwing off." If a ball is
thrown off the earth, the initial throwing force, being
terminated, is finally overcome by the power of attrac-
tion, which is constant, and the ball returns. At the
outward end of its radius there is nothing "thrown off."
It might touch a spider's web without bending it. The
ball returns intact. Because for an infinitely small
space of time the motion of the ball has ceased, we
would not say that it had been radiated.

Now instead of the ball, let us take one exterior atom
in the chromosphere of the sun. This atom is thrown
off by some force, but is held by the power of attraction.
We might suppose this atom to be expelled beyond the

' Modern Ideas of Electricity, page 66.

Undulatory Theory 43

power of attraction to draw back, but to suppose this
would be to admit the old corpuscular theory of light,
which we do not beHeve accords with facts. But if we
agree that the atom does not go beyond the pale of
attraction, then there is a time when the attraction,
which is constant, must overcome the initial force
which is terminated. We have said the outward
motion is overcome by attraction. There is nothing
else to stop it. There is no friction from a passage
through the atmosphere, for this is part of the atmos-
phere. It is not stopped by contact with other atoms,
for this is supposedly the outside atom. It is not
stopped by the ether for, according to the description
of ether, it is a non-resisting medium.

We say of the ball that in its fall to the earth it gener-
ates just as much force as was first required to throw it
off. Why should not this hold good of the atom, and
why should it not in its rettim generate energy equal
to the initial force? But to come again to the point;
just what is it that is radiated? We agree that the
atom is not radiated into space. Is it the motion?
We said of the ball that no motion was lost, and it
seems equally true of the atom. But suppose it were
a motion. Has any Materialist made the attempt to
define a motion apart from a thing moved ? Suppose we
say it is the ether that moves. What moves the ether?
Unless we admit that the ether is a resisting medium,
the atom could not have moved it. Is it the force which
is radiated? If so, what is the force? It cannot be heat,
for scientists say, "heat is simply a mode of motion."
But if they insist that it is a force which moves the
ether, then I say, that to assert that an immaterial, un-
named force moves an immaterial, indescribable medium,
is to sink physics pretty deeply into metaphysics.

44 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Practically the only accuracy in physics is found in
that part which might be classed under the head of
mechanics and mathematics.

If the theories of physics were in accordance with
the facts, that is, if our conception of Being was cor-
rect, there need be no indefiniteness in our descriptions
or definitions of anything which we could really
comprehend.

As I have said before, the misconception arising from
the use of certain words limits the effect of the language
by which we must try to define this conception, — but
I shall make the attempt nevertheless.

A different conception is not necessarily a revolu-
tionary conception. I think that my conception is not
revolutionary though some of the theories might be
called "revolutionary theories." (The reason for call-
ing them revolutionary theories may be seen farther
on.) As a conception it is more in the nature of shift-
ing the relations than of generating or opening any new
mine of knowledge.

CHAPTER IV

THEOLOGY

BEFORE entering on an expression of my own
conception, I wish to consider briefly the orthodox
theological views.

Practically all of the theological views are Dualistic.
Not a great many years ago people were ready to fight
for their theological views, and to compel others by
physical force to adopt their opinions. This proselyt-
ing by force has now happily passed, and even the spirit
of intolerance and religious ostracism is rapidly passing.
I wish to add a word to accelerate the passing.

The fact should be emphasized that knowledge,
opinion, beUef, and faith are not synonymous terms.
No matter how loud a man may shout, " I know that
my Redeemer Hveth," he is using incorrect language.
That quotation may express the opinion of many;
many may believe it implicitly ; and their faith that it
is so may be immovable, but "knowledge" is a super-
lative term, which shotdd be more sacred than to be
used to define things that cannot be known.

The writings of various religions, which are believed
by many to be inspired and to be infallible, have no
authoritative weight with those who do not so believe.
The proper interpretation of these writings is a matter
of faith with some, a matter of belief with many, and a

45

46 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

matter of opinion with few, but it is a matter of knowl-
edge to none.

So far as I am concerned, I do not believe that
"eternal salvation" could hinge on the interpretation
and acceptance of a statement which could be misin-
terpreted or be subject to a doubt.

Paul may have known that he saw Christ in a cloud,
but when he tells me that he saw him, should I find it
necessary to form an opinion, I may believe that he did
see him, or I may believe it to be an illusion or a delu-
sion; and then again, I should feel perfectly free to
think it a wilful lie, if the evidence tended that way.

It will no doubt be said that I am antagonizing re-
ligion. The truth of the assertion will depend on the
definition we give rehgion. I might fill pages with
equally authoritative definitions of religion. I will
give four covering a wide range of opinion.

Seneca — To know God and imitate Him.

Kant — Religion consists in our recognizing all our duties

as Divine commands.
Dr. Martineau — Religion is a belief in an everlasting

God; that is, a Divine mind and will, ruling

the Universe, and holding moral relations with

mankind.
RusKiN — Our national religion is the performance of church

ceremonies, and preaching of soporific truths (or

untruths) to keep the mob quietly at work while

we amuse ourselves.

I will add my own definition: "To know God."
This last definition I think shotdd be first. (However,
according to my conception the word "God" as used
here is tautological.)

To one who shies at the name of Cod, my opinion

Theology 47

will appear ultra-religious. To one who has (or thinks
he has) a comprehensive conception of God and an
opinion of how He is to be imitated, my opinion may
appear Atheistic. To one who thinks our duties call
for a sacrifice of the Here to the Hereafter, my opinion
may appear iconoclastic. To one who is satisfied with
his belief in God, my opinion may appear to be sacri-
legious. To one whose faith is simply credulity, as
Ruskin suggests, my opinion will probably not appear
at all except in a very indirect way. Because many
religious people are pious, that pretence we term
"pietism" commonly parades as religion, which has
resulted in bringing obliquity on the word "religion."

"But," says one, "while you may have a form of
religion, you attack Christianity." The truth of that
assertion would depend on the definition we give to
Christianity. There is no accepted authoritative
definition. In fact, no definition can be formulated
that would be at all characteristic of each and every
class professing to be Christians. Think for a moment
how wide a range of diversified opinions are necessarily
grouped tmder the word "Christian." We can readily
see that an opinion cannot be expressed without assail-
ing or being in opposition to some other opinion.
Defining a Christian as a follower of Christ is no more
definite than the word itself. If any Christian form of
religion can be embraced within my definition of
religion, well and good.

But any form of religion, be it Christian or anti-
Christian, which is found to be inconsistent, with the
facts or our increasing knowledge of God, must of
necessity be abandoned eventually. This statement
appears incontrovertible. Therefore, in otu: search
after God that we may know Him, let us not dispute

48 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

about the forms of the religion which we may eventually
retain.

Heterodoxy is no longer considered a crime. While
every heterodoxy may never be orthodox, certain it is
that every orthodoxy was once heterodox.

To those who believe the Bible, let me refer them to
the place where Christ said':

"I have yet many things to say, but ye cannot bear
them now."

Patdsaid in substance^:

Ye have need of milk, because ye are not able to
bear meat. Only those are able to bear meat who by
use of their reason know good from evil.

If you believe the Bible, you must believe that some-
times people by the use of their reason will know good
from evil and wiU be ready to be weaned from the
traditional beliefs, rules, and regulations, and advance
to something higher. Because the babe grows and
prospers on milk is no good reason why it shoidd never
give up such a diet. If, through a weak fear of a change,
it is not 9:iven or will not take any different diet, it will
never attain the stature of a man. If God ever could
speak to man. He can speak to him now; so it were
better to get the mind advanced from the message of
two thousand years ago, and open it for the reception
of the message of to-day.

I do not believe a correct conception of God's message
will be revolutionary, but evolutionary. Our concep-
tions of Being have not all been wrong, but we wiU agree
that some of them have been wrong and some of them
may still in part be wrong. Let us be free to compare
our own opinions and beliefs with those of others and
choose that which is good.

•St. Johnxvi: 12,13. » Hebrews v: 11.

Theology 49

No doubt criticism will be made by those to whom
the terms "religion" and "Christianity" convey a
specific idea. To many they may seem synony-
mous.

The greatest difficulty encotintered is to cause single
words to convey the exact idea intended ; many words,
such as power, desire, force, fear, law, love, spirit,
express ideas susceptible of different construction. It is
impracticable to modify each word each time it is used.
It is also impossible to convey a definite idea of this
conception in any single statement or chapter.

When reading this over, do not jump at conclusions
and by putting your own construction on words think
they express ideas contrary to the truth.

So great a man as Daniel Webster, when walking on
the bank of a river one day, disputed his friend's word.
The friend had said that they were on the other bank
of the river. Webster denied it and immediately
offered to bet a hat that his friend could not prove the
statement. "Done," said the friend, "that is one
bank over there, is it not?" pointing across the river.
"Certainly," said Webster. "Well, this is the other
bank, is it not?" Webster could not deny it, so lost
the hat.

Now I do not want to prove that we are on the
other bank of the river; but I think, without a quib-
ble, I can show you that the other bank is not so far
off as we usually think, and possibly may be right
under our feet.

Members of the human race all over the earth are
struggling for a solution of the question, "How can
we obtain our desires and be happy?" There are
thousands of different and seemingly contradictory
answers and most of them have that final despondent

50 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

reply, "Not until we get to the other bank of the
River."

Where, in the teachings of Christ or the Apostles,
can you find proof of such necessity? "Now is the
accepted time; now is the day of salvation."

CHAPTER V

POWER

IN my conception of Being I am governed by certain
simple principles which may be more easily com-
prehended from an understanding of the philosophy of
the conception than from a statement of these prin-
ciples in advance. Yet with the hope of aiding the
reader to keep the drift of the conception, I will give a
brief statement of the essential points.

There are two and only two first causes or uncaused
Entities or Essences. These I term Power and Force.
As these names give only a physical conception I name
them also Desire and Fear. Power is atomic in its
structure, each atom being an individual Desire, pos-
sessing consciousness, memory, and volition. Associ-
ated with each atom of Power is a certain (not constant)
amount of Force, which, as a motor, is essential in all
material forms and manifestations of energy. The
Power of an atom never changes. The Force associated
with an atom may change from one atom to another
but always as some peculiar form of motion. Univer-
sally, Power controls Force; locaUy, Force may over-
come Power. Power and Force are manifest as the
Supreme Being or Universe.

I am asked to define Power and Desire, Force and
Pear. Can the Idealist define the Absolute? Will

51

52 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the Materialist attempt to define Nature? Does the
DuaUst give a definition of God? Must the Monist
define the Universe?

Socrates has already been quoted. "Define terms
and discussion ceases"; but it is impossible to define
the indefinite.

Suppose I am asked to define eternity, and I say that
eternity is the infinite or indefinite extension of time.
I define by saying that it is indefinite, which is negative
or no definition at all. That definition may give you
some idea of what I mean by the term eternity and that
my use of the word designates a time relation and not
a space relation.

We must assume that some ideas are comprehensible.
We may claim to comprehend that the relation of an
hour to a minute is definite because it is measurable.
Time is a definite term only to the degree in which we
can measure it. When we, in our conception, extend
the idea of time to where, by any figure of speech or
by imagination, it is impossible to measure it, and we
call it eternity, we express by the term a time relation,
but an absolutely indefinite, unmeasurable, and in-
comprehensible relation, excepting that it is a time
relation.

This definition of what I mean by the term eternity is,
I think, practically what any one means by the word,
for the reason that eternity is the only term used in
our language to express this particular idea. All agree
that I use the word in the proper form because all use
it in that manner.

When I attempt to define what I mean by the terms
Power and Desire, Force and Fear, I do not find so
ready acceptance of my definition, because these specific
terms are used in expressing other and different ideas,

Power 53

and the ideas which I wish to express by these terms
are also expressed by a great variety of terms.

The choice of the term is, of course, simply arbitrary.
I might, as many have done before, invent new terms
and thus avoid a conflict, but the extra mental effort
necessary to carry an old idea through the vehicle of a
new word more than offsets any advantage gained.

The use of two terms to define one entity is to me an
absolute necessity because I am making the attempt
to more definitely relate the abstract to the concrete,
noumena to the phenomena, than I think is done by
other conceptions.

We accept intervals of time as being definite and
measurable, but they are measurable only by a given
body moving a definite distance through space. In-
numerable pages have been wasted in the effort to
elucidate an idea of time and space, independent of
each other and of material being.

Time and space are aspects of the relation of material
being, but are actually inseparable aspects, although
abstractly we use the terms separately.

Power and Desire, Force and Fear are inseparable
actually, but as aspects we must consider them
separate.

Time and space, right and left, top and bottom,
centre and circumference, are inseparable as aspects
but separate in reality.

Power and Desire, Force and Fear, are inseparable
in reality but are separable as aspects.

I mean by the term Power to convey the idea of the
primary cause of phenomena, which might be designated
by such terms as attraction, gravity, cohesion, affinity,
love. This, according to my idea, is the Supreme or
greatest motor.

54 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I conceive this Power to have an intelligent motive,
and this aspect I designate as the Desire.

I conceive of no spontaneous movement without a
motive and as the movement would be a materialization
of the Power, so it would also be a manifestation of the
Desire. In the materialization of Power and the mani-
festation of Desire, I conceive there is necessary a
resistancy or a different form of motion; the cause of
this I term Force. To every form of Desire there is a
certain inhibitive which I term Fear.

I consider that we, as human beings, are a material-
ization of Power and a manifestation of Desire, and that
in the evolution of this form Force and Fear are essential.
The manifest materialization which we term Being is
cognized, recognized, perceived, interpreted, and con-
ceived only through that material portion called the
five sense organs. It is immaterial to us, as htmian
beings, whether or not there are other manifestations of
the Supreme Desire. It is not important what specific
terms be used to designate the First Causes, but if true,
it is pertinent to a correct conception that we recognize
that there are two and only two entities which are the
primary cause and Occasion of all phenomena.

The truth in an idea makes it ideal and when there is
a definite and true relation between the real and the
ideal, the ideal may be realized and become a reality.

The foregoing principles so briefly stated must be
sufficient to account for all the phenomena of nature,
consistently, logically, and as a whole, more simply
than any other conception, or it is lacking in value.

I wish, however, to have the reader governed by
certain standards of criticism. The conception is
philosophic rather than scientific.

I wish the reader to thoroughly comprehend the

Power 55

difference between scientific and philosophic. Science
treats of phenomena and their relation, and its facts are
demonstrated by universally admitted assumptions.
The causes of phenomena are considered abstractly on
account of their being metaphysical.

Philosophy treats of the causes of phenomena con-
cretely and endeavors to demonstrate logically by
assumptions which are not universally admitted and
which may be with equal weight denied. A falling ball
may be a scientific fact, but gravitation at one time was
only a philosophic idea. And that there could be a
"law of gravitation" was quite an advanced philosophic
idea. That gravitation is caused by attraction is solely
a philosophic assumption.

Philosophic ideas become scientific only as they
become universally admitted, and yet the tiniversal
admission of an idea does not determine the truth of
the idea.

Scientist and theologian must be dogmatic. The
philosopher is inconsistent if he is dogmatic. The
scientist assumes to know physical facts. The theo-
logian assumes to know spiritual facts. The philosopher
assumes certain relations to exist between the physical
and the spiritual. The scientist also knows that to the
physical there is a co-existent psychical (spiritual).
The theologian also knows that spirituality must have
an object. The philosopher tries to make the records
accord and be in concord. Each is a specialist. Each is
a necessity in the development of humanity. But as
each is impressed with his own importance he is prone
to discredit the relative importance of the other.

To my mind the term philosopher is the highest
designation ever applied to man. The ordinary artisan
may call himself a scientist and every pulpit pounder

56 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

does call himself a theologian, but of those who have
attained a place in history you will notice that the ma-
jority have "and philosopher" appended to their other
qualifications, and it was being a philosopher (thinker)
that occasioned their advance in their specialties.

Returning our attention to the expression of the
conception we will admit that to be true it must be
consistent, not only internally with its various state-
ments and definitions, but with demonstrable facts.
It must be logical and desirable. It must be as lucid
as possible, which is accomplished to a degree by premis-
ing no secondary "unknown causes" nor complicating
the conception by having more attributes of the "first
causes" than actually necessary to completeness.

Materialists and Monists will admit that we do not
yet know all that may be known of Nature and its
Laws. Idealists and Dualists will admit that we do
not yet know all that may be known of God and
His will. Each will admit that the other does know
something.

Do not consider me presumptuous or lacking in
appreciation of the work of others when I attempt to
take thesv? somethings which may be apprehended by
one and not the other and form them together as one.
I call it a synthetic philosophy; a conception new only
in its synthecism.

Naturally the first thing to consider in a conception
of Being is what is commonly spoken of as matter, that
which composes the things of Nattire. Idealists say,
"Things are not what they seem." MateriaHsts pre-
mise all phenomena on matter. DuaHsts make matter
a result external to the cause. Monists say that the
cause is inherent. These are various ways of conceiving
matter, but they are not irreconcilable.

Power 57

We say we know that matter exists because it has
weight, but we assume it has weight because it is at-
tracted. Then attraction causes weight. We say we
know that matter exists because it is impenetrable, has
density. But we assume it has density because it is
attracted. Then attraction causes density. Matter
has affinity; but affinity is only a specific name for
attraction. Attraction causing weight we term gravi-
tation. Attraction causing density we term cohesion.
Attraction causing compounds we call affinity. There
are other special ways in which attraction acts to
which we give special names, but all are some form of
attraction, and in all these numerous ways we say
attraction is the power or cause of various phenomena
in matter. In reality the most comprehensive defini-
tion of matter is this: "Matter is the manifestation of
the power of attraction." This does not mean that
attraction has the power to create matter, nor does it
mean that attraction is the same as matter. It means
that primarily there is a power and that matter is a
manifestation of that power, but not necessarily that
it is the only manifestation of that power. Now, all
will admit the existence of power. Idealists may call
it a Good Spirit, Nirvana, or any other name. Mate-
rialists may call it Attraction, First Cause, or any other
name. DuaUsts may call it God, Deum, or any other
name. Monists may call it the Ultimate, Absolute,
or any other name.

We agree that there is a power. We will call it a
Supreme Power because it is the greatest power. One
side will admit that Attraction is the greatest power
known, while the other side will assert that God is the
greatest power. Even this difference in a name is a
quibble. A definition of Attraction and Love may be

58 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the same, and "God is Love." Now I do not expect
to bow my knee to the name of God, or Baal, or Nature,
nor do I expect you to do so.

Let us start with A Power, or The Power, and you may
presume that I mean any Deity that you prefer. You
may suggest that it is not philosophic to start from the
"unknown," but that which all admit, must be known.
We all admit the existence of A Power. Also, we must
admit there has been no known deviation of this Power,
nor is it desirable that there ever should be any devia-
tion; therefore, according to a previous statement, this
is as near as we may come to an absolute truth. Then
according to any standard of logic, nothing could be
more positively known than the existence of The
Power. Starting then from an admitted assumption,
the existence of The Power, we will go a step farther
in the conception of Being.

Admitting the existence of the Power, what is the
next essential to a Being? or to a manifestation of
that Power? It is Desire. Any manifestation of
Power with no Desire would be chaos, but under any
conception of Being chaos does not exist. One side
says that Power is manifest according to the Law of
Nature; the other side says that the manifestation is
according to the Will of God. I say that the Desire
of the Power is manifest in Being. The real meaning
in each expression is the same, the wording simply
showing that the conceptions differ. I think Desire
is the most expressive word. Law seems to properly
express the Materialistic idea of mechanical action.
Will seems to properly express the Dualistic idea of
exterior wisdom. Desire seems to properly express the
conception of an intelligent spontaneous manifestation.
The manifestation must come from the dictates of

Power 59

Desire to the Power; or wording it differently, the
manifestation is according to the dictates of the Desire
of the Power.

Power and Desire are two different aspects of the
One. There is no one word which expresses both
aspects, so of necessity I use two; but always bear in
mind that in the conception they are inseparable, one
and the same. That I may sometimes refer to them as
plural and sometimes as singular does not invalidate
the conception, because nowhere is the idea of separate-
ness necessitated. Power would be void without
Desire. Desire would be impotent without Power.

Now we wUl take the third step. The Desire of the
Power would be futile unless it were manifested. The
Desire of the Power must be manifested to be perfected.
If a Supreme Power had a Desire, there would be
nothing to prevent a manifestation of that Desire. Its
manifestation or materialization following of necessity
would be an integral part. Therefore, the Power, the
Desire, and the Materialization are One. It is difficult
to conceive of either as separate from the other.

Scientists speak of "the forces of Nature," "the Law
of Nature," and the material in which Nature is mani-
fest; each a different aspect of Nature, but an essential
and inseparable part of Nature. The Power of Being,
the Desire for Being, and the Manifestation as Being
express exactly the same thing.

Theologians speak of the Power of God; and the
Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost; and the Son of God,
or God made manifest in the flesh. They speak of
them as "Three in one, the same and inseparable,"
"The mysterious Trinity." It is a mystery so far as
the Trinity of Nature is a mystery, so far as Being is a
mystery, so far as anything beyond otur actual com-

6o An Unorthodox Conception of Being

prehension is a mystery. Yet it is as simple as any
fact of metaphysics.

Every conception of Being must contain in some
form these three elemental ideas: Power, Desire, Mani-
festation. The triune aspect of the One.

Being, as a whole or in part, or any phase of Being,
is the MateriaKzation or the Manifestation of Power,
presupposing Desire which occasions it to be as it is;
or we may conceive Being as the Materialization or
Manifestation of Desire, which presupposes the Power
to be what it is.

So far, I expect the reader to agree with me,x)f course,
with mental reservation as to the construction he will
put on the language. I admit that the statement,
"Being is the Manifestation of Power and Desire,"
is not absolutely definite. It might be Idealistic or.
Materialistic, as one chose to interpret the language.

I do not wish by being too definite to awaken an-
tagonism in the beginning, but I wish to emphasize the
fact that this conception is that of a human being, and
stated in language that is to be taken literally and it is
given in words as definite as I am able to find.

As human beings we claim to be conscious and have
a degree of intelHgence. As Beings we are a part of
the Manifestation of the Power and Desire.

Now right here is where my readers are going to fly
off at a tangent, just because I am going to be a little
more specific in my definitions. And they will depart,
some one way and some another. Yes, I mean that
every particle of Being is a manifestation of that Power
and that Desire. I do not mean that God through
His Power and according to His Desire created us out of
nothing and wound up the Being of the Universe and
after that remained a mere passive spectator. Nor do

Power 6i

I mean that pre-existent material was set in motion by
some unknown Power and according to an Absolute
(but unconscious and therefore tmintelligent) Law we
have developed to our present conscious state. I mean
that I, as a human being, form my conception of the
Power and Desire from its manifestations.

I am conscious, I cotdd not act intelligently imless I
were conscious. The Power could not act on impulse
from the Desire unless it were conscious of that Desire.
The Desire could not dictate an act imless it were con-
scious of that Power. So, I say, the Power and Desire
are conscious or self-conscious, if such a word is more
expressive.

A continued consciousness is memory. This is ne-
cessary for what we call experience. We see actions
of manifestations which are not the result of the
experience of that specific part of that manifestation,
and therefore we are forced to conclude that the ex-
perience is from the memory of the Power and Desire.
(This statement will be illustrated farther on.)

One other attribute must be admitted, unless we sup-
pose Being to be the result of mechanical and automatic
movement (in which case consciousness and memory
would be useless), and that attribute is Volition.

Consciousness, memory, and volition are not crea-
tions of the Power, but are attributes of the Power.
Each one of these attributes will be considered more
fully in other chapters.

"I" am an individual. That statement sounds
simple and I hear no protest. But I must try to define
my meaning. First, the meaning of "individual";
I use the word in its primary meaning, single, one,
indivisible. According to this definition "I" cannot
mean only the objective human being, for that is divis-

62 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

ible. It does not. " I " in this case means the individ-
ual who is conscious as an individual, who has memory
and volition; the Ego; an atom, often conceived as the
Soul. This is a statement with which some will agree
and some will not. But in any case it is incapable of
proof or disproof. Science accepts the atomic theory,
but it is not proven. There has been some controversy,
but here I think the acceptance of the definition of
terms would stop the controversy.

The definition I take is, "An atom is the smallest
division of matter." We all admit that matter is
divisible. Take a division we call a tree. We can
divide it until it ceases to be a tree, but it is a tree unto
the smallest division which contains its characteristic
form. A subdivision of this would be a piece of wood.
This can be divided until it ceases to be wood, but it
continues to be wood down to the smallest piece that
can retain its characteristic fibre. It then becomes
organic substance, which under frequent division it
continues to be until it loses its characteristic features.
Still it is a particle of material. This may be theoret-
ically divided into molecules. A molecule is the
smallest particle of matter which can maintain its
character as a compound. There might be one molecule
of water but if this were divided it would cease to be
water. Theoretically there is no point at which division
must cease, but practically there must be such a point
or matter would be homogenous, which it demonstrably
is not. Instead of saying, "All matter is infinitely
divided," it seems more lucid to say, " Matter is divided
into particles of tmdefinable limits, which particles we
call atoms."

If, under the Supreme Power and Desire, there are
limits to the division of matter (although these limits

Power 63

are to us indefinite), and these limits have not been
transcended, then we can presume to say logically
that the smallest divisions are indivisible, which they
must be, as no greater Power exists to transcend the
limits.

Approaching this differently we might say, "The
atom is the primary materiaHzation of the Power and
Desire"; or we might say, "The atoms are the elements
of the matter which is the manifestation of the Power
and Desire." These atoms are sometimes called "Cen-
tres of force," or "Power centralized." (A certain
theory as to the construction of matter has brought
into use the terms ions and electrons, which are called
smaller divisions of matter than atoms, which is con-
trary to our definition of atom, but this wiU be referred
to later.)

I have said that the Supreme Power dictated by
Desire is manifested in material Being. As a whole we
might call this the Supreme Being, or the Universe.
I have premised that it is atomic in structure and its
attributes are consciousness, memory, and volition.

I will lirnit my terms here by an illustration. I have
spoken of myself as a human being, also as an Ego.
As a human being, because I have being or a body;
and as a "human" in contradistinction to other beings.
I spoke of myself as an Ego, because I believe I have a
consciousness, memory, and voUtion, which observation
teaches me is not possessed by the body as a separate
being.

As a human being I am composed of a physical part,
a mental part, and a material part. My physical
power cannot be known xmtil it is shown. My mental
power cannot be known until it is displayed. It is
through the material body that these powers are de-

64 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

monstrated. Let the combination cease and there
are no physical or mental powers visible. The material
body is no longer called a human being. The physical
and mental powers are wholly spiritual and can be
manifested only through the material. The Power
and Desire are spiritual, but are manifested to us
only as objective Being.

You may say if the Ego is conscious, with memory
and volition, why do not these attributes continue
after separation from the body. I suppose they do,
but to be frank I wiU say that I know nothing about
that; My conception of Being is wholly from the
standpoint of a being of which the body is an essential
part, and which gives the ability to comprehend, to
recollect, and to display will. The assumption I wish
to make is that my consciousness, memory, and volition
as a human being are attributes of the Ego, and not of
the body. You may think the parts cannot have at-
tributes which are not possessed by the whole, but they
can. A specific form may have attributes, which are
the cause of the characteristics of that special thing.
The mass may have attributes not in any way possessed
by the parts. Let us take a mass of matter; we say
this matter is a manifestation of Power according to
a certain Desire. (This idea of matter will be much
modified as we progress.) This mass we see is dense
and soft and ductile. We may call this "Gold." Do
we mean that the Power is dense, the Desire soft, and
each atom ductile? No, we mean that the Desire of
that specific part of the Power causes it to manifest
itself in that form and the characteristics of that form
are its attributes, which differentiate it from other
forms or manifestations.

Conditions being the same, the manifestation is

Power 65

always the same. So firmly do we beKeve this that if
at any time the manifestation is different, we say the
conditions are not the same, rather than that the Power
or Desire has changed; or as it is commonly stated,
"Rather than that there was any change in the energy
or matter, or the laws governing them." The theory
of conservation of energy and the indestructibihty of
matter premise the same thing.

If the Power and the amotmt of Power does not
change, what makes any change? I said that condi-
tions change. What are conditions? Conditions are
the relations between the various manifestations of the
Power and Desire. Power is limited and tmchangeable.
Theologians say that God is the same yesterday, to-day,
and forever. Desire is unlimited excepting that its sat-
isfaction requires time, and for its fulfilment requires
eternity. When I say that Power is limited, I do not
mean that the Supreme Power has measurable limits,
but that an atom is the manifestation of a definite amount
of Power, which is not changeable. What all the desires
or the future desires of these atoms may be we have no
way of knowing. Our individual desires cannot be
known to another tmless they are in some way expressed.
We ourselves do not know what desires we may have in
the future. A definite Power and an indefinite Desire
necessitates change in manifestation. If there is a
change, there is a diflference in the relation of the various
parts and as this relation is condition, we say that condi-
tions change. The modifier of this change is time. The
change of the relation of certain of the manifestations are
so regular that we have used them to measure time and
designated it as consisting of days and years, but these
terms simply express the specific changes of relation
between certain specific manifestations.

66 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Exception is taken to the conception that Power and
Desire are one and the same, yet Power may be limited
and Desire tmlimited. If we suppose the mass of the
Universe unchangeable, it of necessity follows that it is
limited to that mass. We know there is change and
if change continues throughout eternity, it is of neces-
sity unlimited. The change I conceive is according to
Desire.

"God is unchangeable." "Matter is uncreatable."
"Power is limited." All are equivalent expressions
according to the various conceptions. Saying that
Power, as the physical aspect of Being, is limited; and
Desire, as the psychical aspect of Being, is tmlimited,
I do not believe involves an inconsistency in the
conception.

The rapidity of this change is limited, therefore,
when I say, "Desire is limited by time" ; it is a quanti-
tative limit, which merges it into the physical aspect
As the prolongation of time is unlimited the qualitative,
varieties of change, is unlimited.

Nature and God are recognized by the Materialist
and DuaKst as being both limited and unlimited, and
this involves no more contradiction than the assump-
tion that an imaginary line is both limited and unlimited.
It is limited or imchangeable in its width and unlimited
or changeable in its length.

Conditions change, but to what degree they are
changeable is a question. Scientists say that conditions
are absolute, that all change is according to an absolute
law and requires a definite time, and that every event
is absolutely fixed by cause and eifect. Theologians
say that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. I think
neither conception is entirely correct and will take up
this point later. I said that the particles of gold are a

Power 67

manifestation of a definite amount of Power, and that
it is manifest in that way on accoimt of the Desire of
its atoms, and that Power and Desire are conscious.
But I do not mean that the gold is conscious. Nor
do I mean that the Desire of those special atoms
which are manifest as gold is entirely fulfilled by such
manifestation.

The fulfilment of Desire is necessarily limited by
conditions which I say are modified by time. Con-
ditions may also show another relation which is
measured by space. The spatial relation limits the
Power. Only a certain amount of Power can be con-
tained in a certain space. This is referred to as the
"impenetrability of matter." If a certain amoimt
of Power is moved through space, it does not
change in amount (mass), but the conditions being
changed, its relation (weight), may be changed.
Cohesion is a term which also describes Power imder
certain conditions.

In my conception of Being I consider in its various
relations that time and space are as absolute measures
as mathematical measures are. That there is anything
Unconditioned or Omnipotent in the superlative sense
is a mere assertion which I do not feel compelled to
believe.

When I say that Power is limited by space and Desire
is limited by time, I do not mean that space and time
are entities or that they are a sort of mysterious ab-
straction. I might say that Power and Desire are self-
limited in their manifestation, which limitation we
perceive as space and time. The forms of the mani-
festations of Power and Desire are dependent upon
these conditions. What the bounds of these conditions
are is a study of metaphysics and psychology, no less

68 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

than of physics and physiology. The correct concep-
tions of Being will be of prime importance in a knowl-
edge of conditions on which depends our future
development.

CHAPTER VI

CONSCIOUSNESS

PHYSIOLOGIST and psychologist have made every
endeavor to show that consciousness is in some
degree the result of energy, but with no success.

I will make no effort to explain consciousness, al-
though the condition expressed by the word is one of
such great importance. I will say, though, that my
meaning of the word is the most simple. I use it to
express a condition absolutely passive. I do not mean
any function similar to conscience.

In saying that consciousness is an attribute of the
Ego, I do not mean that it is in any way different as an
attribute of the Ego than as an attribute of the atom.

Consciousness is recognized as an essential to knowl-
edge. Consciousness seems to be ability to receive
and cognize impressions. Primarily impressions are
from atomic movements, but in material manifesta-
tions, original impulses must be from mechanical
causes in some cases ; that is, the impressions are caused
by movements of the material. If we knew how such
impressions were transferred to the Ego, that is, how
the molecular vibrations could be transmitted and
translated so that the Ego as an atom could cognize
the meaning of the original impulse, we might then

comprehend the interpretations as a mechanical move-

69

70 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

ment. We might also be able to demonstrate, if there
is any, the difference between the atom and the Ego.
Each responds to exterior impressions; therefore, each
must have consciousness ; each is influenced by experi-
ence; therefore, each must have memory. It is im-
possible to demonstrate that consciousness in one is
different from consciousness in the other. But one
knows so much more than the other, you say. Well,
an intelligent man knows much more than an il-
literate man, but we would not say that he had more
consciousness.

I do not think that the word consciousness should be
made to bear the meaning of comprehension. It is
frequently so used, as when we speak of an insane man
being tmconscious of his deeds. The real meaning is
that he ddes not comprehend or realize the meaning of
his deeds. If an arm is paralyzed, we are not conscious
of any feeling in that arm ; we do not really mean that
consciousness is effected, but that the connecting link
between the arm and consciousness is broken so that
consciousness receives no impression from the arm. In
all probability this is the exact condition in any portion
of the body when reference is made to loss of conscious-
ness. It is, instead, the loss of one or more of the
connecting links from sensation to consciousness. The
brain is the machinery of transmission as well as of
comprehension, and when this machine is diseased or
broken, of course consciousness is not aware of the
original impulses, sensual or mental, that may occur.
Consciousness is passive and cognizes only that which
is transmitted to it, and recognizes only that which is
interpreted to it.

We naturally say that we are conscious of many things
that we do not comprehend. We may be conscious of

Consciousness 71

impressions, the meaning of which we do not compre-
hend, but when we are conscious that we do not com-
prehend certain things, this is the result of a mental
impression, which means that our experience has not
been wide enough, and, therefore, in the memory there
is not the necessary material with which to properly re-
late this new impression so that it can be comprehended.
To put it in another way: we are not conscious of the
special meaning of the thing which we do not compre-
hend, any more than we are conscious of a black spot.
We may be conscious of the light aroiind the black
spot and conscious of the absence of the light at that
spot, but if it is absolutely black, we receive absolutely
no impression from it. We are conscious of there
being certain places we cannot see and we call them
black or blank. So of the mental impressions of ideas ;
we know there are parts that we cannot properly relate,
and therefore we say we cannot comprehend, but in
reality it is on account of some part being absent, and
not on account of that which is present, that we do not
comprehend. We may also be conscious of impressions,
and these impressions become a part of memory, but
by our inability to recollect and properly relate we may
fail to comprehend. '

I wish to point out more clearly as I proceed that my
ideas of consciousness and memory are different from
my ideas of comprehension and recollection.

The chief sentient atom of a microbe may be just as
conscious as the Ego of a man, limited only in the
quantity and variety of impressions of which it may be
conscious. A microbe may have no mental impression.
Their impressions may be wholly physical or sensual.
To that degree, the channels of impressions being less,
their experience would be less, their comprehension

72 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

would be less, and the microbe would be conscious of
less. But that is no evidence that the microbe is less
conscious or has a different kind of consciousness.

Biologists generally admit that all living organic
forms are conscious to some degree. But how of the
inorganic? If it is admitted that the motion of the
atom in chemical affinity is spontaneous instead of
mechanical; that is equal to saying that it is conscious
of an impression, and if it responds in the same way
repeatedly under the same conditions, that would show
that it must have memory. If the organic contains no
new or different elements from the inorganic, then these
inorganic atoms possess memory, because it is only
through the experience of association and organization
that they collectively increase in comprehension, and
are able to' manifest themselves in higher forms.

If I am unable to define my own consciousness, I
certainly am unable to define the consciousness of the
atom. There is one essential difference, which I wish
to emphasize, not regarding consciousness itself, but the
way in which it is impressed. We are forced to view
matter as of two planes: the material and the spiritual.
The single atom is not material, it is spiritual; that is,
it is simply a definite amount of Power, and the Power
alone would be absolutely immaterial. I can give no
other name to it but spiritual, though I do not mean
spiritual in any religious sense. The atom is a definite
amount of the attractive Power and has a definite
relation to other atoms according to conditions of
location or motion. The varied impressions of the atom
is the Power of attraction in its varied forms on account
of these varied conditions. The response to these
impressions (to be modified and described farther on)
give us the material. The atoms aggregating take form,

Consciousness 73

i.e., become materialized from the spiritual on account
of this response to the varied kinds of impressions. I
will designate the cognizance of these primary impres-
sions by the atom as being conscious on the spiritual
plane. By this statement I do not mean that a chair
is conscious that I am sitting on it, any more than I
mean that my thumb nail is conscious of what I am
writing. Premising that the atoms are conscious is
totally different from stating that the material is con-
scious. The inorganic atoms (the atoms unorganized)
are not conscious on the material plane {i.e., material
is not conscious) . One of the errors of Materialism is
in assuming that matter under certain forms may be
conscious, as in the brain. They assume that as we
are conscious, it must be some material portion of the
person that is conscious. There is absolutely no proof
that consciousness is created either as a result of motion
or form, which is the Monistic idea; or that it is a
physical product due to a pectdiar combination of
matter, which is the idea of some Materialists.

It is true that we are conscious on the material plane
and it is also true that within the accepted meaning of
the word we are conscious as human beings, only on the
material plane. To be in touch with other atoms
the Ego would necessarily be conscious on the spiritual
plane as well as on the material and it seems paradoxical
that we do not know it.

According to any hypothesis which admits of matter,
we know that each atom of our body is compelled to
respond at some period to energy, but of none of the
various forms, such as cohesion, chemical affinity, etc.,
are we directly conscious. It would be acceptable to
me to call all this certain class of impressions the
"subconscious," if it is not understood thereby to be a

74 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

different kind of consciousness. I believe that con-
sciousness is one and the same anywhere, but that ours
(the consciousness of the Ego of a human being) is
fixed along or is impressed through certain channels
of attention and comprehension. The Ego is the chief
conscious atom in the body, which body is fitted to
direct and interpret to the Ego a certain class of im-
pressions which are different or differently translated
than those ordinarily impressing the atoms. These
are material impressions, and not only material impres-
sions but a very limited class of the material impres-
sions. These impressions are not necessarily mechanical
or measurable but are perceived as designating material
origin. It is pretty generally admitted that different
sense impressions arise from the different rates of
vibration, by which the nerve termini are stimulated.
One set of nerves respond to rates of vibration within
certain limits and another set respond to vibrations
within other limits, but outside of these limits in either
direction are rates of vibration to which they cannot
directly respond. We, then, as human beings, are
limited as to the openings by which consciousness
can be reached, and of these openings five only are
within the field of our consciousness, and of this
field we are more or less limited by our attention and
comprehension. Should any impression come to con-
sciousness through any other opening, it must, to be
recognizable, be translated in terms of the vibrations
which enter at one of the five openings. That is, noth-
ing is sensible, no matter how it may be received or
perceived, unless it can be translated into the terms of
one of the five senses. This is our limitation as a
human being, and I do not believe it has been tran-
scended, nor do I believe that it is necessary or

Consciousness 75

desirable that it should be to perfect the existence of
human beings.

Some speak of thought transference, clairvoyance, or
various other phenomena as a sixth sense, but it is no
more so than wireless telegraphy. A variation of
impression does not mean a variation of the senses. I
admit the possibility of a sixth sense, but it would be
absolutely useless unless it could be translated into
terms which are at present sensible, and if that cotdd be
done, there would be no use for it anyhow. In other
words, a sixth sense is of no use until there is a use for
it. So far we have not reached near the limit of use-
fulness of our present senses. That is, there is much to
be learned yet which lies within the scope of our five
senses if we will use them.

In limiting the human to five senses I mean the use
of them as means of interpretation of impressions
on the material plane. I believe introspection or the
reception of impressions through the spiritual plane
which may be interpreted into sensible terms is a possi-
bility ; not only a possibility but a probability which
offers the greatest chance for the mental and spiritual
development of the human race. I believe it is these
introspective impressions which give the aspirations
and inspirations to humanity.

Psychic investigation shows that many give voice to
impressions that apparently did not obtain access to
the consciousness through exterior sources, but so in
dreams we are conscious of ideas which so far as we
know had no origin in the world of reality. It may be
an open question whether or not all these mental
phenomena originate in the brain solely. I believe the
Ego may be conscious of much on the spiritual plane
that might be translated to the material plane, if the

76 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

brain was rightly developed and our attention was right.
I think ordinarily the right combination is not obtained.
Men of good brain development force themselves to
confine their attention to what is caUed sensible and
practical things. Comparatively few scientists are
found willing to even investigate psychic phenomena.
On the other side, a person with a brain predisposed to
receive psychic impressions, has a brain comparatively
undeveloped, or at least tmevenly developed and unfit
to comprehend and translate any but the most common
place impressions, which may as well have had any
other origin.

In order to show what I mean by my use of the words
transmitting, translating, and interpreting, I will use
an illustration.

An army general, incapacitated from being present on
the field of manoeuvres, dictates to his stenographer the
orders of the day. The short-hand notes are transcribed
to the typewritten page and given to a telegraph
operator, who wires the orders to the city near the camp.
The operator there telephones the orders out to the
colonel at camp headquarters. A member of the staff
writes down the orders and gives them to the band
master, who translates them into symbols for the
buglers, who, when the time comes, interprets them into
vibrations which are understood by horse and man.

Notice particularly in what a variety of forms this
order consecutively exists. As an idea, vocal vibration,
air vibration, short-hand symbols, typewritten, electric
vibrations, metallic dots and dashes, vibrations of
telephone receiver and- transmitter, script written,
musical bars, musical metallic vibrations, auricular
vibration, sensual impressions, motor impressions.
What a vast difference ! Many of these forms, as mani-

Consciousness tj

fested, are utterly unintelligible to certain of the links
in this chain of communication. Some of the links
transmitting mechanically, some spontaneously; some
interpreting, some translating. There is absolutely no
physical resemblance between the typewritten page
and the electric vibrations; no grounds of material
comparison between the idea and the bugle call. Yet
through all these changeable forms the order is trans-
mitted and the idea is finally formulated in the
manoeuvres.

This wonderful process of communication has
gradually grown possible through intelligent use of
experience. The spontaneous links of the chain are
intelligent stations capable of translating and trans-
mitting the orders. Any one of these might not be
able to comprehend the meaning of the order. The
work in this connection may be to a great degree
automatic and enter to but a small degree into the
conscious life of the actors, but yet consciousness,
memory, and intelligence are primarily necessary to the
transmission of the order by that special link in the
chain.

I will here define my meaning of the words "mechani-
cal," "spontaneous," and "automatic." A mechanical
movement is one executed wholly on account of exterior
pressure or forces, as a ball thrown up in the air; a
spontaneous movement is one executed from inherent
power, or associated force, as a ball falling to the earth ;
an automatic movement, as applied to animate beings, is
one that through force of habit is executed without
special thought or attention. An automatic machine is
one working without special thought or attention on the
part of an attendant, or a movement without special
attention.

78 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

*

In the various forms of the general's order in the
illustration, one may see each of these kinds of move-
ment, singly or in combination.

As wonderfully diverse as are the processes through
which the general's order goes, as given in the illustra-
tion, there is no reason to doubt that the message in
its passage through a man from the exterior physical
impressions to the consciousness of the Ego undergoes
equally as wonderful and diverse processes.

I wish to draw from this illustration one other analogy
to point the comparison. As we see the troops of
cavalry respond to the bugle calls, it apparently is a
movement as of one body. A perfect response to the
order would give the observer no reason to think that
each separate entity received the order and obeyed
spontaneously as separate entities, yet we know that
it is through the personal consciousness of not only the
men, but the horses as well, that a perfect evolution is
performed. And the nearer perfect the evolution, the
more nearly automatic it is apt to be. Primarily the at-
tention was required. The movements in the illustra-
tion being quite artificial and special, it required much
training to make them automatic, but in movements
that through generations become to a degree natural,
a proportionately less time is required for the motion
to become automatic. We see this in the special
adaptability of men and animals for kinds of work
that had been performed by their ancestors.

If we watch a flock of certain kinds of birds in their
flight, or a school of fish, we shall see a response to
impressions or orders that give evolutions in which the
accuracy and simultaneousness of the manoeuvres have
never been approached by any body of men, however
much they may have been trained to act together.

Consciousness 79

These movements are primarily spontaneous, but to a
great degree are automatic; however, previously there
must have been conscious attention and to a certain
degree there must still be a consciousness of impressions.
Even in this material fact, which any one may witness,
we do not know how or by whom the impulse is given,
how it is transmitted, or how it is received and trans-
lated in order to give such a simultaneous movement of
separate bodies. It is not from the training or experi-
ence of these specific bodies, for minute minnows show
as wonderftd accuracy in the spacing and actions of
their manoeuvres as a school of older fish.

A muscle of the body in response to stimulus acts as
a whole and is ordinarily thought of as a simple thing.
It is supposed that when poked with a nerve, the muscle
jumps, just as a frog jumps, when poked with a stick.
This apparently is a simple action but it is not quite
so simple as it seems. The muscle is not one solid
entity, it is composed of tissue, and the tissue is com-
posed of cells, and the cells are composed of molectdes,
which are in turn made up of atoms. Not only is it the
muscle that acts ; it is the tissue that acts, and not only
the tissue but the cells of which the tissue is composed,
each spontaneously performing its part. This much
can be demonstrated. Is it illogical or tmreasonable to
say the motion must primarily be carried back to the
molecule and the atom? If it is so carried, then the
atom or the individual is where the consciousness lies.
These atoms move with a certain form, composing the
molecules, and these combine to form material, and
these combine to form cells, and these combine to form
tissue, and these combine to form muscle or sinew or
bone or brain, but it is not the molecule or any of its
combinations, even the brain, that is conscious, any

8o An Unorthodox Conception of Being

more than it is the company of soldiers of the regiment
that is conscious. It is the individuals of which the
regiment is composed that are conscious. And the
individual would not mean the body of the soldier.
In neither tooth or toe nail or any other part of the
body is the Ego conscious.

But it takes more than an Ego to make a human
being, just as much as it takes more than a general to
make an army. It takes more to constitute what we
mean by an army than even all the persons which
compose the army. The personal constituents of a
mob might be exactly the same as those of the army.
The difference is that one is organized and the other
is not. This organization is not wholly the work of
the general. The organization may have been practi-
cally perf^ted before the general was appointed, and
to a degree the movements may be independent of the
general, that is, the movements may be in accordance
to general orders instead of a general. So also the
units that compose the body are the same units that
exist in earth and air, but in the animate beings they
are organized.

Not only in the organic forms do we see organization;
every snowflake shows an organized movement more
accurate even than the movements of the army, the
school of fish, or the muscle. There is absolutely no
physical reason why a snowflake should be always the
same in certain features, and always different in other
features. There is no physical reason why the forms of
coral should vary, not in an irregular or disorderly way,
but always within definite limits, and always under
certain conditions with a certain kind of variation.
Why should some polyps build up bone coral and
others build up brain coral? The snowflake and coral

Consciousness 8i

show the result of organization of movement as much
as the bone and brain of man show the results of organ-
ization. Under no other hypothesis than the con-
sciousness of the atom can we account for organization
of the atoms, excepting on the hypothesis that there is
an exterior power which mechanically forces them to
take the various forms. By the latter hypothesis we
not only remove the cause one degree, but must have
an hypothesis as to how the force can act mechanically
on the atom if the atom is inert.

By the hypothesis that the atom is the Power, the
materialization is its action. By the hypothesis that
it is conscious and spontaneous in its action, then, as
conditions permit, without anything other than inherent
Desire, these atoms can organize in special forms.
The lower of these forms we call simply material; the
next higher degree, so to speak, we call crystallization ;
the next higher form is the organic, of which form man
is the highest representative. (Higher here is meant
to convey the idea of complex.)

Materialists agree that man is the highest organic
form of matter, but say this form grew according to an
absolute law, which is inanimate and without conscious-
ness or intelligence.

Dualists agree that man is the highest organic form
of matter, but say that the essential part of man is not
the matter but the soul or spirit that is placed in the
material body by another spirit, called God, ^^ho
created the body as a receptacle of the soul.

The Monists agree that man is the highest organic
form of matter, but say that this form arose from the
spontaneous combination of its units, and that the law
is only a description of the action of these tmits; that
not only is the form called man created in this way,

6

82 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

but the attributes we see connected with man, such as
consciousness, memory, and voHtion, are the necessary
accompaniments of this form, but exist only on account
of the form and have no existence excepting only as the
form exists. When the form is destroyed, the accom-
paniments, consciousness, memory, and volition are
also destroyed.

My hypothesis diflEers from that of the Materialists
by premising primarily the existence of consciousness
and intelligence. I agree with the Monists' definition
of "law," that the actions of the material in creating
the forms, and the relations of these forms, are not
made according to or by a law, but that the law is a
statement of the manner or method of creation of these
forms and relations. I do not believe with the Dualists
that all the consciousness and intelligence is in a spirit
separable from that which is manifest in the various
forms of Being. I do not agree with the Monists that
consciousness is a creation and condition dependent on
form and that there is no intelligence superior to that
which we collectively as human beings can and do
comprehend. My hypothesis is that the Universal
Power is conscious and intelligent; that each part {i. e.,
atom or unit) is conscious and intelligent, but, as parts
cannot each be equal to the whole, so no atom or Ego
is equal in intelligence to the whole. On the other
hand, I believe the whole is no greater than all of its
parts collectively and organically, and each part is as
essential to the whole, proportionately, as the whole is
to the part.

I wish to emphasize the distinction between Power as
definite in the atoms, and the forms in which the atoms
are manifested as material body. A human being is a
"form," and I do not believe any specific form or body

Consciousness 83

is at all essential ; that is, that a specific human form is
of necessity of any more importance than a specific
tree. Each form is important only as it performs its
part in a more complex or higher organization. The
Ego is an essential part, but I do not know that the
Ego is primarily designed for or delegated to a more
prominent part than any other atom.

Materialists deny the existence of an Ego. Dualists
admit its existence, but say it is in essence essentially
different from the atoms of the body. Monists say
that "form" creates the Ego. I say the Ego exists, is
of the same essence (essentially the same) as the atoms
which compose the body, and is different only in that it
is the general of the form of atoms composing the body
and to a degree responsible for the action of this body.
I do not' believe that the relation of the Ego to the body
is the same in each body. The body is not necessarily
organized by the Ego. The body is the result of the
efforts of the atoms to organize, influenced by a Desire
of which they are conscious, but which they may not
comprehend. The existence of the Ego is stated only
as a premise. There is no way of demonstrating its
existence. It is a fact of consciousness that I exist,
but only a premise that I, in my consciousness, am
an indivisible unit. When a Materialist sees that the
existence of this special unit cannot be demonstrated,
when he demonstrates the result of consciousness as
existent in various portions of the body, when he shows
that the ganglia have proportionately all the attributes
of the brain ; it is natural for him to conclude that the
soul is a mjrth. He fails to demonstrate that conscious-
ness is material, but he does not consistently say that
consciousness also is a myth, but says that, not being
material, it is not within his sphere of operations, and

84 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

simply classifies it with the unexplained phenomena
of nature. I take it as a fact of consciousness that I
exist, and when I say " I " here, I do not mean my body
or my person, but an indivisible entity. I do not
think that I am a combination of several entities. I
may not always be of a single mind, and I may be
divided in my purpose, but I say this is the result of
different exterior impulses. The other atoms of the
body have desires which strive for fulfilment. In
the orthodox expression, the spirit is at war with the
flesh and the devil.

Granting the existence of an Ego, at what stage of
the organization did the Ego become related to the
body? I do not know, do you? The majority of
people in this world believe that there is a soul, or spirit,
in the body. If any one of them will give a consistent
and reasonable explanation of when and how it got there,
I am content to accept such an explanation. I have
no idea whether the Ego is primarily in the male or
female, or whether it is inspired with the first breath
of life. I know of but three ways or reasons by
which one atom may occupy a position different from
another atom: through one of the various Desires
which are inherent in, and animate the atoms, through
opportunity, or, through volition.

The Desires, which are given expression in the ele-
ments, seem fixed and their opportunities are limited.
If volition exists at all, which cannot be demonstrated,
we do not know how far it can effect opportunity. If
condition is the only thing which governs, then the
Materialistic hypothesis would be correct. If it is
impossible for any one to demonstrate that the Ego, or
man, can change conditions, that he has a Desire other
than that imposed by environment, or that he has

Consciousness 8^

volition except in his imagination, then it is certainly-
useless to try to demonstrate that the Ego has an
influence or even any use in the body in its early stages.
I suppose it is there, but I do not know it for a fact.
The earliest point at which the presence of the Ego
seems to be essential is when such impressions are made
that will be necessary, as experience, to a future acqui-
sition of knowledge and comprehension.

For experience, knowledge, and comprehension, mem-
ory is necessary. As part of my hypothesis memory is
also an attribute of the Ego.

CHAPTER VII

MEMORY

THERE is no knowledge as to what constitutes the
mechanism of memory. It is a general supposi-
tion that the brain in some way is a storehouse for
sensation and ideas, and that by certain stimulus
reproduces them to the consciousness.

A ball may have a great variety of motions at one
and the same time, or rather its motion may be varied
from a simple one to an intricate one, as the result of
many different causes. Given sufficient data, that is,
the necessary machinery of calculation, and we could
translate these effects of motion back into their several
causes. Some liken the motions to the memory, and
the translation of these motions to the recollection.
No physiologist supposes that for each sensation there
is created a new brain cell or convolution. There is
nothing to show that those possessing great memory
or power of recollection have a larger brain, or one with
any more convolutions than that of another person
equal in intellectual development. Certainly the power
of recollection is not at all in proportion to the degree
of intelligence, that is, a person cannot accurately
predicate the one from the other.

If memory is the result of machinery, it is so refined
that no physicist has even given any adequate hypothe-

86

Memory 87

sis of its formation. Many authorities believe that it
must in some way be a form of motion preserved by
the various brain particles, as in the illustration of the
ball, but even so, the numerous details of the memory
would necessitate a refinement of motion so great that
the chemical change necessary for nutrition, the capil-
lary influence necessary in the circulation, the ordinary
changes of temperature, etc., would have far more
influence on the motion of the various molectdes of the
brain than the energy left by a sensual impression.

If a refinement of sensation, a sub-material condition,
is essential to account for memory, why limit it to the
general matter of the brain? Why not let memory also
be translated back as an attribute of the Ego ?

It is just as easy to talk of the pigeon-holes of the
brain as it is to imagine the pigeon-holes of a desk, but
when we get down to a consistent analysis of the hypo-
thesis, we find that whether we consider it as a mechan-
ism or the motion of a mechanism or a material entity,
as a matter of fact memory has become unmeasurable,
that is, the method of memory or recollection is beyond
oiu- comprehension. At least, not having heard of
any one who pretends to actually comprehend how
memory is effected or caused, I take it for granted that
it is not known, and therefore suggest that this being
the case, it is reasonable and permissible to call the Ego
the seat of memory.

If the energy of the brain cells constituted memory,
then drawing on this energy for a recollection would in
time exhaust it, but the contrary is true. The more
frequently we recollect a thing, the more vivid it appears
to our consciousness. Now if the Ego is the seat of
memory, and the brain the machinery of recollection,
that hypothesis would be consistent with the known

88 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

operations of the body, for the more frequently a muscle
is used the stronger it is. Of course, I do not mean
that the brain acts as a whole as a muscular action.
Athletes who are good walkers, runners, jumpers, or
bicycle riders have their leg muscles well developed,
but one who may excel in jumping does not necessarily
have the ability to excel in running, but a development
of a special set of muscle will cause development to a
certain extent of the related muscles. This is so with
the reproducing' faculties. As the leg muscles may be
developed without a corresponding development of the
arm muscles, so the reproductive organs used in the
recollection of a certain class of sense impressions
may be well developed and others poorly developed.
Muscles of one person may respond quickly, those of
another strongly, while another persons may show
great endurance, etc. The same difference is notice-
able in the faculty of recollection. Brain as a repro-
ductive organ is analogous to muscle, but brain as a
storehouse is not.

Memory is a retention of conscious impressions.
Recollection is the reflux of consciousness, and con-
sciousness is limited by comprehension. A dog can see
a beautiful picture and not comprehend it, but it is not
a picture to the dog, it is an object. He comprehends
that this object is not good to eat and it awakens no
impression of appetite in his consciousness. The
degree to which the picture would appeal to our con-
sciousness would be just the degree of our comprehen-
sion. Consciousness and comprehension are frequently

'There is no authority for the use of the tenns "reproducing"
and " reproduction" in this connection, but no other words seem able
to convey the intended meaning that recollection is a reproduction of
memory to consciousness on the material plane.

Memory 89

erroneously used as sjmonymous terms. Memory
and the power of recollection are also erroneously used
synonymously. The Ego is surrounded by the machin-
ery (sense-organs and brain) for translating sensations
to its consciousness, and for reproducing them (the
stored perceptions) from memory.

As we grow in experience and the brain develops
(machinery improves), we have a broader comprehen-
sion and to a certain extent we can recollect ideas of a
more complex character. This is due to the machinery,
i. e., brain, which has its equivalent in any organization
of atoms.

As the details of memory increase, the quality of
that stored in memory may 'improve, that is, there may
be an increased complexity of ideas and the Ego is
conscious of a greater degree of comprehension.

The increased complexities of the perception stored
in memory and the increased complexity of the machin-
ery of comprehension and recollection may be coexistent,
but they are not necessarily coextensive. According to
my conception a specific spirit is no more imlimited in
its extension than a specific particle. I assume that
memory and the power of recollection are not the same.
At least there are different processes; the retention of
the impression and the reproduction of the impression.
The retension of impression is spiritual and the repro-
duction of the impression is material.

We speak of a vivid impression being easily memor-
ized, but the vivid impression is one that is frequently
recmring to our consciousness. A startling scene or
a bright idea is, especially in the period soon after the
impression, reproduced a great many times. Other
impressions may be reproduced fewer times, or even not
at all. Now in the case of a frequent reproduction, as

90 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I have said before in the analogy of the muscle, that
particular portion of the reproducing machinery is
exercised.

Memory is constant while recollection is intermittent.
Some might say that memory is potential recollection
as energy is potential in the muscles. That is the
illogical point. There is only a certain amount of
energy potential in the muscle, and when that is ex-
hausted, it must be replenished from sources other than
the muscle itself. So if the brain were the storehouse,
it would become in time exhausted.

A phonograph record may be called the material
memory of a song. If this record were photographed
and reduced to microscopic size, it would still be a
memory, translated into a different form. There is no
physical reason why as a reflux this photograph could
not be enlarged, and by a process of electrotyping,
produce a record similar to the original, then the song
could be reproduced through sensation to the conscious-
ness. This song so reproduced would be nearer like
the original than a recollection of it reproduced by the
brain from memory. The photograph as a memory is
but a minute particle in comparison to the machinery
necessary for the reproduction or recollection. It is
true that in this illustration, which is mechanically
possible, the memories, if sufficiently numerous, might
equal or exceed in btdk the machinery of reproduction,
but suppose it were possible to superimpose or photo-
graph one record over another, on the same material,
then there would be no increase in the bulk of memory.
This refinement of impression might be abstractly
carried to infinity. A wax or rubber record would
ultimately become worn out, certainly the deterioration
would be just in proportion to its use,while the opposite

Memory 91

is true of the photograph or of memory. Suppose we
use this photograph as the illustration or analogy of
memory. This photograph could be translated into
a sound record an infinite number of times without
any deterioration. The sound (wax or rubber) record
and the phonograph could be likened to the brain, the
reproducing machine. This might wear but could be
renewed. Now taking into consideration the difference
between a machine and an organism, the one deterio-
rates and the other improves by use (within recognized
limits, of course), and our analogy is perfect. The
hypothesis seems to be consistent with known facts.
The seat of memory is comparatively an vmchangeable
entity, this I designate as the Ego. The organs of
recollection are changeable entities, these I designate
as the reproducing faculties or reproductive organs of
the brain.

The substance 01 one photograph may be practically
the same as the substance of another photograph, but
the two may be translated in widely different ways.
One might be reproduced, as we have said, through
sound, another through sight, or a series of these sight
photographs might be reproduced through a moving-
picture machine, and it would appeal to our conscious-
ness far more vividly than any mental recollection of a
similar scene. The photographs might be intact, but
if the machinery of reproduction shotdd be injured or
broken, we would fail to reproduce the original impres-
sion. The phonograph might be broken or impaired,
so we coidd not reproduce sound, or at most imperfectly ;
there might be one of the records broken, and only that
specific one would fail of a reproduction, but the failure
to be able to perfectly reproduce any or all of the sound
records might not impair the ability to operate the

92 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

moving-picture machine. We know that a destruction
of one part of the brain may effect the power of recol-
lection of a certain class of sense impressions. A lesion
of the brain may be so small as to effect only the power
to recollect a certain specific word or object. Should
a portion of the brain so large as to correspond to the
phonograph of our illustration be destroyed, it is seldom
or never repaired, but in a lesion, say small enough to
compare to one of the wax records, there is frequently
a recovery, as we hear often, "He has regained his
memory of certain things that seemed to -be lost."
Now if the wax record was the ultimate record, it would
be impossible ever to make another like it, in case it
were broken. If a pigeon-hole in a desk, with its con-
tents, were removed and destroyed, it would be im-
possible for it to grow in again. It would have to
be replaced from exterior sources. So if a portion of
the brain were removed and a specific memory destroyed
it would be impossible ever to replace it, excepting as
a similar impression should be given from an exterior
source. Assuming that this specific portion of the
brain was the ultimate record or memory of the specific
idea or impression, it would be impossible to reproduce
this on accoiuit of its loss. But this is not the case. A
repairing of a lesion or a fitting of another portion of the
brain substance to act in the place of the lost part
enables one to again become conscious of the same idea
or impression, which seems to show that the memory of
it must have had a constant existence. On the material
plane we are not conscious of memory but only of
recollection.

Of memory itself I have no conception. If we saw
a microscopic photograph of a song record, it would
awaken no consciousness of a song or the singer ; yet, ia

Memory 93

all probability, there is much less physical resemblance
between a memory, and that which is memorized, than,
between a singer with his song and a phonograph with
its record.

In the illustration of the phonograph we can trace
the energy through its various forms from a singer,
song, recorder, receptacle, record, and refinement, to
final photograph; then, the return action reproducing
that which again gives us an impression of the song
and a perception of the singer. But suppose a person
wholly unfamiliar with this process observed it, he
would not at all comprehend the method. He would
most naturally say that the music was in, the machine.
In any process of metaphysical deduction would not
the chances be very great against his hitting the correct
sequence of operation? Suppose there should be an
imperfect reproduction; would such a person be able
to tell wherein lay the cause of the defect? Even an
expert, did he not have access to the various parts of
the machinery, might be unable to locate the trouble.

Most people are unfamiliar with the process of per-
ception from impressions to memory and the reversion
through recollection to consciousness again. Physio-
logist and psychologist are able in a certain degree to
trace the process, and can often locate the cause of any
imperfection or obstacle in the process, but the process
itself, that is, how one form of energy can be interpreted
into a corresponding form wholly diflEerent, is, thus far,
beyond our comprehension.

Consciousness, memory, and volition, though appar-
ently primarily the result of energy, yet are translated
to such a refined degree that they are possessed of no
measurable amount of energy; that is, they cannot be
demonstrated as really material. Such being the case,

94 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

it seems that it is a fair hypothesis to assume that
consciousness and memory are attributes of the Ego.

The amount of which one may be conscious (which
we might call the quality of consciousness, or complexity
of consciousness) , is due to and measured by comprehen-
sion. This comprehension comes from experience,
memory being the accumulation of this experience.
There is no apparent degree in consciousness. There
are degrees in comprehension. A baby is not less
conscious than an adult, but is conscious of less. It is
necessary for an understanding of my hypothesis, to
give due weight to this distinction.

A dog looking out of a window sees just as much as
a man does, the field of vision being equal. The dog
is just as conscious of what he sees as the man is ; that
is, he is just as conscious of the light impressions that
strike the retina of his eye as the man is; but the man
is conscious of much more than the sight sensation.
He might be conscious of the relation of the vegetable
to botany, of the animal to biology, of the landscape to
geography, of the water to hydrography. These rela-
tions and numerous other relations and interrelations
form mental impressions, which would be limited only
by his comprehension. Without consciousness and
memory there would be no comprehension.

We may memorize a verse of poetry when young;
our consciousness of this might be limited to a mere
knowledge of an aggregation of sound impressions. In
later years, on recollecting the verse, we might com-
prehend its beauty and the ideas expressed; thereafter
the memory would include the perception of the ideas
involved as well as the sound impression. Though the
verse is the same, there is much added to consciousness
and memory regarding it, solely on account of compre-

Memory 95

hension. Now the brain seems to be the mechanism of
comprehension of impressions and also the machinery
of recollection.

Consciousness requires no mechanism, comprehension
does; memory requires no machinery, recollection does.
And the more complicated the machinery, the greater
may be the comprehension and therefore the material
for occasioning recollection.

The large yard of a railroad terminal is more than
an aggregate of tracks. . There are interlacing switches,
and the more intricate this system of tracks and
switches, the more rapidly can a train of cars be dis-
tributed or made up. The more intricate the convolu-
tion of the brain, the more systematically can varied
impressions be properly related and co-ordinated, and
a train of thought composing an idea can the more
quickly be completed ; that is, the more complicated the
machine, the greater the amount of work, and the more
diverse the quality of the work it may accomplish.
Train yards, machines, or brains of equal capacity
might not be used to their capacity. Volition and
opportunity would effect the equation.

It may be suggested that certain inferior brains show
comparatively greater powers of recollection. An
illiterate may recite the whole Bible, name each of a
thousand sheep, or describe various minute differences
in vegetation. A philosopher might be able to do none
of these things, and even be called so deficient in
memory as to be absent-minded. But notice, the
recollection of the illiterate is of a certain class of
impressions; that is, the portions of the brain possibly
that reproduce impressions of form are abnormally
developed. The brain as a whole is not necessarily
more intricate. The philosopher, while apparently

96 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

absent-minded, may recollect a greater variety of mental
impressions, and relate them in a greater variety of
ways than the illiterate could possibly comprehend.
Take any one who may be noted for an exceptionally
good memory and you will find that his recollection is
of a certain allied class of impressions.

The thinker develops his brain to reproduce mental
impressions and generally to quite a noticeable extent
there is lack of development of the part which repro-
duces objective impressions. On this accotmt it is a
common saying that philosophers are absent-minded
and oblivious to their surroundings. Few realize that
mental impressions and recollections are of a much more
varied nature than sense impressions. And the more
abstract, the more intricate the machinery necessary
to recollect the material for a complete idea. I think
from these illustrations it is obvious that the greater
the power of recollection, the more intricate the ma-
chinery necessary; also that by the greater powers of
recollection I mean not so much the quantity of a certain
class of perceptions, as I do the variety of the classes
of perceptions.

I wish to explain a little further what I mean by
conscious impressions. The centre of our field of vision
is the point upon which our eyes are focused. Objects
near the edge of the field of vision are less impressive
than those near the centre, but we do, to a degree,
perceive them. The centre of our field of consciousness
is the impression to which we are at that moment
attentive. Other impressions which comprise this
field are being made ; some to which we give apparently
no attention, that is, of which at that time we are
apparently not conscious, are affixed in memory.
Some relation later might cause these impressions to

Memory 97

be recollected, and we then realize that we were really
conscious of the impression when made. Had we not
been conscious of it, the relation could not have been
made, and there would not have been any recollection
of this impression. We are not immediately conscious
on the material plane of all the Ego cognizes. It is
only that which the brain is capable of re-cognizing
(comprehending) that becomes conscious to the Ego
on the material plane. This re-cognizing, recollecting,
and relating are functions of the brain.

I speak of recollection and relation as though they were
consecutive, while they apparently must be simultane-
ous, but I am not making the attempt to show the process
of recollection ; I am simply relating memory to recollec-
tion by assuming memory as constant and recollection
as intermittent, the Ego as the seat of memory, and
the brain as the seat or machinery of recollection.

The question may arise. Is memory perfect? I have
nothing on which to arrive at a conclusion regarding
that point. We might argue that no impression can
ever be absolutely obliterated, as we hear some say
that every impulse of energy goes on and on forever
and cannot be lost ; or, on the other side, we might say
that as so many impressions are apparently useless and ,
will never serve as a relation to any reasonable thing
in the future, they will in process of time become extinct.
It would seem that the constant increasing accumulation
of impressions would prohibit a recollection of all of
them at any future time. However, we do know from
experience that the limits of memory have never been
found, while the power of recollection is so limited as to
be to us a constant source of trouble ; therefore, why
be troubled about the limits of memory, while the
machinery of recollection is a sufficient cause of anxiety?

CHAPTER VIII

VOLITION

THERE is no other concept in metaphysics so wholly
abstract and so lacking in definement as volition.

When I state as my hypothesis that volition is an
attribute of the Ego, as also are consciousness and
memory, I must limit it as to definition. That which
makes the Ego conscious of more than the atom is the
comprehension given through the aid of many atoms as
organized in human beings in what we call the brain.
This same brain serves to recall the conscious impres-
sions of the past, which the Ego retains as memory.
I do not define consciousness as the ability to com-
prehend. I do not define memory as the ability to
recollect, nor do I define volition as the liberty of action.
I do not define it as the motive or as the cause of action.
I define consciousness as a passive cognizance of im-
pressions. I define memory as a preservation of these
impressions. I will define volition as the power to
choose. In my conception as a human being I limited
consciousness by comprehension; I limited memory
by recollection ; I limit volition by conditions.

When I define volition as the power to choose with
the power limited by conditions, I am not describing
volition nor giving it any new values. Some may say
that this is no definition, but if any one cannot under-

98

Volition 99

stand my meaning and use of the word by this definition,
a use of additional words would only serve to increase
the misunderstanding, for each additional word would
have to be defined, etc. It seems to me the use of the
word in that sense is legitimate, not to say authoritative.
Authoritative definitions might fill a volume. I will
give in substance two or three to show that definitions
may vary. One psychology says volition is the creation
of a combination of desire, choice, and motive ; and then,
through many pages, shows how each is an essential
part of voHtion. Another author is more concise.
He says, "Volition is the power to will what we will."
He does not say whether the second will is redundant
or explanatory. One writer of magnificent accomplish-
ment says, "It is puerile to say voUtion is the choice
between two things," and then describes volition so as
to make it synonymous with character. I might
multiply indefinitely these definitions, but in all cases
where there is any effort to be logical at all, the defini-
tions are given with a view to making the explanations
accord with the theory.

I must do the same way, as I use the term volition
with a distinctive meaning. The way I use the word
excludes the idea of will, which I believe to be a function
of the brain. I would define will as the motor impulse
following mental and physical desires, so far as we are
conscious of them. Will is used as a synonym for
desire as frequently as it is for volition. To obviate
confusion, the term "free will" is often used, but this
term only adds to the dilemma for this still may bear the
definition of desire and convey the idea that we may be
free to do as we desire.

My use of the term volition, as I define it, has no
similarity to will as desire. When I use the word will

100 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

in the superlative sense I mean the motor of a desire
strong enough to overcome conflicting desires. I
claim there is absolutely no will except as a motor for
an exact equivalent desire, the consciousness of which
desire may be of physical, mental, or spiritual origin.

Is there such a thing as power of choice? The actual
point of this question is nearly always denied, contra-
dicted, or evaded.

Let us see how my definition will be treated tmder
the different conceptions of Being. Power of choice,
limited by conditions, is an attribute of the Ego, which
I call volition.

The Idealists admit it, but make the "conditions"
so abstract that it causes no limitation. They say,
"If you wish you can choose, and if you choose you
can have faith, and if you have faith to believe, you can
have such power as not to be subject to any material
limitations." They worship the fetish, "The Uncon-
ditioned."

Materialists may admit the definition; then make
conditions limit to such a degree as to eliminate choice.
They, in effect, deny volition. Some deny it in toto,
and say the law maker, the law breaker, and the law
enforcer are all products of and parts of condition, and
all alike irresponsible. Extreme Materialism is Fatal-
ism. They worship the fetish, "Cause and effect."

Dualists admit and consent unqualifiedly to the
definition, but in addition say: "There is an Omni-
scient Being, who knows all the conditions; therefore,
knows what the choice will be." This is contradictory.
First, they do not seem to realize that if conditions
limit volition, then to a certain extent those conditions
are modified by volition. Second, they do not seem to
comprehend that if an Omniscient Being knows the exact

Volition loi

way I am to follow, and the exact deeds I am to do, I
certainly can follow no other way and do no other deeds.
To assert that Omniscience transcends logic is to say
that it is useless to try to get a consistent conception
of Being.

A preacher of great authority in a sermon showed
that volition as "free will" was a law of nature, and
"foreordination" the law of the gospel, and in summing
up said: "Now, how do we reconcile these apparently
contradictory facts? We do not try to reconcile them.
Man being finite cannot comprehend infinity." Now,
facts never contradict. Doctrines and theories may
contradict, but facts are a part of truth, and truth is
not contradictory. The Dualists worship the fetish,
"Omniscience."

The Monists admit that there is a power of choice and
that the limitations are not such as to amount to the
fatalism of the Materialists. They substitute for
fatalism the word ' 'determinism. ' ' One of their writers
of repute says: "There is a choice not influenced by
compulsion, but all choice is influenced by something,
desires, wishes, etc., and of necessity the stronger
influence decides the choice." He says: "One must
comprehend here the distinction between compulsion
and necessity." To make it easier to comprehend, he
illustrates by the needle of a compass. If the needle
were to be moved by the finger, it would be compulsion,
but when moved by attraction or magnetism, it moves
of necessity. One is mechanical, by exterior force;
and one is spontaneous, by interior power. This dis-
tinction is quite clear, but I fail to comprehend where the
element of "choice" comes in. The Monists do not
want to worship any fetish. They fear to admit of any
unknowable element, as that would border on the super-

102 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

natural and be a possible subject of worship, at least
something incomprehensible to the human mind. To
them there rhust be no attribute of power, but what
can be plainly demonstrated as materializing according
to some known cause, and no cause must there be that
one must call infinite.

To say that volition is power to choose in spite of
causes or contrary to causes is to make it the absurdity
that it seems to many Materialists.

It is wholly impossible to demonstrate that there is
"a power of choice." The more that we attempt to
show that there is a volition in any degree uncondi-
tioned the more it seems like an absurd myth. To
show logically that there is volition («. e., power of
choice) we would have to show that conditions which
should influence the choice are so evenly divided as to
neutralize each other; practically that there are no
causes remaining uncancelled which might influence the
decision. This seems an unusual condition, yet in the
infinite variety of conditions which exist, is it saying
too much if we state that at some time, at some point,
conditions which might influence the choice are evenly
balanced? If such were the case, inherent volition
would be essential to a movement of that point at that
time.

The ass that starved midway between two straw
stacks because he cotdd not make up his mind which
way to turn, is used as an illustration by the Material-
ists to show what might happen if there were no cause
to definitely decide. I think it should illustrate what
would happen if the causes were equal (as the stacks
represent) and there was no volition.

Volition is no part of the objective mind. The will
is a function of the form (brain) which chooses or moves

Volition 103

to the act, but this choice, if it may be so called, is
according to the compulsions or necessities (conflicting
desires), and it is only when these causes balance that
volition could decide.

There is no question at all of this will, or brain func-
tion, but the "free will" or "volition" is subject to
question. It may neither be affirmed nor denied.

There are only two reasons which cause me to con-
ceive of the existence of volition.

First, I believe it does exist. I feel that under certain
conditions I have the ability to choose either of two
ways. This feeling is no proof. I feel sometimes as
though I could spontaneously fly, but I have not done
so yet. The general feeling among human beings that
they have the power of choice adds to the weight of
the conception, but is not sufficient for proof.

I am conscious of the feeling of will, but I am not
conscious of volition. I am not conscious of memory,
but only of that which I recollect. I am not conscious
of voUtion, but am conscious of the power to will ; but
the power to will is causable.

I do not conceive volition is free to choose in spite of
causes. The definition limits volition by conditions,
these conditions are the conditions which limit or
prompt will, and we might say the will, therefore, is
the condition which limits volition. Volition prompts
the will only in the absence (balancing) of other causes
and is, therefore, a first cause or attribute of the first
cause, i. e., uncaused.

Let us take a concrete example to show what is com-
prised in the expression "power to choose." We will
assume that a very young child is influenced in but two
ways, by heredity and by environment; acting solely
under these influences, we say the child is not respon-

104 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

sible, but in time the child reaches an age of responsi-
bility. We will take, at this stage, one specific act or
opportunity to act. Say it is the first opportunity to
take a glass of wine. Supposing the child to be of
intemperate parentage, with indifferent raising, this
opportunity gives no freedom of choice regarding the
act.

Suppose the child to be of temperate ancestry and
of Puritan training and no offsetting environment,
then there is no temptation and, therefore, no choice
is given.

But suppose the child is of degenerate parents but
of temperate training; or of excellent ancestry but bad
environment, that is, where the physical influence and
abhorrence, or the mental temptation and inhibition are
balanced, 'we could by terms of physiology, psychology,
or metaphysics show how he might be influenced one
way or another. But suppose finally we should show
an exact division of causes, these being neutral, there
might be freedom of choice without cause to infiuence.
If the act is influenced by a specific cause, that specific
cause is responsible for the act. If the causes are equal,
they neutralize each other ; that is, the causes are equal
to nothing as an influence on the choice. It seems an
absurdity to say that any certain act could be without
specific cause, but volition is an absurdity from a
rationalistic standpoint.

There might be brought into the equation the "help
of God" and the "prompting of the Devil," but ad-
mitting these influences to exist, they but add to the
general sum, and if either one is a sufficient cause of an
act, that one is the source of responsibility. Although
the effect of the act may fall on the specific being com-
mitting the act, yet, if there was a cause that infiuenced

Volition 105

or overpowered the power to choose, it in reality
modified or conditioned that power, and there was,
therefore, no voHtion in that act.

It surely does seem to be an absurdity to say there can
be no definable cause for an act of volition, yet, to make
the Ego or individual responsible, there must be freedom
from an influencing cause, which would be responsible.

To be in any degree responsible there must be power
to choose or volition. It may be asked who gives
this power to choose? Such a question is really just
as absurd as to ask, "Who made God, or What made
God do so?"

There is no cause for volition, memory, or conscious-
ness. If these attributes were effects, then there would
be a cause, but for the power of choice there is no cause.
Even granting volition, that any specific act is an act
of volition is incapable of proof.

As a human being we measure our consciousness by
our ability to comprehend; we measure our memory
by our ability to recollect ; and volition must be meas-
ured by our opportunity, or in other words, it is limited
by conditions. An untutored savage is a human being
whose Ego possesses the same consciousness, memory,
and volition as mine, but as a human being his com-
prehension, his recollections, and his opportunity to
choose are not equal to mine, nor could they possibly
be on account of his condition.

Stating that the Ego has volition, does not necessarily
mean that each human being has power to choose at any
time. The volition of the Ego is, in the body, limited by
conditions, as stated in the definition. We admit that
in some bodies, imbecile, insane, etc., there is no volition
{i. e., responsibility). How much the conditions limit
the power of choice in any body I do not know.

io6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

It would seem that as comprehension and experience
are increased, as the machinery becomes more intricate,
as we grow in mentality, that is, that more intelligence
is manifested in the higher forms, that there will be
greater opportunities, and the conditions will be less
limiting to power of choice. Certainly it seems ortho-
dox to say that the greater our intelligence, the greater
our responsibility.

In this connection there naturally arises the question
of justice. We admit the fact that all are not equally
responsible, and that, therefore, the laws as laid down
by us for our government are not, as executed, abso-
lutely just to the beings who are the governed.

Many defer the idea of justice to a future when an
Omniscient Judge, who knows all the opportunities
and con4itions, can reward or punish according to the
merits of the case. But if a decisive act results from
a cause which cannot be forestalled, the cause is respon-
sible, and if there is no definite cause for an act, then
it was an act without reason, and one who acts without
reason is not held responsible.

I do not believe there is any responsibility for human
acts, except those resulting to the human body or to the
Ego on account of its relation to the body. If I assume
that there is no justice here, and no equalization of
the injustice hereafter, I am denying the existence of
justice.

I do deny the existence of justice at any definite time,
now or in the future, if by justice we mean equal
opportunity or equal improvement of the opportunities,
or an equalization of the results caused from an im-
provement or non-improvement of the opportunities,
that is, an equalization by rewards or punishments
coming from an external source.

Volition 107

If we offer a boy a green persimmon and a lucious
peach to eat, and he chooses the peach, should we reward
him further? If from ignorance he chooses the persim-
mon, should we punish him further for his choice ; or if
from an idea of mortifying the flesh, he ate the persim-
mon, should he have a reward to offset the pleasure of
the boy who ate the peach?

Our ideas of injustice come from a futile effort to
equalize those things which are intrinsically tanequal.

In every form of nature inequalities exist. The
Desire manifest in one form conflicts which those
manifest in another form. This brings me to my second
reason for conceiving volition. My first reason was
because I think volition is a fact. I feel that I am a
responsible being. How I am responsible I do not
know any more than I know how I am conscious, or
how my food nourishes me. But I no more cease trying
to choose what I think is right, because I do not know
whether I am acting from heredity, environment, or
volition, than I cease eating because I do not imderstand
why one organ secretes and another absorbs. While
pure reason will not decide one way or another for
volition, yet the absolute impossibility of demonstrat-
ing its existence and the necessity of making it an
attribute of the First Cause, therefore uncaused, would
be sufficient reason for my eliminating it from my
conception if there was no additional reason to the one
given.

The second reason is absolutely heterodox, yet, to
me, it is of great weight in forming a consistent concep-
tion of Being. The second reason is because volition
could occasion vmforeseen variety in manifestations.

If you had a garden for pleasure, ' would you wish that

'Rev. iv., II.

io8 Ah Unorthodox Conception of Being

garden to put forth every sprout and leaf and flower
according to a mathematical plan, to be each day as
you expected it to be; or would a variety of growth,
of progress, and of development give more pleasure?

If you had a child, would you desire that child to be
exactly as you suggested? to have him be perfectly
mechanical and automatic, whose every move and
action you could predict and foretell; or would you
take more pleasure in a child with a will and a way of
its own, whose development you could watch as some-
thing new; whose character you could believe to be
original? I think from an intellectual standpoint there
is but one answer.

Now I conceive Being as developing in a variety of
ways, because of a variety of Desires, but if there was
no volition, there would be an absolute manifestation
of the Power according to the Desire, no matter how
great the variety, in a mechanical and automatic way
which could be foretold and foreseen. But if these
atoms have volition, there would be unknown variety
of action to the limits of the conditions which bound
them. As it cannot be demonstrated that the Ego has
volition, there is much less chance to demonstrate that
any other atom has volition.

On this question of volition hangs one of the greatest
problems of Being. If we have volition, to what extent
is it limited by conditions, and to what extent can we
control our conditions? We are conscious of our
Desires, some of which we say are inspirations and
aspirations; how much of them are ideal? To what
extent are they practical?

In the ordinary inorganic material manifestations,
conditions appear absolute, but that may be, and I
think is, in appearance only. In organic plant life

Volition 109

conditions are so binding as to give but few illustrations
of even apparent volition. In animal life there is
apparent power to choose, but it is only when we
reach the mental manifestations of man that conditions
become so abstract as to allow a current acceptance of
the idea of free will.

If we are merely animals with a moral nature, which
must be tested ; if this earth is simply a hot-bed for the
propagation of souls, whose home ds not in the Here,
but in the Hereafter, then, there is no problem of Being.
But I believe man has volition, and could, if conditions
permitted, follow the highest Desire of which he is
conscious, and following these inspirations would
develop a comprehension and give experience for a
future work in this world that now seems impossible,
because we are so limited by conditions.

I have just said that Being is the manifestation of
Power according to a Desire. This Being shows evi-
dence of an intelligent plan. Now if each atom of this
Being has volition, could not the plan be rendered futile?
This is another form of the old question of the wUl of
God versus the free will of man.

Is it possible the Desire shall not be fulfilled? Let
me illustrate how such a question may be answered.
We may say the inherent desire of a seed is to germinate,
grow, and bring forth fruit. I have here a single seed;
is it possible that the desire of this seed be not fulfilled?
Certainly. I have the power to kill the seed. Is it
possible for any one of the many seeds to be killed ? Yes
it is possible for any of them to be killed or to die to-day ;
then, if it is possible for any one of them to die to-
day, it seems logical to admit that it is possible for all
of them to die to-day.

Is it possible for any one animal, man included, to

I lo An Unorthodox Conception of Being

be killed or to die to-day? Certainly it is possible.
Then we might admit that if it is possible for any one
to die, it is possible for all to die to-day. Yet, of what
weight is this admission? We immediately say it is
not at all probable, and in fact so utterly improbable that,
had we not already admitted it to be possible, we should
as quickly say that it is impossible for every seed and
every a imal in the world to die to-day. As the
possible merges into the improbable, so the improbable
must merge into the impossible. Where the line is we
do not know, and therefore, it is useless to try to agree
just how far volition can give variety without neutral-
izing the Supreme Desire. We recognize certain
limits to change, and we define these limits according to
a "law of probabilities." But that does not mean that
we know why such limits exist or where such limits are.
We know that a certain frame building is liable to
bum. We know that any one of a million such build-
ings are liable to burn, but according to this law of
probability, we say that if the million are unexposed
they will not all bum the same year. Suppose one
hundred insurance companies were organized to carry
these risks, and the probability of loss was figured at
one per cent. ; there are plenty of level-headed, practical
business men who would be glad to carry the risk for
two per cent., or on a margin of one per cent., which
would give a one hundred per cent, profit, less expense,
providing this probability held good. If the loss re-
sulted according to the probabilities, ten thousand
houses would burn during the year, and these losses
would be very evenly divided between the one hundred
companies, the class of the risk being equal. If each
company has ten thousand risks, and ten thousand
losses occur during the year, is there any reason why

Volition 1 1 1

the losses should not aU be ia one company, and none
in the others? There is no reason at all, but the state-
ment of this possibility would not cause a panic among
the stockholders of any one company. So solidly-
founded is the belief in the impossibility of such an
occurrence, or anything approaching it, that the busi-
ness is established on that basis, and even a fluctuation
to two per cent, of losses would bankrupt the strongest
company in existence. Statistics show that the fluctu-
ation in a large number of like risks is within a small
fraction of one per cent, of the amount of the insurance
in force. The fluctuations in reality in existing com-
panies (though rarely exceeding one per cent.) are
caused by many risks to one exposure (conflagration
risks), or some excessively heavy risk in proportion to
the number of risks.

One further point: while the fluctuation is less in
proportion to the increased number of risks and the
extension of time, yet in any one company we see that
the losses are in groiips. Make a chart of the losses
for a number of years, and it would look like the waves
of the ocean, and fully as regular. (The noticeable
deviations from the regular being due to unequalled
risks.) But why not a dead level of loss? What
influence causes any deviations? Aside from certain
astrological theories of planetary influence (where post-
mortem illustrations seem far more accurate than
ante-mortem predictions), I have seen no theory to
account for these occurrences. I like to formulate
theories, but I like to be plausible, and there seems no
plausible reason why there should be one per cent, of
fire losses in a certain class of risks, or why losses of a
certain class of risks should be unevenly but periodically
distributed in time.

112 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Now all this may seem to be a long way from the
subject of volition but it illustrates my point. I said
there could be no cause or reason for an act of volition.
If an act resulted from a cause it would be predictable,
for given the causes, other things being equal, we will
know the result. A man of good character does not
do a certain evil deed, but instead does a good deed.
These are not acts of volition in all probability, but
acts of reason, of habit, which are really acts of cause.
If acts of volitions are not acts of reason, then they are
acts of chance, and as any other acts of chance, could,
if we only were able to segregate these acts, be given
a law of probability.

Reasonable human beings cannot agree as to our
ability as human beings to perform acts of volition.
A human being is unable to demonstrate that he is able
to do one of two things absolutely uninfluenced by any
cause or reason other than his own power of choice.
Therefore, I am unable to demonstrate that volition
exists or to segregate the acts of volition if it does exist.

We cross two varieties of a plant, we say the result-
ing plants are a chance, because we do not know the
exact degree of hereditary influence. Suppose the
governing atom in each germ has volition, that is, when
unlimited by other conditions, having power of choice
as to whether it would be like its male or female ancestor
or a combination of both. Such a possibility exists,
as much as there is a possibility for us to be able to
perform an act of volition, and if such acts do occur,
they are indeed acts of chance, in fact, as well as in
appearance. If in chemical affinity the attractions of
an atom are equal in opposite directions, there must be
volition to decide. The Materialists say such a condi-
tion of affairs would upset all calculations on which

Volition 113

science is based, but I do not admit this. The op-
portunities for choice may be few with most atoms,
and the law of probabilities applicable to such oppor-
tunities might fix the normal at the minutest fraction
of one per cent.

The problem, what proportionate number of the acts
of the atom or Ego are subject to variation, is insoluble,
for no data exists upon which to form an opinion. But
we do know that organization of the atoms with their
conflicting desires gives variety in manifestation; that
complexity is almost a synonym for variation. In that
most complex of beings, man, we know the actions of
the more complex intelligent man are of greater variety
and therefore less predictable than the actions of an
illiterate savage.

When I say that every atom possesses volition, I no
more mean that it is possible for an atom or a person
under any conditions to choose either of two ways
than I mean that it is possible for every living thing to
die to-day, and every structure to be consumed, just
because I say it is possible for any one living being to
die, or any certain structure to be consumed.

We have great faith in our tables of fire rates and
mortality tables, and we believe in the stability of
material forms, in a certain trueness to type in plants
and animals, in a solidity in the social and economic
affairs of man. Yet there is a certain unstability or
variety, and I believe a certain amount of this is due
to voUtion, or chance, if you prefer to call it chance.

Two entities may be so related that either one would
constantly govern, or they might be related so either
one would govern according to the strength of the desire.
There also might be a time when strength of desire
would be equal but in opposite directions. In such a

1 14 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

case they might act upon the suggestion that instead
of separating they draw lots to decide. The Material-
ists might demonstrate that every movement of this
action of drawing lots could be accurately measured
and the result shown to be equal to an exact cause.
The Dualist might affirm that an Omniscient Being
decided to whom the lot should fall, or at least by
Onmiscience knew to whom it would chance to fall.
It is not denying either one of these statements to say
that so far as the decision is concerned from the stand-
point of the principals, it is a chance. But I go to a
greater extreme than this illustration. I conceive
volition as arbiter of the choice ; to be uncaused, there-
fore, there would exist no Omniscience that could know
which would be the choice.

I will try to state this so as to show that it is the only
logical conclusion. I have said that Power and Desire
are One and the same, but with two such different
phases as to be inexpressible with the use of one word.
I have also said that the Power is conscious of the Desire
and the Desire is conscious of the Power. Of the other
two attributes (memory and volition), each phase
seems to possess or to be able to utilize only one. The
Desire possesses memory. A specific amoimt of Power
might be utilized at various times in various ways
according to the Desire. The Power is directed by
Desire and, therefore, memory is essential to Desire
and useless to Power. On the other hand, if the Desire
is influenced by causes equally strong, it were powerless
to decide of itself, but the Power of choice does decide.
Power is conscious of the conflict and decides, but it is
a pure chance decision, for not possessing memory, it
cannot act as judge on the merits of the case; and it is
not necessary, for the Desire from its attribute of

Volition 115

memory is as omniscient as is possible, and when there
is a strongest Desire or influence, that strongest Desire
is omnipotent. It is only when the causes are equal
that it is possible for the Power of choice to decide.
The choice of Power is what I term an act of volition.

To me this conception is simple, logical, and consist-
ent. Power is manifesting or materializing according
to its various Desires. As each individual Desire
possesses memory it dictates the acts with intelligence,
but on account of the variations of the Desire there is
necessary conflict, which, when the conflict is equal,
is decided by the volition of the Power, and as this
decision is pure chance, the varieties of form are to a
certain extent unknown. But the only difference in
condition resulting from this wotdd be a delay of the
maturing or fulfilment of one class of Desires instead
of another. This conception may apply to a specific
movement of the atom, the action of the animal, the
conduct of man, the formation of a System, or the
involution and evolution of the Universe.

That such a combination of ideas, as a practical
fact, is incomprehensible is no argument against the
conception. The relation of the phases of Being accord-
ing to any conception is incomprehensible. To the
ordinary non-thinking man his conception seems
comprehensible, in fact as well as in idea, because it is
taken as a matter of fact without analysis. But another
conception appears to him incomprehensible because it
must be analysed to be at all understandable.

A volition which is pure chance (which is the only
logical kind) does not necessitate chaos, nor does it
imply that there is no intelligence or knowledge which
in comparison to ours might seem omniscient.

Let me illustrate this conception of volition in a

ii6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

different maimer. If there were a God with omnipo-
tence and omniscience in the superlative degree, who
could act but in one way, these acts would be like the
Materialistic Law, which is equivalent to Fatalism.

If there were two ways in which He might act at any
given time, there must be Power to choose. To say
that the way to be chosen would already be known is
to foreordain the omnipotent and to say that it could
not be foreknown is to limit the omniscience. It seems
to me plain that as applied to the One Being, om-
niscience and volition could not co-exist. Also, that in
exact proportion to the opportunities for acts of voUtion
must there be a decrease in omniscience. In other
words, the greater the number of chance variations, the
less accurate may be the prediction. Between the two
conflicting attributes I unhesitatingly choose volition.

When we glance over our fire risks or mortality risks,
we cannot tell which risk will be a loss this year, or
which risk will remain unharmed. We know within
a slight variation that a certain number will be lost and
a certain number will not be lost. This to one who
knew nothing of statistics might seem equivalent to
omniscience. Suppose the so-called Omniscent Being
viewed our actions as so many risks or chances, experi-
ence would give Him knowledge of the probabilities of
the fulfilment of Desire inherent in each one.

We, as human beings, are first animal, and then what
we call mental or spiritual. The animal desires are as
essential as the spiritual desires, in fact, they are re-
cognized first ; but when a spiritual aspiration or higher
desire of the Ego is in conflict with an animal desire or
a desire for complete existence as a material being,
which will win? What are the probabilities of the
chance for the higher desire? I will grant that the

Volition 117

so-called Omniscient Being might know the probabilities
to a fraction, under the conditions existing ; but if man
has volition, He does not know what the individual
choice will be, when there is opportunity for a choice.
I have deviated here in viewing Being from the stand-
point of Omniscience, but I wished to show that volition
or chance, according to my definition of the word, does
not necessarily conflict with science or theology.

Determinism and free will are the extreme concep-
tions. Determinists look at the risks as a whole and
say there is little variation. Free will looks at the
individual and seeing such great liability to change,
concludes there must be much freedom. One says
there is no possibility of any great loss, and the other
says there is a possibility of all being lost. One says
there is no chance, everything being the effect of a cause
according to an absolute law and there can be no
individual responsibility. The other says there is
individual responsibility, because there is individual
power of choice, which takes the act out of the law of
cause and effect as well as the law of chance and
probability.

It seems that any interpretation of volition must
effect the general interpretation of responsibility.

The theological conception of responsibility seems
to be that we are not only answerable for our choice,
but must answer to an external Power, that is, that
either here or in the hereafter, a person shall be addi-
tionally ptmished for a wrong choice and rewarded for
a right choice.

We will suppose that there is a Judge who is able to
fix accurately the responsibility for each choice, and at
a certain day render judgment, distributing the pen-
alties and rewards so there shall be absolute justice.

ii8 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Then to preseive the equity from that moment, our
characteristics must change. We must cease to possess
memory, or at least the power of recollection, for one
person might recollect only the things which would
cause misery and another only the things which would
cause happiness. We must cease to possess what is
termed free will, for a single act of volition might render
unequal the things which had been made equal.

Determinists claim for their conception absolute
justice, because where everything is according to an
absolute law of cause and effect, there could be no
injustice.

Theologians acknowledge injustice' through man's
free will, therefore think it necessary that these
inequalities be arbitrarily adjusted by a competent
Judge.

I see no necessity of going to either extreme. Some
abhor the idea of a God who could say: "I will visit
the sins of the fathers upon the children even unto the
third and fourth generation." But that is not simply
a traditional -conception of a God, it is a fact of Being.
We all know it to be a material fact, and so far as it is
a fact, the child shares the responsibility with the
father, and just to the extent to which the child is
answerable is he held responsible. So it is on all sides.
We are to a certain extent responsible for the acts of
others and are not held responsible for all of our own
acts.

"But," says one, "we mean the moral responsibility;
the one who ought to be answerable will finally be made
to answer." If this were possible, then the one who has
already shared this responsibility must be in some way
rewarded. But in what way can he be? As I said
before, we think the loss to the individual risk is great

Volition 119

and unequal, therefore iinjust. Our sense of injustice
is from our comprehension.which is on the material
plane conscious only to the Ego. The atoms of the
body are probably not conscious of any injustice.
When I spoke of sharing responsibility, I did not mean
to limit it to the Ego. The results of each act are
shared by the atoms of not only our body, but possibly
those of many other bodies. The responsibility of the
Ego, aside from its result to the body, must be limited
to memory and what results may come from that in
the future we do not know. I believe there will be
results, but have no idea of how or where, as I have
nothing on which to base a conception. '

Whenever the choice is one of volition, it cannot be
a deliberate choice knowingly between good and evil.
But the choice being made, will, according as it is good
or evil, result in causes which in turn will influence a
later act, which act, therefore, will not be one of volition.
My efforts may or may not effect my chances of being
right in the acts of volition, but my efforts to do right
and continue right must improve my opportunities to
choose between two rights and to a degree eliminate
the necessity of choosing between two wrongs.

It seems plain that a knowing choice between right
and wrong could not be a choice of volition, for a person
must be good or bad, in order to make such a choice,
and previous acts were responsible for such a condition.
This condition would apply only to a specific act or
class of acts. One may be right in one thing and wrong
in another. If I merit no praise because chance made
me choose the good, then he who chooses the bad

' Theosophy and other Idealistic conceptions, as well as some of the
Dualistic, explain the celestial future to the satisfaction of whoever is
thereby satisfied.

I20 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

deserves no condemnation, but each to a degree is
conditioned by his choice.

I must illustrate further what is meant by saying
volition is limited by conditions. Mr. A boards the
train at New York City, with a through ticket to
Chicago. I say to Mr. A; "You can, if you wish,
get off at Albany, and let the train go on without you,
or you can keep your seat and go on with the train."
Mr. A. may admit that he has the power to choose,
and therefore the choice is one of volition. Let us go
still farther and say: "Mr. A, you may get off at
yonder crossroad and let the train go on, or remain in
your seat and go on with the train." Mr. A may
admit that he has the power of choice in this case ; if so,
this would apply to every crossroad between New York
and Chicago, and it could be applied to every person
travelling from one city to another. And yet how
absurd it would sound to say that it is possible that
every person who starts next year from New York to
Chicago will get off at a certain crossroad at the sug-
gestion to "stop here and buy a lot!" It is so utterly
improbable that we quickly say it is impossible. So I
say that the volition or the opportunity for it to choose
is so limited by conditions as to make for its exercise
an unknown quantity. I have not the faintest idea
whether the opportunity to exercise volition or power
of choice comes once a day, once a year, or once in a
lifetime.

What an absurd conception, says the Materialist,
that any act may be without cause, that the laws of
nature are in the faintest degree subject to chance!
Yet this conception is not so extreme as that of the
Materialist who says there can be no act of volition.

What an absurd conception, says the theologian.

Volition 121

that man has not perfect free will to choose between
right and wrong, anywhere, at any time! Yet this
conception is not so extreme as the idea that every act
is one of volition and that man has absolute power to
do or not to do in each movement, and in addition
maintain the idea that there is a Greater Power who
knows, before the choice is made, just what the choice
wUlbe.

Let us see how we would operate under the different
conceptions. Materialists say, we recognize that it is
perfectly natural for man to take what he wants, if
he has the chance, the same as any animal. We also
recognize the fact that it is better for humanity that
man take that only which rightly belongs to him. We
can teach a cat or a dog by punishment to leave things
.alone, so we can teach man. We specify certain acts
which are wrong and fix the penalties. We say : ' ' Thou
shalt not steal," and through fear of going to jail, he
refrains from stealing. There is no question of volition.
The fear of the law is part of the environment which
influences him or causes him to be honest. Some may
want more than they fear, and yielding to the tempta-
tions, they become dishonest. Some are caught and
punished, and thereby some are reformed by the
increased fear they have of the law and are additional
warnings to others.

Theologians say: We believe man is different from
the animal. Man has a moral sense. You could
never teach a cat or dog to refrain from stealing solely
by a promise of future reward. We recognize that it is
natural for man to steal, but we believe this is not
right, for God says in His commandments "Thou
shalt not steal. " Now if you will obey God's command-
ments. He will take you home to heaven with Him

122 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

when you die. This hope of heaven causes many to
be honest.

There are some, we may say, who rely on a belief of
forgiveness of sin, and break a commandment when
convenient, and by a simple penance or repentance are
again firm in their hope of heaven. Again, there are
some who say: "I have sized up this idea of heaven
and hell, and do not believe the difference is worth the
cost." Such a person certainly is not a hypocrite,
and as a man honest in his opinion, the theologians
have no way of reaching him.

These are very bald statements, but accurately
portray the conception of many of each class.

I wiU admit with the others that it is as natural for
man to steal or to take what he wishes as it is for any
other aMmal to do so. (Of course, we all recognize the
fact that the inherent tendency is more or less strong
in different persons and in cat and dog as well as man.)
I recognize with either side that fear and hope are great
bars to dishonest acts, but in spite of these barriers we
hear an honest man referred to in terms of great respect.
We hear the statement: "He is a thoroughly reliable
man," spoken in such an expressive way as to give the
impression that a man is now as rare as in the time of
Diogenes. But honesty is not an absolute virtue; it
is only comparative. Suppose all men were honest,
the very word honest would become obsolete. So far
as fear or hope influence a man to be honest, they are
the causes of his action, and therefore, are conditions
which limit volition.

Now, if we endeavor to make conditions so there is
no incentive to dishonesty; to arrange affairs so that
it pays man better to be honest than dishonest, are we
not improving the conditions of society? In neither

Volition 123

case have I mentioned what may be called the innate
morality of man. To the innately honest man the
fear of punishment, the hope of reward, or the lack of
opportunity are alike inapplicable, and whether through
volition he started toward becoming innately honest,
certainly he could not then by volition become dishonest .
I have used honesty here as a term by which to illustrate
any or all of the other terms representing goodness
that might be used. As we believe that innate goodness
is not yet a universal trait, we must each try according
to our conception to influence men to the right, either
by fear, by hope, or by improved environment.

CHAPTER IX

DESIRE

THE idea expressed by the word "Desire" would
ordinarily seem simple in its analysis. But this,
like all metaphysical ideas, might be and is in the
analysis interpreted in various ways. In fact, many
say that desire is not a metaphysical idea at all but
purely physical. They really mean that desire is purely
objective in its origin. But anything of purely objec-
tive or material origin must be mechanical, admitting
of mathematical demonstration, and in the ulti-
mate comprehensible. "I want a dollar," seems to
be a simple desire definitely expressed, but on analysis
we see that it is not a dollar I want but what the dollar
will obtain. Also on further analysis we see that it is
not the bread or book obtained with the dollar that I
want but the gratification of a desire, which gratifica-
tion I expect from the bread or book. And when we
go to analyze this desire we find ourselves on the de-
batable ground between physics and metaphysics.

It is impossible for any one to demonstrate the
primary origin of Desire. It is impossible to demon-
strate that Desire exists except as a fact of consciousness.

Desire, either the individual, the collective, or the
supreme is incomprehensible and incapable of mathe-
matical or mechanical demonstration. Our individual

124

Desire 125

desire is a fact of consciousness, that is as much as we
can declare.

Various organisms appear to have desire. Nature
appears to act as though some inteUigent Desire were
being gratified.

I have emphasized the point that we as human
beings are conscious only on the material plane. We
could in no way understand what were the meaning of
the demands of desire except they could be interpreted
in sensible terms. We know in a way how we feel
when we are hungry, but we have no way of knowing
how the other atoms of the organization feel. They
must feel, for it is only through their feelings that the
Ego is conscious of hunger. We see some luscious
fruit that makes our mouths water and we say it
awakens an appetite; we see a loathsome object and
we say it has an opposite effect. So far as there could
be any material transmission of sensation, it must be
equivalent in each case. The different effect, then, is
solely one of interpretation of the impressions. Then
absolutely the same amount of sensation may be inter-
preted in various ways. Various perceptions may
result frpm equivalent impressions.

One who did not know anything of optics could
hardly be convinced solely by reason that the rays
coming from a prism were equivalent to those entering
the prism. In saying that we as individuals, and the
various atoms, and the various diflferent organisms
which are composed of the atoms, have the same desire,
we do not mean that it is identical but that the desire
is equivalent.

A baby, although conscious that it is hungry, does
not at all comprehend what htmger is. We may desire
a breath of fresh air but we are not conscious of a specific

126 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

desire for the mechanical movement necessary to
breathing, yet that movement being spontaneous in
its initiation must be desirable to some or all of the
atoms party to that movement. This idea of the
conscious Desire of the atoms is the only one consistent
with the facts of Being. The cells of the acting mus-
cular tissue are not directly kept alive by the move-
ment of breathing, and the idea that unconscious inert
material could spontaneously execute an intricate
mechanical movement is certainly an inconsistent idea.

The manifestation of Desire in a material form, the
perception of these forms through other forms organ-
ized for this special purpose (to thus function) is of
coiirse incomprehensible, but if we rid ourselves of the
idea that consciousness necessitates comprehension,
and realize that we can have no idea of the conscious
interpretation of Desire either primarily or as re-
cognized as necessities of an organism, excepting ac-
cording to our own consciousness, then the conception
of universal atomic consciousness becomes simple and
easily understandable as being perfectly consistent
with the facts of Being.

Those who say desire is of physical origin assert
that it is impossible for any desire to exist except as it
arises through experience. The materialistic idea that
evolution is caused wholly by environment (hereditary
traits being primarily effected by environment are a
secondary occasion of evolution) necessitates the organ
before the function. Many scientists rebel against
this conception and assert that the function must be
first. Now what is function? It is simply a desire ,
which incites atoms to organize in a form to gratify
the desire, which form we call the organ.

I have spoken of the higher form as one which is

Desire 127

more complex. The higher desire is coexistent with
the higher form but it requires a separate definition.
One desire is higher than another desire when its grati-
fication gives a greater degree of satisfaction. This
definition might be misinterpreted and some one would
say that to many the gratification of appetite gives a
greater degree of satisfaction than the gratification of
the mental desires. In order to avoid such a criticism
I will define the higher desire as one whose continued
gratification, as conditions permit, will give the greater
degree of satisfaction. This we readily recognize as a
fact of experience. The lower or gross desires are more
quickly satisfied and then a continued gratification
causes disgust instead of satisfaction. By observation
we are led to believe that the gratification of the mental
desires of the intellectual man causes a greater degree
of satisfaction than does the gratification of the physical
desires of the savage. Experience teaches us that
continued gratification of the so-called good desires
gives a greater degree of satisfaction than the continued
gratification of the so-called bad desires. In fact there
is no measure of good and bad except as the result of
this experience, and in spite of the belief in aspiration
and inspiration, if experience did not prove there was
greater satisfaction from following them, there would be
no evolution. No organism would continuously do
a thing unless there was a degree of satisfaction in such
action. We know that each man does not do as ex-
perience directs, for which we will soon be able to
formulate a reason.

It is admitted that an intellectual man is a more
complex form than a savage, that consequently his
desires will be more varied (the gratification of these
desires making a more complex environment) and that

128 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

by the gratification of these higher desires there is a
greater degree of satisfaction. We will no doubt
admit that even in the lowest savage there is a certain
mental desire, the gratification of which gives to the
life of the savage a greater degree of satisfaction than
that of a lower order of animal. Observation would
certainly cause us to assume that an animal gets a
greater degree of satisfaction out of life than a plant
does. From this we can consistently assume that the
organism gets a greater degree of satisfaction out of
life than the inorganic does out of mere existence.
By this assumption we have a simple reason why the
atoms organize and why there is evolution.

When I assume that, as conditions permit, atoms
organize spontaneously because they have a desire
(functidh) which organizing (evolving organs) will
enable them to gratify; when the Materialist assumes
that the atoms organize because they are compelled
to by the laws of nature ; when the Dualist assumes that
the atoms organize as an essential action in the fulfil-
ment of the will of an exterior God; there is in these
various conceptions no contradiction in fact, nor any
effort by either to explain how the organization is
accomplished. The only difference is in the conception.
In the Materialistic conception there is really no answer
to the why. Saying " Because compelled by the laws of
nature" does not give an intelligent reason. In the
Dualistic conception there is an intelligent answer to
the why. There is a satisfaction of an intelligence.
But on account of the physical difficulties of the actual
operation under this conception and with no apparent
material necessity for a Dualism, there has arisen, as a
natural consequence, a repudiation of the Dualism by
those termed Materialists. Many recognize that the

Desire 129

Materialists have repudiated too much and in an eflfort
to avoid the extremes we have the Monistic conception,
which, to my mind, comes the nearest to expressing
the true relations of Being of any of the four historical
conceptions. Monism seems to me Materialism grafted
with spiritistic ideas. But the Monists wish the
material to spontaneously create an intelligent God
(consciousness), which is as spiritually difficult to do
as it is (to satisfy our intellect) physically difficult for
an intelligent, exterior, spiritual God to create mechan-
ically a material universe.

I think the Comprehensive Conception obviates
certain intellectual difficulties inherent in each of the
other conceptions. The how is incomprehensible under
any conception. The why is more logically plausible
under the Comprehensive Conception.

The higher form, the organ for the manifestation of
the higher desire, is simply a greater capacity for
enjoyment. One pertinent point I wish to make here is
that the capacity is increased more by doing than by
being done for. ' ' Only those are able to bear meat who
by use of their reason know good from evil " ; not those
who utilize alone the reason of others, or try to know
good from evil by printed directions. Those who do
physically; those who think mentally; those who act
spiritually are the ones who develop an increased
capacity. Following the higher Desire is evolving a
higher form and giving to the gratification of Desire
a greater degree of satisfaction.

Materialists have started at the bottom and by
working up have proved evolution. I will accept
evolution as a fact and by starting at the top wiU give
a few illustrations to show why evolution is necessary.

Man says stealing is wrong and the majority refrain

130 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

from stealing. Why? Solely because it is wrong?
No, but because in the organization of society experience
has taught that a greater degree of satisfaction exists
when property is sacred. This idea must have been an
inspiration primarily but which has been ratified or
made right by experience.

We empty slop into a trough and the hogs will crowd
and squeal, fight for the morsels and defile them with
their feet. Place food before man and he will not
ordinarily act like a hog ; not because it is wrong to do
so, but because there is a greater degree of satisfaction
from the possession of table manners. This is not
solely an evolution of the individual but an evolution
of society of which the individual is a part. Table
manners are probably one of the first steps in the evolu-
tion of society, yet so slow is evolution, or the effect
of experience, that I have seen a family of Indians
where the members helped themselves from the contents
of a single pot and in their eagerness upset the pot and
tumbled the contents into the dirt. Whenever a
number of civilized people are placed in a position
bordering on starvation, they will generally revert to
animalism. All Desire is persistent but the ability
of any Desire to a persistent control of the organism
seems to be proportionate to the duration of the ex-
perience of such an organism {i. e., the oldest forms are
the most stable).

Suppose a man has an idea that the organization of
a fire insurance association would be a good thing and
he suggests to a number of men the advisability of
organizing. Assuming this to be a new idea, we can
readily see there would be reluctance to enter such
an organization, and, provided the organization was per-
fected, if conditions caused it to fail of its object, there

Desire 131

would be still greater difficulty to the perfection of a
second organization within the sphere of the experience
of the first. But no matter how many failures, the
desire being persistent, there would sooner or later be
a time when some organization would succeed. This
continued, would give experience aiding successive
organizations. These organizations might increase
until their very multiplicity would occasion the failure
of some of them. This illustration. shows the necessity
of the desire before the action; the function before the
organ. It also shows that the growth of the materialized
desire and its stability hinges on the experience, i. e.,
the result of conditions, otherwise termed "the survival
of the fittest."

The efforts of plants to protect exposed or irritated
parts; the formation of a pearl (result of protection
from exterior source of irritation) ; the organization of
a fire assurance association, may each b§ a manifesta-
tion showing the varied interpretation of an equivalent
Desire.

We can see that according to this assumption it
would be impossible for an intrinsically bad desire to
have a continuous existence. I, therefore, conclude
there are primarily no bad desires. A desire may be
incorrectly interpreted; may be badly executed; or
improperly located; or wrongly conditioned; or in
various ways appear evil, but primarily that desire was
essential to evolution, and its gratification gave a
certain degree of satisfaction.

Reverting to our efforts to organize the first assurance
association, the causes for and against such an organi-
zation might be equal : the desire to obtain the supposed
benefits, the fear of a failure, the desire for something
new, the reluctance to depart from precedent. The

132 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

pros and cons balancing, I assume that volition decides.
From observation and experience we say that in the
long run chances are even, therefore, sooner or later
even if left to volition, there must come' a time when
there would be an organization, and then its develop-
ment would depend on conditions.

I wish to make another point here to show why I am
optimistic regarding the necessity of continued evolu-
tion of human organizations. I speak of those desires
as animal whose fulfilment is essential to a development
of the animal. There is practically but little increase
of these desires in number or variety. The mental
and spiritual desires are rapidly increasing in number
and variety. That is becoming manifest. If it is
true that a higher desire is one whose gratification gives
a greatef degree of satisfaction and that the mental
and spiritual desires are higher than the animal desires,
then the increase in the number and variety of these
desires will continually augment the number of cases
in which the conflict between animal desires and mental
or spiritual desires becomes equal. And if we believe
that "chances are in the long run equal," then by voli-
tion there would be a continued increase of cases where
the mental or spiritual desire would be the choice, and
the action following this choice would be a step in the
evolution of the conduct of man. Our measure of the
importance of the conduct of a man is according to
the degree to which such conduct has been instrumental
in perfecting an organization, political, economic, edu-
cational, or religious, whereby our animal, mental, or
spiritual desires could be the more completely gratified.

When it is realized that there are no known limits to
man's mental and spiritual evolution here, we will
proceed to utilize the greater portion of that enormous

Desire 133

energy which is now being used (not utilized) in pre-
paring for an imaginary hereafter. Then optimism
wUl be justified.

The stability of the social organisms are proportionate
to the experience. The integrity of the family and
table manners are examples of the most stable, or fixed,
because of the longest duration. Political and eco-
nomic organizations are much less stable, or fixed,
because of shorter duration. The latter are more
complex in their organization and when through experi-
ence and proper conditions the organization is perfected
the satisfaction accruing from such an organization
will be proportionately great. This does not mean
that an economic organization will give greater satis-
faction than a family, but that the satisfaction of
individual and fanuly may be proportionate to the
perfection of the economic organizations.

I speak of the desire of the atoms causing a co-
operative organization or organism. I do not mean
that a number of atoms may have a desire to read a
book and with premeditated forethought spontane-
ously form into a man. We say hunger is the desire
for food, but it is impossible to describe hunger in the
abstract. The desire for food is simply the desire of
the atoms to maintain the organism. The atoms
wotdd continue to exist without food, but the organism
would not; therefore it is to the atoms, just as it is to
the Ego, a psychical consciousness of a physical need,
not of the individual but of the organism.

Our comprehension being so definitely limited to
the material plane, we do not in any way know what
consciousness on the atomic or spiritual plane may be
like. I shall continue to speak definitely of Desire,
although it must be distinctly understood that sub-

134 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

jectively we do not comprehend even our own desires.
It is only objectively or through the object of the desire
that it becomes comprehensible, and is fulfilled. And
the object of our desires is never as far from us as a
desire to read a book is from an unorganized swarm
of atoms. However, the steps from object to object
leads some of the atoms, as conditions permit, inevit-
ably from matter to man, and if we were able to follow
these steps, they would probably be as plain as the
steps from family to State in the human organizations.

I assume that the process of evolution is the same
anywhere, due allowance being made for the degree
of comprehension. We have no means of knowing
how many forms of organisms have failed from not
being suitable to the conditions. Not only must the
conditions be right, but usually those forms would
best succeed which varied least, i.e., were best able to
utilize experience. But occasionally there might be
organized a form which was exceptionally well condi-
tioned and it might succeed better than previously
evolved forms. This radical departure from type
occasioning rapid strides in evolution has been one of
the puzzles of biology. This evolution by "sports" is
a theory in opposition to Darwinism. I believe man
to be one of these radical departures.

The complex form is less stable than the simple form,
not only on account of its life being based on less ex-
perience but on account of the greater number of
conflicting desires which compose the more complex
forms. If the gratification of the cells of my body,
gives me satisfaction, and the gratification of the various
sense organs gives me pleasure, there is just as much
reason for assuming that the recognition by the Ego
of a spiritual aspiration gives aU the atoms of my body

Desire 135

a certain degree of satisfaction. This I conceive is the
reason for the atoms organizing in a form (brain)
capable of recognizing mental and spiritual impressions
or desires on the material plane or with an objective.
We, as human beings, had nothing to do with the
organization of the form. As conditions have permitted,
the forms which have best served the purpose of giving
to the gratification of desire the greatest degree of
satisfaction have been the ones that have evolved and
succeeded. Desire has been the instigator and experi-
ence has been the arbiter.

The development of the persons of the genus homo
has been under various conditions and with each person
the conditions vary with time. We must realize that
while we can formulate ideas from general experience
(knowledge), it is much more difficult to regulate
specific actions by general experience. Knowledge
counts for less in the evolution of the person than
habit. Personal experience (habit) counts for less in
the evolution of the race than the collective experience
(heredity), on account of the various conflicting bodily
desires satisfied by personal experience. With no
arbiter but personal experience, the strongest desire
would invariably control. We may readily perceive
that "strongest" and "highest" are not necessarily
synonymous terms. Two persons have each a desire
for food. We may easily assume that under certain
conditions the desire in each for food could be so strong
as to obscure the desire for culture. We may also
easily bring to mind two persons, one of whom we say
would give up much more quickly the higher desire
for culture for the stronger desire for food; in other
words, would sacrifice much less for culture than the
other. The reason for this action we assume to be

136 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

either from the restilt of organic collective experience
(heredity); personal experience (habit), or general
experience (knowledge); in either case modified by
will, which in turn is more or less strong as a result of
any or all of the above causes. To the above reasons
for a variation of action according to a specific desire,
add an infinite variety of objective impulses from en-
vironment and we readily see that to find that which
actually occasions a given action is not simple. Prom
microbe to man the more complex the structure the
more complex may be the cause or occasion for a given
motion. Every spontaneous action, whatever may be
its occasion, is instigated by desire. This is a simple
conception, but as every action is composed of a multi-
tude of motions of various organisms, which from
molecule 'to cell and from tissue to organ may be in
accord with the final action, but which frequently have
desires strongly opposed to the action, we see that any
given action is not easily comprehensible. We know
from experience and observation that under certain
circumstances a certain person wiU in all probability
act in a certain manner and we say this typifies or
manifests his character. We will all admit the various
causes previously given as influencing the formation of
character, but just as soon as we attempt to fix the
definite cause of character the conception will influence
the definition. Idealists will emphasize desire (psychic) ;
Materialists will emphasize conditions (material);
Dualists will emphasize volition (free will); and
Monists will emphasize necessity (spiritual). Accord-
ing to the Comprehensive Conception, each of the other
conceptions may be right under certain circumstances
but each is not right under aU circumstances. Desire,
volition, exterior conditions, either material or spiritual,

Desire 137

may singly or in combination form a man's character.
I do not expect those having a different conception to
agree with the above statement any more readily than
they agree with their opponents. The following for-
mulation of a reason why each man does not do as
experience dictates may be acceptable to those who
agree with the previous statements. It is because
experience itself is different when viewed from an
organic, personal, or general standpoint, and in any
event is not to any single person wide enough to cover
specific actions under all circumstances.

The motion of the atom, the action of the organism,
the conduct of man are each a manifestation of Desire.
The impulses for these manifestations are consciously
equivalent, but to each the anticipation is not equally
comprehensible. Each is primarily spontaneous but
automatic according to the amount of experience.
Conduct embraces action and motion. Action embraces
motion. The words "motion," "action," and "con-
duct" express steps in evolution.

The forms of organization, social and civic, con-
structed by human beings are the most imperfect of
organizations because of the lack of experience. The
gathering of general experience by history, and the
ability to accumulate it through the art of printing has
been rapidly perfecting many human organizations.
The human being as an animal is the least perfect of any
of the animals. The reasons have been given, but to
repeat: the hiunan is of comparative recent origin and
the organism is the most complex, therefore the action
of the organism is the least automatic. But perfection
of form is not the goal. The goal is to organize a form
that will allow the gratification of Desire its greatest
degree of satisfaction. We believe that for this purpose

138 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the human form is the nearest perfect and, that with the
exception of a continued increased complexity of the
organism of the brain and the further elimination
of some useless organs, the human forms are, for its
purpose, perfect. That is, it is the assumption that no
higher form of animal wUl be evolved. The evolution
of atomic organization is about completed. The evolu-
tion of human organizations has just begun. The human
organizations may be perfected more speedily on
account of our progressive ability to accumulate and
utilize experience (get knowledge).

The statement, "there is no such thing as dead
matter," has become very common lately. It is so
familiar as to seem like the orthodox expression of some
great organization. What does it mean? If it has
any meaning, it must mean that "all matter is alive."
Being more definite, this latter statement sounds more
absurd, if we use any ordinary definition of "alive."
Some say that alive means to respond to impressions,
but we all know that any material may respond to
impressions or, if disputed, we could prove it by knock-
ing a ball into the air. We might say that one ball had
more life than another ball, meaning a greater elasticity,
but that is not what a Monist means when he says
matter is not dead. If instead of saying "matter is
alive," we say, "the atoms are conscious," we sub-
stitute a more definite statement for an indefinite state-
ment. The only reason why such a statement is not
made is because the term "consciousness " has carried
the conception of comprehension, and the idea immedi-
ately occurs that if the atoms were conscious, then
when a man sits on a tack the tack ought to yell as
loud as the man does.

There is one trouble in getting a consideration of a

Desire 139

new conception, it is measured by a preconception, and
as it fails to correspond, it is necessarily absurd. Various
Idealistic conceptions are received because they are
vaguely, not to say vainly, expressed or described.
If being definite results in killing this Comprehensive
Conception, I am going to be so. There seems no
vagueness, nor is anjrthing meant in a mystical sense
when I say "there is a Powerful Desire, or a Desirous
Power, which is manifest as Nature." Every particle
of the Universe is a materialization of that Power, and
every form is a manifestation of that Desire. Every
atom being conscious and having memory and volition,
the forms that are desirable are organized as conditions
permit. The conflict of these Desires form the condi-
tions we term heterogeneous. Desire is fulfilled as the
form is organized which gratifies that Desire with the
greatest degree of satisfaction. Through ages of expe-
rience (possible only on account of memory) various
forms have been perfected. Many have served their
term of usefulness and have become extinct. But it
is the form, not the Power or the Desire, that is dead
and gone. Desire is ever yotmg yet persistent. It con-
tinues when conditions permit to create a crystal or
organize a ceU; but also, when conditions permit, it
assays a greater fulfilment.

We hear it said that man's organizations are faulty
because they are human, while natural forms are perfect
because made by God. But "God is in all," or in
nothing. If He is "all in all," then He is imperfect,
because none but the simplest forms, such as crystals
and ceUs, are perfect. The insistence on a perfect God
has caused many to say, "then there is no God." Our
conception of the perfection or imperfection of God
(or Nature) must depend on the definition of perfect.

I40 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I have said that man was the least perfect of the animals
and also that he was the nearest perfect. The degree
of perfection must depend on the standard of measure-
ment. A perfect square cannot at the same time be a
perfect sphere. While the word perfect is superlative,
as an idea it is essentially comparative, and to say that
the Universe, Nature, or God is perfect is no more rever-
ent or pertinent than to say it is imperfect, for there is
no other with which to effect a comparison. I am not
afraid to say that I believe God is all in all and of
necessity imperfect because always changing. This is a
contradiction to the expression previously used, "God
the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." The con-
tradiction comes from trying to make one word (God)
answer /or the three phases of Being. When I use the
terms Power, Desire, Manifestation, or say that the
Supreme Being (Universe) is the Materialization of a
Powerful Desire, I use words that have a definite
meaning and they form a sensible, therefore. Compre-
hensive Conception. If it will conciliate any one, I am
willing to say that the Power and the Desire are perfect
and that it is only through the conflict of the individual
Desires that the Manifestation is imperfect.

Many writers, in advancing new ideas, unconsciously
through fear of being heterodox or consciously through
fear of assault, seek to cover their advance behind
orthodox symbols. They are like Cambyses, who,
when advancing against the Egyptians, placed a row
of ibises in front. The Egyptians, it is said, suffered
defeat rather than discharge an arrow which might
wound the birds they worshipped. This may be good
policy, and I would have no hesitancy in adopting it
if I were primarily interested in the acceptance of this
conception or feared that it is vulnerable. Nor is it

Desire 141

that I am certain that it is invulnerable, but that if it
is vidnerable, it deserves to die. But no, it may, like
Apollo, be vulnerable in only a minor part, and if so,
it might be worth preserving. I do feel that a correct
conception of Being is of great importance. When I
see the temples erected to the unknown and admittedly
unknowable God, I feel like crying with Paul, "Whom,
therefore, ye ignorantly worship. Him declare I unto
you."

No doubt many will cry Atheist, Pantheist, and
various other names meant to express disapprobation.
The most effective way to express disapprobation is to
ignore. Many a worthless book has been sold on
account of the criticisms of the preacher. If this
Comprehensive Conception "fills a long felt want,"
dentmciation cannot kill it. If the truth be not in it,
it wiU not live but be like all misconceptions.

CHAPTER X

FORCE

I HAVE stated that in my conception of Being there
is a Power and Desire. It may be termed a Power
with a Desire to act, or a Desire with Power to act,
and that the act is manifest in the materialization which
we term Being. The structure of Being is atomic,
and in each atom are inherent consciousness, memory,
and voUtion. But this Power alone, even with its
attributes, is not sufficient to account for the material-
ization, or the various forms of Being as we perceive
them.

I will give five illustrations to show that there is
another essential.

First — Let us take (in imagination) two atoms of a
maximum of attraction (I have no reason for thinking
there is any difference in the Power of each atom, but
I say maximum to cover the point), and if these two
atoms should come together in contact, there would be
no power to separate them. This statement seems so
self-evident that there is no use in an effort to elucidate
the point.

Second — Let us take a tight vessel containing a
mixture of oxygen and hydrogen gas of a specific gravity
even less than air, and in some way spark them. The
result is g, terrific explosion. What part has our Power

142

Force 143

had in this? We find of our oxygen and hydrogen a
few drops of water. That form of the power of attrac-
tion, which we call affinity (and cohesion), has drawn
together these atoms into a form which we call water.
But what caused the explosion? The only attempts
I ever saw at an explanation are similar to the statement
that, "The atoms in forming molecules took up more
space in performing the necessary evolution than they
occupied as a gas, and the sudden occupancy of the
space caused the explosion." Does it look plausible
that the amount of mattef represented in a few drops
of water, but occupying space many times greater,
and even more space than the normal, would require
still more space to condense from gas to liquid? But
even granting the statement, that does not mechanically
explain how an attractive Power could in the very act
of attracting, repel itself.

Third — ^Again; let us take an air-tight vessel con-
taining a small amount of carbon (ordinary coal) and
sufficient oxygen to unite with it, spark them and what
is the result? If the coal was stifficiently fine, there
would be an explosion, but ordinarily there would occur
what we call combustion. We have in the vessel, as
a result, carbon dioxide, a union of carbon and oxygen,
but they are occupying less space than they did before
the union; that is, the power of attraction, in what
we call chemical affinity, has drawn the atoms closer
together. This would seem simple enough, but some-
thing else has occurred. The walls of the vessel have
been heated, they have expanded, the surrounding
atmosphere has been repulsed. What has done this?
Certainly no variety of the attractive Power could
account for it. All the attractive Power is still there.
It weighs just as much. The affinity is just the same.

144 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

What affected the walls of the vessel and the surround-
ing atmosphere? Says one: "Why, heat has been
radiated." What is this heat? Nothing has gone
which was there before so far as can possibly be detected
in any material way. "Why, heat is only a mode of
motion, and the motion has been transferred to the
vessel," etc. But the ultimate motion was in the
contrary direction, it was away from the vessel, for
the material occupies less space than it did before the
union. "Yes, but in uniting it took a vibratory or
ossilating motion and in the outward movement or
swing the atom came into contact with the sides of the
vessel, and this motion was by contact conveyed by
the vessel to the air, and so on." That seems plausible,
but when the carbon and oxygen come together, why
should they come in such a roundabout way? What
peculiar part of affinity is it which causes these atoms
to shoot off at a tangent with so great a force that it
stretches the walls of the vessel, which are held together
by a cohesion apparently much stronger than the
affinity, which draws together the atom of this carbon
and oxygen?

Fourth — As another illustration, let us exert force
on a material by pressure or friction beyond its ability
to resist, and what is the result? This force flows off
in what we call electricity or lightning. We see a
definite amount of force come from the cloud to the
earth, and in its passage, rends asunder the air, and
repels the earth as it strikes. I cannot conceive of any
phase of the attractive Power being the sole cause of
this stroke of lightning (according to any ordinary
material conception) .

Fifth — ^As a final illustration, take gas compressed
so it exerts a force of hundreds of pounds to the square

Force 145

inch, and what is the force which causes the exertion?
The mechanical compression, which may be due to
gravitation, in no way explains the expansive force,
which maintains a constant tension under constant
temperature.

From the foregoing illustrations, which are but a
sample of the phenomena found in practically every
form of energy, it wUl be seen that attraction, although
it may be called the Supreme Power, is not the only
Power. My conception of Being requires another and
different Power.

In science we see a constant reference to terms
expressive of a reptdsive power, heat, electricity, ether,
elasticity; and none of these phenomena accountable
wholly and directly to any form of attraction. There
is no definite name or description of this tacitly re-
cognized force which is in opposition to attraction. All
religions have their God and Devil; the latter, the
Prince of Darkness, more vaguely defined; but dimly
recognized.

There are many scientists who acknowledge the
power of attraction, but assert that all phenomena may
be attributed solely to that power. There are many
theologians who say there is but one God, and there
are no secondary gods or devils.

But no matter how strongly physicists or theologians
may insist on but the one Power, each in some way will
admit something that shows a characteristic contrary
to the Power as defined, and find it necessary to explain
in many contradictory ways, how and why these
opposite qualities exist.

I assume the existence of an opposition to the Power.
To prevent confusion I wUl call this opposition Force —
the Power of attraction and the Force of expansion.

146 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I conceive that in Power and Force lies the source of all
the phenomena of nature ; that in the Universe nothing
is known to exist nor is it necessary to assume the
existence of any other entity than these two: Power
and Force.

I will take up various examples of the phenomena of
nature, or the various phases of Being, and try to show
how in these manifestations Power and Force are
related.

I have already defined one as Power with the Desire,
or the Desire with Power. It is easy to see that these
two words express different aspects of the same part of
Being, and that it is wholly spiritual, but that the Power
and Desire is known to us, only by its Materialization.

I feel as though I must emphasize here by a repetition.
We, as human beings, are conscious only on the material
plane, and it is absolutely impossible for us so consti-
tuted to comprehend "spirit." You may be skeptical
of that statement, but please consider it. Nothing is
comprehensible but what is sensible, and nothing is
sensible but what can be interpreted in terms of one
or more of the five senses. We cannot comprehend
nothing. We indirectly form an idea of nothing as a
negation of a certain something. We can conceive of
no "immaterial" without in some way relating it to a
material. Spirit, to us as human beings, is nothing
unless manifest or materialized.

Power is materialized according to its Desire. I do
not wish to be misunderstood when I say that no Power
exists but as matter, but that expresses my meaning.
I will modify this by saying, I do not mean that we have
or can now recognize all the existent manifestations of
matter in a definite space, but I assume that there is a
definite amount in a definite space. To put it in forcible

Force 147

language, I mean there is no Power (God, Man, or
Devil), that can make one pound of gold weigh two
pounds under the same conditions.

A scientist would say that matter is uncreatable and
indestructible.

A theologian would admit that God could not make
another God equally as great as himself, nor could he
cut himself in two and annihilate one half, so we really
agree.

The simple materialization of Power, as matter,
woidd not give much variety. Practically we would
get nothing but density and weight. Density being the
amount of Power, or the number of atoms in a given
space; and the weight, the ratio of atoms in a given
space to the number of atoms in another given space.

What we know of matter solely as a materiaUzation
of Power is Uttle or nothing. The greater the natural
density, the greater the weight, but the less the elasti-
city. Elasticity, however, brings in Force as an
essential part of the form, and there is no material
without some degree of elasticity.

The manifestations of matter or its materialization
is the phenomena with which we are familiar. These
manifestations are due not only to a Power, but a
Force. The Power and Force are two distinct entities,
never interchangeable or annihilating. The Power is
materialized but the Force is never materialized.'

' The flow or flux of Force from one atom to another is divided into
pulses, beats, or waves. The minimum division is probably an aliquot
part of any larger division and is called by the advanced scientists the
"magnetic atom" or "magneton." Whether or not these magnetons
retain their individuality, or coalesce and cease to maintain distinctive
parts under new divisions, is of course unknown. The essential differ-
ence between the electron and the magneton wherein the former has
mass, therefore can be materialized, while the latter does not possess

148 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

We comprehend Power (when materialized) and it is
wholly through or by Power in motipn that we get our
conception of space.

Though Power and Force are exactly opposite, Force
is essential to Power in its various manifestations. We
can conceive of this Force and its relation to the Power
by analyzing these manifestations, but any exact
definition or description of the Force (or the Power
either) is impossible, because, as I said before, it is
itself immaterial and, therefore, incomprehensible.

Force is not necessary in making matter. Matter
is a manifestation of Power. But what we recognize
in our conception of Being is a manifestation of Power
cw^ Force in what we call forms of energy, or the forms
of matter, i. e., the material.

It would be rather difficult if not impossible to pick
out any phase or specific form of Being that was not
produced through the joint effort of Power and Force.
In giving a physical illustration of the relation between
Power and Force it is not supposed to be comprehensive,
but merely analogical.

The atom has been defined as a centre of attractive
Power surrounded by an atmosphere of repulsive Force.
I will try to give a conception, which I think is nearer
their true relation. I will use a homely illustration,
which I think will express my meaning.

If molasses is allowed to drop on a stick, a certain
amount will adhere to it. If the stick is rotated, then
stiU more of the substance will adhere to it, and the
faster it is rotated the more of the substance will adhere,
to a certain limited extent. If the stick is then revolved,

mass, therefore can be manifest only indirectly, is of such vital import-
ance that the magneton should not be classed with the electron by
calling it an atom; I therefore say that Force is not atomic.

Force 149

it can retain on it still more of the molasses than if it
were simply rotated, and the faster it is revolved, to a
certain degree, the more will adhere to it. If the orbit
of the revolution becomes larger, still more will adhere,
and if the rapidity of the revolution and the size of the
orbit are increased in a correct ratio to the rotation, a
very large amount will adhere, providing it could be
placed on during these motions. Now, in each case
mentioned, suppose the adhering matter is the means
of propulsion; then, the more molasses is applied, the
faster it will rotate to its limit ; then the more molasses
is applied, the faster would be the revolution; then
the more molasses applied, the larger the orbit; or
the size of the orbit may be increased first, and
the rapidity of the rotation last, or the sequence
may be in any one of several different ways. In
each case the proper proportion or ratio of the
various movements would be maintained if a maxi-
mum amount of Force was absorbed. This is a
crude illustration of the movement of atoms upon the
addition of Force. Different classes of atoms have
the ability according to their Desire to move differently.
Some will, upon the application of Force, expend the
whole of it in an enlarged orbit of revolution; others,
on a more rapid revolution, and some will use a great
deal on a more rapid rotation. In an increased sized
orbit the effect is directly manifest and we say the Force
has expanded the material; that the temperature has
increased. In the increased rotation it is not immedi-
ately manifest. We would not know that there was
any more Force present, if we did not know it had gone
in, or if we did not see (?) it come out. Under such
conditions we say the Force is latent.
Now I conceive Power as existing, so that every atom

150 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

has related to it a certain amount of Force. The
normal Desire of some atoms maintains a larger amount
of the Force than others.

The Desire of each atom tends to fix a normal state
for that atom ; conditions modify or change that state.
The Power in the atom never fluctuates, the Force
related to the atom does fluctuate. The measure of
this Force is such motion of the atom as is not caused
by the attractive Power. From this we can draw the
inference that any transformation in the form of energy
within a given space is due wholly to the Force. The
Desire of the atom is manifest by the way it acts under
this Force. There may be an accelerated rotation, a
more rapid revolution, or an enlarged or a peculiar
excentric orbit, or various combinations of these
motions.

We must, in getting a correct conception of the forms
of energy, free ourselves from the idea of mechanism.
It requires material for mechanism; Power and Force
are not material. One able scientist says: "We must
conceive the atoms as having points d'appui by which
the attractive and expansive forces can maintain a
hold. " If it were like that, we could comprehend it, and
the word "conceive" need not be used. We must be satis-
fied to only conceive some things. "Comprehend" is
far more limited than "conceive" in its meaning; that
is, we may conceive much more than we can comprehend.
I have a conception of Being, but I make no pretence
to the comprehension of Being. We often stretch
the correct use of the word "comprehend." I may say
that I comprehend that four billions is twice two bil-
lions, but I really do not comprehend at all what even
one billion is. I would really mean that I comprehend
that twice two is four, and conceive that it applies to

Force 151

billions as well as to units. I wish to emphasize the
fact that we are extremely limited in our comprehension,
and comparatively unlimited in our conceptions; also
that I am speaking of the conceptions of Being ; there-
fore, there is no weight in the criticism, that when I
mention a Force which is never materialized, I am
speaking of something entirely incomprehensible.

I said I could not comprehend a billion, but I readily
conceive of a billion as being a definite enlargement of
a definite number of comprehensible amotmts. The
conception, to be satisfactory, must be well based on or
well related to the comprehensible. This is the reason
why mathematics is the most satisfactory branch of
science, — physics occupying a middle place, with
metaphysics ordinarily the least satisfactory. So
unsatisfactory is metaphysics that only a small portion
of mankind have any interest in it. But to this small
but growing portion this interest is gratified with a
greater degree of satisfaction than any other.

I have digressed in order to emphasize the point that
when I use illustrations to make plain my meaning in
the conceived relations of Power and Force, I do not
intend by these illustrations to infer that these relations
can be comprehended. They may aid you to compre-
hend my meaning, and get my view-point of conception,
but I expKcitly deny that I, as a htunan being, can
comprehend Power or Force, or how they maintain
their relations. But I do affirm that I believe that
my conception of the relations of Power and Force is
more easily comprehensible than some other concep-
tions, and to my mind at least, certainly the most
satisfactory.

I will now get back to the work of relating the sources
of energy.

152 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Hydrogen is supposed to be the lightest of substances ;
that is, there is supposed to be less atoms in a given
volume of hydrogen than in an equal volume of other
substance. A larger orbit of the atom with a more
rapid motion is necessitated to give the required equal
pressure under a less specific gravity. In a given
volume of hydrogen we can readily conceive that the
ratio of Power to Force is much less than in some other
substances. In a like volume of oxygen of equal
pressure we can readily conceive that there is a larger
quantity of Power, because there is more weight and
greater density. We might naturally asstune that, as
the quantity of Power is greater, the portion of Force
is less. In such an assumption we would be wrong.
As I have said before, the chances for a wrong assump-
tion are ihuch greater than the chances for striking the
right one. A scientist wiU say that: "In a given
volume of hydrogen there is a definite number (not
definable) of atoms, with a definite motion (not de-
scribable)." What is meant by "not definable" and
"not describable" is that it is not demonstrable, which
limitation I accept in my conception.

I say that a certain volume of hydrogen contains a
definite number of atoms (each atom a definite amount
of Power), and in relation thereto there is a definite
amount of Force, and this relation is shown by a definite
amount of motion. Motion is the result, not the cause.
Cause and effect here are co-existent ; that is, they are
not to be separated. As a metaphysical proposition,
motion is never a cause, that is, one motion never causes
another motion. A weight on one end of a teeter board
may depress that end and elevate the other end. The
motion due to gravitation may cause a motion in the
opposite direction of a less weight at the other end.

Force 153

This is a comprehensible mechanical motion. The mani-
festation is wholly physical and mechanical, but the
assumption that the transfer of motion of the atom is
also mechanical is, I think, a misconception, which I
wiU endeavor to show as we proceed.

That motion of the atom exists is demonstrated by
osmose. Two gases, we will say oxygen and hydrogen,
are separated by a parchment, which is practically
impermeable to the gas as a mass of material, but the
atoms of the gas will gradually filter through. We
shall find that (relatively) more oxygen atoms penetrate
the parchment, but, on the assumption that there is
more or greater motion of the hydrogen atoms, this
ought not to be the fact. "But," says some scientist,
"the hydrogen atoms are larger, so they do not so
readily penetrate the parchment." Let us see what
this assumption means. Scientists say the hydrogen
atoms are lighter, and now we assume they are bigger.
If one atom is lighter than another, it must be because
of a less amount of the power of attraction, and if it is
bigger, with the same weight, it must be less dense.
If one atom is more dense than ancfther, what causes it?
Density, as an attribute of the atom, is a wholly incon-
sistent term. Density of material is a comprehensive
expression and refers to the comparative ntimber of
atoms which occupy a given volume or space.

I do not conceive of any density whatever of the
atoms. Density is an attribute of the material, and
one atom is not material, it is spirit, and has no material
attributes. This is a typical point of difference between
my conception and the Materialistic conception. If
the atom of hydrogen does not penetrate the parchment
as readily as the atom of oxygen does, why? Unless the
oxygen atom is smaller, why does it penetrate better?

154 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I say, because the revolution (or vibratory motion) of
the oxygen atom is far more rapid, therefore, it will
more readily penetrate the parchment. The expansive
Force being greater, more is forced through. "But,"
says the scientist, "the expansive force is equal, because
the pressure is equal." It is true that pressure is the
only measure we have for energy, but it is known that,
given two equal volumes of water of equal weight and
mass, which necessitates an equal pressure, one may
contain more energy than the other. Scientists admit
this, but say that the energy or "heat " is latent. Now,
I do not try to conceive of a latent Force any more than
I, or any one of these scientists, try to conceive of latent
gravitation. I conceive of Force in as constant action
{i. e., as motion) as is attraction, but the motion of a
changing 'orbit is the only one that can be measured.
This is what we call expansion, i. e., pressure. The
Force existent as velocity either of rotation or revolution
cannot be measured so long as it remains such a motion
of these special atoms, but when it is transferred to
other collections of atoms, it may be detected. What
do I mean, then, by it being transferred? The Force
or the motion? When I have admitted that Force
and motion are co-existent, it may seem a quibble to
insist that it is the Force which is transferred, and not
the motion.

I will repeat an illustration, now, with its explanation,
which will show the deviation in my conception from
the orthodox conceptions. Let us again take the
vessel with the piece of coal (carbon) and a sufficient
quantity of oxygen to imite with it. Through what
we call combustion, the union is made. We say this
union is due to chemical affinity, which is a form of
attraction. There is in one or the other of these ele-

Force 155

ments, or both together, a source of energy, which not
only permits the motion of the vinion, but gives motion
to the surrounding substance, which can readily be
measured as expansion or pressure. Now where is the
source of energy? The answer is almost unanimous,
"In the coal lies the source of energy." How often
have we read the scientific articles on the wonders of
nature, which through ages stored up the energy of the
sun through the vegetation, and hid it in the bosom of
the earth as coal for the use of man! But chemists
say that carbon is a substance devoid of energy, for it
is insoluble in all known liquids, and at an ordinary
temperature does not combine with anything. Now
let us trace, if we can, the proper relation in this union
of the coal and oxygen. We will take every care to be
logical and consistent in the use of terms. We will
agree that "energy" is a term expressive of motion of
whatever kind. Motion may be atomic or material,
but whatever it may be, energy is its expression. It
may be manifest {i. e., sensible, measurable) ; or it may
be latent (*, e., neither sensible nor measurable). We
speak of latent energy, but latent motion is a para-
doxical expression. To me latent is just as paradoxical
when coupled with energy, as latent means quiet,
without motion, and I do not conceive of energy with-
out motion, or motion except as an expression of energy.
I will use the word latent, however, because it is com-
monly used, but in this connection it must be understood
that it means insensible, imperceptible, immeasurable
{i. e., not to be measured in its present condition), and
not as meaning immoving. According to this definition
we agree that energy is latent in the carbon or oxygen,
or both. The two tmite and the energy becomes
sensible, measurable.

156 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

First, what caused the union? The natural answer
is, chemical affinity (i. e., a form of attraction). Where
was this chemical affinity before the iinion began?
Some one may unwittingly reply it was latent, but it
is as absurd to speak of latent attraction in the chemical
affinity, as it is to speak of latent gravitation. Attrac-
tion is absolute and constant. Had I the ability and
patience of Newton, I feel certain that, with sufficient
data, I could demonstrate that attraction no more
varies in its various aspects, as cohesion, chemical
affinity, etc., than it varies in gravitation because a
certain quantity of gold weighs less in one location than
it does in another. In asserting that in this change
from carbon and oxygen to carbon dioxide there is no
deviation of the quantity of attraction, I am eliminating
chemical affinity as a source of energy, or at least of
that energy which becomes sensible; which we say is
radiated. This statement is rather iconoclastic, and
will render me absurd unless I can, in a further analysis
of the operation, make it appear plausible. When our
chemist said that carbon is inert, and without energy,
we take it that he meant comparatively. We suppose
that matter in any material form is the joint product
of Power and Force, which is simply saying that no
material is without motion, therefore, has some energy.
We have no way of knowing the quantitative value,
or even the relative value, of Power and Force as a
whole. In their manifestations we measure the relative
value according to those manifestations. For instance,
in a balance I may know that in one pan is a pound
more than in the other pan, without knowing how much
is in either, so when we fix the weights and measures
in physics, we use them to establish definite relations
one with another. In taking carbon as a substance

Force 157

of no energy, I mean as a source of energy which may
be radiated. Relatively, now, we say the carbon has
no motion. Under the form of carbon dioxide, the
carbon has motion or energy, an enlarged orbit, shown
by occupying more space. If it did not previously
possess it, and it did not originate in the attraction oi
either the carbon or oxygen, and came from no external
source, then it must have come from the energy of the
oxygen. This surplus energy must have been due to
Force, as attraction is constant. This I conceive as
being really the case. Oxygen has a great deal of energy,
that is, there is much Force present in oxygen in its
gaseous form, which is shown, not only in its large orbit,
which makes it a gas, but in the rapidity of revolution
in its orbit. Now, a portion of this Force is transferred
to the carbon, resulting in an increase of the orbit of
the carbon, and if this transformation of energy is
insufficient to lower the orbit of the oxygen. Force is
radiated so there can be a union with the carbon.
The very fact of a vmion necessitates a close relation
or synchronism of the orbits. The affinity of the
carbon and oxygen, in other words, the Desires of these
atoms to unite, is fulfilled when conditions are right.
The surplus Force given up by the oxygen has gone into
adjacent substances, increasing the size of the orbit of
the atoms composing these substances, so that it is
sensible and measurable. The old expression that this
is the expansive power of heat is much nearer correct
than to say that heat is only a mode of motion. When
the scientist found that he could create heat, surrounded
by ice, simply by motion, he took a poor screen. A
lens may be made from a piece of ice and enough heat
or force pass through it to set fire to any inflammable
matter. In every experiment to demonstrate heat as

158 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

a mode of motion, the motion is taken as a cause and,
obviously, as motion cannot be destroyed, it follows
any transfer of energy from one substance to another.
The scientists see the motion of the union of the carbon
and oxygen and say that this motion is the cause of the
motion of the surrounding substanqe, which becomes
hotter. The combustion is incident to the heating,
but there is no more motion during the combustion
than before it commenced, or after it is over. There
is less motion {i. e., energy) in the carbon dioxide
than there was in the oxygen, and that surplus motion
(i. e., energy) has become measurable in the surrounding
substance. The chemical afifinity did not cause the
radiation of this motion {i. e., energy) but the union of
the atoms having affinity occasioned it. (This me-
chanical equivalent of heat is definitely described
farther on.)

I have gone at some length into this illustration,
endeavoring to make plain my conception of Power and
Force as separate sources of energy; that the Power
is constant and never varies in one atom or another,
and is never transferred from one atom to another, or
from one substance to another; that Force is transferred
from one atom to another, causing a variation in rapid-
ity of rotation, rapidity of revolution, or an increased
size of the orbit ; that this latter variation is the only way
in which such energy can be mechanically measured.

I will continue this illustration farther to more
strongly emphasize my point. Without going into
the subject here I will assume that electricity is the
purest or most condensed form of Force with which we
are familiar ; by this I mean the ratio of Force to Power,
subject to change, is greater in this form than any other
ordinary form.

Force 159

Let us take our carbon dioxide and discharge in it an
electric spark, which spark contains a definite amount of
Force. What may be the result? We might naturally
assume that an introduction of energy would increase
the size of the orbit (i. e., expand the substance). So
it would, if it could be introduced gradually and rightly
synchronized, but time is a part of the condition which
effects or alters results in every phenomenon of nature.
As we know, carbon dioxide is one atom of carbon
with two atoms of oxygen. (I use the term atoms
here as chemists use it, to indicate combining weight.)
Carbon is slow to change its state (j. e., to either in-
crease or decrease its motion) ; oxygen is very quick to
change. (This time consideration holds good with
aU elements. A substance that is slow to increase its
Force is slow to give it up.) This electric spark, or
definite amount of Force, is delivered suddenly, and
must manifest itself some way. The carbon is slow
to respond, so the energy is absorbed in an increased
motion of the oxygen, but not indiscriminately. If
both atoms of the oxygen in the combination should
increase their energy or motion suddenly, the carbon
atom would have to be equally quick to maintain the
relation essential to a combination, which it cannot do;
or it would have to give up its motion or energy, which
it needed to enter the combination, which action would
be equally as quick, therefore impossible. In this
dilemma one atom of oxygen in every combination or
molecule of carbon dioxide takes the amount of energy
to enable it to maintain its motion as oxygen in its
original condition. We now have in the vessel the
amount of oxygen which represents the energy existing
in the spark; the carbonic oxide («'. e., the remaining
atoms of oxygen with its atoms of carbon), and such

i6o An Unorthodox Conception of Being

of the carbon dioxide as was not affected, the total
occupying a larger volume (or with increased pressure)
on account of the increased energy in the oxygen.

Continue the experiment by taking out the remaining
carbon dioxide and we have left in the vessel the
carbonic oxide and the oxygen. Let us pass another
spark in this mixture and see what happens. It is
not always possible to predict what will happen, and
the calling of the chemist is one of some danger, as the
result of this experiment will show. There is an
explosion. After the explosion we find that the vessel
contains only carbon dioxide, and if we measure the
force of the explosion, we find that it just equals the
energy of the two sparks of electricity. Now, did
the union of the oxygen with the carbonic oxide cause
the explosion by requiring more room for the formation
of the molecules (as in a statement previously given
illustrating the current theories)? Not at all. The
second spark of electricity gave sufficient energy to the
remaining atoms of oxygen in the carbonic oxide, to
regain their original state, but it left the carbon in a
state that could not be changed so quickly, also in a
state that would admit of forming the compound of
carbon dioxide as at first, and as quick as the condition
was present, the oxygen gave up the surplus motion
(i. e., energy) and resumed the relationship as carbon di-
oxide and the energy (or really the Force, which is mani-
fest as energy), so suddenly liberated, enters into and
expands the substance surrounding it just as quickly.
In the case of combustion the elimination of Force was
comparatively slow, the expansion was gradual, and
we called it heat; in this case the union being quick,
the elimination of Force is rapid and the points of least
resistance giving suddenly away, we called it an explo-

Force i6i

sion. Unless the weakest part of the vessel is equal to
the strain, the vessel is shattered. The energy of the
explosion is just equal to the energy of the combustion;
although the effect in the surrounding material may be
quite different.

Let us continue this line of experimenting. In a
vessel containing oxygen we pass an electric spark.
Now here is a substance (oxygen) whose energy is
great, whose orbit cannot be enlarged in such a sudden
way, and should the speed of rotation or revolution be
increased, we might not be able to be sensible of it.
On the supposition that our term "expansive force" is
explicit, we may be surprised at the result. The
volume has decreased. The specific gravity or density
has increased, but as the total weight has not increased,
the Force has not been inverted into gravitation. But
as the substance has contracted, it certainly looks as
though the Force has acted in a way contrary to its
name. Let us try an experiment to see if the nature
of the force has changed. We take equal weights of
oxygen, and of this new substance (which we call ozone)
and combine each with one-half its atomic weight of
carbon. We get from the combustion', in each case, an
equal volume of carbon dioxide. In the case of the
ozone not having so large a volume we might assume
the orbit of its atom not to be so large, and, therefore,
the surplus energy (motion or heat) would not be so
great, but we find that it is greater and the increase of
the surplus energy or heat from the union of the ozone
and carbon, over the union of the oxygen and carbon,
is just equal to the energy of the electricity used in
changing the oxygen into ozone. This experiment
shows the Force is not changed in its character, that
none of it was lost, and that the conception of Force,

1 62 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

instead of motion, as the cause of the expansion (or
heat) holds good. But it gives no clue to the action
of the Force in contracting the ozone. As an analogy
I will give an illustration to which I may refer frequently
in the future, as it is suggestive of many points. We
have seen a spinning top, which has a rotary motion
and also at times an orbital motion. At first the orbital
motion is caused by the momentum of its body after
the impact. Recovering from this motion, we know
there is only the rotary motion ; later we see the orbital
motion again and know that its rotary motion is les-
sening. If we impart to it additional energy (which
may be done with the whip top), we see it assume the
perpendicular, and lose its orbital motion. Let us
assume a number of tops spinning with a certain orbital
motion from a lack of sufficient rotary force. Then,
if force were supplied, it would result in a decrease in
the orbital motion, and if there was no friction sufficient
to prevent, attraction would draw them together, and
the volume (space occupied by the tops) would decrease.
The contraction would be from the attraction and not
from the addition of Force, and if there were no friction,
this form of motion would continue until conditions
changed.

Now these movements of the tops are perfectly com-
prehensible, and we account for each cause and effect.
The modifying cause is friction, or a radiation of the
energy through mechanical contact with exterior
substances. But friction and mechanics do not exist
as a relation between Power and Force, and taking out
these terms, their movements become incomprehensible
although conceivable.

I have not the slightest idea how the application of
Force to one class of atoms will cause an enlarged orbit,

Force 163

and to another class an increased rotation. We can
see from their manifestations that various changes are
characteristic of certain atoms. These changes are in
many cases such as to alter the entire nature of sub-
stances. It is not at all equal as to quality of the change.
For instance, in the application of Force {i. e., heat)
to water, during a definite time the orbit enlarges
(water expands), then for a definite time the heat be-
comes latent (goes to increase the speed of revolution
or rotation), and this process alternates always at the
same definite, although not equal, intervals. Finally,
the form of motion has become so different that we
call the mass vapor instead of liquid.

I say that given the required condition, i. e., time
and force properly proportioned, the motion is accord-
ing to the Desire of the atom. Materialists say motion
is governed by the conditions. This is an equivalent
statement, but the conception inferred is different.
The latter statement supposes that mechanical laws
can account for every motion, while I suppose our
knowledge of the laws to be drawn from our observa-
tions of the motions whose manifestations prove to
my satisfaction that they were co-ordinated by an
intelligence superior to ours.

I will give a few more illustrations regarding the
relation of Power and Force. If we combine the
proper proportions of oxygen and hydrogen, we change
a given weight of gas of large volume to a like weight
of water of small volume. If this change is by degrees,
we call it combustion (comparatively rapid in this case) ;
if it is instantaneous, we call it an explosion. In either
case we have released a definite amount of energy,
force, heat, or whatever you wish to term it. The
difference in the effect from the combustion and explo-

i64 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

sion is on account of the time occupied, as already
explained. In the union of hydrogen and oxygen we
find we get more surplus Force («'. e., a greater quantity
of heat) than from an equivalent weight of oxygen and
carbon. (A pound of oxygen wUl radiate the same
amount of heat in combination with hydrogen, but
there is much more heat latent in the water — H^O —
than in the gas — C O "".) This is on account of two con-
ditions. First, the hydrogen obviously has more
energy than the carbon, but more important is the fact
that the oxygen loses a much greater portion of its
Force. In its compound with carbon the oxygen still
remains a gas after some Force is expended in making
a gas of the carbon, but combining with hydrogen in
the form of water both are reduced to a liquid, and all
that surplus energy (not really the energy but Force,
the source of energy), essential to the motion of the
atoms as gas is transferred to adjacent substances.
Reverse the experiment and by applying Force (i. e.,
heat) to the water we elevate it to a vapor, and by a
sufficient amount of Force (viz., two thousand degrees
of heat) we separate it again into its constituent ele-
ments. This may be done directly by passing elec-
tricity into the water. This Force is instantly absorbed
in changing the water into gas. This is one of the most
simple illustrations showing that heat and electricity
are manifestations of the same Force. Continuing this
line of experimenting, we find that an equal amount
of oxygen will release or radiate about twice as much
heat when combining with anything, in which it takes
the form of a solid, as iron, zinc, etc. I do not mean by
this that the entire amount of surplus Force liberated
is from the oxygen, for no doubt there is less Force in
the irQn, zinc, etc., as it exist§ in this new form of oxide.

Force 165

I will take up one more substance in its relation
to Force. Nitrogen constitutes four-fifths (approxi-
mately) of the mixture we call air, the other fifth being
oxygen. Nitrogen in the air is called passive, neutral.
Nitrogen in this form as a gas is inactive, that is, it does
not unite easily with other substances. That it does
not possess as much Force as the oxygen is shown by
the fact that, when liquid, it volatilizes much quicker
under the same conditions. With some few substances,
such as borum, titanium, magnesium, etc., it unites
in combustion, giving up the Force which makes it gas
(radiates heat), and as a part of such compounds, it is
very stable and non-volatile. But the characteristic
which renders nitrogen a wonderful and valuable
element is its ability or desire to change its condition
and retain all of its Force, with additional Force added.
We saw how by the addition of Force (electricity) to
oxygen, its volume was reduced, and it became in this
new condition what we call ozone, possessing more
Force in proportion to its weight than it did as oxygen.
In connection with nitrogen, oxygen may be condensed
to an even greater degree, but the ability to be so con-
densed is undoubtedly by virtue of the nitrogen Desires,
for nitrogen will condense in this same manner with
other gases. Take a vessel containing nitrogen and
oxygen (air) and pass into it an electric spark, and
the two gases combine, but the combination is much
different from that resulting from the union of the
oxygen and hydrogen. In that case there was an
explosion or combustion, with an elimination of Force ;
in this case there is an absorption of Force. In the
case of hydrogen and oxygen one spark of electricity
or fire would give a kindling point, and the whole
volume, no matter how great, would combine spontane-

1 66 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

ously (spontaneously in this connection usually means
starting without external means, but I mean here that
it continues without external means), but with the
nitrogen and oxygen, nitric oxide is formed only so
long as the sparking continues, i. e., proportionately
to the Force introduced. With the electric spark in
water, the Force raised a liquid to a gas, but in this
combination we have the Force turning the gas to a
liquid (in combination with water it is the liquid "nitric
acid ") . We have a right to expect this liquid to possess
characteristics different from water, as it must possess
much more Force. A simple experiment will show we
are correct in this assumption. Place some of the
nitric acid on any combustible substance and a union
occurs with its elimination of heat or Force. I wish
to emphasize the point again that the heat arises not
from the union or combustion, but from the elimination
of the Force existing in this case in the nitric acid, which
Force is not essential in the new combinations.

Nitrogen as gas possesses the ability, under the proper
conditions of access to Force, to condense even to a
solid, and the many nitrogen compounds are the great-
est source of energy in plant and animal life. This
energy is not from the union of the various elements,
but from the ability of the nitrogen to quickly change
its form through an absorption or elimination of the
Force, i. e., by changing the manifestation of the Force
from a rapid rotation to an enlarged orbit or vice versa.

We assumed in the analogy of the top that a de-
creased size of orbit was caused by an increased speed
of rotation ; this speed of rotation might be increased in-
definitely, and it would be directly immeasurable. If,
in the case of the tops rotating rapidly, we could knock
them over, all the energy of the rotation would go to-

Force 167

ward an enlarged orbit; the tops would scatter. If, in
solid form, nitre is nitrogen with a restricted orbit and
an intense speed of rotation, and if, as in the explosion of
gunpowder, this form of motion was quickly reversed,
would not that account for the explosion?

We will find that in all explosive substances some one
or more of their elements are condensed, not by a release
of the force, but with an absorption of the Force, that is,
the condensation has been endothermal instead of
exothermal. Of all common substances nitrogen pos-
sesses the Desire or ability to so concentrate its Force
in the greatest degree. Uranium, radium, etc., sub-
stances more rare, seem to possess this ability to an
even greater degree.

I will give a brief synopsis of this conception of Force.
Each atom of Power possesses the ability, according
to its Desire, to maintain a certain amount of Force,
which varies according to conditions. This Force may
be assumed to be manifest in the changed movements of
the atoms, as rotation, revolution, size and excentricity
of the orbit. The Force is always proportionate to
these movements and coexists with them. Upon the
transfer of Force from one atom to another the portion
of motion is transferred. Force is always transferred,
never transformed; the resulting motion and energy
may be transformed.

Atomic motion, as rotation and revolution, is im-
measurable, incomprehensible, but conceivable. An
a^ggregate atomic motion becomes mechanical, measur-
able only by an enlarged orbit of the atom. The result
of atomic motion or variation in the atomic motion
may be sensible, but to become measurable it must
become mechanical (measurable meaning by means of
instruments, physical or chemical).

1 68 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

In the relation of Force to the atom {i. e., a specific
amount of Power), there is no such thing as friction,
momentum, or mechanics. Eliminating these or any
other material attributes from our conception of the
relation of Force to Power compels us to admit that
such relations are then utterly incomprehensible. But,
we as human beings, are incapacitated from compre-
hending anything but what is sensible on the material
plane.

CHAPTER XI

THE SENSES

FROM the foregoing chapter on Force one might
conclude that Force was the chief source of energy.
When I said that chemical affinity in combustion did
not cause the radiated heat, and when I said that the
Force existing with the various forms of nitrogen was the
chief source of energy in plant and animal, it certainly
seemed to leave a small part for the Power. This is
indeed the trend of many scientists at the present day ;
that is, to resolve aU phenomena into electrical terms,
making ions and electrons synonymous with Force,
and assuming them to be the fundamental elements
of the atoms.

While we are without measure of the absolute relative
value of Force and Power, I am inclined to think that
Force is of secondary value, and as a whole is controlled
by Power. It may be that the reader does not clearly
grasp my meaning when I say that Force is never
manifest except through Power, and therefore is never
by itself mechanical. Mechanical action necessitates
material, and Force is never materialized. Hoping to
make it a little clearer I will give an illustration to show
the difference between a transfer of Force and a me-
chanical movement. Let us take two bars of equal
length and size, one of copper and the other of iron.

169

170 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Let us fix stationary one end of each, and at the other
end put instruments to test any variation in conditions
arising from our experiment. We will place at the
centre of each bar an equal means for heating them.
What is the result? The copper bar exhibits the effect
first, the thermometer at the end shows an increased
temperature. The next effect is on the iron bar, the
pressure needle shows the bar has expanded. The
instrument at the copper bar shows no expansion and
the instrument at the iron bar shows no heat. Here
are two different effects from the same cause. Let us
analyze the action and see if we can see, inferentially,
the modus operandi. The copper bar is slow to heat,
that is, the orbit of its atoms increased in size slowly.
The Force is used in an increased speed of the revolution.
This Force is transferred quickly from one atom to
another until it reaches the end of the bar, it is there
shifted to the mercury of the thermometer, or our
fingers, and this Force is utilized differently by the
mercury, and our fingers, to what it is by the copper
atoms. The Force, when transferred to the mercury
or fingers, causes an increase in the size of the orbit, i. e.,
an expansion, which we call heat or temperature, but
this heat or motion would have been impossible of
discovery directly in the copper. We discovered it,
not by any mechanical or material difference in the
copper, but by the Force which issues from the copper
and acts on the thermometer and our fingers in a measur-
able and sensible way. This Force passes rapidly
through the copper or from one atom to another from
the source of the Force {i. e., heat at the centre of the
bar) , and on account of this rapid transmission we say
that copper is a good conductorof heat. If there is some-
thing at the end of the bar, like water, which is a good

The Senses 171

absorber of heat, it would be impossible to heat to any
great degree the copper bar itself, provided, of course,
the amount of the heat was proportionate to the size
of the bar. If more heat was applied than could be
transferred by an increased speed of revolution, it
would be manifest in an increased orbit, and we would
have the measurable expansion of the bar.

In the iron bar the heat, i. e.. Force, is directly used
in an increase in the size of the orbit, which is soon
noticeable and measurable. Atoms requiring more
room in their enlarged orbit push back the adjacent
atoms, and the extreme end of the bar is moved. The
instrument shows the end move, although there is as yet
none of that specific Force near the end, and our fingers
and thermometer are not effected. This mechanical
motion is only possible on account of the attraction
as cohesion, which maintains a solidity of the material
of the bar. Force becomes measurable only when it
is manifest in an increased size of the orbit of the atoms,
and it is by such expansions that we say motion becomes
mechanical. The Force does not become mechanical,
but the manifestation of the Force (increased size of
orbit of the atom), being measurable, does become
mechanical. The results of the Force, as increased
speed of revolution or rotation, are immeasurable so
long as they remain as such atomic motion. A small
portion of the Force in a given body may be transferred
and the motion transformed into a measurable form, and
we may compute the Force innate in the whole. Such
kind of measuring we do with certain meters.

I will mention one other contrast in the action of the
two bars. The copper heats slowly; therefore cools
slowly. It will be hot to the touch long after the iron
is cool, for the iron heating quickly will cool quickly.

172 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

This time consideration holds good of all materials in
every instance. If I am asked why the atoms of copper
act differently from the atoms of iron under the same
conditions, I reply that the normal atomic motion varies
according to the Desires of those atoms, and the mani-
festations of these Desires are given expression in their
motions, which characterize the various elements and
compounds.

An analysis of the senses and to what they are
sensitive will make us more fuUy realize that aU we
know directly of the Power is the variation of the
motions of the atoms, and that knowledge reveals to
us what we know of the Desire, which is manifest in
the forms through which the atoms materialize.

The se^se of touch or feeling is the first of the senses.
It is the most vague. Development is always from the
vague to the definite. This sense of touch or feeling is
transferred by nearly aU the nerves of the body, and
is interpreted to consciousness in many different forms.
Primarily and in the ultimate, nerve is not necessary
for sensation of touch or pressure, and it must be
pressure or resistance to its motion, of which every
atom is conscious. As the atoms combine into mole-
cules and organize into particles, the pressure or resist-
ance must vary, and the interpretation of these varying
pressures enable these atoms to act automatically in
the spontaneous manner in which they do, and for
which mechanics can give no satisfactory explanation.
The senses of taste, smell, hearing, and sight are but
specialized developments of the sense of touch.

Taste is the first sense to be specialized, and this
specialization occurs with the very earliest forms of
organic life. The organism must know what to accept
and what to reject as food, as a first step in the process

The Senses 173

of assimilation. In the most minute forms we see that
this knowledge exists, and must come from the sense of
taste. In all these lower forms, as also in most vege-
table forms, the food comes to the organism instead of
the organism going to the food, and when the contact
comes, the sensation of what is acceptable is certainly
a sense of taste.

As the organism develops to higher forms, it begins
to move, and henceforth touch and taste are not suffi-
cient. There must be a sense that will tell it where to
go for food, therefore the sense of smell is developed.

In the stiU higher stage of development, when
fectmdity will not protect sufficiently against possible
extermination, the sense of hearing is specialized to
enable the organism to guard against the approach of
an enemy.

The sense of seeing follows soon after, and in some
varieties probably evolves even before the sense of
hearing.

The foregoing is an assumption of the development
of the senses, which is not meant to be applied literally
to each special development, but as a rule it holds good
of natural forms in general.

It is not meant that the nerves or organs of the
senses are, in other organisms, just like they are in the
human being, but that the classification of the effects
of sensation and their perception in all forms of Being
known to us come naturally imder these heads. '

' The tendril of a vine may reach toward- a projecting nail and if the
position of the nail be changed, the tendril will, after an interval, change
its direction toward the new position of the nail. This may be repeated
so frequently as to preclude any idea that the change is due to a coin-
cidence. This is only one illustration of many that might be used to
show that it would be difficult to classify exactly the sense of the lower
order of plaat and animal.

174 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

The keenness of perceptions by any of these senses
vary greatly in all organisms, even that of the human
being, but the higher specialized forms have propor-
tionately greater specialized organs of sense.

The sense of touch is practically co-extensive with the
form. The sense of taste is the more confined or
limited, proportionate to the development, but even in
the human being the nerves of taste extend over the
tongue and part of the palate, and the different parts
are sensitive to only certain tastes ; one part is sensitive
to sourness, another to salt, etc.

The sense of smell is concentrated to less surface
and is affected by more delicate impressions.

The sense of hearing is still more highly specialized
and the organs more elaborate, though the nerve termini
cover even less surface. Still the sense of hearing may
be effected by impressions, other than those entering
through the auricular orifice, as we can perceive by
holding a resounding body in the teeth.

The sense of seeing reaches the maximum of de-
finiteness, being able to locate the object of sensation
with far greater accuracy than the senses of smell or
hearing. The organs of sight are highly specialized,
and no other organ can in the slightest degree be sensi-
ble to luminosity.'

I assume that all of the organs of sense are impressed
by motion, and perceive the variation of motion; that
the senses are specialized to receive each its special
variety of motion.

' That the primary origin of the sight organ is probably due to
actinism in no way invalidates the fact, that the human eye is more
sensitive to luminosity than to actinism, and that any physical or
chemical phenomena due to light may be performed by calorific or
actinic rays in the entire absence of luminosity.

The Senses 175

We will agree that touch, as a sense, is impressed by
motion, or by pressure, which is the same thing in the
ultimate, being resistance to motion. The relative
value of motions is interpreted in various ways by the
different nerves of touch. They are all vague and give
relative qualities only. If we take our hands, one from
cold water and one from hot water, and put them into
water of intermediate temperature the water will feel
warm to the cold hand and cool to the warm hand. This
is an example of what I mean by relative values. Con-
sciousness perceives the relation only. Appetite and
pain are each due to the sense of touch, but they ap-
parently have little in common.

I have previously said that in sound and light there
is no measurable amount of energy. I will assert that
no measurable amount of energy is necessary to impress
any of the senses. I wUl illustrate this statement as I
proceed. You may think that it is easy to measure the
energy of a blow which we feel. That is true, but we
may be more sensitive to a light blow than a heavier
one. The sensation even of feeling does not truly
measure the amoimt of energy concurrent with the
impression. Many of the nerves of touch are developed
so they are a measure of certain forms of energy, but
we can feel many forms which are measurable in no
other way except by the sense of touch. I may enjoy
a good appetite or suffer from the pangs of hunger.
The desire for food which I feel in each case is the same,
except in degree. No mechanical instrument will
measure the relative degree of difference.

Advancing to the sense of taste, and we have an
example which brings out the point more clearly. Take
the oil of lemon and let it stand in the light and it will
turn to oil of turpentine. There is no measurable

176 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

change which the physicist can detect, but our sense
of taste shows a difference. There certainly is no
difference in the elements of the substance, therefore
the only difference there can be is in the form of the
motions of its atoms, and this, while perceptible to
taste, is measurable in no mechanical way.

Take hydrogen as gas, liquid, or solid and it is not
sour, yet everything sour owes its characteristic to
hydrogen. If the hydrogen is not sour, the sourness
must come from a change of motion essential in the
formation of its various acid compounds. This changed
motion is not measurable, that is, the orbit of hydrogen
is not measurably different in the acid from what it is
in water.

This same test and example holds good in the sense
of smell. It has been supposed the sense of touch was
impressed by a definite degree of pressure, and that
taste was affected by the contact of solid particles and
smell by the contact of the lighter particles or cor-
puscles. The corpuscular theory has been discarded
as the theory for sound and light, but is still retained
for smell. The old stock illustration of the divisibility
of matter, is the particles of musk which expels its odor
carrying particles for an infinite time without any
noticeable reduction in volume. Even on the corpus-
cular theory it must be admitted that the size of the
corpuscle is immeasurably small. But the corpuscular
theory is not correct. The sense simply detects the
variation in orbital motion.

Let us take the example just given, and see the real
process of transmission. Musk, as well as other
pungent odors, has a nitrogen element in its compound.
In all such compounds nitrogen is unstable and volatile,
that is, it is relatively easy for it to change from its

The Senses 177

condensed condition to its original gaseous condition.
And this process of changing its form of motion, or
variation, is what the sense of smell detects. The
motion is still characteristic of the compound, and the
variety of motions gives variety of odors. There is one
other point which may be brought out here. We saw
in a previous illustration that in condensing, nitrogen
absorbed much more force than it normally possessed;
in returning to its gaseous state, this force is radiated
and the immediate effect of this force is to give the same
characteristic motion to the mobile atoms which com-
pose the atmosphere. In this way the odor might be
transferred and be detected without a particle of the
original substance entering the nostril. Hydrogen, in
condensing, does not absorb additional force as nitrogen
does, and the odors caused by the return of hydrogen
from a condensed state to a gaseous state we aj^Jy
characterize as heavy, dead, noxious. Odors from
putrefying organisms are chiefly from the hydrogen
element. Hydrogen has neither taste nor odor, it is
a variation in the orbit of its atoms, ' which we detect
through our senses, and these variations are measurable
in no other way.

Oxygen is without odor but ozone we say has odor.
This is solely because it is unstable and we, by the sense
of smell, detect the transformation of the ozone to its
enlarged orbit as oxygen.

Sulphur we say has odor, but sulphur may exist in
at least three different and distinct forms. It is only
when changing from one form to another that the odor

' It is probable that I err in speaking of an atom of hydrogen or
oxygen as much as one errs in speaking of "an atom of water." The
recognized "elements" form our present limits of divisibility and are
used as the only means of necessary illustration.

12

178 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

may be detected. It is the peculiar /onw of motion and
not the element which we detect through the sense of
smell. No element has odor while in a stable and
intransitory form.

It may be said that litmus paper will detect acid when
the tongue will not. This objection wotdd show the in-
correct conception of sense. It might be as reasonably
objected that because I cannot understand music,
therefore my eyes are not as good as another person's.
I want to emphasize the point that our senses detect
only variations in motion, and that the minimum of
these variations are not measurable. The senses are
no measure of absolute values. It is through experience
that we are able, by the use of our senses, to judge of
values. A farmer may judge by sight the weight of a
hog, but we know that sight does not give weight,
riij^ther does the sense of touch. It is only by experi-
ence that we judge of weight, i.e., value of pressure,
by touch. Acids have a certain value, that is, can be
graded mechanically, but the sense of taste is no
measure of that value. While sourness is a character-
istic of acids in general, it is not an essential. Of two
solutions equally acid one might be sour and the other
not, and while there would be a sensible difference to
taste there would be no measurable difference.

AU of the foregoing examples and illustrations of the
senses are but to emphasize the criticism herein made
of the current theory of sound and light, and to make
apparent the correctness of my own theory.

In the development of the senses from the vague sense
of feeling to the higher specialized sense of taste, we see
that the amount of energy required to impress the sense
decreases. In a dilute solution of quinine the particles
of quinine which affected taste would be too minute to

The Senses 179

affect any nerve of touch. In the odor of the musk,
the refinement of motion would be such that it could
not effect taste. Or to put it in a parallel way: the
amount of hydrogen that might be detected in odor
would be insufficient to be detected by taste in acid,
and even a less portion than would hydrate substance
enough to affect smell, would be visible in a luminous
spectrum by its variation of color, or be visible in an
actinic cloud. While in each case the quantity is
immeastirably small, still by the quantity present in
the compotmds used, we might know the comparative
quantity necessary to affect the various senses.

We see it so frequently stated that a specific amount
of energy is necessary in order to be sensible to us.
Let a quart of water absorb sufficient heat energy to
raise its temperature one degree, we can neither feel it,
smell it, hear it, nor see it, because this amount of
energy is not in a form to impress the senses. But this
amount of energy might, in a different form, affect the
senses. We may measure the minimum amount of en-
ergy which we can transform in order to excite the sense,
but we cannot measure the minimum part of the amount
of this energy which is necessary to affect the sense.

Under the current theories of the senses, mechanical
pressure for touch, molecular pressure for taste, and
corpuscular pressure for smell, there is an acceptance
of the idea of a diminishing degree of energy necessary
to impress the sense. We agree on this part at least.
Now, would it not be logical to think that in the next
specialized sense, which is hearing, that there would
be still less energy required to impress the sense? It
would certainly seem so, yet in the quotation given in
a previous chapter we see a comparatively enormous
amount of energy is required to impress th^ sense of

i8o An Unorthodox Conception of Being

hearing. "In the faintest audible tone the total energy
reqtiired to set the tympanum of the ear in vibration
is 2. 2 iJi [A mg."' There we have authorities giving not
only a measurable quantity of energy, but the least
quantity of energy by which hearing can be affected.

When Tyndall said that a deaf man might put his
hand in a bell and feel the sound, he might also have
said that a man without the sense of taste could put
his hand in acid and feel the sourness ; one statement is
as apt and true as the other and exactly parallel.

I assert that it takes even a less amount of energy
to affect hearing than to affect any of the previously
evolved senses. In other words, the organs of hearing
are constructed to detect slighter variations in the
orbit of the atoms than are the organs of taste or smell.
If we take an iron rod or wire one hundred feet long and
hold one end in the teeth, let the other end be scratched
or tapped with a pin, the sound is distinctly audible.
If the scratch was in the centre of a ball of iron one
hundred feet in radius, it would be heard equally as
plain at any point on the surface of the ball as at the
end of the rod or wire. The fact that sound will be
transmitted better through air enclosed in a pipe is due
to the fact that the vibrations of the air are confined
by the more dense substance, but this does not hold good
of the wire. According to the current theory of sound,
the energy of the scratch would not only have to be
enough to set in vibration all the supposed tympanums
that might surround the ball of iron, but set in vibra-
tion as well every particle of iron in the ball. We will
admit that the energy of the scratch can be measured
and designated by figures, and from these figures,
according to the current law of the intensity of sound,

' New Psychology, page 325.

The Senses i8i

we could determine the amount of energy at a given
space at the circumference of the ball, which space
might equal the size of the tympanum of the ear. I
have no idea the result would indicate near so much as
the figures given as the minimum of energy required
for sound, and I am satisfied that the amoiuit would
be immeasurable. In other words no instrument or
means at the command of man could directly measure
or indicate that there was any motion or other effect
of one end of a wire one hundred feet long if faintly
scratched at the other end.

I will express this idea in statements acknowledged
by physicists but not generally recognized.

Many forms of energy can be measured mechanically
which are not directly perceptible to the senses.

Many variations in the sensible forms of energy may
be measured mechanically when too minute to be
detected by the senses.

Forms of energy may exist in such minute quantity
as to be sensible, yet not directly mechanically measur-
able.

The difference in these last two statements expresses
the difference between measurable and sensible, between
mechanical motion and atomic motion, between the
materialization and manifestation, also, I might say,
between the material and the spiritual.

Our senses are the connecting link between the un-
conscious objective material and the conscious subjective
spirit.

Our senses, including the organs of sense, are the
result of an atomic organization whose function it is
to interpret to the Ego certain forms of energy or atomic
motion and this function can be performed by no
machine made by man.

1 82 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

From molecule to man is a complex development, but
it is a development of complexity only. The physical
ability and mental comprehension is one solely of
degree. The continued development of this function
in man we call experience, reason, knowledge. This
development is not of the Ego, or soul, or spirit, but of
the body and brain; a machine not made by man but
by the Spirit in man.

CHAPTER XII

SOUND

MY theory of sound and the transmission of a sound-
wave is based on "atomic motion" instead of
' ' mechanical motion. ' '

I assume that the variation of the size of the orbit of
the atoms of any body may, within certain limits, be
perceived as sound. The amount of variation impresses
us as intensity. The number of atoms from which a
variation initiates we interpret as volume. The fre-
quency with which these variations occur we perceive
as pitch.

The energy of the abnormally large orbit is transmit-
ted to adjacent atoms. The velocity of this trans-
mission is proportionate to the speed of the revolution
of the atoms of the transmitting medium; the close-
ness of the atoms (density of the medium); and the
ratio of Force to Power (as temperature) which might
change the speed of revolution of the atoms of a given
meditmi.

I assume the atoms to be in constant revolution.
The transmission of a sound-wave is the transmission
of the variation in the size of the orbits of this revolu-
tion. It is, therefore, atomic and in no sense mechanical.

I will refer again to the illustration of the spinning
tops. Let us assume an area filled with tops without

183

1 84 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

motion, another area of tops whose rotation is not
sufficient to prevent a certain degree of orbital motion
with just sufficient space between them for the orbit.
Now, with a definite degree of energy, insert a stick in
the centre of the area of motionless tops. The resulting
movements of the tops would be proportionate to the
energy necessary to insert the stick. That is, the
area of the tops would have to be limited to a quantity
that could be moved by the definite amount of energy
used in the movement. The absolute lateral motion
of each top in the circumference would be much less
than the motion of the tops adjacent to the centre.
This relative motion could be accurately computed
according to the law applicable to such cases (inversely
as the square of the diameter). This illustration is
quite an accurate analogy to the current theory of
sound. It is asserted that the energy producing the
vibration lifts the air and that the effect at any given
circumference, sensible as sound, is computed by the
same law as that just mentioned. That the lifting is
done by steps, i. e., by condensation and rarefaction,
makes no difference as to the actual amount that must
be lifted, or the distance (amplitude) which that amount
must be lifted to affect the tympanum. The only
difference is the time consideration; and as the air
must be lifted through a definite space (amplitude) at
the rate of over one thousand feet a second, the time
consideration does not materially affect the analogy.

I will take the second area of tops for the analogy of
my theory of the transmission of sound. I have as-
sumed in the conception of the relation of Force to
Power that each atom has a rotary and revolutionary
movement of which these tops may be an illustration.
If we insert the stick in the centre of the area of spinning

Sound 185

tops with just the same amount of force as required
before, we find a different result. The immediate effect
would be to check the rotation and thus indirectly to
increase the orbit, which woiild be repeated in turn
tmtn it reached each top in the area. At the circum-
ference of the area, how would the lateral motion of a
top compare with the lateral motion of the outside
top in the first illustration? We can readily perceive
that it would be greater. We would, therefore, be
enabled to enlarge our area of tops and yet get the same
effect or degree of lateral motion as we did in the first
case. Now this is much different from saying that we
get an increased amount of mechanical energy. There
is reaUy no more energy expressed in the second case
than in the first. If I wish to demonstrate ocularly,
lateral space, I could, by passing a shadow through that
definite space, do so with much less expenditure of en-
ergy than by passing a substance through that space.
So to a certain degree can sovmd be affected with less
expenditure of energy by a deviation of the orbit of a
moving atom than by moving that atom the same
distance laterally.

I might more definitely illustrate this by taking two
suspended balls in contact. I put a stick between
them, and a certain amotmt of energy is required in ad-
dition to the energy of moving the stick, which amount
is the energy required to move the balls. Now suppose
the baUs separated and to be revolving with scant
contact as their orbits coincide. Now we can insert
the stick with less necessary energy than before, as we
do not have to move the balls. As the balls come in
contact simultaneously with the stick the lateral effect
is greater than before, with less expenditure of energy
on our part. In further experiment we would see that

1 86 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the effect on the pendulums was not dependent upon
the insertion of the stick, excepting as to the size
of the stick, but to a greater degree upon the quality
or composition of the stick, and to the greatest degree
upon the speed of the revolution and size of the orbit
of the balls.

The intensity or carrying quality of sound does not
depend upon the energy used in producing it. More
energy is required to beat a base drum and blow a tuba
than to beat a bell or blow a whistle, yet the bell and
whistle may be heard to a further distance. In our
illustration of the revolving balls, I said that the energy
necessary would be in proportion to the size of the stick
used. So in sound, the energy used is in proportion to
the amount of air lifted, but this has but the slightest
part to do with the sound ; it is a necessary mechanical
operation in connection with our production of various
kinds of sounds. This required energy is in proportion
to the surface of the body vibrated and ampHtude of
the vibration, quality of the body being equal. But
it is never the vibrating body, and frequently not even
an atom of the first vibrating body which gives the sound.
We draw a bow across the strings of a violin, and we
hear sound which the authorities say is produced by
the vibration of the strings; but suppose the body of
the violin should be rubber, the energy and vibration
of the strings is the same, but what kind of sound do
you get? When we play a violin we vibrate the strings.
Our required energy is proportioned wholly and solely
to the surface of the vibrating strings (weight of bow
and reaction of the resonant body not considered) and
the speed of their vibration, and that may be, as in the
case of the rubber body, as great, but with little sound.
Ordinarily this vibration is transferred by mechanical

Sound 187

contact to the resonant body of the violin. As I said
in the illustration of the revolving balls, the quality
of the stick has more to do with the sound than the
energy of lifting the stick ; and in producing sound, the
quality of the resonant body from which the impulse
issues, is represented (in my illustration) by the
"quality" of the stick. A correct idea of this point
is of great importance. A resonant body can be set
into vibration with much less energy than an inelastic
body. Imagine trying to give the bugle calls on an
instrument of lead. While the sound to a great extent
depends on the resonant body as a whole (a cracked
comet would give, energy being equal, a less volume of
sound, and a less pure tone than a perfect one) , yet the
sound is not from the vibrating body or even the visible
intemodes in the body. This vibrating body mechani-
cally vibrates the air, which I acknowledge can be felt
by a deaf man, and these air vibrations are those used
in the illustrations in text books on physics. The
mechanical bodily movement of the air does not cause
the sound. It can be demonstrated that the mechanical
movement of the air varies more in its velocity than the
variation of sound ; that is, the velocity of the mechan-
ical movement of the air is greater in proportion to the
intensity of the vibration and decreases in proportion
to the distance, while the velocity of sound-wave varies
but slightly according to the intensity, and there is
practically no variation in its velocity according to the
distance.

In the phenomenon of the sound-wave there coexist
two distinct forms of motion, the mechanical and the
atomic. It so happens that in air these two motions
are transmitted with a velocity so nearly equal that it
has permitted an acceptance of the theory that they

1 88 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

are one and the same. The confusion of the phenomena
characteristic of each causes all the inconsistencies.

I will give several illustrations regarding these
phenomena. When we have an explosion in the air,
such, for instance, as results in a clap of thunder, there
are several effects, two of which I will mention here :

1. The adjacent air is compressed and is mechani-
cally forced back and this condition is transmitted as
a condensation, followed by the necessary rarefaction.
This travels in much the same manner as the orthodox
theory of sound. But its velocity is, to a certain extent,
proportionate to its intensity and decreases with dis-
tance and cannot, with an equal amount of energy
similarly utilized, be transmitted as far as sound.

2. The atomic variation which we perceive as sound.
The first effect, the mechanical compression of the

air, is perceived as a shock, a jar, sometimes shaking
the windows. This may come (at a half-mile distance,
let us say) fifty to one hundred feet ahead of the sound,
and (at a mile distance, we will say) , fifty to one hundred
feet behind the sound, which would mean that, in a
mile, there would be a variation of a tenth to a fifth
of a second.

Tyndall' gives an experiment where a series of
explosions are so rapid as to cause a musical sound,
and says: "The sound of this tube becomes powerful
enough to shake the floor and seats and a large
audience that occupies the seats of this room."

This tube could have been muffled so that very little
sound would have been heard and the audience would
have been shaken just the same, or the sound could
have been intensified and no shaking at all effected.

" Sound, page 264.

Sound 189

And yet this authority on sound ascribes this
phenomenon to sound.

We have all heard of the bridge that might, by the
synchronous tramp of men, vibrate to the breaking
point; we have all heard of an explosion that would
shake a room, but did we ever dream that sotmd in
either instance did the shaking?

The discrepancy in velocity of the two motions is
easily perceived and corrected in arriving at the proper
length of organ pipes. Frequency of vibration is
interpreted by our sense of hearing as pitch. Frequency
of vibration divided into velocity gives wave-length.
The length of the organ pipe proportionate to its
diameter is supposed to regulate wave-length, therefore
pitch. This length is figured by physicists, but the
figures do not agree with the facts. The actual length
of an organ pipe necessary for a given pitch is found
empirically and varies from the theoretical length all
the way from a fraction of an inch to several inches.
This is because the velocity of the mechanical move-
ment and the velocity of the transmission of the atomic
movement are not the same.

By an illustration it is easy to show that the sound
is from the transmission of atomic motion instead of
from the mechanical movement. Let us take a tube
with a plunger. Shoving the plunger into the tube we
condense the air and the effect is perceived at the other
end. The experiment will quickly show that the
velocity of the transmission of this condensation has a
certain ratio to the velocity of the movement of the
plunger. That is, the velocity of the transmission of
the mechanical condensation is changeable according
to the initial movement. The velocity of the trans-
mission of the atomic motion, or sound-wave, is not

190 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

changeable by the initial movement. It is plain that
if the sound of the pipe organ depended on the trans-
mission of the mechanical condensation and rarefactions
of the air within the pipe, a quicker injection of air into
the pipe would change the time as well as the intensity,
and under those conditions time could never be main-
tained in the music.

This difference is much more easily observable in
water. If we hit the surface of water with a stick we
cause the two distinct effects ; the first one is visible as
a mechanical movement of the water in waves, the
other is a variation of the vibratory movement. When
stick and water come into contact this vibrating move-
ment may be heard at some distance, first by one ear
in water, and next by one ear in the air, according to the
variation of the velocity of the transmission in these
different mediums. An equal sound effect may be
produced by exploding a small fulminating cap at the
surface of the water, but there would be comparatively
no mechanical effect on the water.

In the generation of a sound-wave, certain of the
extreme atoms in the intemodes of the vibrating body
attain an orbit sufficiently different from the normal
to effect what we call sound. These could effect the
orbits of the surrounding atoms and cause a similar
deflection, as the stick would effect the orbits of the
balls. If these surrounding atoms moved with a greater
or less rapidity, the transfer would be more or less rapid ;
accordingly, the velocity of sound wUl depend on the
velocity of the revolution of the atoms of the surrounding
or transmitting medium (elasticity), as well as on the
size of the orbits of the atoms of the surrounding or
transmitting medium (density).

This conception of the variation in the size of the

Sound 191

orbits of the atoms and the speed of their revolution
would easily account for the variation in the velocity
of sound in gas, liquid, or solid, or in the various forms
of substances in these various conditions.

A sudden expansion of the body vibrating would have
the same effect on the surrounding revolving atoms as a
solid stick would have if inserted so as to conflict with
the orbit of the two swinging balls.

The cause of sound then, according to my conception,
is a variation of the atom from its normal orbit, which
variation, within certain limits, we perceive by the
organs and nerves of hearing, and by them is trans-
mitted and interpreted to the consciousness as sotmd.

Now, as to the perception of these variations. It is
the current theory that the tympanum of the ear must,
by the air waves, be bent "once in and once out" to
make a sound. I say, the tympanum is not at all
essential to the perception of sotmd. Any one can
easUy find by trying that sound can sometimes be
perceived by touching a vibratory medium with the
teeth, when these vibrations are insensible through
the ear. We have an epidermis, but it does not aid
the sense of touch. The tympanum Uke the epidermis
is a guard or protection. It vibrates whenever there
is a mechanical vibration of the air sufficient to vibrate
it. If it were not for this protection the delicate nerves
of hearing would be impaired, as we find when from any
cause the tympantmi is destroyed. But the destruction
of the tympanum wiU not destroy utterly the power to
hear, and the vibrations transferred from contact by
the teeth will still be perceived, but from lack of constant
.practice the perceptions thus received are not so well
translated or interpreted.

The wave theory necessitates a mechanical move-

192 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

ment of the air, not a movement of the atoms singly,
nor a molecular movement of whatever description,
but a movement in mass in quantities sufficient to
embrace condensation and rarefaction, and with force
enough to mechanically move the tympanum. Accord-
ing to my idea, sound may be heard, and in most
ordinary cases is heard, without any vibration of the
tympanum as a whole. There is continuous atomic or
molecular movement of the tympanum of the ear, in
common with all bodies, which, when the sound enters
that way, is, according to its thickness, a proportionate
part of the medium of the transmission, and, as a con-
stant medium, is part of the normal conditions. When
the tympanum is changed by inflammation or any cause
it changes the normal condition, of our hearing, because
the movement of the atoms and molecules which
compose it are changed.

Now regarding the intensity of sound. We know
one mosquito sounds louder one foot away than one
hundred mosquitos ten feet from the ear, and that one
hundred whistles ten feet from the ear sound louder
than one whistle one foot from the ear. In each case
they ought to be equal according to the law given by
the physicists.

It may be asserted that in the illustrations I have
given, it is volume of sound that has increased and
diminished. This is true, but mechanics does not
discriminate. If we increase a given sound ten times,
there is no comprehensible mechanical way of telling
whether we have ten times the intensity or ten times
the volume. Our organs of hearing can interpret
whether the orbit has increased in size or whether more;,
atoms have an enlarged orbit.

Scientists prefer to depend on a law mechanically

Sound 193

correct than on an interpretation by the ear. Our
interpretation of the intensity and volume of sotind
comes from experience, but even if otir interpretation
was perfect, in order to know the correct law of the
intensity of sound we would have to have data on all
the essential parts to the phenomena, none of which
are absolutely constant. We would have to know the
structure of every vibrating body; to know the rate
of revolution and size of the orbit of the atoms, which
affect the quality of the sound ; the various movements
of the atoms in the structure of the medium which
transmits the sound ; the proportion of Force to Power,
and their relation in all of these atoms; and finally,
the conditions of the organs of hearing.

It would seem that the tendency of the organ is to
minimize intense variations and magnify sHght varia-
tions. In other words the sense of hearing is so delicate
that we recognize the variations in the lower register
more readily than those in the higher. This is true of
all other organs of sense. We notice the variation
between nine and ten quicker than proportionate
variations between ninety and one hundred.

The experiment of the singing flame, etc., ought to
prove the undulatory theory incorrect. The slightest
variation of the motion of the air will cause a flame to
flutter, but in these experiments the flame does not di-
rectly flutter, and is not affected at all except indirectly
from the effect of the variations of the vibration at
the vibrating point, that is, where the gas issues from
the orifice, and this vibration can be regulated so as to
correspond to some one of many variations. In any
text-book on sound we may see the cut of the tuning-
fork carving the air into sound-waves of condensation
and rarefaction. Holding the tuning-fork near a flame,
13

194 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

we see the mechanical effect of this mechanical wave in
the fluttering of the flame, but carry the tuning-fork
farther away and the flame is not so affected; the
mechanical motion has decreased according to the law,
which is erroneously called the law of intensity of
sotmd. The flame, or smoke jet, or water jet, may be
affected from a still greater distance, but it is affected
by the synchronous vibration of its most intensely
vibrating part, and not directly affected at the part
most sensitive to mechanical air waves.

Scientists wonder why people still submit to be lead
by the traditionary dogmas of religion. It seems
equally as wonderful to many why some scientists still
conform their opinions to traditionary theories, when
a little thinking ought to convince them that some of
their theories are not consistent with facts.

I might call my theory of sound the revolutionary
theory, because I conceive impressions of sound to be
caused by a variation in the orbit of the revolutions of
the atom, rather than mechanical waves in the substance.

I might go on at length and show how in each pheno-
menon this theory of variation in atomic vibration is
more nearly consistent with facts than is the wave
theory, but I think enough has been said to give one an
idea of the theory, and to aid in forming an opinion
of its worth. But bear in mind, our opinions, one way
or another, wUl not change the facts, whatever they
maybe.

CHAPTER XIII

LIGHT

TT.is admitted that the undulatory theory of light is
•»• based on the same claims as the undulatory theory
of sound. If that theory of sotind is weak in any of
its claims, that of Ught is still more so, as it has the
added weakness of necessitating in its theory the
addition of a suppositional medium which is called
ether. Ether, as defined, is not a demonstrable sub-
stance, and is contradictory in its theoretical nature
to any known substance. There is no reason for
conceiving ether to exist (as described) only as a
necessity in an undulatory theory of light.

Many have been misled into accepting unquestioned
current theories of sound and light, because of the won-
derful discoveries due to measurements and knowledge
of facts relating to sotmd and light, but it must be
distinctly understood that these discoveries are not
due to these theories. Eclipses were predicted and
verified before there was any scientific theory of light.

Ptolemy computed eclipses while supposing the sun
to revolve around the earth. Newton believed in the
corpuscular theory of light. Theories or no theories,
mathematical and mechanical knowledge advances.
This advance no doubt would be expedited by a correct
conception of the relation of the causes and effects of
the phenoniena.

195

196 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

There is no question but what the undulatory theory
of Hght accounts for a larger number of the phenomena
of Hght, and is more consistent in its explanation than
the corpuscular theory. But that it does not account
for all the facts in connection with the phenomena,
and is therefore not absolutely the correct theory,
scientists should not hesitate to admit.

The idea of inertia in matter may be discarded, but
there is still an inertia of mind, which causes it to
decline to revise its theories and creeds. Of course
this trait is an essential one in nature in order that some
fixity of type may be maintained, but between the in-
ertia of Materialism and the erraticness of Idealism
there must be a mean which is the shortest way to truth
and knowledge.

When delicate means of measurement showed there
was no accretion of mass under continuous absorption
of light, the corpuscular theory of light was weakened.
When variation in the assumed wave-lengths seemed to
account for color, the undulatory theory of light be-
came established, and no matter for how much it may
fail to account, it will remain the accepted theory until
some theory more nearly accords with all the known
phenomena of light.

In giving a different theory of light, I am impelled
to do so, not so much to explain this special phenomenon
as to bring this as one of all phenomena tmder my
general conception of the relation of Force to Power
in my conception of Being.

If Force is manifest only through the varied motion
of Power, and Power is only known through its atomic
structure, and the motion of these atoms may by
analogy be conceived as rotating and revolving or
both, with varying degrees of speed, then I must

Light 197

conceive light as being one of the variations of one
or more of these motions.

Referring again to the illustration of the tops.
Suppose we have a top spinning on a plate ; the lessened
friction at the point will allow it to revolve with the
shape of the plate as the path of its orbit. If we touch
the top, it will take an additional orbital motion.
This complex motion might be called an eccentricity
of the orbit, and in tops of a different specific gravity,
with an equal speed of rotation and revolution, or with
the same composition and different speed, this eccen-
tricity would vary. If the orbit and speed of the
revolution should remain the same, this eccentricity
would be at the expense of a slight loss in the speed of
rotation, or a slight acquisition of Force might be
utilized equivalent to the eccentricity. It would take
much less energy to give the top this variation in orbit
than it would to vary the size or general shape of the
orbit {i. e., from round to oval, etc.). In the top this
wotdd be on account of friction, but in atomic motion
pressure would be an equivalent impediment to an
enlarged orbit.

To be consistent with my idea of the development of
the senses, it must show that sight is impressed by a
slighter variation of motion than hearing. But first
we must define what the sense of sight is. The sense
of sight is that sense which is impressed by some motion
or variation of motion, and is transferred and inter-
preted to consciousness as the phenomenon of light,
i. e., luminosity.

Shape, distance, etc., are conceptions only formulated
by co-ordinate experience in conjunction with the
other senses. Light or luminosity is a variation of
motion so slight as to be absolutely immeasurable by

198 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

anything except the sense of sight. Generally that
which we perceive as light is accompanied by other
motions, which we call heat and actinic rays, both of
which are measurable. The heat ray mechanically
and the actinic ray chemically.

Tyndall, in one of his experiments, estimated that of
a measurable amount of heat in a non-luminous ray,
which was not in any way sensible to the eye, though
focused directly therein, less than one thirty -thousand-
millionth part of that heat energy, if it could have
been converted into light motion, would have been
sensible as luminosity.

From a ray from a given source, assuming waves of
varying lengths, meaning of varying refrangibility,
we wotdd get a spectrum. If that spectrum showed
at one end calorific rays, in the middle luminous rays,
and at the other end actinic rays, then the wave theory-
would seem plausible. But when we find the calorific
and actinic rays not only meeting in the centre, but
lapping, and we are able to wipe off from the spectrum
all the luminous rays without measurably affecting
the calorific or actinic rays, it is palpable that a simple
difference in the wave-length could not account for this
difference in the phenomena. Now, I claim that in
the ordinary ray, so called (or rather in the interception
of the ray), there is an actual transfer of force, which
is measurable as heat and mechanical energy. This
phenomenon I will take up later, but in luminosity
there is no transfer of force other than that necessary
to cause a variation of the motion of the adjacent atoms
in a like manner, which is sensible, but so slight as to
be measurable in no other way, i. e., is not in sufficient
amount to cause a manifestation in a different and
measurable manner.

Light 199

It is commonly stated that light is white, but may be
divided into primitive colors, but this is a misleading
statement. No light can be divided that is not pre-
viously combined. In other words, no light from a
single elemental cause is white. Various kinds of atoms
have characteristic variations in their motions, and
each variation is classed as a certain color. A com-
bination of certain of these colors in definite proportions
gives what we perceive as white light. A solid body
coming into incandescence passes through several of
the variations, which we perceive from red to violet,
and then, as all these motions are combined by the
organs of sight, we perceive it as white.

There is quite a difference in the perception of the
ear and eye. The ear can separate the sound variations,
and in a melody of sounds each may be perceived as a
different variation, but this is not because the ear is a
more delicate and discriminating organ, it is because
the variation of sound motion is of so much greater
lateral diameter and of much less frequency than that
of light. The eye has a far more delicate perception.
The ear could not locate sotmd to within probably a
possible five or ten degrees of error, but the eye could
locate light to within a very minute fraction of one
degree of error. The eye can also perceive slight
variations in color quicker than the ear can perceive
slight variations in pitch.

Before going farther I will try to give a more definite
idea as to the conception of the primary movements
of the atom. The proportion of Force to Power might
exist and be indefinitely increased: First, in the speed
of the rotation of the atoms, which would be absolutely
immeasurable and insensible (latent); second, in the
revolution of the atoms, which would be measurable.

20O An Unorthodox Conception of Being

relatively by the diameter of the orbit (density);
third, in the variation in the shape of the orbit, round,
elliptical, etc., which might be perceived as a variation
to the senses, but not measurable (possibly the charac-
teristic difference in taste and odor); fourth, in
rate of the revolution, which would be measurable
relatively only by results (elasticity); fifth, there
may be an eccentricity in the orbit, i. e., path of the
orbit which may be perceptible as a variation but not
measurable (luminosity) . In the transmission of sound
there is a difference in velocity according to the medium
and conditions of the medium, dependent on density
and elasticity. Density being equal, the variation in
elasticity is simply the difference in rate of revolution.
Again this relation may be perceived when the Force
is used to increase the size of the orbit, and we call the
material an absorber ; or when the Force goes to increase
the speed of the atom in its revolution, and we call the
material a conductor.

I have said there seemed to be no necessity for
assuming that there is any difference in the size of the
atoms. Assuming an equal amount of attraction in
each atom, or the atom as the smallest division and a
definite amount of Power, every condition of the
material is conceivable as a variation of the proportion
of Force related to each atom. So far, we have been
regarding the atoms as not having a proportion of
Force sufficient to prevent their being within the range
of the attraction of each other, so there might be mani-
fest that which we perceive as material. While we
acknowledge that the attractive power of the atoms
does not vary, yet we know that the effect of this
attractive power, i. e., weight and density, does vary.
A ball of a mass equal to one potmd weight might be

Light 201

revolving around the earth at such a velocity (resistance
not considered) as to have no weight, i. e., would not
fall to the earth. ' We might say that to increase the
mass of the ball would give it weight and it would fall
to the earth. This, of course, would follow unless we
at the same time increased the velocity in the correct
proportion to keep up the revolution, and if this were
done the result would be the same condition as before.
This same law must hold good regarding the atomic
attraction, which we term cohesion.

In the gases there is less cohesion than in liquid
or solid, but there is some cohesion or there would be
no variation in pressure. The velocity of an atom of
hydrogen at one mile from the earth would more than
offset gravitation, but it never is so great as to more
than offset cohesion, and this connecting link of
cohesion enables gravitation to increase the density
and cause the pressure to be greater at one foot from
the earth than at one mile. Suppose the velocity of
the revolution of these atmospheric atoms increased
many times the present velocity, the cohesion would
certainly be less, therefore, the pressure would be less,
and its weight less. Sound would then be transferred
through it with greater proportionate velocity, but
with less intensity. If the effect on the sense was
equivalent, the impression could be made from a
greater distance with an equal amount of energy, or,
to put it another way, the sense might be affected with
a less expenditure of energy. Such is the case with
sight.

We wiU assume that there is an atmosphere in which
the atoms are moving in their orbits with an intense
velocity as compared with the velocity of such atoms
as constitute the air, in fact nearly eight hundred

202 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

thousand times such velocity. Such being the case,
other things being equal, instead of an impulse being
transferred from atom to atom at the rate of nearly a
quarter of a mile a second, it would be transferred at
the rate of nearly two hundred thousand miles a second.
There would be no difference in the process, nor any
difference in the medium, excepting the proportion of
Force to Power would be about eight hundred thousand
times that of the ordinary atmosphere. If one of
these atoms were disturbed in its orbits by the addition
or excretion of Force or the intrusion of another atom
in its orbit, four changes could occur. The rotation
might increase or decrease in rapidity ; the rate of revo-
lution might increase or decrease; the size of the orbit
might increase or decrease ; the path of the orbit might
become more or less eccentric. The increase in rapidity
of rotation might be transferred as actinic force, the
increase of speed in the revolution might be transferred
as calorific force. The increase in the size of the orbit
might be transferred as electric force, and the various
eccentricities of the orbit might be transferred as color
or luminosity.

A checked rotation would give a sharper rebound,
like rays of the greatest refrangibility, as the actinic
rays; a checked revolution would give a rebound of
greater angle, like rays of less refrangibility, as the
calorific rays; and the larger orbit would give rays of
still greater refrangibility, like the electric rays. The
eccentricity of the orbit might give in its transfer any
variety between the first and second, according to the
eccentricity as color and luminous rays.

A statement of the reason for assuming that ether is
atomic, or rather that there is no such thing as ether,
but that space is filled with atoms, which I term "light

Light 203

atoms," may legitimately be demanded. Even if
such a theory is consistent with no more facts than
is the ethereal or undulatory theory, it ought to be
accepted, for by this theory no artificial, unreasonable,
and illogical substance is assumed.

Two reasons might be immediately brought up to
contradict this atomic theory. First, such atoms would
cause resistance to the passage of the celestial bodies.
Leaving aside hardness and tenacity, attributes which
I have not yet explained and which do not enter into
the equation here, resistance is in some way proportion-
ate to density, but not directly proportionate. In
decreasing the density, the resistance decreases much
more rapidly than the density. Taking the computed
density of lead as i, water as .12, and air as .0009, we
can readily see that a projectile moving with a velocity
sufficient to penetrate lead one foot (not ptmcture a
lead plate one foot thick, but to enter one foot in a
solid block of lead where there could be no expansion of
the material within the duration of the penetration of
the projectile) would go much more than nine thousand
feet with no other resistance than that of the air. On
the assumption that density is caused by cohesion
(density may of course be caused by pressure, but
pressure could not have such an influence in a universal
medium that could not be restrained) the density of the
light medium might be little or much as the cohesion
would be limited by the velocity of its atoms. On the
assumption that light atoms move at the rate given we
might fix the resulting density of the light medium at
.000,000,007. To have increasing resistance there must
be compression. The scientists assume that the ether
may be compressed as is necessary to obtain the con-
densation and rarefaction essential to the wave theory.

204 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I assume that a body of these atoms cannot be com-
pressed (except as I shall hereafter describe), first, not
by another moving body, because they are mobile, i. e.,
have a quicker motion than any other body of atoms.
Second, not by enclosure, because from lack of cohesion,
as explained, and rapidity of motion they penetrate
all material, i. e., pass between the molecules and the
atoms of all cohesive bodies.

I have said the ether offered little resistance to any
body of atoms, or material movements. I mean at
the velocity usual to such bodies. To a body moving
with slight velocity, mercury, on account of the mobility
of its atoms, does not offer as much resistance to pene-
tration as lead does, but to a body moving at sufficient
velocity it would be fully as impenetrable as the lead.
With a body moving at a velocity of a few miles a second,
the ratio of motion is so little that no resistance of the
ether is measurable. But as the velocity approaches
that of the velocity of the atomic motion of the ether,
the resistance is so great that it is supposed no motion
cotild be of a greater velocity than light.

The second reason to be brought against this theory
would be the effect of the mass on gravitation. This
law of gravitation is generally supposed to be very
definite, and all data derived therefrom to be accurate
and absolute. I wish to state again that the phenomena
that can be verified, such as an eclipse, etc., do not
depend for their prediction upon a knowledge of this
law, or of gravitation, or upon any other theory.
Space and time are two items of an equation that we
know with mathematical precision ; volume and velocity
specifically represent them, and from these bases
practically all the absolute knowledge is derived.

Newton's first attempt at the verification of his idea

Light 205

of a law of gravitation failed because of an incorrect
assumption of the volume of the earth (the correct
diameter was not known). This law is, other things
being equal, bodies attract each other according to the
product of their masses and inversely according to the
square of the distance. Very seldom do you see this
first clause quoted, but "other things being equal"
is a necessity in an application of the law. Our only
measure of attraction as gravitation is "weight." We
know that weight varies, therefore we may compute the
distance by this variation of weight in a known mass,
but always we must know where all other things are
equal. As an experiment let us have balanced on the
arms of the scales two bodies; let us raise a vessel of
water so as to immerse one of the bodies, and they will
no longer balance, which seems to show that one weighs
more than the other. We see by this that one of the
things that must be equal is the medium in which the
attracting bodies exist. As they mutually represent
the attracting power of the earth we can immerse them
both in water and, volume and density being equal, we
find that they again balance; therefore knowing the
weight of one we say the weight of the other is the same,
and we know that the attractive power has not changed.
But we wiU suppose the second body does not balance
our known weight in this medium, as it did in the other
medium. We know then that the volume being equal
the specific gravity differs. Now, the only difference
which could arise from the assumption of "mass" in
the ether would be a change in the computed specific
gravity of the bodies of the solar system. There could
be no difference in the attraction, as it would be the
same in all directions from all bodies. Assuming
"mass" in the ether necessitates a certain amount of

2o6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

resistance proportionate to the velocity of the moving
body. In assuming resistance it must be shown that
a mistake has been made in computing the weight, or
specific gravity, of the bodies of the solar system.

We will take for our illustration the moon in its orbit
around the earth. Knowing the rate of falling bodies
and the velocity of the revolution of the moon, we know
there must be a definite proportionate weight existing
between the moon and the earth. This has been
figured to the satisfaction of the scientists with no
allowance being made for any resistance in the medium
in which these bodies swing. If there is resistance,
then these bodies must be heavier, i. e., have more mass
than computed. That such is the case I will try to
show. A§ I said in the beginning, if a school child can
point out an error in a proposition of Newton's, he is
of equal authority on the point at issue. I will point
out one error which will be evident when seen.

Newton, in his seventy-fifth proposition, says that
a body at the surface of the earth is attracted by the
earth the same as if the whole attracting force issued
from one single corpuscle placed in the centre of the
sphere. This appearing plausible, he goes on in sub-
stance as follows: assuming that the radius of the earth
is four thousand miles and using this as our first unit
of measurement, according to the law that the weight
of a body will decrease inversely as the square of the
distance, a body weighing one hundred pounds at the
surface of the earth will weigh twenty-five pounds at
a distance of four thousand miles above the surface.
The error in this assumption can be better shown by
a concrete illustration. Let us suspend a spring scale,
that will indicate one hundred pounds, to measure the
weight of our body ; and suspend from this a ring (of

Light 207

neuter weight) to represent the body. We know that
weight is the measure of the attractive power we term
gravitation. Now we will attach to this ring three
spring scales to represent and measure the attractive
power. We will puU straight down on the central one
of the three scales until it indicates eighty pounds.
The attraction being eighty pounds, our weight measur-
ing scales also indicate eighty pounds.' Now let the
two side scales be pulled so each is indicating a pulling
or attractive power of ten pounds. We will have these
pulling down at an angle of forty-five degrees from the
perpendicular, so as to represent the pull of the earth to
its circumference on each side. The aggregate of our
three scales now shows an attractive power of one hun-
dred pounds. (Although the ratio may not be exact,
this is certainly the way bodies at the surface of the
earth are attracted, the larger portion directly down,
and a lessening portion angling even up to ninety
degrees when it is naught. If I were in any degree as
able a mathematician as Newton, I would be able to
give exactly the correct proportion, but for the illustra-
tion it does not matter. Any one can readily see that
it is representative of the way any body is attracted
by the earth.) As our scales showing eighty plus ten
plus ten aggregate an attractive power of one hundred
pounds, we might expect our weight scales to show a
weight of one hundred pounds. While we might expect
it, no one who gives it a moment's thought will expect it.
The weight scale will indicate nearer ninety pounds
than one hundred pounds (that is, when attraction is
one hundred weight is only ninety). Let us swing the

'The fact that it would require more energy to effect a like change
in two pairs of spring scales than it would in one pair does not in any
way affect the pertinency of the illustration.

2o8 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

two outside scales down the same as the eighty pound
scales ; then our weight will show the aggregate attrac-
tive force of one hundred pounds ; that is, changing the
assumed pull to the centre increases the weight. Let
us swing the outside scales out and the weight scales
will show a decrease until we reach within ninety degrees
(which is the horizontal) and our weight scale will
then show only eighty pounds. I can hardly imagine
any one of intelligence denying the result of this experi-
ment or illustration, so I will go on to the application.
You will note, by referring again to the seventy-fifth
proposition, that Newton said that a body at the surface
is attracted by the earth the same as if the whole attractive
force issued from the centre. I do not dispute this.
He might just as truthfully have said that a body is
attracted by the earth just the same when it is foiu"
thousand miles above its surface. The attraction does
not vary a particle, but you will notice that not a word
was said in that proposition about weight. Had he
said the weight of a body at the surface of the earth
would remain the same if the whole attracting force
issued from one single corpuscle placed at the centre
of the sphere, any one would have seen the error. Our
illustration with the scales shows that the attractive
power remaining the same, when we transfer it from
its natural pull to an assumed ptill to the centre, we in-
crease the weight. But in Newton's demonstration,
no allowance is made for this. Now all reckoning on
weight is made from conditions as they exist, and the
pound or other measure is defined as a specific mass,
taken at a fixed altitude, in a specific medium, at a
definite temperature, etc. When Newton or any other
scientist says: "One hundred pounds at the surface of
the earth," he means actual weight as defined, and not

Light 209

a mass that would weigh one hundred pounds if the pull
was all toward the centre, and, therefore, when Newton
says that a body weighing one hundred pounds at the
surface of the earth will decrease to twenty-five pounds
at an elevation of four thousand miles, he is in error,
for his proposition that attraction is the same, involves
the assumption that weight is the same, which it evi-
dently is not, and, therefore, the result at which he
arrives, i. e., that the gravity of the earth is one one-
thirty-sixth-hundredths as strong at the moon's orbit
as at the earth's surface, is not accurate.

It is true that the result of the error grows less as
the distance causes the angles of side attraction to grow
less, but I claim that scientists have no right to say
that my theory, which permits of a resisting universal
medium, is contrary to facts, until they shall give
mathematical demonstrations that are free from any
erroneous assumptions.

Let us compare the theory of the revolving atoms
with the theory of the tmdulatory ether, and see which
is more plausible. We know light travels or is trans-
mitted in a straight line, i. e., moves on one plane.
By the theory of a passive medium there is no plausible
reason for this phenomenon. To make this mechani-
cally plausible, cohesion would have to be assumed as
an attribute of the ether, but as no one can conceive
attraction without matter, cohesion has not yet been
given as one of the attributes of ether. It is simply as-
serted as a fact that light travels only on one plane with-
out making any attempt to describe why it does. Now,
by the theory of swiftly revolving atoms, it is easy to
conceive that only those atoms might be affected by an
impulse, whose plane of the orbits were perpendicular
to the impulse, and those at an angle would not respond.
14

210 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Again it is known that light has different velocities
in different mediums. How is this accounted for?
They say that the ether penetrates all substance, that
it is impossible to make a vacuum in which no ether
will enter, that between every atom and molecule
there is a certain amount of ether. In short, that
ether is homogeneous substance, and we have the atoms
swinging in this medium more or less numerous in any
given volume. Now, what should hinder the passage
of light through this medium? To be definite there
seem but two answers.

First, we might say that the light in passing through
these material atoms is more or less delayed, but it has
not been assumed that the ether penetrates the atom,
and to assume that the light passes through the atom
without any other medium than the atom would be to
discard the undulatory theory.

Second, we might say that the light took a longer
time in passing around the atoms, but that is not con-
sistent with the idea of light travelling in a straight
line.

The way this subject is usually treated is to say that
the velocity of light passing through different substances
varies according to the density, elasticity, and molecular
structure of the substance. But without defining the
terms used, this does not make it mechanically clear
why light does or does not pass through any substance.
We can readily admit by the atomic revolutionary
theory that the revolution of the atoms would be more
or less effected in the orbit, and size of the orbit by the
influence of the motions of other atoms. The con-
sistency of this point will be more fully brought out
in connection with phenomena that will be described
later on.

Light 211

Again, we know that light is reflected and refracted.
How is this explained by the wave theory? I wish to
again emphasize the point that the wave theory is
founded on the analogy of the waves on the surface of
water, and we are constantly referred to that illustration
for comparison. (In justice I repeat that some physi-
cists are honest and logical enough to say that in the
phenomena of sound and light there is really nothing
like a "wave" in the medium, that word being used
merely as a convenience of expression). We are cau-
tioned to remember that the particles of the waves
make, in the forward and backward or up and down
movement, but a smaU fraction of the actual length
of the wave (scientists are usually correct to a minute
fraction, but I have never seen, yet, where one has
given the definite fraction representing the ratio of
this motion), and that the wave is the essential thing in
this theory. Now we know that waves on the water
are deflected, interfere, etc., but I must again repeat
that wave-length is only a result of the amplitude, and
the relation of length and amplitude is as absolutely
fixed as the swing of the pendulum by its weight and
the length of its cord. The amplitude is the direct
cause and the length of the waves is the result with a
fixed relation. But in sound and light there is not
only no fixed relation, but no apparent relation whatever.
The length of the water waves has nothing whatever
to do with the angles of its rebound, only as a direct
result of its amplitude, as its relation is fixed. Again,
I repeat, in the water waves the amplitude is the
essential part, while length is a natural result. In the
wave theory of sound and light they make all pheno-
mena hinge on wave-length, but I have never yet seen
a sensible, mechanical explanation of how a wave-

212 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

length can account for a definite angle of refraction.
In the atomic revolution theory it is quite apparent
that the reflection, deflection, and refraction mi ht be
a simple result (I do not mean easily computed, but
simple in its conception, if conceived as mechanical),
arising from the varied movements of rotation and
revolution of the interfering atoms, and the varied
motions of the atoms composing the substance which
they strike, or through which they pass. ("They"
refer to the varied forms of motion by which Force is
manifest and not to the individual atoms.)

In this connection, I might speak of the computed
velocity of light. Roemer's computation from the
movement of the satellites of Jupiter, gives 186,000
miles a second as the velocity of light. This has been
verified by Hertz's computation with the aid of a
mechanical apparatus by which light is passed through
a slot and, reflected back from a distant mirror, passing
through another slot when the machine is gauged
correctly. This gives the same velocity, 186,000
miles a second. In the first instance only a minute
fraction of the Ught passes through our atmosphere,
and in the second instance it passes wholly through the
atmosphere. Now where is the difference in velocity
upon a change of medium that is necessary in the
explanation of refraction? Possibly this necessity was
not thought of, and a httle fixing was done to make
the figures agree.

In an article in a prominent magazine,' a professor
in one or our largest universities said, in speaking of
the cheating by psychic mediums, that they ought not
to be censured too harshly, for scientists were not above
doing a little of that, when for the good of the cause it

' William James, American Magazine, vol. 68, page 582.

Light 213

was necessary to make things come out according to
prediction. Theologians are frequently charged with
twisting texts and making verbal quibbles in the effort
to sustain their particular dogmas. Are scientists on
a moral plane so much higher that their statements are
absolutely reliable while others are subject to doubt?
I suspect that some are prone to value their pet theories
more highly than they do the truth.

But to return again to our subject of light. The
various rays are classed as light, actinic, calorific, and
electric, and the difference in their character is wholly
owing, it is said, to the difference in wave-length, but
I have yet to see the first reasonable explanation of how
a variation in the wave-length can make any difference
in effect. But even granting that the effect would
vary as the length of the wave, that does not satisfy
us how different effects come from the same wave-
length. Let us take in the spectrum of siuilight a
certain band in the blue. We see it is luminous, our
thermopile shows heat and our nitrate of silver shows
a chemical change. Here we have one wave-length,
and three various and different effects. Why, if
thermal, luminous, and chemical effects are due to a
difference in wave-length, are all three effects derived
from one wave-length? There is no explanation of this
phenomenon by the wave theory. I have already
given an explanation of this by the atomic theory.
Theoretically, even one atom could give all three effects,
the eccentricity of the orbit would give blue; the change
in velocity of the revolution of the atom in relation
to the size of the orbit of the revolution would give that
specific amount of heat; and the checking of its rotation
would give the intensity of force essential to a chemical
change. As I have said before I do not mean to infer

214 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

that these actions are as mechanical as the language
suggests, but that the conception is plausible and can
be expressed in language that makes the perception
seem mechanically reasonable. Scientists assert that
the length is the only difference in waves. I would be
pleased to hear any one give an explanation that is
mechanically reasonable of how a wave of ether of a
specified length (and the scientists will tell you to a
millionth part of an inch just how long that wave is)
can produce so different effects, and confine themselves
to the length as a differentiating cause.

Wave-length in the undulatory theory is a parallel
term or an adaptation of the term "periodicity" or
"frequency" in the vibratory theory. I will consider
it from thi^ point. In the chapter on "Force" I gave
an illustration showing that iron was a quick absorber
of heat and copper a quick conductor. The frequency
of a change in size of orbits could be greater in iron and
the frequency in change in speed of revolution could be
greater in the copper. This thermal difference in the
change designates a conductor or absorber. In either
of these cases the period of maximum frequency would
be comparatively long. In a vibration where change
of motion could be more frequent we might have sound.
The ability of a body to respond to such frequency
would be designated as resonance. The atoms of a
resonant body must then have a motion that can in
some way synchronize with the transmitting medium.
Let us take, now, a substance of greater mobility, for
instance, incandescent sodium. In this condition the
atoms of sodium are in such a state of motion that they
can synchronize with the motion of the atoms of the
ether (light atoms). The equilibrium is such that the
variation of the ratio of Force to Power is of such

Light 215

great frequency as to be sensible as luminosity. This
variation of ratio may be from one atom to another
and also a constant reaction with the atoms of the ether.
This Force cannot be radiated into the ether, that is,
be absorbed by the ether, but it can be transmitted
by the ether. This point will be brought out more
definitely in the chapter on " Radiation."

I wish to refer again to the phenomenon known as
interference. I will give this extract from Tyndall':

Thus it is possible by adding the sound of one fork to that
of another to abolish the sound of both.

We have here a phenomenon which, above all others,
characterizes wave motion. It was this phenomenon
manifested in optics that led to the undulatory theory of
sound, the most cogent proof of that theory being based
upon the fact that, by adding light to light, we may produce
darkness, just as we can produce silence by adding sound
to sound.

Did not most authors use practically this same
language we might call it a lie, for no lie could be more
misleading to one who did not know the facts. If I
say that by putting a mirror in a beam of light I thereby
create darkness, you know the language is not correct.
While it is dark where before it was light, we know that
the beam of light is simply deflected or reflected to
some other place.

Now this is exactly what is done in all cases of inter-
ference of light or soimd. Where there is a synchronism
of motion in crossing rays, the revolving atoms of one
ray interfere with those of the other and cause a slight
deflection (not in the least degree an annihilation) and
in the case of sound we have what is called "beats"

'Sound, page 381.

2i6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

and in the case of light there is a division into "bands. "
Wherever there is a dark band, the adjacent light
bands are to an equal degree intensified, so there is
absolutely as much light as there was before. This
result (which is the true one) instead of being cogent
proof of the wave theory is most cogent proof against it.

CHAPTER XIV

MAGNETISM

MAGNETISM and electricity are not, according to
my conception, extremely complex phenomena,
but I find it extremely difficult to explain them satisfac-
torily because the asstunption upon which this explana-
tion is based brings in relations which, if existing, have
not been recognized. The advanced scientists have
boldly repudiated the idea of an incomprehensible
luminiferous ether because it failed satisfactorily to
accotmt for so many of the phenomena, and in its place
substitute the assumption of a medium which can be
electro-magnetic in its action. The essential weakness
in many scientific hypotheses is in endeavoring to make
one phenomenon the cause or explanation of another
phenomenon, whereas the real relation is that of
diiferent manifestations of a common cause.

According to my conception of Being there is no
essential part that can be separated, analyzed, and
definitely described. All essential parts of Being are
inseparably associated; in fact, the microcosm is repre-
sentative of the macrocosm; certain of the forms
manifest phenomena in a contradictory manner, and
my explanation must necessarily cover these extreme
relations.

Before proceeding to relate various phenomena accord-

217

2i8 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

ing to my conception, I will refer to the electron theory
so widely discussed. Regarding the electron theo-
ry of electricity it is frankly stated that "the new
theory does not pretend to give a reason for the cause of
electric phenomena. There still remains a mystery.
. . . The electron theory is much more a theory of
matter than a theory of electricity, or rather, in the new
system, electricity is set up in the place of matter, the
existence of which was, on the whole, not much better
understood than is the essence of electrons at the pres-
ent time." Briefly stated, the electron theory starts
with supposing that these electrons combine to make
atoms. An atom with one electron more or less than
normal becomes an ion. This electron theory is sup-
posed to account for attraction, and therefore explains
matter. Attraction is explained by stating that atoms
are tmstable, that is, having one more or less electron
than normal, they become positive or negative ions,
and unequal atoms, i. e., ions, are attracted in order to
equalize. If we admit this, it only accounts for the
"why" of attraction, and not for the "how." Even
crediting this theory with all that it claims, it does not
explain the cause of the power of attraction or the
jorce of electricity, or the existence of ether or any other
medium of transmission, nor of the transmission. Why,
then, is it so frequently stated that this theory upsets
all the old ideas of matter? The orthodox conception
of matter is, that it is indestructible and that its mass
is unchangeable. It has been demonstrated (to the
satisfaction of some scientists) that the mass of the
electrons is not stable, that is, that the mass of a given
number and volume of electrons may change. When
we remember how the scientists have computed the
infinitesmal smallness of the atoms, and we are now told

Magnetism 219

that the electron is to an atom as a dust mote is to a
church in size, we must have great respect for the
physicist and mathematician who work with electrons
as glibly as a mechanic does with a two-foot rule. Their
work is both creditable and credible. It is all beyond
my ability, but not beyond my admiration. But I
have no more respect for their assumptions and theories
based on the discovered facts than I have for my own
ideas.

Computation of the mass of the electrons is based on
the heat which is developed by the particles themselves
when they strike an obstacle. The velocity being
known and the heat being estimated, the mass can be
computed. By different methods, different physicists
have demonstrated the ratio of mass and velocity of
moving electrons by an agreement relatively closer
than two mechanics would agree on the length of a
given board, and in each case they assumed that the
only source of energy is the mass and observed velocity.

Suppose we drop two balls of equivalent mass equal
distances through a vacuum ; the velocity of each would
be the same and the energy developed we suppose would
be equal. But, suppose we have one of the balls rotat-
ing with intense speed; the velocity and mass of each
are equal, but the energy developed by each is not the
same. Now, if we have the velocity, and energy {i. e.,
heat) developed by each, ignoring the rotational
velocity, we would erroneously compute the mass of
one as being greater than the other.

Again, suppose we have a given mass of water passing
through a nozzle at a given velocity and striking an
obstacle; we get the development of a specific amount
of energy. Let us now presume an equivalent mass of
liquid oxygen and hydrogen, mixed in proper proper-

220 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

tion to represent water, passing through a nozzle at a
velocity equal to the above, theoretically we would get
a development of heat, i. e., energy, just equal to that in
the previous illustration. But practically, we would
not find the experiment in agreement with the theory.
We might get a serious explosion, but otherwise we
would not get the development of much heat. If the
physicist could not investigate this experiment with
any more data than is obtainable regarding electrons,
he would certainly demonstrate mathematically that
the atoms of the liquid last ejected had much less mass
than the first. Now, we immediately think that we
could notice the difference in the surrounding air.
Granted ; but if the air were practically incompressible
and uncontrollable, we could not know that it had
weight, mass, or pressure, and there could be in it no
such measure as temperature. This is practically the
condition of the ether, and when its electrons are
demonstrated to have varying mass, there is no way yet
of telling but what their motion (not lateral velocity)
under the conditions just given is abnormally small,
and under those conditions it would be analogically
parallel to liquid air, and the heat developed would not
be at all in proportion to the real mass and velocity.
The absorption of force under those conditions would
not be perceptible. It seems a more simple solution
of the condition to assume a variation in the latent
energy (which I have stated elsewhere is conceivable
as a change of motion) than to repudiate one of the
basic ideas of science, "the immutability of matter."

I wish to draw attention to another point, which,
if true would invalidate the conclusion of a necessary
change in mass. We know that the velocity of falling
bodies is not proportionate to the mass of these bodies,

Magnetism 221

except as the surfaces of such bodies meet with resist-
ance in the medium through which they fall. In air
this resistance is calculated and allowance is made.
No allowance is made for the resistance of the ether,
for at the ordinary velocity of moving bodies no resist-
ance has ever been detected. It is only when the
velocity becomes so great as to approach the velocity
of the light atoms that measurable resistance occurs.
Resistance of the air accounts for a variation of velocity
and a change of energy developed by falling bodies.
If this resistance was not known or even suspected, then
every variation of developed energy, velocity and
volume being known, must be supposed to be from a
change of mass, and unless and until mass was declared
stable it would be impossible to detect and demonstrate
resistance of the air. On the supposition that mass is
unchangeable, the resistance of air has been demon-
strated and defined. On the experiments of compara-
tively slow-moving bodies it had become an accepted
idea that the ether was not a resisting medium. On
the assumption that the ether is not a resisting medium
when the electrons with a known velocity develop
varying degrees of energy, the physicists claim that
this is a sufficient demonstration that mass varies. I
claim that it is impossible to demonstrate that mass
varies until it is conclusively proved that there is no
resistance of the light atoms (ether) and if there is
resistance, to prove there is no variation of resistance,
or else to know the exact variation that may exist.

The prime object of any theory in science is to make
the physical phenomena mechanically comprehensible.
Scientists, or, in fact, any one, who can realize the
difference between comprehend and conceive, cannot
comprehend how an apple can fall to the ground, or,

222 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

in other words, there is no acceptable theory of attrac-
tion or of how Power or Force can act through space.
The advocates of the electron theory claim that by this
theory attraction is made comprehensible.

I will give but two instances to show that the diffi-
culty of comprehending is only shifted back one degree.
They say if we can tell how one atom is attracted to
another, then it wotdd be simple to tell how the moon
is attracted to the earth without material connection.
Then we are given the idea that one atom of hydrogen
is one electron short, and another atom has an electron
too many, and on account of the difference they are
attracted to each other and an exchange is made. That
is apparently simple, but according to the computed
relative distances between an electron of a negative
atom, or ion, and a positive atom, or ion, it is sometimes
greater than the distance from the earth to the moon.
If we cannot comprehend how the earth can attract the
moon, how can we comprehend that a negative ion can
attract a positive ion because it has an electron it wants,
though the space separating them is relatively greater
than the distance separating the earth from the moon?

As a second instance, I will give two extracts from an
authoritative work, describing certain phenomena of
the Crookes tubes, where the existence of electrons is
demonstrated':

In the first case the phenomena is explained by an
attraction exerted on the ions by the objects near which
they pass. In the second case, the two conductors attract
and hold the ions which carry a charge opposite in sign to
their own and so remove them from the gas.

These electrons move with accelerated motion and rapidly
acquire a velocity sufEcient to make them capable of

• Augusto Righi, Modern Theories of Physical Phenomena, page 42.

Magnetism 223

ionizing by impact the gas molecule, at some distance
from the cathode. . . . The electric force drives the
positive ions created in this manner toward the cathode. '

It will be noted that attraction as a power, and
electricity as a force, are given as causes of results in
the very experiments meant to show the existence of
the electrons as a cause. Then, in the second quotation
it will need considerable explaining to show how elec-
trons expelled from the positive pole, or anode (with
no suggestion in the theory that there is any attraction
in the negative pole, or cathode), can move with an
"accelerated motion," and by what means it can "ac-
quire a velocity." Nowhere in the theory is it main-
tained that electrons can spontaneously generate electric
force. Of course, assuming that a thing can spontane-
ously move with "accelerated motion," and "acquire
a velocity," then the impact and driving which follow
as a result are comprehensible. The point of the
criticism is, that by this or by any other theory the
attempts to explain Power or Force as phenomena
simply remove the impossible one stage, like making
the elephant rest on the back of the turtle.

I called these electrons "light atoms" and assumed
their existence before electrons were demonstrated to
exist or were given a name, but I did not and do not
now assume that they are any different from any
other atom. It is frequently assumed that the qualities
of matter are in the atom, that the hydrogen atom is the
lightest, etc. Given two equal number of atoms, and
if one lot were revolving in an orbit twice the radius
of the other lot, we, being without the means of knowing
this, might assume that, taking equal volumes, each

' Page 50.

224 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

atom in the one lot was four times as large as each atom
in the other lot. We would naturally assume the size
of the orbit to be the size of the atom. We know abso-
lutely nothing about the atom, even assuming the atom
to exist. We know something of the material as it is
manifested, and, assuming that it is atomic in its
structure, we presume certain things of the atoms.
The oldest idea of the solid, inert atom which is com-
prehensible, taken by itself, is being, or in reality, has
been abandoned by most authorities because it is not
only incomprehensible when taken in connection with
physical phenomena but is not in accordance with
demonstrated facts. The chemical nomenclature and
symbols prevent the practical abandonment of the
idea of atoms of varying weight. We say that two
atoms of hySrogen combine with one atom of oxygen,
making one molecule of water, and that each atom of
oxygen weighs sixteen times as much as each atom of
hydrogen. As a matter of fact, no one knows whether,
in a molecule of water, there is one atom of hydrogen
and a thousand atoms of oxygen, rather than one atom
of oxygen and a thousand atoms of hydrogen. There
is absolutely nothing known of the absolute or relative
size and mass of any single atom (the ultimately
indivisible). This statement may seem startling, but
it is true. Now, where nothing is known, I have as
much right to conceive and assume as has any one else.
I prefer to assume that an equivalent number of atoms
are of equal mass; that the apparent difference in
volume and weight arises wholly from the difference
in the size of their orbits; and that this difference, as
well as the velocity of rotation and revolution, arises
wholly from the varying ratio of the Force to Power,
which combined, cause the various physical phenomena.

Magnetism 225

I wish, by an illustration, to show that two different
phenomena (cathode rays and light rays) may be due
to a simple difference in the motion instead of a difference
in the medium. It can be demonstrated that the
cathode ray (or some portion of it at least) is corpus-
cular, and that the particles composing the ray are
subject to attraction and repulsion, and therefore are
material, while the ordinary electric, actinic, and light
rays are not subjected to attraction and repulsion and,
it is assumed, must therefore be ethereous, i. e., not
material. Then again, these light rays have ten times
the velocity of the maximum velocity of the electrons,
so this is taken as additional proof that the rays of
light are not propagated by a material medium. We
will take for our illustration in this analogy Tyndall's
row of elastic balls to which we have already referred.
"Urge one ball to the row, and the ball at the opposite
end will be repulsed." Assuming elasticity to be per-
fect and friction nil, the amount of energy developed
by the last ball will be just the same as though the first
ball had gone unobstructed to the end where the energy
was delivered, but there would be one perceptible
difference. It would take much longer to deliver the
energy, if the first baU went to the end, than if the
energy passed through the row of balls. Our energy
has been delivered in less time but, taking conditions
as a whole, there has been no net gain. The value of
the time gained is just what it would cost in time to
place the first ball in the position formerly held by the
last ball.

As a variation of this illustration, suppose we have

two tubes one being empty and one practically filled

with elastic balls in contact. Let a ball be projected

into each tube with equal energy, and at the opposite

15

226 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

end we get the delivery of a ball with the same amount
of energy, but in one case in less time than in the other.
Suppose, now, that we knew nothing of conditions
excepting the projection of a certain amount of energy
at one end and the reception of energy at the other end,
we would then say that in one case the velocity in the
ray of energy is much greater because it has travelled
from end to end in less time. And would it not be very
natural to say that the reason must be because there is
less material obstruction in one tube than in the other?
And would it not be rather surprising to find that the
tube which gave the greatest velocity was the tube
that was nearly filled with elastic balls? If these balls
were in synchronous oscillation, the effect would be the
same as if they were in contact, excepting a slight
variation in time (as a practical illustration, this latter
would be impossible, as gravitation would immediately
destroy the synchronism, but friction, gravitation,
imperfect elasticity, or any mechanical exceptions do
not enter into the atomic motion).

Let us vary the illustration again and assume the
balls to be on a smooth table and without the restraint
of the tubes, and subject to the influence of a repulsive
wind or some form of attraction. The ball that
traversed the whole length would be deviated from its
path by the repulsion or attraction and the energy
would be delivered at a point out of a straight line;
but the string of halls woiild deliver the energy true in
a straight line without deviation.

Now, the point I wish to make by these illustrations
is, that a transfer of energy is no less material in one
case than in the other. In one case the energy was
carried from one end to the other in the identical volume
of material; in the other case, the energy, or its equiv-

Magnetism 22^

alent in force, was transferred from one specific volume
of material to another specific volume of material ; and
that in spite of the greatly increased volume of material
implicated and the numerous transfers of energy, or
force, it was finally transferred and delivered in less
time than if it had been carried the whole distance in
the original specific volume of material. This is the
logical result, because it requires more time to change
through space a specific amount of material than a
specific amount of Force related to that material.
This is, to me, one proof that Power, of which material
is the manifestation, is of greater relative value than
Force, although Force in union with Power is essential
in causing the matter to be manifest.

Taking these illustrations as an analogy, we may
assume that, with light atoms or electrons, with a
period of revolution or oscillation eight hiuidred thou-
sand times that of the atoms composing the ordinary
atmosphere, the transfer of force as light could be
atomic just as conceivably as the transfer of force as
sound is conceived as atomic; and from this analogy,
when we see the electrons given off from the cathode
giving a certain effect in a certain time by a corpuscular
transfer of energy, and we see a like effect in less time
where there is no transfer of the corpuscle, i. e., elec-
tron, I have a right to assume that there were more of
these corpuscles engaged in the work, and that the
force was transferred from one to the other in less time
than when the specific electron traversed the distance.
I have no idea what law would apply in computing the
time, but if the rate of revolution of one atom is eight
hundred thousand times greater than another of equiv-
alent orbit, then the ratio of Force to Power must be
greater, certainly eight hundred thousand times as

228 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

great, and under certain conditions of relations of
Force and Power, the greater the ratio of Force the
greater the conductivity of Force. I say, under certain
conditions of relation, because there might be a million
times as much relative Force and Power in certain
material, and if it were latent as rotation, its stability
as such might cause the material to show no elasticity
excepting under certain conditions. If the size of the
orbit of the electrons were smaller in the ether than in
other material the rate of revolution would have to be
proportionately greater than that given.

Seeing nothing in the realm of scientific fact to conflict
with the asstunption that space is filled with atoms
revolving with such a speed as to prevent the usual
conditions whjch permit the manifestation of attraction,
as cohesion, I will make this assumption as part of my
conception of Being.

I have frequently referred to the constitution of
matter as not being so simple as formerly supposed.
I have no conception of what matter would be like were
it the result only of the materialization of the Power of
attraction. To say that the imiverse would be an
inert mass were there nothing but attraction, is as
superfluous as predicting what would happen if the
moon were green cheese.

It is conceivable that all the Power in the Universe
might be concentrated in an infinitely small space and
that it might be rotating with such a velocity as to
represent aU the Force in the Universe. This con-
ception would be no more absurd than many Idealistic
conceptions of the Absolute. But now, if we were to
assume a revolution, then there must of necessity be
occupied a definite amount of space. And if we assume
the Power to have parts and each part revolving, then

Magnetism 229

the space occupied would be proportional to the number
of, the parts and the size of their orbits. It is rather
difficult to conceive of attraction directly increasing
or decreasing the size of the orbits of the revolving
atoms, but by assuming a contrary Force the con-
ception becomes simple and intelHgent. While thus
relating Power and Force as entities makes the concep-
tion simple, it is not in reference to specific phenomenon
as comprehensible as the Materialistic or Dualistic
conception.

It is tacitly, if not authoritatively, recognized by
physicists that there is an "expansive force." I con-
ceive that every atom of Power has associated with it
a certain (not specific) amount of Force. How the
association exists or how the relation is maintained I
have not the faintest conception. As an analogy, I
refer to it as the atoms being in motion, and the variety
of motion, rotating, revolving, etc., with varying
velocities as representing the ratio of Force to Power.
I conceive the atoms to be different only on account
of the difference in the normal ratio of Force to Power
and the way the relation is maintained. I conceive
the motion of the atoms of the molecules to be as
intricate and yet as orderly as the motion of the mem-
bers of our Solar System, and I have no doubt that the
velocities and distances are relatively as great. What
we perceive as material is the forms the matter assumes
under the joint action of Power and Force. These
forms I conceive as developing according to the
"Supreme Desire," limited only by the conflict of the
individual desires. Scientists now realize that it is
not only the organic forms that manifest intelligence
in their construction, but that any particle of material
will show to the physicist and to the chemist wonderful

230 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

forms and shapes and a perfect co-ordination of parts.
This proof of inteUigent design is satisfactory to many,
and I, in my conception of Being, assume it to exist
and term its result the "Manifestation of the Desire."
When I speak of the form in which matter is manifest,
I do not mean alone the shape and condition of the
perceivable material, but the relation of one part to
the other like, for instance, our Solar System. On
our Earth, the varying ratio of Power to Force causes
solid, liquid, and gaseous states in which the stability
varies. In its equiUbrium, at least, the liquid is less
stable than the solid, and the gaseous form still less
stable, that is, both as to its atoms and mass, the gas
has a greater latitude of movement. I conceive the
atmosphere which fills space (ether) as being still less
stable, that is, not only the atoms but the mass is also
in a state of relatively extreme motion. But there is
one vast difference between the ether and the air; the
pressure of the air is according to its volume, that is,
if there were more air, other conditions being equal,
the pressure would be greater. In the universal
medium, i. e., ether, the pressure is an unknown quan-
tity. It might be infinitely great or infinitely small. I
conceive it to be great, but not infinitely great, at least
relatively not so great but what certain conditions may
cause in portions of it a change of density. (We may
take mercury as an illustration to show that density
does not bear a fixed relation to mobility.) When we
compress air, we restrict the size of the orbit of the
revolution of its atoms, and the force thereby repre-
sented is discreted, being absorbed by the adjacent
material, and as the orbits of revolution of the atoms
of this adjacent material increase in size, or as the
material expands, we say it is heated. Now, when we

Magnetism 231

compress or change the condition of any body or particle
of material, the light atoms (electrons) confined therein
are restrained in their orbits, and the force thus repre-
sented is expelled to the other electrons, or atoms.
As the Earth is surrounded by the air, so is each specific
body of material permeated and surrounded by its
atmosphere of light atoms more or less dense or in
greater or less degree of motion according to the
material composition of the body.

Material is commonly supposed to be a heterogen-
eous conglomerate of atoms and molecules, possibly
with some sort of motion but nothing very definite
or exact. There is no apparent relation in the move-
ments of aU the various bodies of the universe. The
comparatively modern discoveries give us the know-
ledge that a few of the bodies are related in their
movements, and these, we say, compose our Solar
System. This is not enough to give any idea as to a
plan of movement of the other great bodies of the
universe. But the knowledge that there is a definite
and very exact relation between the bodies of the Solar
System causes most physicists to have the idea that
aU the bodies of the tmiverse have movements in some
way related to each other.

Now, I believe that every particle of stone, ice, or
wood or anything in which there is an organic cohesive
connection is built up with an exactness and definite-
ness, and for intelligent reasons, producing forms that
surpass the mechanical ability and knowledge of man.
I beUeve the action of every atom to be spontaneous
and conscious. While the primary movement of the
atoms may be in response to its Desire, yet the result
of its action is not necessarily comprehensible to the
atom itself. In fact, the ultimate result of the action

232 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

may be practically different from the result aimed at,
as all things are subject to conditions. I wUl illustrate
my meaning in this way ; when conditions are such that
the molecules of water get close enough so there can
be organic action of the atoms, they proceed to build
up a beautiful structure which we call a crystal. This
crystal may be mechanically perfect in its structure
but its special form is not mechanically necessary.
If it were, each crystal formed under the same condi-
tions would be absolutely like all others. While there
is a family likeness in crystals of each definite substance,
there is very great personal difference. I believe that
each crystal is formed by a conscious response of the
atoms to the impulse or Desire to perform a certain
action. Now, this does not necessarily mean that any
one of the atoms comprehends the shape of the crystal,
its composition, or use; but even granting that they
did realize and appreciate the building of which they
are a part, the building may be quickly crushed or only
imperfectly formed, and ice instead of snow is the result.
Thus we see that conditions may control the resulting
action of the primary Desire. But even in the ice there
is still evidence of an organization under the conditions
imposed, and there are cells and lines of cleavage,
etc. There are characteristics even in ice.

Materialists claim that this is aU done from mechani-
cal necessity. The Dualists claim that it is mechani-
cally done by the direction of an exterior Power. I
claim that it is a spontaneous action of the parts, and
that our idea of mechanical necessity comes from our
experience and observation of the manifestations of
these parts.

An atom of the earth bears a natural relation to each
of the other atoms of the earth. The conscious Desire

Magnetism 233

of an atom bears a natural relation to the conscious
Desire of the Ego, but during the ages there has been
organized a machine (human brain) which demonstrates
to the Ego a certain comprehensiveness of the limitations
of time and space, which is probably not given to
the less-favored atoms. These limitations exist. The
individual Desires are of small avail against conditions
and are practically powerless at any specific time
except through co-operation or organization. Varied
conditions arise or exist from the conflict of individual
Desires or their concerted efforts, to construct or
maintain various forms.

Any of the heterogeneous conglomerate manifesta-
tions that may exist apparently in the material are the
result of conditions. Conditions change; the Desire
is persistent. I was saying that each particle of
material was, in a way, permeated and surrounded by
an atmosphere of light atoms and that their relative
motion was affected according to the composition of
the material. In most cases the particles of material
are of such a conflicting character as to neutralize any
noticeable effect, but in many cases the material is of
such a character that the effect is quite apparent. Any
specific kind of atom under certain specific conditions
of temperature, as gas under a definite pressure, will
have a motion giving a very definite result (osmosis).
The movement of these same atoms as a solid may
be as definite, according to its condition, but its
movements under such conditions are not so easily
determined because difficult or impossible to demon-
strate. But, when a specific mass of atoms without
apparent change produces different results, we are
forced to conclude that it is from some motion of the
atoms or some peculiar, unseen change in the molecular

234 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

structure which these movements build. When a steel
bar is magnetized, there is no apparent difference in
its structure, and yet its relation to its atmosphere is
changed. The demonstration of this peculiar atmos-
phere, termed the "magnetic field," has brought it
within the realm of fact. Of what this atmosphere
consists, and the cause of its various motions is still
theoretic. I assume that this atmosphere (ether) is
composed of light atoms revolving with great velocity.
The motions of this medium show a large ratio of
velocity to density, or as I would term it. Force to
Power. An extreme velocity would give the atmos-
phere the quality of rigidity. This atmosphere per-
meates dense bodies and is influenced to some degree by
them, or rather according to the sjmchronism of the
vibration, thfere is a closer relation and a greater possi-
bility of an interchange of their force. Ice, water, and
vapor show great changes in form simply by having
an increased ratio of Force to Power. Changes of no
greater difference than this may occur in the vmiversal
medium, and be what we call electricity, magnetism,
and other ethereous conditions. Of late years this
idea is beginning to be recognized by physicists, but
the chief thing against its admission is that the idea
cannot be made mechanically comprehensible.

As I have stated, I conceive ether to be atoms with an
intense velocity of motion. The portions of this which
is in or near other substances may act and be acted
upon by these substances so that the velocity is changed,
that is, that the ratio of Force to Power is changed.
Thus, some of the atoms may have less motion than
normal, and some may have more. (What I mean by
normal is not very definite. The normal motion of a
hydrogen atom would vary according to conditions.

Magnetism 235

We would not say that the normal condition was in
water any more than in ice or vapor or in acid. But
if some atoms existed as ice and some as vapor in a room
whose temperature was forty degrees, we would say
that condition was abnormal, and as fast as force could
be obtained, the ice would melt, and as fast as force
could be radiated, the vapor would condense. Under
those conditions, the movement of the atoms in the ice
would be abnormally small and in the vapor abnormally
large. These changes, which are always spontaneous,
from the abnormal to the normal, is what we recognize
and term transformations of energy.)

With the physicists the idea seems to persist that
motion means expended energy and work done; that
all motions must be ultimately down^hiU. But I
believe that down-hill is no more applicable imiversally
than is the old idea that people on the other side of
the earth are hanging with their heads downward. I
believe that for every down-hiU motion there is an up-
hill motion. What we perceive as motion or energy is
a change in the material form, and the change we
desire as work done is, relative to us, generally of
an up-hill nature. Therefore, the energy we use in
accomplishing this is the down-hiU movement.

In a spinning top, we say the energy represented is
proportionate to the mass and velocity. If the motion
were in a straight line or in an orbit, it would be just
the same. If there were no friction, this motion would
persist; would continue forever as such a motion.
But we see at the point of the top some friction. The
energy is changed, and a greater motion is seen to arise
in the material at the point of contact. The mass of
the top is practically unchanged, but its motion is
changed, that is, the velocity of the motion is less.

236 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Therefore, as the energy is proportionate to the mass
and velocity, there is now less energy represented by
the top, and an equal amount of energy is present in
the other material. I have said that the rotating and
revolving tops might by analogy represent the atoms,
but it is only by analogy. How Power and Force, or
Mass and Motion can be associated is incomprehensible.
Two atoms are never in contact ; their associated Forces
may be in contact, but when we speak of the contact
of an immaterial Force, it carries no meaning whatever.
Scientists may say that it is unthinkable how force can
act at a distance, ~but I say that it is unthinkable how
Force can act at all. Vortexes, corpuscular bombard-
ment, electric stress, magnetic flux, and all such efforts
to make Power and Force and their primary movements
mechanically comprehensible, seem but to add distance
to the absolutely incomprehensible First Cause. I
digress so frequently to enforce this point because
material philosophers seem to insist that there is no
essential part of any phenomenon but which may be
made comprehensible. Almost every new discovery
in science is heralded as, if not the last, almost the last
step in the solution of any mystery there is in Being.
When I premise the existence of Power and Force as
the sole composition of the universe, I make no pretence
to a comprehension of Power and Force nor of the
manner of their relation. When I premise that the
Desire of the Power governs this relation, I make no
pretence of comprehending how it is done. I do con-
ceive, in my conception of Being, a ratio of Force to
Power, and that in the various parts of the Being this
ratio varies, and by analogy I get a conception of the
general working of specific parts of Being.

Scientists generally speak of matter and energy as

Magnetism 237

though they were the two different parts. So far as
we perceive the material, there is none but what shows
the joint manifestation of Power and Force, and this
is necessarily so, as we can only perceive the material
on account of a transformation of energy, i. e., change of
relation of Power to Force in one part of the material
to a change of relation of Power and Force in another
part of the material. We are sensible of nothing but
a change in the form of energy, and furthermore, as I
have stated before, the specific part of the changing
energy perceptible (sensible) to us, is absolutely im-
measurable in any other way. It is this incontrovertible
fact that has given the Idealists such justifiable ground
for many vague conceptions of Being. I do not try
to weaken my idea that two and two are four, because
some Idealist says that two and two may be five, in
the next world. So, I accept our sensible experience
of facts as of prime importance in my conception of
Being, and try to make that conception as compre-
hensible of the whole as possible, without believing
that it will be or could be entirely so.

I often use the terms "matter" and "energy"
(atomic motion), but in no sense is it to be construed
as an intermediate or secondary cause. I speak of
Power as being manifest as matter, and Force as being
manifest as motion, but matter is never separable
from motion, therefore, Power is never manifest only
as material in which form it is perceptible through
pectdiarities of motion. The difference between the
amount of motion of the atoms of the material in
one condition and the amount of motion of the same
mass of material in another condition we term energy.
Physicists grant that "matter" is an abstraction and
that material only is concrete.

238 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

With this long "interamble," I will go back to the
point where I said that ether may act and be acted upon
by other matter. We will take a magnet for instance : we
will suppose the movements of the atoms and the con-
dition of the molecules composing the magnet to be
such that the ether may be compressed, i. e., become
more dense. We recognize that density may come from
three causes; first, from cohesion, as lead, where the
ratio of Force to Power is relatively small (apparently) ;
second, from spontaneous and inherent change of the
kind of motion, as nitrogen in nitrates, where the ratio
of Force to Power may remain relatively high ; third,
from gravity or mechanical pressure, as the lower
strata of air, where the ratio of Power to Force is pro-
portionate to the pressure. The greater density of the
ether which exists in the magnet, or in the magnetic
field, whichever place we may believe it is more dense,
is somewhat different in cause and effect. In the above
three instances the movements seem to be normal and
stable so long as the conditions are stable, that is, there
is no sign of interatomic contest — ^no perceptible strain.
The variation of density assumed in the magnet gives
rise to phenomena more like air or water unequally
heated. Take a vessel of water and apply heat to the
one portion, and we get up a current in the water.
This comes from the unequal density under the equal
pressure. In this experiment we have energy (kinetic).
In the magnet and the magnetic field, we have a cir-
culation which must be an effort to relieve the stress
due to an unequal density under equal pressure. But
in this instance, there is no energy (kinetic), rather
the energy is so continuously equalized as to be
imperceptible.

What is a magnet? Pumping water attracts no

Magnetism 239

attention, but suppose a person had never before seen
such a similar operation. The first impression would
naturally be that the machine manufactured the water.
If it was explained that the water was in the ground,
then the idea would occur that the plunger in the pump
must have some sort of attraction or aflBnity for the
water, and thus lift it. Some learned person might say
that it was the pressure of the air which forced the water
up to the plunger; a real scientist might advance his
knowledge by informing him that it was really the power
of gravitation which puUed the air down and gave it
the pressure which enabled it to force the water up.
The person might then think that he was ready to
graduate in physics, but I would not be satisfied to let
him go until I had said that there really was some
attraction of the plunger for the water, as without
cohesion there would be. no suction which is necessary
to cause a vacuum; that, also, the force of the air
essential to a change of pressure with a change of
density is just as essential as the power of gravitation
which causes the density.

The moral of this story follows : A dynamo is a com-
plex magnet. There are people who think a dynamo is
a machine to manufacture electricity — some people
even believe this who know that a pump does not
manufacture the water. But most people think they
know that the electricity already exists, and that the
magnetic part is really what attracts the electricity,
and that the rest of the dynamo is what pumps it out
through the wires. Some learned person will say that
it is really the pressure of the ether on the magnet,
which is a vacuum, and the momentum of the entering
ether which forces some of the electricity out at the
valves, where it is caught up by the revolving field and,

240 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

by centrifugal force, thrown through the brushes on
to the wires. Then, some scientist will say that what
causes this pressure is really electrical attraction; that
certain of the electrons are absent in the atoms, which
are, therefore, ions having a negative charge ; and that
certain ones have a positive charge, and that they are
unequally distributed around the magnet, and the
efforts to get together cause the disturbance. Of
course, these are but parodies on the theories, but it is
sufficient to say that the knowledge of what electricity
is, or its cause, is theoretic, and that the theories do
not agree. ^ ' ' The impossibility of finding a satisfactory
mechanical representative of the supposed electric de-
formation of the ether made it soon apparent that even
under the new order of idea, the conception of the
nature of electricity still remained obscure." In the
last few years a number of facts have been demonstrated
which have eliminated many theories and given rise
to many more, but, to my knowledge, nothing has
occurred to change my original conception.

In rewriting my book, I decided to use the term
"electron" more frequently than "light atom" because
that word now conveys some more definite meaning.
Of course, what electrons are, is no more known than
what atoms are. I do not suppose that there is any
difference, except as to their motion.

I must make a few more digressions before I am ready
to give my answer as to what a magnet is. If we take
a strip of steel and fasten one end, we can set the steel
into vibration. We say that the duration of the vibra-
tion, other things being equal, will be in proportion to
its elasticity. But what is elasticity? Before answer-
ing this point I must go back still farther. What is

' Righi, Modern Theories of Physical Phenomena, page 12.

Magnetism 241

steel? The relation of Power to Force, in its simplest
form in the elementary gases and liquids, may be
relatively simple, because there is comparatively no
complexity in the forms. But, let this relation, in a
minute drop of water change, and we have a snowflake.
I have an idea that the movement of every atom in
that flake bears an accurate relation to the movement
of every other atom; that the cohesion and expansion
essential to its parts are expressible by an absolute law.
All these might be computed mathematically, explained
mechanically, and expressed algebraically, at the expense
of pages of figures, words, and signs. And then we
could not comprehend how or why the snowflake was
formed. Now, in this simplest of forms, with a minute
change of the ratio of Force to Power, what a difference
in the material. Compress enough of the flakes
together to give us a body, as ice, and we have the
quality of hardness, which was not possessed by the
water. From this, I draw the conclusion that hardness
is a result of the "form" which is brought about by
the relation of Force to Power in this condition. Hard-
ness is not an attribute of matter, but of certain forms
which some matter takes. It seems easier, or more
natural, for some classes of matter to take on this form,
or, as I express it, the Desire of some atoms causes them
to take the form characteristic of iron, which is com-
paratively hard ; and it is more desirable for some other
atoms to take the form characteristic of lead. And if
the Desire of these atoms is unchangeable, it is certainly
admissible to say that atoms of iron or lead are elemen-
tal. We say that certain atoms are apt to take certain
characteristic forms ; but the attribute is of the form
of the materials and not of the atoms.

Coming back, now, to the steel rod, we conceive the
16

242 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

difference between this rod and a stream of molten
metal is one more of form than a simple variation in the
ratio of Force to Power, as we perceive in a liquid more
or less hot. The difference in combination and the
various processes of manipulation offer conditions for
formations that, no doubt, are at least as accurately-
proportioned and as artistically fashioned as if planned
by a human architect. Steel, then, is a material with
a characteristic form of motion.

I wish to make the point of difference between "form"
and "shape. " Shape is the spacial aspect observed by
us; by form, I mean the peculiarity of motion. The
shape of the formation may be changed, as snow is
changed to ice by mechanical pressure, but there still
persists a form of motion which gives the ice its charac-
ter. So, in tlie steel, the crystals of the iron may be
mechanically changed or modified, and the form of the
motion give different results, but it is the form of the
material as well as the matter in the material that gives
it character. The shape of the rnaterial has practically
no bearing on "form."

If we bend down one end of the steel rod, then release
it, we see it spring back. We say it is elastic. Con-
ceding elasticity as the attribute of form, we might,
from the foregoing, define elasticity as "the ability
of the material to regain its characteristic form." In
the case of gas, there is no definite shape, but there is
a form. When the pressure is removed from a gas
which has been compressed, it immediately expands to
its original form (volume). If tmder the compression,
a portion of the Force of the gas is taken away, it can
expand only as it can regain the Force from the surround-
ing material. Because gas has this power to take
this necessary expansive Force from the surroimding

Magnetism 243

material and regain its normal form, we say that gases
are perfectly elastic. Now, hydrogen is not perfectly
elastic, but the gas, hydrogen, is perfectly elastic. Or to
put it in another way, hydrogen in the form of a gas, is
perfectly elastic. So, iron in the form of steel is elastic.
The text-book says that, "elasticity is a strain in the
material, and the cohesion of the convex side and the
expansive force compressed on the concave side doubly
aid the relieving of the stress." I will admit that
"strain" and "stress" are words expressing the same
phenomena, and that elasticity is the antonym. But
let us look a little closer at these given causes.

1. On the convex side the atoms are drawn apart.
Now, when atoms are drawn apart, according to the
law of gravitation (which cannot be proved not to
apply), the cohesive effect would be less.

2. On the concave side, the expansive force is not
compressed but pressed out, which is shown by the
adjacent material expanding, i. e., becoming heated,
and therefore there is .in this side of the material, less
expansive force than formerly.

These explanations contradict both the causes given
for elasticity. I may be rash in contradicting the cause
for elasticity as given in any text-book on physics, but
I win try logically to maintain my position. Cohesion
as a form of attraction can directly have but one result,
which is, in increasing the density of the material, i. e.,
contracting the material to the least resisting volume.
(So far as tenacity is used to express cohesion, it is not
directly a form of attraction, but indirectly a character-
istic of the form.) Take, for instance, air, which may
be compressed to the form of a liquid, supposing the
Force (heat) to be abstracted during this process of
compression (this supposition is necessary to illustrate,

244 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

as air may be compressed to a density greater than
liquid air and yet not be in the form of a liquid), and
if in a proper receptacle, we may see a gas remaining
for a definite time in a liquid form, yet it is in reality a
gas and not a liquid. It is perfectly elastic, that is, it
is able to regain its characteristic or normal form if it
can get the force necessary to that formation. Some
presume that the ability lies in the Force and that the
mass is inert. I conceive the ability to be in the mass,
or that Power has the control and Desire dictates to
Force so far as conditions permit. I have said before
that, so far as we might judge by energy. Force seemed
to predominate, but I have seen one man control
tremendous forces and direct more energy than was
reqiiired to create the man himself. It is not necessarily
this absolute "ratio of Force to Power that indicates
the controller.

I claim that Attraction is the Supreme Power, and
that the Desire of this Power manifests itself as material
through the aid of (or by directing the opposition)
Force; that this Power is atomic in its structure {i. e.^
that each particle of Power is a specific part of that
Power and can be no more or no less), but that accord-
ing to the Desires of these parts, they may, as conditions
permit, maintain a greater or less proportionate amount
of Force ; that these atoms (on account of consciousness,
memory, and volition) are able to co-operate and take
form, each form having its characteristic; that the
conflict of these Desires causes a transfer of Force from
one to the other; that this Force, as transferred from
one to the other, is what we call energy, and which is
the sole method by which we, as human beings, have
our consciousness impressed with the perception that
there is any such thing as Being.

Magnetism 245

Now, after this recapitulation, we will come back to
elasticity. Saying that elasticity is the ability of a
material to regain its characteristic form, does not
explain this ability. A man may mechanically de-
scribe a steam engine, but he cannot mechanically
explain how it can run without ultimately using some
word, such as Power or Force, which cannot be mechan-
ically explained. The property of elasticity can be
described, and its relation to the other properties can
be demonstrated, but the effort to give a mechanical
explanation of elasticity is, I believe, futile. This
same statement holds good with any other of the
characteristics of a material. Hardness, tenacity,
ductility, etc., can be described, and, given sufficient
data, any one of them could be predicated, but I do not
believe the ultimate cause of these attributes in the
form of the material can be expressed any more
definitely than is expressed by saying, it is "a Mani-
festation of the Desire of the Power." It is true
that it is expressed more concisely by saying that
it is "a law of nature" or the "will of God," and I
would use either of these expressions, but they would
not convey to most people my conception. (I do
not know that the language which I use will even do
that.)

I have dwelt on the attribute of elasticity rather
more than on any other because this is apparently the
most important characteristic in all ordinary forms of
energy.

When we bent the steel rod, we used a certain amount
of energy. We now have in the rod a strain or stress,
which means that the material is out of its normal
form, and, as an elastic body, it has the ability to regain
this normal form, providing conditions will allow it to

246 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

do so. This is very different to saying "when condi-
tions compel it to do so." If it were an iron rod, the
energy used in bending it would be manifest as heat in
the rod, or in the material surrounding the rod. In
the steel rod, the heat, i. e., force, expelled from the
concave side is, to an equal quantity, absorbed by the
convex side. So, the energy is manifested in the strain,
or rather, because of its failure to manifest, we say the
energy is potential in the stress. This is a current
scientific phrase, but "energy potential in the stress"
no more explains why the material will, if permitted,
takes its characteristic form than the phrase "because
it has the ability." This latter phrase is more apt to
convey the idea that the steel is part of an Intelligent
Being than the other phrase, even if it does not convey
as much meaning to a scientific mind.

I think we are now ready to come back toward the
magnet. (I say "toward" but not to it yet.) We
will say that the steel rod is formed by atoms which
have a characteristic motion; that it is permeated by the
ether whose atoms have a characteristic motion. Some
scientists say the ether permeates all atoms. I do not
believe it. I conceive of atoms occupying a definite
space, and that the volume as well as mass of each
atom is unchangeable.' But I conceive that a large
number of atoms may revolve through the same space,
and if the size of the orbit gives the impression of the

" This of course is a mechanical and material conception that is not
assumed as a literal fact. But if we do not have this conception we are
compelled to give to the abstraction of space a mystery and admit
that two bodies may occupy the same space at the same time. The
moment we assume Spirit as occupying space we make it material and
I must of necessity do this to make my conception sensible.

The conception of Being may be comprehensible even though the
relations conceived are not comprehensible.

Magnetism 247

size of the atom, then, to an equal extent, would we
get the impression that one atom could absorb another,
or that one atom could penetrate another. (As it is
said that the electrons pass through the atoms of solid
material.) But, under any arrangement of the revolu-
tion of the atoms to economize space, there would be a
Hmit to the number of atoms that could exist in a
definite space. Now, if some of the atoms have an
elliptical orbit (and I believe that most revolving bodies
have), tmder any systematic form, when two materials,
as the steel and ether occupy the same space (no two
atoms occupying the same space at the same time),
it is natural to suppose that the orbits would coincide ;
that one or the other must curtail its orbit, or the two
together occupy more space. Now, I claim this is the
condition of the magnet. There is a contest between
the steel and' the ether as to which shall maintain its
characteristic form. As it takes time for an internal
atom to reach tmoccupied space, the orbit must be
curtailed. To say that the orbit is curtailed is the
same as saying that the proportion of Force is lessened.
As we have seen in a former illustration, the force could
be shifted to the outside space quicker than the atom
itself could be. While the pressure of the ether may be
enormous, it is conceivably not so great as the combined
pressure occurring from the effort of the steel and ether,
each endeavoring to maintain its normal form, which is
equivalent to sajdng that the ether is more dense inside
the steel, which would again be equivalent to saying
that the proportion of Force is greater just outside the
steel, as certainly the mass of ether in its effort to main-
tain its characteristic form could resist the efforts of
the steel to compel an absorption of this surplus force.
Under these conditions, we would have (supposing a

248 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

continuous motion of the atoms in this essential way)
a perfect continuously acting spring composed of two
separable parts (the steel and ether), each of whose
parts, Force and Power, are partially separable. The
steel, a solid, occupying a definite location in space;
the ether, a substance more mobile than gas, but the
intense pressure and velocity of revolution of its atoms
giving it a rigidity equal to the steel. Under these
conditions is it difficult to conceive an effect that we
know is manifest by a magnet? We see that there
would be a continuous circulation of the ether. An
increased density inside, and an increased force outside
would give the same condition as would exist when
water is heated in one part; in the heated part, more
force, and in the colder part, greater density; and the
more mobile the substance the greater would be the
velocity of the circulation to relieve the strain. This
conception of the magnet seems to fill the demonstrated
conditions. We may call the density the negative
electricity, and the increased force the positive elec-
tricity ; or we may call the atoms that are deficient in
force, "electrons," and the surplus force, "electric
force." By this conception, which I believe accords
with known facts, there is nothing unusual brought into
the phenomena. Power and Force are the only con-
stituents. Assuming these to exist with varying
relation, admitting the ability of Power to control
Force, and the conception is apparently logical. It
may be asked, if Force is interchangeable and the same,
why the surplus force cannot be utilized to expand the
steel. I might say, because of the characteristic form
of the motion of the atoms of the steel, which would
be true. But I think it may be made even more com-
prehensible than that. Atoms, to exchange their force,

Magnetism 249

must be, to a degree, in synchronous vibration. We
naay, by analogy, illustrate it in this way: if upon a
rotating grindstone water is ejected, the stone will
carry the water through a partial rotation and reject it.
On increasing the speed of the rotation we reach a speed
when the water will not be carried around, but will be
repeUed immediately upon striking the stone. But,
if the water is ejected upon the stone with a speed
somewhere nearly equal to the velocity of the circum-
ference of the stone, say thrown from another stone
rotating with equal speed, then the water would be
carried around, or partially around, as at first. The
difference in velocity or synchronism, is part of the
characteristic form. This peculiarity is seen when a
third body is necessary in a chemical union, its presence
being necessary solely as a transformer to synchronize
the motions. This process is termed catalysis and the
third or intermediate body is termed a catalyst.

To show that this conception of the magnet is logical,
I will apply it further. I said that elasticity was the
ability of the material to regain its characteristic form.
We will take our strip of steel into an extremely low
temperature; according to my conception, the orbits
of the atoms will then become smaller, i. e., the material
wiU have contracted and the ratio of Force to Power ■
is less. We bend out strip of steel, and before the end
can move as far as it did in the higher temperature, it
snaps in two ; it is brittle. This is a logical consequence.
The orbits of the atoms have lessened, but the arc
through which we bend the end of the strip is not pro-
portionately lessened. So, the atoms on the convex
side are separated beyond the limit of cohesion, and the
strip is sundered. The strip might still be elastic, but
the arc through which it could be bent and still retain

250 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

its ability to regain its characteristic form, would be
lessened. We see, by this explanation, that cohesion
and heat, i. e., Power and Force, are both essential
parts to elasticity. While under this condition,
although the strip is less laterally elastic, it is still
electrically elastic and remains a magnet, although
not so powerful.

Now let us take it to the other extreme ; the strip will
retain a definite lateral elasticity through a much
greater degree of high temperature, until finally the
ratio of Force to Power is too great, and it will lose its
elasticity. The character of the material changes with
the changed form. It also ceases to be a magnet.
Scientists say that, under heat, a magnet loses its
electrical elasticity. I say that it does not and could
easily provei-it. By increasing the ratio of Force to
Power, the atoms enlarge their orbits, the material
expands. Now, two conditions have changed; there
is more space occupied according to mass, and therefore,
less pressure on the enclosed ether; and there is also
more proportionate Force ; therefore, the exact balance
essential in an active spring is not present. It is not
that the strip has lost its ability to regain its character-
istic form, but that the conditions are not such that it
' is losing this form, and, of course, the elasticity is not
expressed tmtil the strain occurs. I will presently show
how it can be made a magnet again imder this same
condition of temperature.

The circulation of the ether around the magnet,
caused by the disturbance of its usual characteristic
distribution of Force and Power, i. e., density, is
marked by "lines of force".' I have dwelt on the

■ The term "force" in this phrase has a different meaning from the
word Force I sometimes capitalize. Here it is! used as at present

Magnetism 251

magnet at some length to illustrate a certain pheno-
menon, and explain this phenomenon as an equal
contest of the steel and the ether, each to regain or
maintain its characteristic form. Now, in reality, the
ether in any material body, is continually being dis-
turbed. If every body is permeated by the ether, then
a change of pressure will, to a certain extent, change
the form of the ether just as the magnet does, but,
under ordinary circumstances, the equilibrium is
quickly regained. If we put two different materials
in contact tmder pressure, the electrons will be more
numerous in one of the bodies, the force excessive in
the other, and if carefully separated, will each carry the
unequally divided ether (positive and negative charge).
But, like two vessels of water, one hot and the other
cold, if they can be connected, they will equalize. The
connecting by "lines of force" only indicates a strain,
and not a physical connection. The electrons cannot
cross the span because they have not the force, and the
force on the other side is not sufficient to overcome the
pressure of the intervening ether. But suppose there
were a path of less pressure, then, along this path
the equilibrium would be established. Under certain
conditions, copper is such a path. The molecular
vibration of copper seems to synchronize with these

accepted by scientists as indicating a condition of strain or stress.
Holding to such a definition of the term it would be as absurd to assume
a "conservation of force" as it would be to assume the "indestruct-
ibility of the strain." But the term force has in the past been used to
define a cause of energy and as such was claimed to be indestructible.
The misunderstanding arising from the use of the term "force" to
designate both a cause and an effect gave rise about a half -century ago
to a very heated controversy among scientists. I would have been
pleased, had it been possible, to have chosen terms to use in the place
of Power and Force that conflicted less with other accepted definite
forms of usage.

252 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

electrons, or to be of such a nature as, under force, to
attain quickly to such a synchronism. Under pressure
the copper is enabled to contain more than its normal
amount of force, and that would give a result exactly
opposite the magnet. There would be a large portion
of force inside, and, therefore, a relative density outside.
This is the condition of a wire along which a current of
electricity is passing. While the pressure is, no doubt,
from the inside, it is the outside atoms which respond
to the increased vibrations. We say the electrons are
at one end, and the force, or pressure, at the other, but
they exist in equal or normal proportions along the wire.
When the connection is made, there is simply a strain
set up along the length of the wire, all the force, i. e.,
pressure, along the wire shifts toward the negative
end, and all the electrons on the wire shift toward the
positive, i. e., opposite end.

If we take a coil of this wire over which a current is
passing, we can predict that, within the coil, there is
a region of excessive pressure with lines of force opposite
to those in the magnet. When we heated the steel
magnet, we found it ceased to be a magnet, and I said
that the increased pressure within from the increased
ratio of force, and the enlarged openings from the
increased volume, made conditions so that there was no
longer a conflict and, therefore, no chance to manifest
elasticity. If we have a porous vessel full of water,
by increasing the pressure on the water we find that it
will ooze through the pores. By increasing the pressure
on the outside of the vessel until it equals that on the
water, the vessel will again retain the water as at first.
Now, on heating our magnet, the pressure (internal)
increased, and it also became porous (expanded), and
the electrons leaked out. But, if we could increase

Magnetism 253

the exterior pressure, we might still retain the electrons.
This we can do by surrounding it by the coil of wire
through which a current of electricity is passing. Here
we have the increased pressure, and we again have our
active magnet, which shows that increased temperature
did not destroy its electrical elasticity. It is even a
stronger magnet than before. Why? Because its in-
creased volume and the increased surrounding pressure
enable it to hold more of the dense ether, i. e., electrons.

Iron is similar in structure to heated steel, and
becomes a magnet if inserted in a coil of electrified
wire. If two unequally porous bodies are immersed in
liquid under equal pressure, the one which is the more
porous wiU, in equal time, absorb more liquid. This
holds good of the iron as a magnet. The iron is as
electrically elastic as the steel, but on account of its
porosity, more pressure is needed to cause the density
to be such that there may be a contest. When this
condition is given, it is a stronger magnet than the
steel would be, under like conditions of exposure. Just
as soon as the pressure is relieved, the iron ceases to be
a magnet. This condition is of great importance in
the modem transformation of energy. This condition
of receiving and relieving a strain is termed the magnetic
flux. The movement of the electrons or the force
essential to such a strain is termed the electric flux.
The magnetic flux is a mass or mechanical movement
of the ether; the electric flux is an atomic movement of
the ether. These conditions necessarily accompany
each other or are, as it were, reactions of one condition
on the other.

Magnetism may exist as in a magnet, without
mechanical movement or any sign of electricity.
Electricity may exist as in a Ley den jar, without

254 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

mechanical movement or any sign of magnetism. A
mechanical movement may exist without being accom-
panied by either magnetism or electricity. But let
any two of these co-exist in relation and the third is
invariably present. Therefore, a "flux" indicates the
coexistence of all three conditions.

I must mention here one other thing which is called
a property of matter, viz., inertia. The general idea
of inertness conveyed by the word "inertia," is so
foreign to my conception of matter that I dislike to use
it. The quality of a body remaining quiet tmtil moved
is called inertia, and the quality of a moving body
continuing in motion until checked is also called inertia.
It is frequently stated that it requires a certain amount
of energy to overcome the "inertia" of a body, and as
every one knows that it requires more energy to start
a body than it does to keep it moving, this statement
passes current as a scientific fact. Now, a body in
motion has mass and velocity. Other things being
equal, these two give what is called momentum.
Before we start a body to moving it has no velocity;
therefore, no momentum. After we start it, it has
velocity; therefore, momentum. We may keep this
body moving with this same velocity, and, as we are
not adding to the momentum, we do not need an
additional amount of energy. So, we say it requires
less energy to move it after it is in motion. Our extra
energy in the beginning, used to start the body into
motion, was not used to overcome the inertia of the
body, for no such quality exists, but to give the body
momentum, which, when stationary, it did not have.
I hope this explanation will make it clear as to
my meaning of the word "inertia" when I have
occasion to use it.

Magnetism 255

Every moving body must have momentum, whether
the earth or an atom, but it is much easier to compute
the momentum of the earth than it is to compute the
momentum of the atom, providing we take the known
data of each. It is true that we do not know the
velocity of the Solar System through space, which
would make our computed restJt regarding the earth
questionable; but, of the atom, we do not know the
speed of either its rotation or revolution. As a mat-
ter of fact, so long as the earth and the atom con-
tinue in their characteristic motion, it makes no material
difference what that momentum may be. Momentum
is manifest only when the moving body is checked, and
it is as absolutely impossible for us to stop the motion
of the atom as it is to stop the motion of the earth.
Certain specific motions of a specific body of atoms or
a specific portion of the earth, may be stopped, and it
is with these portions we have to deal. Any lateral
movement of a specific volume of anything has momen-
tum. We easily recognize this in the case of solid
bodies; with liquids, it is less noticeable, because of
their mobility. But, under pressure, a liquid acquires
a rigidity that makes its momentum practically useful,
as at the hydraulic mines of the West we may see a
small stream of water disintegrating the rock and
tearing down the mountain. With air, it is stiU less
noticeable, but, under sufficient pressure, such as is
evident in cyclonic disturbances, we see heavy bodies
moved, steel rails twisted, etc. With ether, it is diffi-
cult to get conditions that could show momentum, as
its pressure is so great and so equalized as not to permit
of a perceptible increase of pressure. But the imper-
manent magnet is such a condition. By our ability
to create a magnet instantaneously, we change an equal

256 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

pressure to an tinequal pressure and this necessitated
change in density means that a specific volume must
move laterally and be checked, which gives the momen-
tum as energy. In the permanent magnet, this
momentum cannot be utilized because the inequality
is in a constant or continuously equalizing state.

I have said that there was increased density inside
and increased pressure outside ; but the material motion
of equalizing tends to pass the density more to one end,
and, therefore, the pressure more to the other end.
This is not distributed absolutely, but relatively.
When within the influence of our magnet is brought
another magnet, or even anything that may be
magnetically influenced, there is a disturbance of the
unstable equilibrium of force ratios and a chance for
momentum to be demonstrated. With our magnet-
ized iron, as before mentioned, we have a greater
capacity, or more of the ethereous material is subject
to change. We have relatively no greater momentum,
but more of the surplus force can be captured and
transferred.

It is useless to go into any description of the modem
generators. It is sufficient to say that the force,
electric force, we may call it, or electricity, is no different
here from elsewhere. Conditions enable us to accu-
mulate it and give it great pressure. We measure the
current strength by the unit ampere ; and the potential,
by the unit volt ; and the quantity passing in a second
of time, by the unit coulomb; or in an hour, by the
watt-hour; and we are enabled to do this because it
has a fixed relation to the amount of work it can do.

Now, we must not consider this Force as being
disassociated from Power. It is simply that the relation
of Force to Power is greater and more abnormal here

Magnetism 257

than anywhere else, and that it will seek a position of
less strain. We will try to regard the conducting wire
which completes the circuit as a continuation of the
magnet, under reverse conditions: the pressure on the
interior, and the density on the exterior; the density
coming from the negative end of the magnet, and the
pressure from the positive end. As we bring the ends of
the wire together, we have the circuit completed and
the strain released. The density (electrons), coming
from the negative (cathode), and the pressure coming
from the positive (anode), unite, and the form is normal.
I will try to be more definite in this. When I say that
the density is on the inside, and toward one end of the
magnet, and the pressure is on the outside and toward
the other end, I do not mean that there is any marked
line of division, like a bag of peas at one end and a pail
of water at the other; and when I say the condition on
the conducting wire is just the reverse, and the electrons
travel from the one end and the pressure from the other
to equalize, I do not mean that any specific electron
travels over the wire. The condition already exists
on the wire. Many have the idea that the electricity
traverses the wires, similar to putting water into one end
of a pipe and letting it come out at the other end. The
process is more nearly like having a pipe fuU of water
and using it as a piston cylinder. The water, being
nearly incompressible, and elastic, could be used as
a medium by which to transfer the pressure from one
end to the other. If each end of the pipe be covered
by an elastic diaphragm, not a drop of the water need
be lost. The wire is composed of atoms with a form
of motion such that there may be an intimate associa-
tion and exchange of force; the strain is taken by the
wire as a step ; then, when the communication is estab-
17

258 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

lished, the wire is barely a path. While there is a
shifting of the electrons toward the positive end (which,
in case the wire is cut, would he. from the negative end),
I have no doubt that, as force is transferred more
quickly than power (that is, with less energy), the
actual equalization is practically all brought about by
the transfer of the surplus Force to the Power. I have
purposely shifted from the use of one term to the other
to try and hold the mind to my conception. Power,
density, electron, negative — each refers to the same
entity. Force, pressure, electric force, positive — are
used to indicate their opposites.

One point more I wish to make here. This strain,
or separation of the electrons from the electric force, or
rather, this comparatively slight shifting of the relative
amount of force, is simply a change back to and from the
normal. The Power which, in this case, is the electrons,
or light atoms, has the Desire which fixes the normal or
characteristic motion. When this motion is limited
or curtailed by the motion of the atoms of the magnet,
it is much easier for the electrons with the deficient
amount of force to regain this force from other sources
than for the electrons with the excessive amount of
force to get rid of this force, providing the conditions
are the same. This is demonstrated by the greater
permanence of the positive charge. It is also a logical
result from the assumption that the light atoms (ether)
are the most stable oj all atoms in their characteristic forms
of motion. They are only unstable in their equilibrium.

We have assumed that the ratio of Force to Power
in the electrons was at least eight hundred thousand
times that of Force to Power in the atoms of the atmos-
phere. That would mean that, if we could take the
force from one electron and transfer it to the air, it

Magnetism 259

would double the force in a volume of air eight hundred
thousand times as great; or, to put it in another way,
if we could increase the pressure on a given volume of
ether one eight-hundred-thousandth part of the normal,
we could double the force in a like volume of air. This
latter condition of change is more Ukely to be the one
that exists to a greater or less extent in all bodies. As
ether permeates aU bodies, therefore, if friction or
pressure occurs on or in that body, there is a strain
established just in the ratio in which the ether is unable
to escape from the pressure. As I have said before,
I have no idea what proportion of the total amount of
force of an atom is transferred when its motion is
lessened. The amount that is transferred is all that
we can measure. We can never know the absolute
value of an atom until we catch one and make sure
that its rotating and revolving motion is transferred,
and that it is perfectly stationary relative to the
universe. No one is liable to undertake this task.
Even the absolute zero would give only the mimimum
sized orbit.

I must refer to the magnet again. Take a common
horseshoe magnet, and we know there is in and around
it a condition of stress. We place aciross the ends a
steel or iron bar of suitable size, called the armature,
and it is impossible for us to demonstrate that, as a
whole, it is now different from any other ring of iron.
No lines of force can be demonstrated to exist. It is
not an active magnet. Let us, by mechanical energy,
pull the armature away. The mechanical energy has
now caused the force to be manifest, there is a strain
and lines of force. It required mechanical energy to
move the armature; we will say moving the armature by
ftiechanical ^mw illustrates, va, the simplest mwaer,

26o An Unorthodox Conception of Being

our dynamo. Now, let the armature go free, and it
moves to the magnet. It is not now moved by me-
chanical energy. Its movement is spontaneous; it is
moved by Force. The armature is within the lines of
force and its structural form gives a path of least resist-
ance to the current of force in its effort to equalize the
strain of its abnormal form of motion. Saying that
the armature is attracted by the magnet does not
describe the conditions. The magnet is an essential
condition. The cause is the force which is imequally
distributed in and around the magnet and uses the
armature as a path of least resistance in its efforts to
equalize and naturally makes it become the shortest
path allowed by the condition. If we have a string run
through hollow links loosely arranged in the shape of
a square, a motion of the string will tend to draw in the
corners and make the links take the shape of a circle.
We could not say that this contraction is due to any
attraction. So the contraction of the space between
the magnet and its armature is not necessarily due to
attraction. Without contending over the proper form
of expression "The magnet attracts the armature" or
"the armature is forced to the magnet," we must
certainly admit" that, whether it is Attraction or Force,
it is not mechanical energy which causes the movement.
In this spontaneous movement the cause of the motion
is within itself and we may caU it a mover or "motor."
As the Force in and around the magnet and arma-
ture causes one or both to move, so the electric Force
causes the motor to move and to mechanically move
machinery.

We mechanically separate the armature from an
active magnet ; it is a dynamo. We allow the armature
and magnet to spontaneously move together; it is a

Magnetism 261

motor. The dynamo is moved mechanically ; the motor
moves spontaneously.

This may seem a simple description of the wonders
of an electrical system and the distinction between
dynamo and motor, but I do not believe that pages of
technicalities would elucidate any more clearly the
primary difference between dynamo and motor, or
the difference between the mechanical transfer of
energy (by mechanism) and the transfer of mechanical
energy (by Force).

CHAPTER XV

ELECTRICITY

LET us follow Force in its various relations to Power,
and see if its transfer seems logical and consistent.
We will start with one of the most familiar phenomenon
— a fire. We have our coal surrounded by oxygen, but
although we §ay there is a very strong affinity between
the oxygen and the carbon, they do not unite. As I
have said before, there must be a certain synchronism
of motion before there can be a transfer of force. This
is done by increasing the size of the orbit of the carbon,
or as we say, heating it to the kindling point (the point
where its motion synchronizes with that of the oxygen) .
This may be done by rubbing two pieces of coal together,
but let us apply our friction to something that has a
lower kindling point— the substance on the head of the
match. This starts the match; the match starts the
wood ; the wood starts the coal. There is absolutely no
beginning to a transfer of force ; so we will have to jump
into the circle and get a starting-point. We will
start with the oxygen uniting with the coal (carbon).
As I have said before, the oxygen in uniting with the
carbon gives up some of its force. A portion of this
force goes to heat the coal, that is, to increase the size
of the orbits of its atoms. The surplus force is trans-
ferred in various ways, but we will follow only one. It

262

Electricity 263

goes to Increase the size of the orbits of the atoms of
adjacent material ; we will say it is the iron of a boiler.
The force travels from one atom to another of the iron,
increasing the size of the orbit of each, and we say this
force is heat, and travelling by conduction. It is then
transferred to the water and travels by convection; as
the atoms increase the size of their orbits, we see that
the water expands, and being enclosed, we measure
this expansion by the pressure. If the temperature
is great enough, some of the water takes the form of a
gas or vapor — steg^, we generally call it. The change
from water to steam is not gradual but sudden. The
increased force in the water has increased the size of
the orbits of its atoms to some extent, but much of it
has gone to increase the speed of the revolution. Finally
this is inverted and is changed to increase the size of
the orbit, and the expansion is greatly increased. By
this expansion the pressure is greatly increased. We
will now let some of the steam pass through a pipe. As
an enlarged pipe, we called it a cylinder along which
slides a movable partition called a piston head. The
pressure of the steam, which really means the effort of
the steam to gain its characteristic form as a gas (it is
here too compressed to be normal) ,overcomes the resis-
tance on the piston head, and the piston rod is moved.
This movement of the piston rod is a mechanical
movement. We are now moving a given mass of ma-
terial through a given space at a given velocity; and,
whether by cranks, shafts, belts, or pulleys, no matter
what the complication of the machinery, it is mechanical.
When we apply this mechanical transfer of energy to
pulling the armature from a magnet and creating a
strain, we are really changing again and going from the
mechanical transfer of energy to the actual transfer of

264 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Force, which may be manifest through the strain or
electric force, which is resisting the movement of the
armature.

Before continuing we must consider at greater length
one of the steps in the transfer. This step is one of the
great changes that occur in nature, for which physicists
can give us no reason. At a certain temperature
(varying according to pressure) liquid will take the
form of gas. There is no more force in the gas at that
temperature, but its characteristic form as a gas requires
more room; in other words, the speed of revolution is
changed to size of orbit, and thereby the pressure is
greatly increased. That this pressure could be utilized
was the great discovery of Watt. When water changes
to vapor (evaporates), it displaces a definite amount of
material, requiring a specific amount of pressure to do so.
This displacement is a mechanical movement. We
did not use the expansion of the iron or the water, so,
we did not take that into consideration ; but now, there
is a displacement of the piston head, and we have a me-
chanical movement, the immediate cause of which is
Force. We do not have this movement (displacement
of the piston head) in addition to the other (displace-
ment of the air) but in place of the other. If the in-
creased pressure could all be utilized in moving the
piston head, there would be no steam at all ; it would be
recondensed to water. If it condensed at 212°, the piston
head would return by air pressure to its first position.
If it condensed at a lower temperature, there would be a
gain by the piston head equal to the temperature lost ,
But this force must, of necessity, have gone to heat
adjacent bodies. One other peculiar condition comes
in here to aid this transfer. Under an equal amount
of force (heat) gas expands to a much greater proportion

Electricity 265

than a solid or a liqtiid. Therefore, in addition to the
increased pressure coming from the change of a liquid
to a gas, we have the increased expansion of the gas
from the addition of heat. The best constructed engine
can utilize only a portion of the force, that is, some
steam will escape as gas, in which case it displaces the
atmosphere instead of the piston head. I wish to
emphasize the point that the release of Force from the
oxygen results in the expansion of the adjacent material
(as heat), and in case of the water, it increased the speed
of the revolution of the atoms and could not be detected
(the energy becomes latent) ; that when the form of the
material of which it was a part changed, the change
was on account of a change in the form of motion
(from the speed of revolution to increased size of orbit) ;
and that the derived pressure is exerted and manifested
somewhere. Because we use some of it on the piston
head and caU it "work done," is no reason why we
should say we have changed our Force into mechanical
energy. We may transform energy, but we never
transform Force. We may change its form of motion,
and when that change is an increase in the size of the
orbit it always is manifest in a measurable movement
which is mechanical, and may be transferred as me-
chanical energy. As a physical basis of measuring
mechanical energy, "the mechanical , equivalent of
heat," is all right, but, when from this one gets the
conception that Force, as heat, is annihilated, and
mechanical energy or movement of a mass of material
takes its place, I believe that one has a wrong conception
and one which hinders a correct conception; for, as one
scientist says':

However attractive the hypotheses, they are ruthlessly

' Trowbridge, What Is Electricity?, page 3.

266 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

abandoned as soon as the touchstone, the measurement of
the heat equivalent of motion, is not satisfied by the
hypothesis.

Water at 212° has more Force than its temperature
would indicate. At the point of least resistance or
pressure, some of the water changes its form of motion'
(With rare exceptions, no body of water contains
enough force to change its whole body instantly into
steam.) With the change in form, there is no change
in temperature, that is no heat is manifest, but there
has been an expansion equal to fifteen pounds of pres-
sure. But this lifting of fifteen pounds to a height
equal to the increased volume is not mechanically
available, as that is only equal to the air pressure. If
we have any pressure in addition to the air pressure,
such as repredfented by our piston head, it will require
more Force (heat). This is manifest first in increased
temperature, but it does not require a doubling of the
force, as temperature, to get fifteen pounds more
pressure, for, as we said before, the expansion of gas
under equal heat is greater that the expansion of liquid.

Now, under a temperature of 250°, we have lifted
our piston head, representing fifteen pounds, a given
distance. Could we create a vacuum back of it, the
same pressure would lift it as far again. But we will
take it in the position to which it has been moved, and
it represents so much mechanical energy; we have
moved a given mass of matter a given distance, but by
so doing, we have lost no force. The steam under the
piston head would, if released, from the pressure of the
piston head, expand the fifteen pounds necessary to
lift the atmosphere. It may be asked why we cannot
put a catch under the piston head and let out the steam,
which will then expand the atmosphere the same as if

Electricity 267

it had not raised the piston head, thus having a net gain
of the fifteen pounds of material elevated. It might
also be asked why not create a vacuum, when the
pressure would raise thirty pounds; then put the catch
on, let the air pressure on above and the steam pressure
out below, and have thirty pounds net gain. The
only catch we have in this is the fact that nowhere in the
transformation of energy can we stop our experiment
and show a net gain. We know that to create the
vacuum would necessitate a pressure of fifteen pounds,
thus offsetting our last supposed gain. We ought also
to know that the fifteen pounds in the first case repre-
sents the total pressure in excess of the air pressure,
and the only way to relieve it is to exert an equal pres-
stue in some other way. In other words, in relieving
the pressure, we let our piston head drop where it was
at first. I claim ; that, when Force is changed from its
latent or potential form, as speed of revolution or
rotation, to its manifest or kinetic form, as increased
size of orbit, the pressure resulting therefrom is me-
chanical energy; that an equivalent movement of
material always occurs, whether it is imperceptible in
the atmosphere, dispersed in the ocean, or concentrated
on a piston head, there is no difference in the gross or
net; that Force is never transformed into mechanical
energy ; that Force or heat is never measxirably manifest
except as mechanical energy. This assumption is of
such importance to my conception that I will repeat
an illustration to emphasize it. Reversing the experi-
ment, let our piston head represent a certain amount
of mechanical energy; we utilize this to compress the
air in the cylinder. (It is generally said that the air
is heated by compression. I say the orbits of the atoms
are curtailed, and the force essential to such an orbit is.

268 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

therefore, transferred to adjacent material.) To ex-
pand this air again under the pressure will require
exactly the same amount of force (heat) as was trans-
ferred or radiated. But suppose we sturound the
cylinder with ice, and by mechanical means continue
working the piston; we can gradually melt the ice.
This is accepted as proof by some that heat (force) has
been created by mechanical energy. I say, the air
being perfectly elastic, that is, having the ability to
regain its characteristic form, can get the force essential
to its expansion under ordinary conditions, and that
this force might pass through a solid mass of ice. But
the surrounding conditions might be such that it could
not get the force (heat), and then it would not expand.
We know that this ability to get the force necessary to
expansion will reduce the temperature of surrounding
bodies, and it will even liquidize the air surrounding,
but, at some point, it may fail to be able to extract
heat, and, therefore, will fail to expand. Of course,
I know that the scientist can bring out his algebraic
formtda to show that it does not expand because at
certain temperatures certain elastic properties are
limited by certain cohesive properties, etc. But this
formula will not answer the question whether pressure
exists because of force, or force exists on account of
pressure ; whether low temperature is caused by absence
of heat, or whether heat is absent on account of low
temperature.

All experiments of "creating heat by friction" are
similar to that of the foregoing illustration. If Force
caimot be transformed into mechanical energy, then
mechanical energy cannot be transformed into Force
(heat). The fact that heat is there may be accotmted
for in any one of several different ways. I will give

Electricity 269

two or three. In any body, the changing of its charac-
teristic form causes a strain. In elastic bodies, the
force (heat) eliminated under the strain is immediately
absorbed in regaining the form. In bodies where the
structural form is permanently deformed, the conditions
are different. As I have said before, the characteristic
form is probably due to a variation in the form of
motion, rotation, revolution, and size of orbit, and a
variation in the systematic relation of the atoms in
the molecules and also of the molecules themselves.
With sufficient resistance, and the breaking down of the
structural form, the force latent in speed of revolution
and rotation might be transferred into increasing the
size of the orbit (heat). Then, also, there might be
air between the particles of material, which could be
compressed, and, unless the experiment were conducted
with more care than most of them are, there would be
an apparent evolution or creation of heat under the
pressure (friction) .

The other way I will suggest seems to be the more
probable. Under the conditions where such experi-
ments have been made, there are conditions for great
pressure or great resistance. Under such conditions
the enclosed light atoms (ether electrons) would be
subject, at some points, to a pressure that would change
their characteristic form of motion, and this would,
even if to a very slight degree evolve (discrete, not
create) force (heat). The light atoms affected, in
gaining their characteristic form would draw their force
from a point where there was less resistance, which
point might be remote. This theory would seem the
more probable from the fact that, if the revolution of
the frictional part be rapid enough, a magnetic strain
will be established and electric force be evolved.

270 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Physicists do not accept the theory that magnetism
and electricity are "a mode of motion," as they term
"heat," nor that they can be created, but that onl - the
conditions, for their manifestation can be created.
Therefore, if we see all of these manifestations (pheno-
mena) resulting from this single experiment, it hardly
seems consistent to say that "heat" was "created,"
while for the others, only the conditions were created,
and the magnetic stress and electricity manifested
themselves. By mechanical energy, we compress air,
and heat (force) manifests itself by expanding the
adjacent material. By mechanical energy, we take off
the pressure, and elasticity manifests itself. We say
this is due to the heat (force) which it has absorbed
from the adjacent material, which has, therefore,
become colder! By mechanical energy, we may, under
certain conditions, compress the ether, and force (heat),
as magnetic or electric force, is manifest. The only
difference I conceive in heat and electric force is the
rate of revolution of the atoms from which they were
discreted or the rate of the revolution of the atom which
may be excited by their absorption.

Physicists commonly assume that all phenomena
may be classified as matter and energy. I do not
consider this as a suitable classification.

Matter, in the form in which we perceive it (material) ,
carmot be, at least has not been, demonstrated to be
simple, that is, composed of only one constituent. I
conceive the material to be "formed" by the relating
of two causes. Power and Force.

Energy, in the form in which we perceive it (me-
chanical), cannot be, at least has not been, demonstrated
to be simple, that is, due to only one constituent. I
conceive energy to be the result of the movement of the

Electricity 271

material, caused, sometimes by Power, and sometimes
by Force, and always the one cause limited by the
other. Material and Energy are both results rather
than causes.

I think that, classifying the causes of the manifesta-
tions as Power and Force will make the comprehension
and solution of phenomena more simple, log'cal, and
consistent. I have dwelt at much length on this point,
as it is a critical one of difference between my concep-
tion and the orthodox, material conception.

Let us go over these changes. We started with the
Force in the oxygen. After the union of the oxygen
with the carbon, the surplus force expanded the iron,
water, steam, and air. In this expansion something or
another was moved. If it was not one thing, it was the
other ; and if it was the one thing, it was not the other.
That is, if it was expansion, it was not displacement;
and if it was displacement, it was not expansion.
(Of course, both words may express the same meaning,
but I here want them to express a difference.) We
will choose to follow the displacement, which is repre-
sented by our piston head, which in turn represents all
of the machinery imaginable in mechanical engineering,
which finally, through our dynamo, gives the condition
for a manifestation of electric force. When we com-
pressed our air by a mechanical movement and evolved
heat, we said the air, on account of its compressibility
and elasticity, was the medium by which we could
compel the force to manifest its energy, as mechanical
energy. That is, the force, which was an integral
part of the air was the medium by which one form of
mechanical energy (pressure) was changed into another
form of mechanical energy (expansion). Now, in the
case of our mechanically acting dynamo, the ether, on

272 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

accotint of its compressibility and elasticity, is the
medium by which we compel force to manifest itself.
We wUl now follow this force (electric force) through
some of its mechanical manifestations.

Before taking the next step, I will refer to the charac-
ter of the transfer. I conceive the transfer of this force
along a wire to be by etherions atomic motion ; that the
whole circuit is just like an elongated magnet with the
lines of force reversed. As this force is manifest on
account of a specific amount of mechanical energy, it is
proportionate to that amount of energy. The transfer
of a given quantity in a given time may be in great
quantities with low velocity, or in small quantities with
greater velocity. The limits of transfer are more
quickly reached by the first method, and we will take
that first. Tlie pressure is from within and the density
is outside, with the tendency to go in. The lateral
transfer is on the outside. The more nearly a wire
synchronizes with the orbital movement of the electrons,
the better conductor it is. The number of electrons
that can be held is limited by the circumference of the
wire. The transfer of force from electron to electron
is practically with the same velocity as light, limited
to a degree by the variation of the density of the
electrons on the wire, etc. By the velocity of the cur-
rent is meant the number of impulses given per second.
These are limited only by the mechanism. When the
quantity of force per impulse is greater than can be
transferred, the wire is said to be overloaded. As I
said before, a portion of the electrons are able to secure
their normal amount of force, thus leaving on the
wire a surplus of force, this surplus force not being
able, under the excess pressure, to be transferred by the
electrons, must be transferred by the atoms of the wire

Electricity 273

itself. When the limit of the atoms for this work is
reached, then the force is manifested in an increased
orbit of the atoms of the wire. The increased size of
the wire by heating gives greater capacity, and also
greater proportionate waste (by synchronizing the
motion to heat). By a continued overload the wire
may be made hot enough to melt. This heat is the
mechanical manifestation of the Force manifest by
the magnet. This heat is wholly quantitive. There
is no heat except as a material manifestation of the
Force. Its intensity is wholly according to the quantity
supplied, and not, in the least, due to the way in which
it is supplied.

The heat supplied by combustion is limited by the
difference in Force which the tmiting bodies possess
before and after uniting. The halogens seem to possess
more Force normally than the other elements, but even
they are limited in the amount with which they can
part. While the light atoms possess a much greater
ratio of force, the rapidity of vibration would prevent
a synchronism, thus preventing a union with other
atoms in combustion. Combustible bodies can only
unite exo-thermally by getting rid of some of the force
which, possessed by one or both, would hinder their
synchronous union. To get rid of this force, there must
be some body that is able to absorb it. That is the
reason why there can be no combustion at temperatures
exceeding a certain limit. Between 10,000° and 12,000°
is the probable limit of temperature at which any two
atoms are able to unite as a compound. Physicists
acknowledge this as a demonstrable fact, and yet talk
about the processes of combustion in the sun, the
chemical action and reaction necessary for heat, etc.
There may be some explanation given as to how com-
18

274 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

bustion could occur at the temperature which is said
to exist on the sun, but I have failed to see it. In the
electrical furnace, the only limit to the temperature is
the amount of force which, by the mechanism, can be
made to manifest itself as heat. There must be great
resistance of the material to create such a temperature,
and this resistance reacts on the mechanism which is
transferring the Force. Therefore, I say the tempera-
ture is limited only by the mechanism.

We have, by this method, already gone far beyond
the point where any compound will be dissociated. In
any conducting body, the dissociation is the same,
whether the current passes through the body, or whether
the body is subject to the high temperature. In fact,
the effect is the same. The resistance of the non-
conducting "body results in the Force being absorbed
by the atoms, and in the case of a compound, there is
dissociation instead of heat, such as is manifest in a
conducting body of high resistance. Sometimes the
force is absorbed and utilized by the atoms in the way
to which reference has already been made. Nitrogen
as nitrates, oxygen as ozone, and the halogens (as
chlorides, etc.,) especially, are manufactured commer-
cially by the electric current, or the heat evolved
therefrom. It will be interesting to note that, in such
cases as these, when it requires a large amount of force
for dissociation or concentration, under the reverse
process there is an equally large evolution of Force
(heat).

The products from this commercial use of electric
force are not all of this nature, and it is these apparent
exceptions that will show the weakness of any theory
or conception that does not approximate to correctnes .
There are certain compounds that are so stable as to

Electricity 275

require extraordinary force to dissociate, and it may be
the inert element that is the one of value, and not the
one that has absorbed the force. This is the case in
the manufacture of aluminum, magnesium, etc. The
oxygen, in tmiting with these, evolves more heat, that
is, gives up more of its force, than in uniting with other
combustibles. Therefore, other elements have not
force enough to separate the aluminum oxide, but under
the great force in the electric furnace, the oxygen can
get, or is compelled to take, the force essential to its
gaseous form, and the aluminum is left. (That the
actual operation is neither simple or direct, does not
affect this explanation.)

There is another industry which may be mentioned
here. The production of corundum, carborundum,
diamonds, etc. Carbon in any of its forms is not easily
fusible. The greater the density, the less heat ratio
it possesses. Charcoal, under pressure, will evolve
heat. After such a process, it requires more heat
(force) to change it to a gaseous form, therefore, in its
union with oxygen, not so many heat units are evolved,
that is, not so much force is given off as a surplus.
Graphite is a still more dense form of carbon, and the
diamond the most dense of all. Carbon will fuse
under the intense heat of the electric furnace. If on
cooling it is subjected to great pressure, it will give up
its heat (force), and crystallize. Under this pressure
the same conditions may exist which occasion water
to change into ice instead of crystallizing into snow-
flakes. The greater the pressure consistent with the
formation of ice, the harder will be the ice, and so also,
of the crystalHzation of the carbon. In this process
we have: first the intense heat to fuse the material;
then the intense pressure caused by the contracting

276 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

occasioned by the material of the matrix cooUng from
such a high temperature; and also the ability of the
carbon to discrete its heat (force) necessitating its
absorption by the matrix, which in turn can radiate it ;
all combine to give the conditions for the production of
the dense forms of the carbon. The Force does not
enter into their production, only indirectly and in fact
mechanically. The phenomena we have mentioned
are the result of force transmitted with a low velocity.

Force as heat is never manifest except as a mode of
motion. I agree with the conception of heat as a pheno-
menon, if it is distinctly understood that it is a specific
manifestation of Force, and not the specific result of
mechanical energy. A particular kind of mechanical
energy enables or causes the force to manifest itself as
heat, a mode of motion of the atoms which is solely a
larger orbit than the normal, showing a greater ratio
of force, and being abnormal, it is variable. This
variability, or change in form, is what enables us to
perceive that such a mode of motion as heat exists.
In any critical analysis of the subject, note that when
heat is perceived as a phenomenon it cannot logically be
conceived as a cause oi that phenomenon.

It seems more natural to conceive of atoms as rotat-
ing and revolving than to conceive of their having other
forms of motioni On the assumption that the relation
of Force to Power results in such motions, varying
according to their ratio, then upon the accretion of a
definite amount of force to the atom, there might result
any one of fifteen different effects. The addition of
force might affect the speed of rotation, the speed of
revolution, or the size of the orbit; or it might affect
any two of these in direct or inverse order, which would
give six combinations; or it might affect all three in

Electricity 277

inverse order, which would give six still different
combinations; making fifteen different results. Sup-
plementing these results there may be eccentricities
in the orbits, which might be infinite. The ultimate
condition in some of these series might appear to be
the same. So in many chemical compoiinds the results
might be predicated to be equal because the same
elements are combined with equal energy-, but there are
many variations in compounds which are empirically
known although they could not be a priori known.
These differences I assume to be on account of the
variation in the procession of the change in the motion
of the atoms. Any one of these various results might
come psychically from the Desire of the atom to act in a
certain way upon the accretion of a specific amount
of Force ; or it might come physically on account of the
manner of the form of motion of the atoms which
discreted the force.

There must be a certain degree of synchronism of
atoms to allow an exchange of force. For this reason
the light atoms (ether) do not absorb (transfer) what
is termed the obscure forms of heat. When the oscil-
lations are of great frequency, then the force may be
transferred to the light atoms (ether). These disturb-
ances resulting in rays, are, according to their frequency
(generally called length of wave) termed electric,
calorific, actinic, and Hght. These disturbances or
rays are dependent for the velocity of their transmission
on the rate of the revolution of the light atoms. All
rays of this nattire travel with equal velocity. The
result (that is, the character of ray), therefore, does
not depend on the velocity of the transfer. Nor can
it depend solely on frequency of disturbance (wave-
length), or there would be no overlapping of effects.

278 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

We have, then, only one alternative condition by vhich
to account for the different effects. That condition
is the form of motion as it is being transmitted.

We must realize that in the transmission there is no
lateral movement of the atom excepting in the case of
the enlarged orbit, which is a lateral movement equal
to the increase in size of the orbit. In passing through
material bodies, it is the form of the motion which is
transferred, and not the atom. Therefore, other things
being equal, the form of motion occasioning the least
resistance from the material would be most easily
transmitted. The forms of motion of the atoms of
different materials vary. Those forms which more
nearly synchronize with the specific form of motion
that is being transmitted by the light atoms will more
quickly absorb the force existing as such motion. This
accounts for transparency or opaqueness of various
materials to the various rays. Atoms of incandescent
iron have a peculiar form of motion which form of
motion s transferred by the light atoms (ether) . This
peculiar form of motion is more quickly absorbed by
atoms of iron than by any other atoms.

The character of a ray depends: (i) on its origin,
(2) on the transmitting medium. Our final analysis
of the ray is also influenced by the character of the
intercepting material.

It must be understood that an electric ray is as
different from an electric current, or stroke of light-
ning, as the rays which issue from a flame are different
from the flame.

We will take as the base of our next illustration a
specific phenomenon which has already been given,
namely, the electric spark which preceded the thunder.

We speak of a "streak" of lightning, but it is in reality

Electricity 279

a spark or succession of sparks, passing so rapidly, or
with an oscillation so frequent, as to appear continuous.
We will treat it as one spark. This is a specific amount
of force, abnormally large in relation to its atomic
centre (which may be either an elemental or light atom).
The accretion of force finally becomes so great as to
overcome the pressure, and it is compelled to equalize
through the path of least resistance. The reader
should bear in mind the conception that force is always
considered as coexistent with the motion of some atom,
and that the motion may be greater or less than normal.
When it is greater a transmission can be easily made
to another where it is less provided there is a syn-
chronism in the form of their motion. When the force
has to synchronize their motions it is more difficult, but
if the difference in ratio accentuates, the pressture or
force reaches a point where some atoms will synchronize.
This excessive amount of force existing as a greatly
abnormal motion is finally transmitted, radiated, dis-
sipated. The immediate effect of this dissipation of
the force of our electric spark is to expand the adjacent
material. This material exists as air and ether.

We will first review the atmospheric effects. We
have already seen that there are two effects, (i)
The mechanical movement of the material which may
be felt and measured. This movement is transmitted
with varying velocity. (2) The atomic movement
which is perceived as sound. This movement is
transmitted with uniform velocity.

We will now consider the ethereous effects. There
are in the ether the same two effects, (i) The me-
chanical movement of the material. The mechanical
condensation of the ether is an effect which is transmit-
ted with varying velocity ; a velocity bearing the same

28o An Unorthodox Conception of Being

relation to light as the velocity of an explosive impulse
in the air bears to the velocity of sound. I would call
these transmissions the magnetic rays. They are
really a strain of the ether (an absolute lateral move-
ment of the ether). These are the transmissions which
are utilized in wireless telegraphy. I predict that it
will sometime be demonstrated that the velocity of
these rays vary, while all rays transmitted by atomic
motion will, of necessity, be of the same velocity, the
conditions and medium being the same. (2) The
atomic movement which according to the form of
motion we perceive as four well-known variations,
electric, calorific, actinic, and luminous.

(i). We will assume that the electrical rays result
from an increase in the size of the orbit of the light
atoms ; such a change would mean an actual expansion
in the material causing a rarefaction and condensation
during the length of time of the oscillation. If the
medium were not perfectly adiabatic it would result
in a heating of its material. (We have, however, no
method of measuring temperature in ether.) Ether
being relatively incompressible is a superior conductor.
Air being relatively compressible is a superior absorber.
The mechanical movement of the air is transmitted,
amount of energy being equal, to a less distance than
the atomic movement sensible as sound. The opposite
effect occurs in ether. The mechanical movement of
the ether (as a magnetic wave) is transmitted, amount
of energy being equal, to a greater distance than the
atomic movement in the form of an electric ray.

On account then of the nature of these electric rays,
the distance to which they can be transmitted is limited ;
in the first place by a limitation of the initial, mechani-
cal, or material energy available; in the second place.

Electricity 281

by the amount of Force which can be accumulated for
transmission in the short interval between oscillations.
The electric wave gives the condition whereby certain
bodies are electrically charged and certain electrified
bodies are discharged. This condition is generally
quickly neutralized, that is, the force used in such a way
is absorbed (the form of the motion is converted).

(2). We will assume that the calorific rays are a
variation in the speed of revolution. The varieties
of oscillation that could effect the speed of revolution
would be more limited than those that could affect the
size of the orbit. All resistance due to mechanical
pressure necessarily developed bv an enlarged orbit
is absent in a variation of speed of revolution, therefore,
an equal amount of force could be transmitted to a
much greater distance. We never get an electric ray
from the sun, but we do get the calorific ray.

(3) • W^ will assume that the actinic rays are a varia-
tion in the speed of rotation. It sounds mechanically
reasonable to say that the rotation might be affected
by a less degree of force. That is, the speed of rotation
could be doubled with less force than the speed of
revolution covild be doubled. This assumption logically
leads to the demonstrable fact that actinic transmission
requires less energy than calorific transmission. It is
transmitted through greater density and to greater
distances.

(4). By assuming the luminous rays to be an excen-
tricity of the orbit we have a variation of a form of
motion which would require less energy than any other
form of variation. This assumption corresponds to the
fact that luminosity requires less energy than either of
the other variations. Luminosity is limited so far as
we know only by our organs of sight.

282 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I said that an equilibrium of the ether was quickly
established after the "electric wave." In the action
and reaction incident to establishing the equilibrium
there may be traced the various motions as manifested
in the great variety of special rays, to some of which I
will refer later. Each of the five variations mentioned
do not necessarily attend each impiilse. The first two
(magnetic and electric) are always inversely proportion-
ate but never entirely separate. A certain amount of
force evolved with sufficient frequency of vibration
but with a relatively small degree of pressure gives an
electric wave. A certain amount of force evolved with
a sufficient frequency of vibration but with a relatively
large degree of pressure gives the magnetic wave. An
electric wave is transmitted by a variation of a move-
ment of the atdims of the ether. A magnetic wave is
transmitted by a movement of the ether. I will try
to show this difference plainer by an illustration.
Instead of varying the amount of force we will vary the
condition of the medium which is to transmit the force.
Let us take two long bars of iron differing only in
diameter. Let us strike one end of each bar an equal
blow with a mallet. The larger bar does not move;
the smaller bar does move. There is a variation of the
atomic movement in the large bar for we may feel that
it is hotter. There is relatively no variation of atomic
movement of the smaller bar. These two different
effects may be combined by striking a bar of inter-
mediate size, but of necessity the effects would be
inversely proportionate.

For the electric wave and the magnetic wave the
medium is the same but the application of force and
the manner of its delivery differing, we get the different
effects resulting from the variation either of the atomic

Electricity 283

or the mass motions; never absolutely separate but
always inversely proportionate. The heat or atomic
motion of the large bar could be changed to magnetism,
and the energy of the moving small bar could be changed
to electricity. So in any complete cycle of an electric
wave or a magnetic wave, these two forms of motion
might and probably do equalize.

If we have a series of cog-wheels in rotary motion
and apply additional force to one of the wheels, we will,
if the force is properly timed or applied, increase the
speed of rotation of the wheels; but if the force is
applied too quickly, or in too great quantity to be
absorbed, or in a wrong plane, there may be a movement
of the mass of wheels but there may be no variation in
their rotation. It seems, as these various conditions
are known to exist as a physical fact in the material,
it would be simple as a conception to assume them by
analogy to exist as a relation between the atoms.
Then by realizing that in solid, liquid, gaseous, and
ethereous forms of material there are definite variations
in the atomic motion, as well as measurable mass move-
ments of the material, and then by scientific observation
of facts properly relating these forms of motion, we
might obtain a theory of electricity, magnetism, heat,
light, actinism, and sound that would be consistent
with itself, with each other, and with facts.

CHAPTER XVI

DISSIPATION OF ENERGY

THE great bugbear to physical science, according to
the accepted dynamical theory of matter and
energy, has been the tiltimate ending of things within a
comparatively short time. A few milUon more short
years is all they can figtire to give us on this mundane
sphere. It seems to be with a sigh of intense relief
that many of the scientists have accepted the atomic
disintegration theory according to wljich the end will
be postponed, and, "at one bound, the possible limits
of time have been enormously extended. " Of course,
it is admitted that the extent of the probable dtiration
of time is merely increased. You can take your choice
of the eternal hell of the theologian, or the final, ulti-
mate zero of physical science. I have already said
enough to indicate that I should not accept either
.alternative.

On the assumption that there is only one source of
energy, and that this energy must finally be dissipated
by an equal distribution in the movement of the ma-
terial, or by a separation from the material, leaving
that finally inert, there would be no alternative in
physical science. But, I do not admit this. I assume
that there are two sources of energy — Power and Force;
that it is the varied relation between these two that is

284

Dissipation of Energy 285

manifest to us as material and energy; that it is the
Desire of the Power which fixes this relation and gives
the characteristic forms to the motion. But, in the
formation into complex shapes there is much conflict,
and this result is as much a part of the conditions which
govern as are the Power and Force, which are the causes.
As I said before, there is no beginning to a cycle, but
we must take a starting-point in following it.

We consider the sim as the greatest immediate
source of energy. The physicists figure that, from the
amount of energy we receive on a given surface, there
must be a certain definite amount radiated into space.
They estimate that 2,300,000,000 times as much is
radiated as is absorbed by the earth. They demon-
strate that, if the sim were composed of the most
energetic of combustibles, they could not, in uniting,
last more than 5000 years. When the dynamical theory
forced this conclusion on them, they accepted the theory
that falling bodies might give the necessary continuance
of energy. Then again, some assumed that contraction
would offset radiation, and claimed that a contraction
of sixteen feet of diameter per year would account for
the heat. To become convinced of the weakness of these
theories one has only to note how quickly they were
deserted when radio-activity gave a new source of
explanation. Qf course, this late theory would con-
tradict the evidence of the spectroscope, but only in the
absolute truth of a conception can there be an escape
from inconsistencies.

In my criticism of radiation, I have already given an
idea of my conception, but I will state it in another way,
which, after what I have said about electricity may be
more comprehensible. I conceive the sun to be com-
posed of atoms as we have them on the earth, accepting

286 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the evidence of the spectroscope. I conceive that, under
present conditions, there can be no combustion, no
chemical action, no compounds. There is the same
relation, atomically, between Power and Force. The
absolute ratio of Force to Power may be great, as
the great temperature would indicate. We cannot be
certain, however, for temperature is but one of many
ways of indicating this ratio. As an unstable body
(and certainly large portions of it must be unstable,
if we accept the measure of the corona), there must be
great variation in pressure. Variation in pressure
wotild act and be acted upon by the ether. Now, it is
b}'' these disturbances of the ether that we get our
impressions of the sun. The old, orthodox idea that
the ether is an unknowable medium that accepts all
impulses and never gives back any, is contrary to the
idea that action and reaction are equal and in opposite
direction. So long as there is action, there is reaction,
and to trace these each in the opposite direction, would
be to ultimately establish a cycle. Within this cycle
of pressure or action, there is a strain. This strain
might be mapped out by lines of force the same as may
be done with the magnet. No physicist supposes that,
because these lines of force exist around a magnet, the
magnet is "dissipating force or energy." The lines
'of force may be cut, the strain shifted, the energy
transformed; all of this is acknowledged. I conceive
the contest in the sun to give the same condition as is
present in the magnet, modifying it by saying that the
pressure in the magnet is to maintain its characteristic
form, while in the stm, the pressure is from the unstable
equilibrium of the mass, on account of the varying
ratio of Power and Force. Also, the rapidity of the
oscillation is such as to give the immediate effect of

Dissipation of Energy 287

the various rays. According to this conception, the
ability of the etherous atoms (electrons) to maintain
their characteristic form of motion equals the ability
of the energy of the Power and Force in the atoms of the
sun to disturb this form within certain circles, each
circle being dependent for its size on the amount of
force necessary for a variation from its characteristic
motion. I claim that, neither within these circles, nor
from one circle to another, nor beyond the circles,
is there the slightest dissipation of energy; excepting,
as bodies within one or more of these circles would, by
cutting the lines of force, relieve the strain and absorb
a certain amotmt of the force which caused it.

Let us, so far as we have gone, compare this concep-
tion with ovix conception of the magnet. We have a
central magnet, and can demonstrate that it is sur-
rotmded by lines of force. We compute the energy
exerted on a given surface of a piece of metal at a given
distance, and we say that, as so much energy is being
exerted on this surface, an eqtiivalent amount is being
exerted on all equal surfaces, i. e., is being radiated into
space. Of course, the absurdity of this as applied to
the magnet is apparent, but the absurdity of it as
appUed to the sim has not been apparent on account of
the mistaken conception as to the constitution of the
ether and the undulatory theory of transmission.
According to my conception, there is absolutely no
dissipation of energy of the magnet, except as an ab-
sorbing body comes within the lines of force. If we
drop a particle of metal, it adheres to the magnet, but
every particle dropped will decrease the limits of the
lines of force, until finally there may be no lines of
force perceptible. We do not beHeve the energy to be
annihilated any more than the physicists believe the

288 An Unortkodox Conception of Being

radiated heat energy of the sun to be annihilated.
Attempt to move a particle of metal from the magnet,
and we find that the force is stiU there.

Of the bodies within the lines of force of the sun, we
wiU take only our earth. There must be some circles
which we do not intercept. Those we might term the
limit of atmospheric disturbance, such as here we
perceive as mechanical movements of the air from
explosions; the atomic movement as sound; the elec-
trical disturbances from varying pressure. There must
be a strain within certain limits due to similar phe-
nomena in the stin, but we are out of that Emit, and
all the energy of such phenomena must be still
contained within their circles.

Conditions sometimes extend the next circle to in-
clude the earth. I wiU call this the magnetic circle.
Conditions sometimes exist here when a strain wiU
end in an explosion. The bursting of a "Prince Rupert
Drop" may serve as an illustration of such an explosion
in the case of a soKd ; and the action of a spherical body
of water on a hot stove as an illustration in the case of
a liquid. I conceive that conditions may exist in the
sim where compression of the atoms enclosing a sphere
may compress the contents to an extent that would
eventually end in a bursting of the encircling envelope.
' The atoms at the point of rupture would be ejected with
an unusual force. This energy would be transmitted
as a lateral movement of mass in a certain direction,
but which, on account of its ability to spread or dis-
perse, could not travel as far as an atomic transmission.
The only difference I conceive as existing in the cause
of an electric wave and a magnetic wave is: the elec-
trical disturbance is caused by a large quantity of
force at low pressure (this may be, and is, quickly

Dissipation of Energy 289

dissipated as heat, i. e., an enlargement of the orbits of
the atoms); the magnetic wave is caused by a small
quantity of force at high pressure (this wave may ob-
viously be transmitted a greater distance).

As I have said before, I believe that the velocity of
the transmission of this magnetic strain is somewhat
proportionate to the intensity of the disturbance, with
an average velocity throughout its effective limits
approaching that of light. That this is a strain of the
body of the ether is shoyvn by its transmission not being
intercepted by intervening bodies. Such bodies are
affected, however, for the magnetic needle will turn to
conform with the strain. The normal strain of magnets
will be changed, and, in various ways, it is demonstrated
that the magnetic disturbance is one of pressure in-
stead of atomic movement. This hypothesis would
also account for the spread of the nebulous emissions
from a new star. These emissions spread in an irregu-
lar manner, as they would from an explosive effect,
and with an initial speed ten to twenty times the
velocity of light. Scientists have no acceptable theory
for this speed, as light is their symbol of the greatest of
possible velocities.

The next circle will be that reached by the variation
of the light atoms (electrons) which I assume to be
speed of revolution, and which we call the calorific
rays. The next circle will be that reached by the
variation in speed of rotation resulting in the actinic
rays, and, finally, the circle where the eccentricity of
the orbit gives the luminous rays. It may be said that
the actinic circle extends farther than the light circle,
as we are able to photograph stars that are invisible.
But such a photography is a cumulative process made
possible by a mechanism which will give a long exposure.

290 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

If we could extend the surface of our eye or the tele-
scope as we can extend the time of exposure, I believe
that we might see stars that would make no calorific
or actinic impression.

I have expressly stated that these various motions
are given as an analogy. I do not believe that we can
comprehend atomic motion, because it is not mechani-
cal, not material, and, therefore, not comprehensible.
But I do believe that these motions have a definite
relation one to the other; that the movement of each
class of atoms bears a fixed relation to the motions of
other classes of atoms, and that these relations may all
be expressed mathematically. In other words, it is
the conditions which exist, which cause mathematics
to be possible. That four is twice two, is not an arbi-
trary decision;* it is so because conditions make it so.
That the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angle
triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the other
two sides, is not so because mathematicians have agreed
to let it be so, but because conditions have made it so.
While I may be able to comprehend this much of
mathematics, there is more that I do not comprehend.
But no matter how much of mathematics there may be
that I do not comprehend, I do not conceive that any
mathematical demonstration may be reliable if any of
its assumptions are contrary to conditions ; nor contrari-
wise could any conception of conditions be true that is
contrary to mathematics. If a person claims to be
mathematician enough to "square the circle, " I do not
believe him. If he claims to conceive a condition where
the circle may be quadrated, I do not consider his
conception reliable. AU of which means that, while the
truth of mathematics is fixed by conditions, conditions
cannot be contrary to true mathematical demonstra-

Dissipation of Energy 291

tion. A mathematical demonstration is not neces-
sarily a true mirror of conditions. It may be accurate
as a demonstration; it may be arithmetically correct,
but if aU the assumptions are not correct, the result is
invalidated. When I perceive a false assumption, I
do not need to be a mathematician to disbelieve the
resulting conclusion. I might apply this to many
things; hypergeometry ("foturth dimension") for in-
stance, but right here I will apply it to "rate of dissi-
pation of energy. ' ' The assumption of the mathematician
is, that space is absorbing energy from the sun at a
ratio equivalent to what is supposed to reach the
earth. There is no more real reason for saying that
energy is being dissipated continuously by the motion
of the atoms of the sim than for saying that energy is
being dissipated by every movement of the atoms of
the earth. I assume that the action and reaction
between the atoms of the sim and the atoms of the
ether are equal, therefore energy cannot be unlimited] y
radiated into space. A certain amount of energy may
be existent in the strain which exists, and the distance
to which the action of this strain extends may be great,
but there is a Kmit. Our earth is within the limit and
so far as conditions differ, our earth may be said to
absorb some of the energy.

If the sun can lose no energy except that absorbed by
the bodies cutting the lines of force which surround it,
that would extend the supposed limit of life of the sun
without the aid of any impossible combustion, or a
theoretic meteoric bombardment, or an inadmissible
(radiiim) elemental constitution. But even this ab-
sorption of the energy by the surrotmding bodies might
eventually diminish the energy, though this could be
done only by increasing the energy in these other bodies,

292 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

i.e., by equalizing the conditions of all. It is not
generally supposed that the earth is getting any hotter,
as such a condition would necessitate. It may be said
that the earth radiates the heat which it absorbs.
The same argument applies to the earth which appHes
to the sun. The action of the radiation can extend
only to certain definite circles, limited by the amount
and intensity of the force radiated. Any radiation at
an angle toward the sun would offset an equal radiation
coming toward the earth, as it would relieve the strain
that much ; and any amount radiated away from the sun
would tend to make up for any rays intercepted by the
earth, and, therefore, requiring just that much less
energy from the sun to replace. There can be no net
radiation from the earth unless there is a body within
its circle of action which can absorb such radiation.
There may be a net absorption, but this is of such a
small quantity as to have made no historical records.
The results of such a conclusion as this may seem rather
disturbing, but, in another chapter I wiU, I feel sure,
escape from any apparent dilemma.

The conception that the ether is no more essentially
different from other parts of Being than gas is different
from solid, is, I think, a more simple conception.
Under such conditions, however, the difficulties of the
'mathematician may be increased in computing the re-
sults of these variations in motion.

The phenomena of Being exists. I feel certain that
the nearer we approach to the Ultimate Cause, the
more simple its manifest movements (the phenomena).
Because, the further along we get in the constructive
forms of Being, the more complex it is. I do not mean
by this that cause may be comprehended in the Ulti-
mate, for not the simplest elemental thing is compre-

Dissipation of Energy 293

hensible. But I mean that the true conception will
be the most simple. While truth may be stranger than
fiction it must be more simple. This seems a logical
necessity. A comprehensive conception must, how-
ever, embrace all the essential truths. There might
be a conception of a Being more simple, and some
Idealistic conceptions may be simple in their oneness,
but they fail to include demonstrable facts, and facts
constitute the truth and are a part of the Being we are
endeavoring to conceive.

CHAPTER XVII

EARTH

OUR conception has logically brought us to the earth
with practically little net energy absorbed from
the sun, and certainly none radiated from the earth.
Here we are up against a condition, not a theory. A
man sitting on the hot sands of the desert is ready to
swear that the sun is burning; and when night comes
with its chill, sihd even ice forms under the straw at his
side, he is equally ready to swear that the heat has been
radiated. A man up in a balloon swears that the heat
is not up there; so it must have been dissipated into
space. Not being able to convict the man on the ground
of perjury, we must either accept the conclusion or
prove that the man in the balloon did not know how to
look for the heat.

It is an accepted statement of physicists that the
ether does not transmit rays from an obscure source.
• The method of preserving liquid air, and the various
therm o bottles seem to give ample proof of this state-
ment. The ether, however, is transmitting or returning
all rays reflected from the earth ; therefore, the only net
gain to the earth is the rays that are actually absorbed,
less any that may be given off by fires, etc., which
radiate into the ether We may see by this that only
a small percentage of the rays are actually absorbed

by the earth as a net gain. The heat, then, which we

294

Earth 295

have at the beginning of night is a small part of what
is believed to have come from the sun all through the
day. The absorption by the aqueous vapor is far
greater than the net absorption by the earth's surface.
We will follow first the heat which exists in the burning
sand of the desert. This seems to be great, but, in
reality, is much less than in a more favored location,
the specific heat of sand being small. This heat is
taken by convection, not by radiation, and the whole
amotmt is transformed as a greater motion of the upper
strata of air. The expansion of the upper strata
means more heat, i. e., force, but it wotdd not be notice-
able as temperature, for temperature is modified by
conditions the same as weight. That is, there is no
measure that will indicate the absolute temperature
of any body. Any thermometer will indicate differ-
ences, but the differences do not have a fixed ratio
under all conditions. We generally think that, when a
body absorbs heat from an adjacent body, the absorbing
body must first be colder; but this is not so. The
characteristic form varies with conditions, and in the
higher altitude there is a larger orbit (and possibly a
swifter movement), which, being characteristic tmder
the conditions, is not sensible as temperature. A
specific mass of air secured at a high altitude would, if
submitted to a pressure reducing it to a given volume,
evolve more heat than an equal mass of air taken from
a lower altitude reduced to an equal volume, due
allowance being made for the difference in temperature.
From similar demonstrations of this fact physicists say
that air is not a perfect gas because it is not strictly
adiabatic in its expansion and contraction. The superior
ability of water to absorb the heat at high pressure
(low altitude), and the superior ability of air to absorb

296 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

heat at a low pressure (high altitude), is what causes the
continuous and perpetual motion of evaporation and
rainfall. In either case, by condensation of vapor or
by convection from the hot surface beneath, the upper
strata of air would be finally over-charged, if there
were no process of getting rid of the accumulated
heat (force). I will mention a few of the ways in which
this is accomplished.

In the process of combustion, I said that carbon-
dioxide was formed by the oxygen giving up some of its
force to increase the size of the orbit of the carbon,
the surplus being radiated. The carbon-dioxide is a
gas, dense, to be sure, but if we were to endeavor to
condense it to a liquid, we wotild have to expend con-
siderable mechanical energy. This gas condenses itself
with no expenditure of energy whatever. We know the
gas is absorbed by liquid and with no elimination of
heat; therefore, the process must be just between the
endothermal and the exothermal, that is, it retains
all of the energy (force) of a gas, while it really becomes
as condensed as a liquid. The spontaneous, automatic
action of this gas in preserving its equilibrium in the
atmosphere is a wonderful provision of nature. If
chemically absorbed by the water, it is carbonic acid.

Every way in which gases or liquids are intensified
by the artificial electric current is an actual continuous
process of nature. I have already referred to the con-
densation of oxygen and nitrogen. These actually
absorb force in addition to the amount they possess
themselves. Compare the nitric acid, which is one
of such formation, TOth the carbonic acid mentioned
previously. We see the nitric acid is much more
energetic, which seems a logical result of its absorbing
more force in its formation,

Earth 297

Another way in which heat is absorbed, is by the
groAs^h of vegetation. But tliis heat is not stored in
the vegetable. The bulk of the plant is composed of
carbon taken from the carbon-dioxide. The oxygen,
beside the force which it retained in its condensing^
takes a portion from the atmosphere, and is able to
appear again as the gas oxygen (in which state we first
mentioned it) with the energy which scientists say is
stored up in the plant which it just left. But this
energy of the oxygen did not come directly from the
sun. It has absorbed it from the atmosphere.

Physicists figiu-e on the assiunption, that from the
absorption of calorific and actinic rays perceptible on
a specific surface, the same ratio of absorption is abso-
lutely necessary for the total surface, just the same as
there is an average rainfall over a certain surface even
when the high places drain into the lower places. I
claim that there is absolutely no energy taken but what
is absorbed (of course, some of the reflected rays are
absorbed indirectly). All rays reflected, as I said
before, simply relieve the strain in an equal ratio. The
leaves of plants are especially constructed to reflect
the calorific rays. If plants required the heat of the
sun to grow, they would not make such growth at night.
You may say that this heat comes indirectly from the
sun. The point I am making is, that there are ways
for the heat to be absorbed from the atmosphere other
than by radiation into space. This latter is the ordi-
nary way of disposing of it, which I say is neither
reasonable nor possible.

When, by the rapid condensation of vapor with its
elimination of heat, and the natural increase of pressure,
the heat thus accruing may not be absorbed in any of
the ways previously mentioned, there may be dis-

298 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

charges of the force, as lightning to the earth and to
other intervening bodies deficient in force.

Then, in the third stratum of air, there is a lateral
movement of the air of intense velocity, which would
disperse the heat to the antipodes, relieving the
condition more simply than by having to send it to
the limits of the universe.

All of the ways given are known to exist, but have not
been looked upon as having much bearing because of
the enormous quantity of heat which was supposed to be
constantly absorbed and as constantly being radiated
into space.

One other way there is in which I think heat is ab-
sorbed, — not exactly another way, but an unorthodox
application of the way. It is known that vapor cannot
condense unltess there is something to condense upon.
A fall in temperature is not sufiScient; there must be
a nucleus. This is usually supposed to be a dust particle.
In absolutely clean air, there may be supersaturation
without condensation. If an electric discharge is sent
into this air, the moisture will condense. A late
theory is that the atoms are ionized and by having
different electric charges the molecules of vapor are
attracted and so condensed. I would not ventxare to
differ with the physicists who have so magnificently
elaborated the electron theory, did I not feel that a
more simple explanation would suffice. It is known
that certain elements will spontaneously condense endo-
thermaUy: oxygen to ozone; nitrogen to nitre, etc.
I believe that other less known elements have this power
even to a greater degree. We know that in the air
there are atoms of argon, helium, etc. In the quantity
of air used in the ordinary experiments, as suggested
above, the amount of helium would not be detected.

Earth 299

We will assume that, under an impulse of excess of
force, so many of the helium atoms as were affected were
to change their form of motion, in the same way as we
have supposed the oxygen to do in forming ozone^
and take the form of radium. In this change, possibly
more force is necessary than the electric charge fur-
nished, and it is absorbed from the adjacent atoms.
The particles of vapor, in this way, may lose their
heat (force) and condense around or independent of the
atom of helium, which occasioned the change. By this
explanation there is nothing new or unusual brought
in. We know that this spontaneous condensation of
elements does occur. We know that, under those
conditions, the condensation of the vapor would follow
as a natural consequence. We know that helium exists
in a condensed form as radium, uranium, etc.

Except after extraordinary disttirbances, the air in
the upper strata is comparatively free from solid par-
ticles. It is known that there is a larger percentage of
helium, argon, etc., in the upper strata of air than in
the lower. Every part of Being is co-ordinated, so
far as we know. And we know that every process of
nattire is reversible. If radium can be changed to
heKum, then helium can change to radium. If, in one
change, it is exothermal, then, in the other, it is endo-
thermal. Some of the products thus made might
accumulate in the earth, and some might immediately
reverse the action, which would account for the radio-
activity of fresh fallen rain-water and snow. This
seems to be not only a logical and consistent explanation
of the phenomenon, but requires no new or imusual
terms of expression. If scientists can figure the great
potential possibiKty of energy (force) to be evolved
from radium, then I may use their every argument to

300 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

show the great potential possibilities of heHum as a
potential absorber of force (heat) from the atmosphere.

This seems to be a fit place to refer to radium.
Physical science has its place in the elevation of human
beings, but it is not an overstatement when I say that
certain physicists are bigoted. Scientific achievement
is measured by discoveries and inventions, but philo-
sophic and religious advancement is no less great
because less concretely measured. A short time ago
liquid air was to revolutionize the world. Now, it is
radium that is to prove our eternal salvation — at least,
the eternal salvation or extension of the life of the
universe now seems to hinge on radium, uranium, or
their progenitors.

I will refer to some of the phenomena in connection
with radium, showing how these phenomena conform
to the conception I have already given. There is
no more reason why radium and heKum should be
called different elements than there is that ozone and
oxygen should be called different elements. So far as
that goes, we do not know that any of the so-called
elements are the tdtimate, simplest form of the atoms
which compose them. We know enough, however, to
convince a reasonable being that, expecting to gain
energy by changing one element into another is as
futile as trying to get an excess of energy through
perpetual motion. We cannot change oxygen to ozone
and profit by the increased energy in the ozone. Yet,
ozone, in transforming, gives oxygen and energy (force) ;
radium, in transforming, gives helium and energy
(force). The explosive energy of the transformation
gives an initial velocity of from twelve to seventeen
thousand miles per second. When this velocity is
reduced to five thousand miles per second, it cannot be

Earth 301

detected. Thus ozone, in transforming to oxygen, or
even water changing into vapor, might have absolutely
the same action, different only in the initial velocity
(which diflference we know exists), and there is, at
present, no way of detecting it. I believe the differ-
ence is one only of degree.

Let us take the phenomena connected with this
transformation. There are three distinct effects, called
the "a," "b," and "c" rays. The "a" ray is the
expulsion of the heHum atom by a change in the form
of its motion. This is just the same as the evaporation
of water. The actual change may occiu- in the interior,
but is, of necessity, transferred to the surface to be
manifested. The change of a molecule of water from
a liquid to vapor is an explosion. Ordinarily, we do
not notice it, for its initial velocity is not great, and the
ratio of force to power is not so great. And, further-
more, there is no force eliminated in the transformation.
The heat manifested is not evolved by the change.
In the transformation of radium, there seems to be an
evolution of heat, as in the transformation of ozone
to oxygen. The immediate transformation of radium
is proportional to surface, as in the evaporation of
water, while the total force eliminated is proportional
to mass, the same as in a heated body of water. We will
suppose a body of water to be heated internally. The
evaporation would be proportional to the surface from
which it could take place, but the radiation of heat
would be proportional to the mass. If this body of
water could be spread over a large surface, the evapora-
tion would increase in proportion, but the elimination
of heat would not increase; therefore, the elimination
of heat per square of surface would proportionately
decrease. But, if this body of water is restored to its

302 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

original vessel, no heat will be radiated for some time,
as the force was used in the excessive evaporation.
This is just the way radium acts. We increase the
surface by dissolving it, and the emanation is increased,
while, on condensing the solution, there are no "b"
and "c" rays, and a reduced amount of "a" rays.
Water must absorb heat before it can radiate it. But,
on evaporation, much more energy is evolved than was
apparent in the water so far as its temperature might
indicate. Radium has been formed endothermally,
and the force is inherent or latent in the form of its
motion, which, we may say, is an increased speed of
rotation of its atom. If helium had an affinity for any
other element, so that this change could be effected
with all the atoms at the same instant, we wotild have
an explosive far exceeding anything we know. As
it is, the change is limited by the pressure exerted by
the changing atoms upon the others, and the reaction
on the ether and the pressure exerted by that.

The "a" ray, or particle of helium, is positively
charged, i. e., has more force in ratio to power than is
natural in its present condition. This force is now
expansive as it is being eliminated; a specific part is
absorbed by the adjacent bodies. The initial velocity
of the change is so great that the ether is affected as well
as the atmosphere. This initial velocity is not one of
vibration, but of lateral movement, which is mechani-
cally transferred to the ether, which, in turn, is condensed
and we have a magnetic strain. That is, in the imme-
diate vicinity, the light atoms (electrons) are pro-
portionately more numerous and the force which is
displaced is transmitted to the next circle, and in the
enlarged circumference is finally absorbed or manifest
as calorific or actinic energy. The condensed part, or

Earth 303

>'W>

'b" rays, is negatively charged, i. e., is composed of
atoms deficient in force necessary to give the natural
form of motion. The "c" ray is this surplus of force
or positive charge. I said these rays were caused by
the lateral movement of the explosion; I should have
said, by the force eliminated incident to the explosion.
The explosion, or energy of the explosion, ejects the
helium atom a given distance, as the popping of a grain
of com will eject that grain a given distance. There is
in the case of radio-active bodies an elimination of force
incident to, or preparatory for, the condition of explo-
sion. This is eliminated under a pressure which causes
a lateral movement of the ether. A lateral movement is
a mechanical movement.

I have previously described how the energy might be
transformed into the energy of mechanical movement,
and the energy of mechanical movement might again be
transformed into atomic or molecular energy or motion.
The actual transfer of energy in the case of the "b"
and "c" rays is mechanical, although the first cause
and final effects are atomic. Whenever the transfer
of energy is by atomic vibration (rotation or revolu-
tion) it is subject to polarization, reflection, or refraction.
Whenever the transfer of energy is by lateral movement
of the atoms, it is subject to magnetic influence. One of
these forms of transfer may, at any time, change to the
other form; also phenomena like electricity co-ordinate
both forms in the same transfer.

I spoke of the emission of radium; this seems to be
one of the intermediate forms between radium and
helium. There may be, as some suggest, in each atom
of radium fifty-six atoms of helium. In each atom of
the emission, there may be still fifty-five atoms of
helium, and at each elimination of helium, there may be

304 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

a change in the formation of the remainder. This is a
theory which, whether correct or not, makes no material
difference in my conception. In the emission itself
there is no more energy manifest than in the radium.
It is only when a transformation occurs that energy is
manifest. Ninety-nine per cent, of the energy manifest
is in the "a" ray, that is, the latent energy of the
radium is manifest, as in evaporation of water, in the
increased volume occupied by the vapor.

The "h" and "c" rays are incidental, and represent
an elimination of force equal to only one per cent. The
"b" rays, as I have explained, are the same as the rays
from the negative, or cathode, of the electric wire.
The "c" rays are the same as the "X" or Roentgen
rays, and result from the lateral movement of the "b"
rays. No ' doubt complexities of motion exist, but
variation of forms of energy do not necessitate a variety
of causes.

I wish, now, to refer again to the estimate of the mass
of the electrons whereby the physicists say the old idea
of the immutability of matter cannot be maintained.
I have already shown how, in three different ways, a
mistake could have been made: (i) In assuming that
the total energy of velocity could be computed by meas-
uring its lateral movement only ; (2) in assuming that
it must necessarily evolve heat (force) by contact, when
it might absorb heat (force) by a change in the form
of motion; (3) in assuming that there is no resist-
ance of the ether.

I will now show where there might be another mis-
taken assumption. In the illustration given of the
condensation of vapor by an electric charge, I said it
might be from the change in the form of motion of the
helivmi atom, with the absorption of heat (force) making

Earth 305

that a condensing nucleus for the molecules. The
physicists say that each electron becomes or forms an
ion, which becomes a condensing centre, and from the
number of drops of water formed, they estimate the
number of electrons ejected on a given charge of
electricity. When the electrons of an equal charge are
ejected against an obstruction, the heat evolved is
measttred, and from the velocity and the number of
electrons as derived from the above experiment, the
mass of each is computed. When from this experiment
it is found that mass varies, it is asserted that attraction
can be only an effect, subject to electrical conditions
(force). This may be so, but the inference does not
convince me. If the cause of the condensation is the
contractive movement of the helitim atom, then they
have no basis at all for the assumption. Even granting
that part of their theory correct it cannot be proven
that every one of the electrons must necessarily ionize
an atom. If there should be a mistake in the count of
the electrons, there would certainly be a mistake in
the computation of the specific mass of any one of
them that would invalidate the estimate of the total
mass.

Electrons, ions, waves, the various rays from "a,"
"b," and "c" to "X," like my orbit, rotation, revolu-
tion, various forms of motion, and ratio of Power and
Force, are differences in terminology used in an en-
deavor to express a conception. The words themselves
are of minor importance; the conception is important
proportionate to its truth. Whenever any part of my
conception is proved untrue, that is, contrary to fact,
I will hasten to change it, But, when physicists state
the restilts of certain observations as facts, and I see
that the observations themselves are not based on

3o6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

facts, but on the assumption of a theory as a fact, I do
not feel compelled to change my conception to conform
to their conclusions.

It may be asked: If any of these conclusions of the
physicists are not absolute facts, why are they so
generally received? It is because they come nearer
to according logically and mathematically with phe-
nomena than do previous theories. Even if my con-
ceptions were absolutely true, that is, free from error
(which I dp not claim), it would not be accepted by the
physicists, because I am tmable to demonstrate the
theory mathematically. Their time is too fuUy occu-
pied to be given to demonstrating the truth or fallacy
of every hypothesis put forward. Therefore, making
no claim to the attention of the physicist, I will leave
the physical and mechanical aspects of Being, and take
up the part which may be termed the biological.

CHAPTER XVIII

BIOLOGY

MY conception of Being reduces the difEculty of
going from the inorganic to the organic that is
usually met w'ith in other conceptions. I do not think
it necessary to appeal to an exterior power for life, or
to bring in, by mechanical means from other worlds, the
essential vital spark.

Before going farther, it may be weU for me to define
what I mean by "life," which is a characteristic of the
organic. The above expression is really a definition.
Life is a characteristic of organic manifestation. Life
is not a cause ; it is a condition. According to my con-
ception, life is just Hke a flame; it exists so long as the
conditions exist which make it apparent. It is the
name of a condition. A flame is not a definite thing;
it does not depart. There would be a great difference
in the terms used were physicists to begin defining the
condition designated by the word "flame." And so
there are various expressions used among biologists
to define the condition designated by the word "life."

My definition of life may not be tmiversally satis-
factory, but it fulfils the necessities of my conception.
This is my definition : Life is a characteristic condition
of a body, which, by a process of spontaneous assimi-
lation and elimination, maintains its existence, identity,

307

3o8 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

and essential functions. I say life is a condition, and I
define the condition ; what more can I say? I know that
many enlarge upon the attributes of life. I say, life
has no attributes. In the condition of life there is a
process of essential functions, which process begins in
the lowest forms with the assimilation of a neighboring
atom and grows spontaneously until it reaches the
point where in the higher forms there is the expression
of a sensible idea.

In biologic writings, heredity is an effective term, but
it is descriptive, not definitive. What is heredity?
The transmission of like qualities from parent to child.
What causes the transmission of like qualities from
parent to child? Heredity. How lucid! How com-
plete and unanswerable! It is no wonder that when
one half the people stand in fear of the Great God and
the other half stand in awe of Science, that the little
god (Puck) with curling lip says, "What fools these
mortals be". I am criticised for treating with levity
such serious subjects, but I feel that I am more profit-
ably engaged (although the profits may not be so great)
when I am secularizing a sacred subject than were I,
like many others in play and novel, writing seriously of
lewd subjects.

When a cat is bom with five toes from four-toed
ancestors, what is the answer? Certainly not the
ancestor. "No, ' ' they say, ' 'it 's a case of malformation, ' '
meaning, with the intent to convey the impression,
that it is a mechanical deformation of the material.
Try to imagine in a microscopic speck of protoplasm
an embryo cat and try, even in imagination, to split
its toe with a cleaver. Impossible, incomprehensible.
Then my conception can be no worse. I say, in the
organization of the atoms there was a misinterpretation

Biology 309

of instruction, Kterally a misconception. What is the
difference? One is a physical conception, which tries
to make the process mechanically comprehensible and
renders itself absurd, the other is a psychical conception,
which is absurd only because it acknowledges that the
process is incomprehensible.

I believe the physical and psychical are inseparable;
simply different aspects of the indivisible, and that to
render comprehensible this relation or difference is as
impossible as to demonstrate the difference or relation
between the two sides of a geometrical line. Buckle
insisted there was a difference and, therefore, not being
defined, "no problem in geometry has been exhaustively
solved. " ' I believe that so long as MateriaHsts contend
that the psychic is non-essential and that phenomena are
occasioned wholly by mechanical means, they will be
involved in absurdity. And I believe that so long as
Dualists contend that God, the Spirit, is All (excepting
only the Universe, which is his foot-stool; or is it the
earth only which is trodden underfoot?) and that matter
is only incidental, being immaterial and non-essential,
there will be a growing lack of respect for their opinions.

My definition may describe my idea of the conception
of life, but it does not, in any way, express a conception
of the cause of the condition. Materialistic biologists
claim that, given the first living organism, and it is
mechanically easy to evolve the complex organisms
following. Suppose that we foUow them one step. We
will take the first simplest form of bioplasm, a minute
spherical form that must grow by a spontaneous assimi-
lation and eHmination. This it does for a time; but
soon its limit is reached. The material assimilated

' History of Civilization in England, American edition, volume ii.,
page 342.

310 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

must be from its surface ; but its surface increases in a
much less ratio than its bulk increases. Therefore, it is
in great danger of starving to death. There is no heredi-
tary instinct to tell it what to do ; for this is assumed to
be the first living form. There is only one way,
then, in which it may be taught — that way is environ-
ment. And what is there in environment to teach it
what to do? I venture the assertion that, if their life
depended upon it, as, in reality, does the life of the
bioplasm, there is not one out of ten human beings the
world through that would know what to do to preserve
life. Now, here is the first step in the evolution of the
bioplasm, and conditions (environment) are as unable
to aid us in making this step as it would be in originat-
ing the conditions. But the bioplasm does not starve
for want of knowledge. It does the obvious : it follows
and utilizes a self -enforcing law; it divides itself; its
surface is increased and its bulk is decreased. It
continues thereby not only to live but to miiltiply.
Many of the succeeding steps of evolution are just as
simple as they are obvious: a physical and mechanical
necessity in the evolution of the forms. They are
following and utilizing a natural law; but that in no way
explains why or how the forms came to take those steps.
Dana says:

There is, therefore, in the living; organism something
besides mere physical forces, or the chemistry of dead
nature, something that ceases to be when life ceases. There
is a vital condition, in which molecules have powers
that lead to resulting seed-bearing structures widely differ-
ent from those of inorganic nature, and standing on alto-
gether a higher level. There is a power of evolution, an
architectural power, that not only exalts chemical results,
but evolves a diversity of parts and structure and a

Biology 31 1

heritage of ancestral qualities, of which the laws of material
nature give no explanation.

It seems to be granted that, given the conditions, the
rest is comprehensible. Think for one moment what
this assumption involves. Take the generative fluid
of an animal; we know that tliis is formed out of wholly-
unrelated material, secreted and eHminated within the
duration of a few moments, and yet, thus suddenly,
we have this fluid teeming with organic, living forms.
Does physics, mechanics, or rnathematics aid the mind
to comprehend this miracle? Not in the slightest. Of
the origin of life upon this earth, I cannot give a com-
prehensible explanation, but I do say that when the
germination of any living form is not comprehensible,
that conception is the most logical which accords to
each manifestation the same explanation. It is the
Desire to be manifest in various forms, and, as con-
ditions permit, these forms are manifest. Conditions
may modify the forms, but conditions (environment)
did not cause the forms. Whenever conditions permit,
living forms are manifest. This is a parallel statement
to the following: whenever conditions permit, snow-
flakes form. Apparently there is nothing in these
statements to deny. We can make conditions where
snowflakes will form. We know that it is one of the
essential functions of the living body to make con-
ditions where other living forms are manifest. We
know the usual conditions; and the manifestations
following create no surprise, although the formation
of either the snowflake or the living form is absolutely
incomprehensible. I say, given the proper conditions,
and living forms will be manifest. Whether these con-
ditions do exist or have existed independently of other

312 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

living forms is a question I am able to answer only from
results. I say there must have been such a condition,
at least once, in the history of this earth. I have no
such definite results to enable me to say whether such
conditions existed more than once or not. Whether
they have at other times existed in the past, or whether
they will exist in the future, makes no difference ac-
cording to my conception. Continuity of life is not an
essential, although the decision on that point means the
difference between materialistic evolution and special
creation.

According to my conception. Desire is limited by
conditions, and it is wholly a question of the condi-
tions governing. Conditions might have permitted
the manifestation independent of living f oims ; or, if the
conditions pdimitted a more rapid development of the
Desire through the forms already living, then, such
conditions governed or marked the path of evolution.
Future investigation may or may not settle this. It
is possible that it may prove that special creations is a
fact as well as evolution. It would seem that in the
primordial period, chemical and climatic conditions
existed where spontaneous generation might be more
frequent, and an endless variety of monera might have
had their beginning.

Whenever conditions permit, living forms are mani-
fest. In view of our definition of life, this means that
whenever conditions permit, there begins a process of
assimilation and elimination, with the essential func-
tions, which we call life. The condition which permits
this organization is one that would be difficult to make
chemically, and after we have it apparently chemically
correct, there may be in the form of motion of the atoms
or molecules composing it a variation from the necessary

Biology 313

conditions. In the conditions imposed for a test, boil-
ing and filtering wotild destroy the unstable compounds
essential for the spontaneous manifestation of Hfe.
The condition of the material is essentially one of
great chemical unstability, permitting a variation and
the building or organizing into a complex form or shape
with the minimum of energy.

Aqueous clouds in the atmosphere sometimes have
shape, but this shape is formed by the exterior resist-
ance of the atmosphere. Actinic clouds sometimes
halve shape, but when in rarefied atmosphere, where
resistance is at a minimum, forms are organized which
appear wholly independent of environment. Such a
large portion of them are co-ordinated and life-like as to
preclude the idea of chance, such as occasions the
life-like forms of some atm^ospheric clouds. Many
aqueous forms of life are so fragile that on removal
from their natural environment they collapse into a
chaotic mass. I believe that when conditions permit,
living forms are manifest in the actinic clouds, but they
are of so transitory and fragile a nature that the
slightest change of pressure will destroy the form.
Scientists acknowledge spending hours watching these
beautiful, apparently living, forms but in affirming
the continuity of life, they could not admit that the
forms organized in the actinic clouds were actually
alive, even though that life might be brief.

Under the conditions of generation, as we know them,
for every separate form that matures, there are probably
a million which conditions do not permit to develop
at all. No record remains of these undeveloped forms.
So, also, there might exist, from the earliest ages to the
present time, conditions in which life is manifest inde-
pendent of other living forms, and if they did not

314 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

develop we could never know it. If we find any de-
veloped, as we do find innumerable of the lower living
forms, we cannot tell whether or not some have organ-
ized independently of other forms. Suppose, in the
crude alchemy of those who have tried the experiment
there should, by chance, be the proper condition, and
life should manifest itself, such a miracle would be
denied. But in case it could be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of biologists, why, the whole materialistic
world would have a jubilee, while the theologian would
mourn for the loss of one of the few remaining preroga-
tives of God — the giving and taking of life. If Kfe
is a thing that can be given and taken, it is no less a
miracle to have it given within the relation of the Uving
forms. If life is a condition, it is no more wonderful,
independent of other living forms, than in conjunction
with them. In either or any of these cases, the actual
organization of material into a living form is incompre-
hensible to the htiman mind. In cases where we cannot
comprehend, I say we must only try to conceive.

My conception is, that Power and Desire (two words
being necessary to express the one) is manifest as Being.
That it is atomic in its structure, and that each atom
has consciousness, memory, and volition; that each atom
has related to it a certain amount of Force, which I
characterize as giving it a form of motion. I do not
conceive that one atom is independent of another atom,
excepting in its individuality. How atoms can receive
an impression, or act in accordance with a co-operative
or organic Desire, is as incomprehensible as how there
can be mutual attraction. We say gravity exists,
and we know that organisms exist. The intermediate
"How?" or "Why?" is only a conception. Is it com-
prehensible how human beings co-operate? Because

Biology 315

they have means of communication, you say. How?
By means of their five senses, you say. The five
senses are only five specialized ways of impressing
consciousness; and what or where consciousness is, we
do not know. Even the physical amount of energy
essential to the perception is absolutely immeasurable.
In other words, we are conscious of a variation of motion
so slight as to be absolutely immeasurable, and we
interpret these variations "sensibly," as we say.
As a process, it is utterly incomprehensible. Only
those who are fools enough to know "how" an apple
falls will dispute this.

With this admission, is it, then, any more absurd
to conceive that atoms may consciously receive and
respond to impressions that are immeasurably sKght?
Materialists conceive that atoms are mechanically
forced into position according to an immutable law.
Dualists conceive that each atom is guided into place
by an exterior God. Monists believe that each atom
is spontaneous, but unconscious in its movements, and
that consciousness is a result and not a cause. I
conceive that the atoms are just as conscious as we are,
but are not conscious of so much as we are, because
through owe organic body consciousness is subjected
to a greater variety of impressions. I call the Power
in each atom its "mass."' Some speak of mass as

" By mass I mean quantity of Power, and not any separate manifes-
tation of Power. A pound of feathers may have the same mass as a
pound of lead, and with each in the same location it is the assumption
that they do; but I do not admit it or deny it, for we have no data show-
ing the relation between gravity and cohesion or whether or not they
may be invertible. My impression is that they are the same, only that
gravity is the material relation of measurable bodies and that cohesion
is an equivalent relation between the immeasurable parts of these
bodies; and that whatever law may be applied to one relation may be
applied to the other.

3i6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

being inherent in the atom, but this is not technically
correct. We can easily conceive that, if all the universe
were annihilated but one atom, that that atom would
have no mass. As the mass of an atom is dependent
on the relation of one to aU, so the Desire of the atom
is not inherent in the sense that it is separable. The
mass of an atom is never different, or subject to change;
the Desire of an atom may change and certainly varies.
(It might be substituted that it is the interpretation of
Desire that changes.) While the mass (power)
does not change, its manifestation changes according
to conditions. The same mass may weigh twenty-five
pounds in one place, and one himdred pounds in another
place. So, of the Desire; at one place and time it may
be one htuidred poimds of inorganic material, at another
time and place this same material may be a highly
complex organic body. The change in condition has
allowed this difference in manifestation. Whenever
conditions permit, these higher forms are manifest.
It is the intent of Desire to make these conditions, but,
as I have said before. Desire is limited by time, as
Power is limited by space. The same conditions under
which bioplasm could generate and develop, might not
permit the development of man.

I think the idea of the theologian, that the Power
(God) has complete control over conditions, is extremely
untrue in one direction ; and the idea of the Materialist,
that Desire (Mind) has no influence at all over condi-
tions, is extremely untrue in the other direction. The
time fixed by biologists for the evolution of man is
anywhere from 100,000 to a 1,000,000 years, which
time woiild seem all too short, were there no causes for
variation other than environment. When conditions
permit, life is manifest. So fast as conditions permit,

Biology 317

forms of life more complex are jnanifest. It is not
necessary to affirm that the original conditions permit-
ting the manifestations of any form of higher complexity
will never occur again. The procreative condition
given may fully satisfy the Desire for the continuation
of that special form. According to material evolu-
tionists, whenever the original conditions arose again,
there would of necessity be an independent generation
of a similar species; or, in other words, the conditions
tmder which any fixed type or species were formed have
never reoccurred. According to my conception, if the
Desire was satisfied with an existing evolution of a
specific complex form, it would not again begin develop-
ing that form on a lower plane.

Given two twelve-room residences, they may have
been built under different conditions. One may have
started with one room, and as the necessities or re-
quirements demanded, the additions, room by room,
were made until it became a residence well calculated
to fulfil all the requirements of a family. The other
house, we will say, is built according to an architectural
plan, having in view the ultimate requirements of the
family. Even if this house is built room by room,
according to the conception, the condition of its building
is different. It is easy to see that not so many condi-
tions would necessarily delay the completion of the
second house as the first. Suppose we were told that
two houses were erected tinder the above conditions,
which one would we expect to show the greater archi-
tectural beauty and practical adaptability? The first
plan is according to the Materialistic evolutionary
idea. The second plan is according to the Dualistic
idea. Materialists say that the second method is
possible only on account of the experience derived from

3i8 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the first method, and, according to their conception,
this objection is unanswerable. I do not believe that
experience is limited in its meaning to a knowledge
and recollection of things already done. I believe that
knowledge enables us to predicate conditions that have
never before occurred. We say, a child learns by
experience; but it may learn by instruction or the laiow-
ledge of others. In this sense, knowledge is equivalent
to experience. Now, I believe that the knowledge of
the Supreme Being is fully as much greater than that of
the human part of Being as the knowledge of humanity
is greater than my individual knowledge, and I am
not so egotistical as not to admit that this is quite a
difference.

I have been, criticised for having a conception which
limits, in the least degree, the knowledge of the Supreme
Being. I am asked what limits I put to this fore-
ordained plan. Some lower forms of life plan for the
future a few months; some human beings plan ahead
for a few years; does the Supreme Being plan ahead
for a few centuries or a few aeons? I would not care
to define the time by measure, but, should I say a
million years, it would seem to me less absurd than to
say that the plan extended to all eternity. By saying
this, we limit eternity by the plan, which must be
limited to be definite. A definite plan is essentially
limited. Eternity is essentially unlimited.

I have said that Desire (in which word is incorporated
the idea of knowledge, but not omniscience) is limited
by time. This not only means that the fulfilment of
a certain Desire requires a specified time, but that the
plan and knowledge thereof are necessarily limited
by time. We measure time by the rotation and revolu-
tion of the earth. Any plan or knowledge regarding

Biology 319

the earth must be limited by the dtiration of the earth.
This seems indisputable, and as there is no reason for
our interest at present extending beyond this, I do not
feel that the conception should be criticised as too
limiting on account of my limiting the plan to terres-
trial time. The real point is not that the plan and
knowledge may be too incomplete or too extended, but
that the manifestation of the Desire according to any
plan is demonstrably subject to conditions. I conceive
that there is a plan, a definite aim, a design, an ultimate,
to be accomplished by Desire, but that conditions may
modify or even change this Desire in its manifestation.

If this conception is true, then the condition of neither
one of the two houses referred to is illustrative of Being
as manifest. If the first, or evolutionistic, conception
were true, there is no explanation of the perfect adapta-
bility of parts or the architecttiral beauty of the com-
plete forms, such as we see in nature. If the second,
or Dualistic conception were true, then there is no
explanation of the defects of construction or of the
unusable and even objectionable parts of the material
forms which demonstrably exist. This condition, then,
is more accurately illustrated by a building started on
a definite plan, for a definite purpose, but in the con-
struction of which, conditions arose which caused the
plans to be modified and the structure to be altered,
with here and there a possible defect caused by inter-
ference from some exterior source.

The Materialist does not comprehend his law, or
why it applies; the Dualist does not comprehend his
God, or his mysterious ways; I do not comprehend
Desire, or the methods of its manifestation. The
only advantage I claim for my conception is that it is
more consistent with observed facts. I realize that, in

320 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

proportion to the novelty of this conception, it will
appear absurd ; but I do not believe that the conception
is essentially absurd.

In olden time, the existence of both God and Baal
was acknowledged, but there was a contest as to which
was the greater. In modem time, the existence of
both God and the Law of Nature is acknowledged;
and there is a contest as to which is the greater. I
might say, with the Atheist, "There is no such thing as
God"; or I might say, with the Monist, "There is no
such thing as the law of nature." In this age the idea
of the separate existence of God and Baal seems to us
absurd. The time will come when the idea of the
separate existence of God and Nature will be equally
absurd. In just the degree to which that idea be-
comes absurd, will my conception cease to be regarded
as absurd.

It used to be supposed that there was an absolute
difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas. While,
in definite cases the difference is absolute, yet the
conditions and cases vary so much that no definition
of any of the three can be used to differentiate them
and acciu-ately apply to all.

It used to be supposed that there was a difference in
the fiesh of a fish and the flesh of a fowl. It used to be
supposed that there was an absolute difference between
vegetable and animal, but it is now known that the
two merge so closely that a body may be part vegetable
and part animal at the same time, or vegetable part
of the time and animal part of the time. It is also
beginning to be recognized that the line of demarcation
between the living and the non-living is not as definite
as is usually supposed. I claim that the difference is
one of condition only ; that there is no more real differ-

Biology 321

ence between protoplasm and bioplasm than between
a particle of water and a snowflake. I do not conceive
of a vis viva, a vital principle, a Hving energy, or any
thing that may be implied by such expressions.

If we will stop to think that otir consciousness as a
human being (on the material plane) has nothing to do
with the construction of that human being, and has no
perception of how that being functions, we may realize
that consciousness is not at all sjmonymous with life.
Consciousness is an attribute possessed by all atoms;
life is a condition resulting from an aggregate of atoms.
One separate atom cannot be aHve; therefore, there
cannot be an individual life. When an amoeba divides,
forming two, neither of them can be said to be the
progenitor. A slip may be taken from a plant or a tree,
and grow to the size and likeness of the original. A
worm may be cut in twain, and each part grow into a
perfect whole. There is no individuality in life.

In the spermatozoa we see an apparently perfect,
living form, needing only the food of the ova to enable
it to develop and mattire. In the fertile ova we see a
development that demonstrates it to be a perfect body,
each part differentiating into its appropriate organ.
In each of these cases, the physical development seems
to depend only incidentally upon the other. In some
forms of life this is so in fact. In others, and most of
the higher forms, in the union of spermatozoa and ova
(combination of the gametes) there is a perfect coales-
cing, an inter-absorption and re-formation, which we
might say was a re-generation. This process refutes
the idea of a continuous individual life.

Tracing life from the lowest forms to the highest,
and tracing the life of any given body from its inception
to its end, there seems to be no proof, or even suggestion

322 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

of oneness and individual separateness. At some point
in the life of each Hving body, there is a degree of merg-
ing with another, which fact dispels the proof of in-
dividuality. ■ Working up from beginning to end, with
all the physical and material data obtainable, the logical
and consistent conclusion is that a living body is a
combination of separable parts, and that no one part is
the essential representative or soul of the whole. If my
life may go out as a flame and my body disintegrate to
its original forms, where am I?

CHAPTER XIX

EGO

IN closing the last chapter, "I" was in a dilemma.

* The Ego, as an individual, seemed to have slight

claim to notice or existence. In spite of the evidence,

I cannot help believing that "I" exist separable

from my life and my body. In all my conception, this

is the most absurd of the assumptions, because it is,

of aU of them, the least capable of substantiation.

Although I suppose that nine-tenths of the human race

believe it, yet it is with some diihdence that I proclaim,

with Elihu, " There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration

of the Almighty giveth him understanding. "

What is this spirit, this Ego.? It may be well to

state first what it is not. It is not divisible, and,

therefore, it is not the body; it is not a condition,

therefore, not the life. By the word "soul" many may

have the same conception which I give to the word,

"Ego," but the original and authoritative use of the

word "sotd" makes it synonymous with life. In but

two places in the Bible is the soul referred to as existing

after death, and in those places, only in an allegorical

way. I believe that Christ and the majority of his

followers thought the soul might become immortal,

that is, that life could continue undeterminated and the

Kingdom of Cod be established. When results showed

323

324 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

that this belief was, apparently, unfounded, there was
a gradual reinterpretation, which placed the Kingdom
of God in the heaven above, and made life die to live
again, and thus making it possible for the "soul to be
saved." Of course, controversy on Biblical interpre-
tation is futile. I have said this much to show that
the use of the word "soul, " for the piirpose of defining
an immortal entity, was without authoritative sanction
until of recent date, and the fact that it is now so used
does not carry with it the right of asserting that it was
used in this signification two thousand years ago.

From the physical standpoint, there is nothing to
differentiate man from the animal except as a genus
homo. The brain development is only one of degree.
Every faculty of man has its counterpart in one or the
other of the lower animals. Is there anything in man
inherently or intrinsically different or superior to other
animals? Compare the most degraded of mankind
with the most intelligent of animals, and it must be
admitted that man, at least, is not superior. And from
this admission it is easy to say that the only difference
is the construction, which permits of a higher degree of
development and a greater comprehension. The Ma-
terialists and Monists come to this logical conclusion.
Physically and mentally, I agree that man is but a
superior form of animal. The physical corresponds
to Power, and answers the How? The mental corre-
sponds to Desire, and ajiswers the Why? How does
the bioplasm divide? Physically, by Power. Why
does it divide? Mentally, instigated by Desire. These
are not really separable, but are accentuations of the
different phases of life.

But there are limits to the mental development of
animals. They have no aspirations, no inspirations.

Ego 325

"There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the
Almighty giveth him understanding." This spirit,
assuming tliat it exists, I will call the Ego, and it is
through this that man has understanding. Granted
that an animal may learn to count; no one pretends to
think that an animal can appreciate mathematics.
Some men appreciate mathematics. Why? There is
no more appropriate answer than "the inspiration of
the Almighty giveth him understanding. " It may be
said that the intuitions of animals are parallel to the
inspirations of man ; they are parallel, but they lack the
essential nature of being aspirations.

Saying that the Ego is a spirit makes it no different
physically (if I may use the word in this way) from
any other atom. It is simply the specific atom through
which the Desire is to manifest itself in the highest form.
The elephant and ape, the horse and dog, do not have
aspirations; not because they are physically incapaci-
tated, but because the Desire for the spiritual imder-
standing has chosen to come through man, or has
developed a form through which it may come.

If understanding and comprehension depended on
brain development alone, the animals would make some
degree of progress. It has been said that, through
observation and experience, man has developed his
imderstanding; but I believe that inspiration and aspira-
tion have been the prime causes of man's development,
and these are not faculties of the brain at all.

This, then, I claim, is the only reason why man is a
superior animal; he is the chosen instrument of spiritual
inspiration. The physical and mental development
is a co-operative one. Man's animal desires are not of
the Ego, but an aggregate of the Desire of the organized
atoms. The spiritual aspiration is not of the body,

326 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

but of the Desire. It is only through the Ego and its
body that these aspirations and inspirations can be
manifest.

I will go back a little to the conscious perception of
impressions. Our impressions must all be interpreted
sensibly, i. e., through one of five ways. We are power-
less even to conceive what consciousness may perceive
on the atomic or spiritual plane. On the material
plane we know there is a vast difference in the percep-
tions, and there is fully as much difference in the final
interpretation of these impressions. The way these
perceptions are interpreted is generally a matter of
training. Place a city man and a country man in the
same environment, and each would perceive some im-
pressions that, the other would not, and of the percep-
tions common to each, there would be a difference in
their interpretation. The brain interprets. How it
does it I do not know. I said the physical and mental
development was an organic development, and not
individual. When a cow sees com in an adjoining
field, and looks for a low place in the fence to jump
over, it shows mental development. There must be a
degree of comprehension to allow the optical impression
of the com field to be interpreted as something at a
distance and not in the eye. There must be a degree
of comprehension of distance and dimension. These
interpretations are mental. I cotild give illustrations
to show that the mental processes extend back to the
very earliest stages of organic life or even to inorganic
processes. But it is sufficient, at present, to state
that comprehension is a process of the brain and not an
attribute of the Ego.

^The impressions are not limited to exterior sources,
but there are perceptions of thoughts or ideas, a con-

Ego 327

sciousness of purely mental processes. We assume that
a dog dreams, and if this is a fact, then the dog is
conscious of a mental process. The mental process
of the human brain is more complex, and, therefore,
comprehension is greater. But if comprehension were
limited to exterior impressions it could not embrace a
love for mathematics, or philosophy, or for any abstract
idea.

The greater the ratio of mental impressions to those
from exterior sources, the greater the chance for
mistaken interpretation. Experience has taught us
this, and, therefore, says measure each mental impres-
sion by exterior comparison. In other words, be guided
only by concrete reason. This is one of the fallacies
of an intelligent mind. History shows that the greatest
ideas of the human race were inspirational; that is,
at the time they were conceived they were contrary to
reason. This is a fact. But it is also a fact that the
greatest advance of mankind has been made when
governed by reason. There is a vast difference in these
statements. Reason is not meant for a guide. Reason
is consequent on observation and experience. Reason
is the result of the past ; it is not the precursor of the
future. Reason is the rudder which is to prevent the
erratic course of the mind. Reason is not the guide.
Nothing in the past may be a guide to anj^hing greater
or higher in the future. Bibles and saintly examples,
science and philosophy can guide us to nothing higher
than they themselves have reached. I wish strongly
to emphasize this point. Reason and morality are
not guides, but governors. Think over the wonderful
steps in the advance of civilization and you will see that
each was, at the time, apparently unreasonable, and
was derided by the mtiltitude. Precedence prevents

328 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

progress. But do not expect to push progress by a too
previous process. If you have an inspiration, let it
mature. The immature is tmseasonable ; therefore,
remains unreasonable.

Returning to the perceptions of the Ego, we may
acknowledge that many of them are hallucinations,
i. e., they are misinterpreted. Physical, mental, and
spiritual perceptions are all subject to this misinter-
pretation. Physical perceptions are from sensual
impressions. When a man has "Bats in his belfry,"
or "Snakes in his boots," we say he is suffering from
hallucination. It is simply a case of the impression
being misinterpreted to consciousness. A man may
have weird and wonderftd ideas that are useless and
absurd, and he may think they are equal to the Theorems
of Euclid. In these cases, generally, the portion of the
brain which gives us reason, does not properly function.
There are exceptions (of which De Quincey is a notable
example) where the consciousness perceives, through
reason, that the other perceptions are misinterpreted.
A sensual impression may, in its ramifications through
the brain, be interpreted to consciousness as a dream.
Reason is in abeyance. How the brain thinks, and
how the organs secrete, are alike incomprehensible and
may be in no way comparable. These are involuntary
actions, but to a degree are subject to control. As I
have said before, the functioning is not as a mass, but
is the organic action of the atoms. We suppose these
atoms are separated by distances relatively far greater
than the distances separating the units of an army.
Although action at a distance is acknowledged incom-
prehensible, yet it occurs in a wonderfully intricate
form.

The impressions, perceptions, and interpretations

Ego- 329

are not, in any measurable or comprehensible way,
mechanical. When the impression of a pin-prick is
made, it is in some way conveyed to the ganglia, and
it is some one or more of the atoms composing this that
is conscious of the impression, and it is the function of
the ganglia (the atoms organized in this form) to
interpret these impressions, and it (one or more of the
atoms composing it) issues orders not only to one set of
muscles to contract, but to the apposing set to relax.
It is not the muscle which is conscious of the order, but
the atoms which are organized as muscle and whose
function it is to act. Conceiving this aU to be atomic
may seem extreme, but it is consistent, and anything
short of this would not be a logical conclusion. In
conceiving the atoms of the ganglia and muscles to be
conscious, it is not necessary to suppose that they
comprehend what the pin is as we do. But as to that,
how little do we comprehend how the pin-prick is
translated into pain. We cannot, at least I do not,
conceive of the slightest similarity. The interpretation
of every physical impression may be called, to a degree,
mental. AU purely mental perceptions must be
interpreted in physical (sensible) terms. While every
psychological action must be a physiological action,
the two are not necessarily equal to a given mechanism.
A pin-prick occasions the arm to jerk; the jerk is more
than a transformation of the energy of the prick. At
some point there was an interpretation from sensory
to motor. That this is more than the moving of a
switch or lever releasing a given amount of energy can
be shown in various ways. One is sufficient : the same
sensation or a Hke sensation may be variously inter-
preted. The answer, that it is because it awakens
different ideas, does not show that the process of

330 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

awakening ideas is of necessity in any way mechanical.
Experimental psychology may in the future come much
nearer tracing the actual material and physiological
process, but I doubt that it can be made in any way
mechanically comprehensible how a physical impression
can become consciousness, or rather how the spiritual
can become conscious on the material plane. The
existence of physical or sensuail impressions, and the
mental impressions or ideas, will be acknowledged by all.
But that the third class of impressions, the spiritual
inspirations, exist and may be perceived wiU be
admitted by few.

As this point is one of the most important to my con-
ception, I must try to define just what I mean by it.
Theologians claim for the Scriptures a spiritual inspira-
tion. But they conceive of the inspiration as automatic
and infallible, like the working of a perfect printing
press; that God spake and man wrote. But "God's
thoughts are not our thoughts. " In other words, the
inspiration is always subject to interpretation, or
misinterpretation if there are two or more ways of
interpreting it. Many of the great and sublime writings,
I believe, were inspired, but because they were inspired,
does not make them necessarily true. Many that are
true have been preserved, and many that have equal
claims to inspiration have, because of their unworthi-
ness, been relegated to oblivion. According to my
conception, an inspiration is not necessarily infallible.

The theologian expressly disclaims that any secular
knowledge could be of inspirational origin. I claim
that the physicist and philosopher may be inspired to
an equal degree with the priest and the prophet, and
from the same source. It may be said that the Desire
of every atom is an aspiration or an inspiration to that

Ego 331

atom, but I prefer to use these terms as applying
solely to the Ego. The Ego I will define, then, as
the atom through which Desire is able to make itself
conscious on the material plane, and give aspirations
and inspirations to a human being.

Materialists say that man is no different from a dog
except in form and in function. Materialists seem to
think that form and ftmction are incidental, that
function is dependent on form, and can and will pro-
gress only as environment will permit. Immortality is
not considered.

Monists say that man is no different from a dog
except that the ftmction and form are so high that it
(its highest form, consciousness) may be immortal.
Monists conceive the form as the essential, making
function, which they claim is first, therefore its creator,
dependent on form, the creature. They conceive that
function and form are each tmpremeditated ; that
conditions shaped form, and that it is only on account
of its value in functioning that the highest form (con-
sciousness) merits immortality; having no logical reason
for a belief in immortality except that it has proven
too good to be thrown away. Immortality is incidental.

Dualists say that man differs from a dog not only in
form and function, but by having a soul (whether
created for the body or by the body is not definitely
stated), which shall be judged by the deeds done by the
body; and when the body which did these deeds dies,
like a dog, the soul is sent to eternal damnation or
salvation. DuaHsts conceive of form and function as
wholly incidental ; man is of no more value than a dog,
except so far as the results of the functioning are a test
of the soul. Immortality of the soul (spirit) is the
essential.

332 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Now, I conceive that function is the cause of the
form, except when modified by conditions, though I
realize of course, that this is an old, metaphysical
problem which admits of no settlement. The essential
nature of each is on account of the manifestations
(results) that may. be effected by the functioning of
the form. I differ from the Materialists because I
believe that the form and functions are manifestations
of an intelligent plan not yet completely fulfilled. I
differ from the Monists because I believe not only that
form is for the purpose of functioning instead of function
following on account of the form, but that consciousness,
memory, and volition are not functions at all. Con-
sciousness, desiring to function, gives the organ of
comprehension; memory, desiring to function, gives
the organ of recollection; volition, desiring to function,
gives the organ of will. I differ from the Dualists
because I believe that the form and function are of
essential importance, and that immortality, instead of
being of essential importance, is of no importance
nor worthy of consideration except incidentally. Preach-
ing a doctrine of getting the mind off the essential
while here and placing it on a problematic existence
in the hereafter is, according to my conception, the
height of folly.

I have, as little as possible, blamed the English
language for my inability to convey concisely and
definitely my various conceptions. But it really has
limitations. When I say "I am hungry," and "I
long to hear again that beautiful music," does the
"I" in each sentence really convey the same meaning?
Does not one convey a physical conception, and the
other a mental? Again, when I say that I believe the
statement, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall

Ego 333

make you free," and affirm that I ardently yearn for
the truth; and when I affirm that my ardently yearning
for the truth, so far as I can perceive, is not primarily
for the freedom which I believe will follow, though this
freedom may be physical, mental, and spiritual, does
this "I" convey the same meaning as in the other
cases, comprising the same and nothing more? It
may to some; I think that it will not to all. In each
case we will say that the "I" is the Ego. In the first
case, the Ego is conscious of an impression interpreted
as a physical need. It originates in the physical body.
It wiU be satisfied only by providing the substantial
physical requirements. In the second case, the Ego
is conscious of an impression interpreted as a mental
need. It originated in the brain from a recollection of
former impresvsions. It will be gratified only by a
transmission of mechanical energy, so small in the
ultimate that the final amount required to fulfil the
requirements will be immeasurable. In the third
case, the Ego is conscious of an impression that is
interpreted as a mental and, possibly, as a physical
need, but it did not originate in the physical because
it is not an essential physical requirement; and it did
not originate in the brain, or it would then have been
in the form of a recollection of former impressions.
The aspirations for something intrinsically better
than has been given in the past, though it may be as
physical, mental, or spiritual, I conceive as coming from
neither brain nor body, and, therefore, from the Desire.
Desire is manifest through the atoms. Each atom has
not only a personal Desire (or as I have said before,
each atom is a part of the Desire), but taken together
each has an organic Desire, which might be termed a
consciousness of the necessities of the organism. There-

334 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

fore, when I say "I am hungry," neither the Ego nor
any single atom of the body is hungry; it is simply a per-
ception of a condition. When the brain is given a men-
tal stimulant, probably the unstable atomic condition
is impressed with a degree of energy relatively as great
as is manifest in the stomach when it is impressed by food.

Without going into the question as to what consti-
tutes pain or pleasure, I use the foregoing to show that,
while each atom has a Desire or willingness to co-
operate, the forms then manifest are not, or only in an
incidental way, expressive of the personal desires of the
atoms. In reaching this conclusion, we see that, if
any human being exists who has no aspirations, that
human being advances the Desire only in so far as he
may indirectly be mechanically available to aid others
in manifesting their inspirations. We may say that
countless millions of germs are formed on the chance
that some will germinate. We may say that countless
bodies are formed on the chance that some will be
useful. I say, on the contrary, that every germ and
every body is useful, but when there is germination or
availability, it is more useful.

If any human being exists without an aspiration, it
might be denied the name according to the conception
that the Ego is an essential part of the human being,
as the atom which allows Desire to be conscious of these
aspirations and inspirations on the material plane.
There may be such a being in human form but I doubt
it, stUl, abnormal conditions may prevent one's con-
sciousness of aspiration and of inspiration. Aspirations
are precedent to inspirations. To a man who does not
want to know any more of the truth, it is useless to
reveal the truth. By yielding, then, to aspirations,
we have the condition prepared for inspirations.

Ego 335

I claim that every advance, from the lowest human
form, has been through aspirations and inspirations.
The alchemist and astrologer may have been acting
under inspirations no less than the chemist and astrono-
mer whose names are famous. Who can prove whether
an original idea is a mental suggestion or spiritual
inspiration? They come; they possess us. The in-
ventor may measure his ideas by mechanics; the
physicist may measure his by law; the poet may
measure his by meter; the mathematician may measure
his by formtilas; the philosopher may measure his by
logic; the preacher may meastire his by morality;
"the crank" may have no measure ait all. In any case,
the measure, reason, was not what produced the idea.

Let us condense the foregoing. To every Ego there
is (i) Aspiration, to which, if one yields, there follows
(2) Inspiration, which, to be of value, must be correctly
interpreted (measiired) by (3) Reason. Let us see
what has prevented a rapid advance according to this
sequence. First, I must emphasize the point that the
manifestations of the Supreme Being in the material
form are limited by conditions. I owe no allegiance
to any God who can personally write his laws on tablets
of stone and who does not break them himself over the
heads of some who maliciously disobey them. Aspira-
tion, inspiration, and reason have been subject to
conditions of development. Suppose many people to
have possessed the aspirations of Newton; we may
easily formulate many reasons — ^various bodily neces-
sities; numerous sensual desires; infinite mental inabili-
ties — to account for their inhibition. If to a million
people the suggestion were given that the same influence
caused the tides to rise as caused the apple to faU, how
many would have pronounced it absurd? And of

336 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

millions of millions, how many would have taken the
trouble or the time to investigate or demonstrate the
truth in such a suggestion? If aspiration, inspiration,
or reason could be propagated separately, there might
be more frequent manifestation ; but each is dependent
on the other for the elucidation of a new truth. Above
all, the result of wisdom is but to a small degree cumula-
tive, except insofar as it gives us a larger collection of
admitted facts. Yet there is no doubt that the average
brain of to-day is of slightly greater capacity than in
the past, and there is no doubt that the accumtilated
facts give greater latitude to reason. That is, an
inspiration might to-day be admitted as reasonable
that would not have been so admitted even a few years
ago. With the average brain of greater capacity, there
will be here &nd there one above the average, and of
these, there will be here and there one with aspirations
and inspirations, and greater range of reason will
permit a comprehension and proper interpretation.
So the conceptions of truth will multiply in a greater
ratio in the future than they have in the past.

There is one thing we all recognize which I think
is an equal barrier to manifestations of aspirations and
inspirations, and this is, I believe, a psychic entity
which I term, Fear. It exists as fear of lack of physical
necessities. The great majority of mankind must
spend their energy in earning a Hving, with scant time
to entertain an aspiration. Many a man would trade
off his chances of attaining his aspirations for an instir-
ance of his bodily necessities. It also exists as fear of
ridicule. The fear of bodily harm from the Inquisition
is now happily passed, but we know it was a barrier
in its day. This fear now exists in a different form, such
as the fear of public opinion, social ostracism, etc.,

Ego 337

which axe nearly equally oppressive. There are many
who fear to express an opinion that may seem heterodox.
This fear is not confined to theology. It may seem
stronger in religion, as there is the additional fear of
Eternal Damnation (which, as a matter of fact, I do
not believe is nearly so strong as the fear of the adverse
opinion of people), but it exists in politics, society, and
societies. Loyalty to the legion is of far greater im-
portance than loyalty to the individual conception of
truth. Tolerance is a gift of the gods, and it is no
coincidence that the nearer a man comes to God, the
more tolerant he becomes; which is also equivalent to
saying, "All who say, 'Lord, Lord, ' shall not enter into
the Kingdom." On every side, we see this fear. The
poor fear poverty; the rich shudder under the respon-
sibility of money; society fears a loss of prestige;
authors fear the loss of fame. In some form or other
we all fear our fellow-men. At present we are powerless
to escape from it.

Does not this word "fear" embrace practically every-
thing in our life which makes against happiness? For
every Desire there seems to be some offsetting Fear.
I believe that every form of fear which conflicts with
our chance of happiness may be eliminated by the
proper co-operative effort on the part of man toward
this end.

CHAPTER XX

DEVIL

A PREACHER once told me that while he did not
understand very well my philosophy, one thing
he did Kke about it was that I retained the Devil,
whereas the modem tendency, not only in philosophy
but in religion, was to abolish the Devil. Logically,
I must, of necessity, retain the Devil. In the orthodox
presentation of the Devil he seems quite a suitable
foil for the One Who engraved on stone the expressed
fear that, "Thou shalt have no other God before me. "
Of cotirse, so long as we make the Devil a lesser god,
we are not breaking this commandment.

While probably nine-tenths of the people in the world
believe in a Devil or Evil Spirit, it is not with the hope
of in any way satisfying these that I assume the exis-
tence of a Devil. In fact, I do not believe the orthodox
theologian will be any more pleased with my devil than
he is with my God. The creation of a Devil on a philo-
sophic or scientific basis wotdd hardly be orthodox.
There is orthodoxy regarding the Devil as there is
regarding other religious things. As my conception of a
God embracing the whole imiverse in a Supreme Being
seems more sublime than the ordinary anthropomor-
phic one, so is my conception of the Devil extremely
different from the prevalent one of a personage with
horns and hoofs.

338

Devil 339

I have made the broad statement that the Supreme
Power and Desire is manifest as a Supreme Being,
which is the Universe. But, I also said that Power
in materializing required an opposing Force; that
every atom of Power had related to it a specific but
changeable amount of Force. Scientific philosophy-
does not recognize either as a cause, but all measures
of phenomena are in terms of some manifestations of
Power. It is only in the electro-magnetic theories of
the last few years that Force seems to have xmdue
prominence, but in all these phenomena the measures
are in terms of Power. Power has a material mani-
festation; Force is manifest only as motion. Even
then, it is not Force that moves; it is the atoms (Power).
Force is, indeed, the Prince of Darkness, for it is always
hidden and only manifest through Power. As one of
the causes of motion, existing only as motion, this
expansive Force (as heat) is also well typified as Lucifer;
always red, the calorific color, and truly the signal of
danger.

If we assume Power to be conscious (and I hardly
see how one escapes from that, as an assumption or a
conclusion, for if human beings only are conscious, we
ought to be able to overpower anything that is un-
conscious), there seems to be no logical reason why we
should deny consciousness to Force. In fact, when I
maintain that atomic action is not mechanical, it
becomes logically necessary to assume Force as con-
scious; otherwise, the change of Force from one atom
to the other wotdd have to be a mechanical change.
To draw a consistent conclusion, we must say that
every mechanical change is simply apparent, and in
reality is the sum of many atomic changes; that there
may be a mechanical movement as of a rolling ball,

340 An Unorthodox Conception of Being ;

but a mechanical change is a mass of atomic changes,
each of which, voluntarily or involimtarily, is a con-
scious move in response to an impression, the change
being according to the interpretation of that perception.
This is a logical conclusion; it is not an absurdity.
That it is novel, I will admit. But, if one wiU free him-
self of the conception that consciousness is a product of
the brain, it wiU not seem so extreme an assumption,
for something must be the seat of consciousness.

Again, I have said that our consciousness, as human
beings, is on the material plane and limited in its
interpretation to the five senses. Does any reasonable
person wish to maintain that there could be no con-
scious movement or perception except within the Hmits
of movements which we know compose our sensual
impressions? Unless this is maintained, consciousness
cannot be assumed to be a function of the brain only.
Impressions are perceived and actions are performed
in an intelligent manner by the microscopic protococcus ;
and the conjugation of the spirogyra prove that there is
communication at a distance. Take from consciousness
the idea of comprehension and there should be no
diflficidty in conceiving every atom to be conscious.
Force, not being atomic in its structure, would not be
dividually conscious.

Assuming Power as attempting to manifest its Desire
as a corporate being, the Force either attempting to
prevent such formation or to destroy any body already
formed. Force being an essential opposite to Power in
its material manifestation, is thus a necessary evil,
or Devil. To me, this is not an allegory based on
mythology, but a statement of the absolute truth, a
condition from which all similar ideas have had their
origin. It is difficult to prove the existence of Force

Devil 341

in physics ; it is even more difficult to prove the existence
of a Devil in psychology.

If Force is a necessary Devil, then all form of evil
is necessary. The saying that "Fire is a good servant,
but a poor master, " could not have been more truly
worded if the originator had then in mind the Devil
or evil.

I have already brought out the idea that "I desire
food" did not mean that any atom was hungry, or that
the Supreme Being was suffering, but that a certain
condition was perceived by the Ego (as well as the other
atoms of the body) as abnormal. An abnormal condi-
tion was said to be a variation in the correct ratio of
Force to Power. There is always an effort on the part
of the atoms to regain a normal condition (normal not
being absolute, but relative). The condition of abnor-
mality (so far as atomic consciousness may be compared
to our material consciousness), I conceive to be one of
pain, and the normal one of pleasure. This variation
in impression is the one conveyed to the Ego from any
organ of the body. If everj^thing were in its right
relation, or with a slight deviation, I think that this
would afford a correct guide, but the abnormal might
become the normal, and thus the perception is an
incorrect guide, as in cases of perverted appetite.

"Dirt is matter out of place," and "Too much of a
good thing is good for nothing, " are sayings that apply
in this connection. Most things are not intrinsically
evil, but an excess may bring pain. A continued excess
may bring a chronic abnormality called bad habit,
which condition, tmder most cases, will cause pain to
correct, as the abnormal had become the normal.
These are all physical or mental impressions, and are
indirectly representative of the personal Devil.

342 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Is there anything evil that bears the same relation
to the Ego that aspiration and inspiration do? I
think there is. As I said, it could not be proven that a
given impression was an aspiration instead of a sug-
gestion, so we cannot prove that a given evil impulse
comes from the Devil instead of from the brain. I
reaUy believe that many physical, mental, and spiritual
deformities are caused by continued obedience to evil
impulses. After the abnormal condition exists, it is
easy enough to assert that the cause is physical or
mental. But, in the beginning, does it not seem rather
difficult sometimes to trace the cause to heredity or
environment? If the Ego is an atom, it must have its
specific ratio of Force. Really, when one comes to
think of it, it sounds orthodox to say that every man is
more or less possessed of the Devil. It seems as though
certain typical forms of evil, as fear, anger, hatred, envy,
etc., were in some cases as difficult to relate to physical
or mental impulses as it is in some cases to show that
certain inspirational ideas have their origin from exterior
sources. We will use one of these as an illustration.

It is said that "the fear of God is the beginning of
wisdom." I agree with this and might add that
"the fear of God decreases in direct ratio to the wisdom
gained. " This is only another way of saying what was
said in much better language some two thousand years
ago: "Perfect love casteth out fear." If God is love,
and Fear is the evil, could it be worded better? If
Force is essential to Power, physically, then Fear is
an essential concomitant to Desire, psychologically.
In the beginning, Fear is an essential. Fear warns
the mind as pain warns the body; both are indicative
of evil. In the savage state the first recognition of a
Supreme Being is a Fear of the harm that such a Being

Devil 343

might do, and there is an endeavor to propitiate such
a Being. Oh, how firmly fixed is this conception of the
Supreme Being! But where fear may be necessary in
the beginning to guard the person, it is not good to
incite it in others. The impluse to cause fear and
suffering so commonly seen in youth, and many times
never corrected or outgrown, may be an ancestral trait,
but I think it more consistent to say that it is a natural
trait following an impulse of the Devil on the Ego.

Fear is not only a mental evil, but a physical one as
well. We all know that after being frightened, or
when recovering from a fit of anger, the system is
deranged. This is an actual physical effect. There is
a frequently repeated story of how a mother nursed
her baby after a fit of angry temper, and the baby died
from convulsions caused by the poisoned secretions.
This may be fictitious, but it is not fiction that the bite
of a mad cat, rat, or dog is far more dangerous than it
would be if not so irritated.

Some years ago a certain chemist sectued secretions,
from various sources, of people under the influence of
fear, anger, or pain, and in such cases the secretions
were poison to animals inoculated therewith. Coloring
the secretions with certain reagents showed that there
was a marked difference chemically. A secretion from an
angry person showed up quite red, and the story went
the rounds of the press that "sin is red. " A different
reagent, however, might color it green. In further
experiments it was found that animals inoculated with
secretions from persons under the influence of a spe-
cial pleasure or good impulse showed benefiting and
invigorating effects.

Suppose the human being could, for years, be freed
from all unnecessary fear, anger, envy, etc. , and instead

344 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

of these injurious emotions have substituted perfect
love and a maximum of unalloyed pleasure, should we
expect the organs of the body to be benefited? Would
the brain f miction more freely? Would there be a
better chance for aspirations to be received and
inspirations to be perceived? Let us try it.

CHAPTER XXI

JESUS CHRIST

MANY clericals have, on a variety of occasions, and
in rather peremptory tones, asked me, "What
are you going to do with Jesus Christ?" While I do
not recognize the authoritative right of any one to
demand an answer, I am willing to answer the question
in the spirit in which it is asked.

I believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be an historical
personage with a record much more meagre than I
would desire. Two or three lines ascribed to Josephus
and a few pages in the Bible, the cuUings of some
thirty thousand odd manuscripts, embrace it all. It is
not agreed whether or not Jesus spoke the words ascribed
to him; but some one spoke them, and I will give him
the credit. According to my idea (and I have as much
right to my interpretation as has the next one), the
literature the world over will not produce so many
sayings portraying the true conception of Being. I
take His sayings Hterally (excepting, of course, the
parts with which I do not agree, and those, like any
other preacher, I take figuratively). The conclusion
to which I come regarding Him is that He was abso-
lutely sincere. As a miraculous, know-it-aU God, He
would not be impressive. But he was a man of lowly
origin, humble, sensitive, lacking the invulnerableness

345

34^ An Unorthodox Conception of Being

of the egotist, and filled by inspiration with wonderful
ideas regarding the most important subject in the world,
our relation to the Supreme Being, ideas that were as
contrary to orthodoxy as weU could be.

He conceived that God was not a person, nor a
respecter of persons, nor a respecter of days; that he
was not worshipped in temples made with hands; that
he cared not for the blood of sheep and goats; that
sacrifice would not be pleasing to Him, or bring sal-
vation; and above all, that the Kingdom of God was
right here, and it was up to man to possess it. Try
to imagine a sensitive person fiUed with this wonderful
idea, and filled with the aspiration to convince and
save humanity, going out before a bigoted and perverse
generation with such a conception.

Nothing is written that would give the impression
that Christ was an egotist or megalomaniac, and
whenever He delegated to Himself God-Hke proclivi-
ties, it was as one of the common brotherhood of
man. He stood in God's place ; so does every other man.
He was God manifest in the flesh ; so is every other man.
He is the Son of God; so is every other man. "Is it
not written in your law, I said Ye are Gods? say ye of
Him, Thou blasphemest?"

Christ had the ability of healing the sick, as many
have had since, but He was honest. He did not say
that it was a personal power. "Thy faith hath made
thee whole. " It is not recorded that He charged two
doUars for absent treatment. But it is recorded that
"He did not many mighty works there because of
their lack of faith. " He seemed really to believe that
people might be saved from sin, sickness, and death,
here. He did not give very specific directions as to
how this was to be done. His commands were few.

Jesus Christ 347

He did say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself. " "Perfect
love casteth out fear." "This is my commandment,
that ye love one another." And "Fear not at all."
A lot of deaconly sharks will bend every energy six
days in the week to getting the better of their neighbor,
meanwhile trembling in fear lest the neighbor should get
the better of them, and then meet in solemn conclave
on Sunday and confer about the boy who played baU
the Sunday before and cursed when he got hit, and
"church him," that is, put him out into eternal dam-
nation. Do you get indignant? What is the use?
Fuming over conditions will not remedy them. Christ
got indignant and drove the money-changers from the
temple. But they came back, and are there still.

While Christ did not give many commands per-
sonally, those he did give were very simple. They are
beautiful; some, pectdiar in style, are called the "Beati-
tudes. " Not one of the simple commandments of
Christ is used, literally as recorded, for a test of Church
membership. They are too sacred for every-day use.
As a matter of fact, the present conditions of society
will not permit an obedience to them. And fturther-
more, simple obedience to them would not bring the
higher life and the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ realized
this, and for guidance He directed man to go to the
source of inspiration, the Spirit of God. "I am the
way, the truth, and the life." "I," the "Ego," there is
where man must look for direction. Christ's whole
life contradicts the interpretation that he supposed that
He, personally, was a way to life. He often spoke in
God's stead, as when he said, "I am the vine, ye are
the branches. "

"Jesus wept." Why? Did you ever think of any
logical reason why He should weep? If you were a

348 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

person of unusual power, and you should happen upon
a family with an apparently incurable affliction, and,
when by a word, you knew you could cure it and change
all this grief to joy, would you sit down and weep?
Let us look at it from another standpoint. Here was
a family with which He was intimate; to whom He,
no doubt, revealed His ideas in a most intimate way.
Perfect love casteth out fear; mind receptive to the
Spirit of God, and faith in the power of God would save
man, giving him life and establish the Kingdom of
Heaven. Yet, here in this family, where of all places
He might expect restdts, what does He find? One
member dead and btuied ; another member meets Him
with the story, stating that if He (Christ) had been
there it would not have happened (implying a dele-
gation of special power which He always repudiated),
also affirming that she was convinced there might be
life hereafter, instead of in the -here as Christ taught;
and the third member at home in hopeless despair.
Assuming that my interpretation is correct, would it
not be cause for a man to weep? Is it not enough to
make a God weep to witness the apparently hopeless
blindness of the human race?

There is a modem tendency to shy at the miracles.
Could there be a greater miracle than raising a man four
days dead? I have said hfe is a condition. Some
years ago, if a person had been under the water and
remained unconscious ten or fifteen minutes, his con-
dition was considered hopeless. Now, it is not con-
sidered hopeless after an hour, two, or even three
hours, and many physicians say there is only one stue
test of death, that of decomposition, the condition in
which Lazarus was supposed to be, but it is not stated
that he was really in such a condition.

Jesus Christ 349

Take the temptations of Jesus Christ. According
to the common interpretations, they are rendered
ridiciilous. Could a man with millions be tempted to
give it up for dimes? Could a God be tempted by a
Devil? But suppose we view it after another fashion.
Here was a poor carpenter, who, through listening to
aspirations, had given time to telling mankind of
His inspirations by which He conceived that man was
the manifestation of God Himself in the flesh, and
that through this manifestation He wished to establish
His Kingdom on earth. This poor carpenter found
Himself possessed of unusual powers, which He believed
were not essentially personal, but which might be
possessed by any one who would open his mind as
He had done to the aspirations and inspirations of the
Father. "Not these works, but greater than these
shalt thou do." When He said, "I am the way; no
one Cometh to the Father only through me," the
context would lead me to conclude that it meant not
that they must foUow him personally but that they
must come the same way He did; not through any
exterior plan of salvation or sacrifice, but through the
reception of the Holy Spirit.

Especially did He emphasize that they must listen
to the Word of God. By this He did not mean the
books of the Old Testament, for, when he referred to
them, He said, "The Scriptures." He did not mean
the books of the New Testament, for they had not been
written. And much less did He mean His own words.
Of the three himdred times this expression. Word of
God, is used in the Bible, not in a single instance does
it refer to or mean the Bible itself. It always means
the Spirit of God speaking to man.

In spite of all His efforts, His words were misinteiT'

350 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

preted and His object misunderstood. He was reviled
by some, envied by some, feared by some, honored by
a few lowly ones, but none comprehended His inspira-
tion. After three years of preaching. He saw that it was
a useless effort, an impossible task. The trial must end
sooner or later in some way or another. With what
influence He had, and with a little catering to ortho-
doxy, He might be elevated to a position of honor.
With the power He had of healing the sick, He might
suppose He could become rich. He must have believed
that almost any position could have been His by work-
ing for it. These were the temptations. Yielding meant
the giving up of His aspirations to convince mankind
that His inspirations were correct and from God.
But they were^ hopeless anyhow. Possibly, by waiting,
and after obtaining riches and honor, He might then
be in a better position to help mankind. This insidious
form of temptation, I believe, has transformed and
deformed many an aspiration and inspiration. Riches,
honor, position! How much good I might render
humanity did I possess them along with my good
intentions! It sounds plausible, but Christ concluded
that man may be saved and elevated only in one way,
that is by listening to the Word of God.

I have not the slightest idea that Christ thought
that by His renunciation He would be elevated to a
seat at the right hand of God. He had been asked,
"If a man die, shall he live again?" without answering
or possibly being able to answer the question. I think
to one imbued with an inspiration, the question of the
reward does not appeal.

Consider Jesus Christ for a moment in this position.
On one side everything to gain, riches, honor, position,
and with these apparently the only practical hopes of

Jesus Christ 351

doing any good to his fellow-man. On the other side,
nothing to lose, as His task was apparently hopeless.
Nothing to lose but His God-given aspirations, and of
what use were they? And were they God-given? He,
a poor peasant of Galilee, pitting His opinions against
those of the intellect and piety of the ages. The sug-
gestion may have forcibly impressed him that He was
wrong in His conception, and that His power was
given to Him personally to use for the benefit of man-
kind. Would it not be flying in the face of Providence
to refuse to use it as His friends in high position advised?
Everything to gain, and nothing to lose. My friend,
did you ever have an aspiration, or inspiration, and give
it up for less? I have. My fear of conditions outweighs
my faith in Power. I am the proud possessor of a
little reason which I allow to govern. Christ was led
by the Word of God. But, after refusing to accept
everything, what would nothing benefit His fellow-man?
Living in honor. His immediate followers would look
up to Him; but in living without following His aspira-
tions, His life would not permanently benefit humanity.
If He continued His work. He knew that He, like many
another, would be crucified for His opinions. Not that
these opinions mattered to those others, only that they
were bringing Him into a prominence which the "powers
that be" could not tolerate.

Now that death was the alternative chosen, how could
that death be made to benefit man? If He simply
gave up and died with no especial preparation. He and
His message would speedily be forgotten. If He made
his departure too spectacular, they might centre their
thoughts on Him and venerate Him as a departed
prophet, reverencing His words and honoring His
memory, possibly thinking of Him as one of the Gods.

352 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

But neither way would advance mankind in a reali-
zation of the conception He taught. Study His
preparation for death in the light of this dilemma and
according to His conception. His followers did not com-
prehend Him then ; how could He aid them to do so by
His death? In His farewell talk, He tried to impress
upon them His conception, with the method of continu-
ing and developing it afterward. In reiterative language
He said, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me."
"I am in my father, and ye in me, and I in you."
"Abide in me and I in you." "I sanctify myself that
aU may be one." "If I go not away the Comforter
will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send
Him unto you." "I will not leave you comfortless.
He shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit
of Truth." "When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come,
He will guide you into all truth."

He gave none of the current orthodox phrases:
"I 'm going home to glory, be good so as to meet me
in heaven." By the promise to return again, Jesus
gave them hope of living. He tried to impress upon
them the fact that God was a spirit, conceived of and
worshipped only through the mind, that He could not
appear only as manifest in the flesh, and that man was
His representative on earth, who, by heeding the
aspirations and inspirations given by the Holy Spirit
of God, would be instnimental in establishing here the
Kingdom of God.

When we realize that it was not until years after,
when the hope of His second coming had been aban-
doned and a general reinterpretation given to His words
to make them conform more nearly to conceptions of
God previously existing; when the leadership of the
Holy Spirit had been given up and there was drawing

Jesus Christ 353

by lots for those who should be delegated to lead ; and
when manuscripts were collected and a small part
declared authoritative as representative of Christ's
Hfe and teaching, and only that part declared canonical
which could be interpreted to represent the conception
of the Chtuch at that time (three hundred years after) ;
then, by so realizing, some may see that the interpre-
tation which I give is warranted by the records.

As an interpretation it may be right ; it may be wrong.
I would not dogmatize. It satisfies my ethical ideas
and religious feeUngs, and were I able to meet Jesus
Christ, I should fear nothing from Him for my frank
answer to the preacher.

While on this subject of Biblical inspiration, I must
say a Kttle more. I do not believe that a thing is true
because it is in the Bible, but I believe the Bible to
be the most wonderful of books, because it contains so
many wonderful truths, and it seems to me that many
of them could have been conceived by man only through
inspiration. Many things recorded in the Bible could
not have come by observation. The first chapter
of Genesis is the most wonderful account of creation
extant. As an automatic, infallible production direct
from an Omniscient Being, it may be subject to criti-
cism (though I think time will even lessen that), but,
as a guess at the evolution of mundane being, it should
be a scientific wonder. But, before this was written,
some one must have conceived the idea of One God.
Some one must have been foimder of the Hebrew race-
In the Bible this is credited to one and the same person,
Abram. From the ability to conceive of a God, and
the aspiration to be his representative, and the inspira-
tion to let his children and his children's children be
this God's chosen people, it would be a natural conse-
23

354 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

quence that the results were such as manifested. Later
on, laws were conceived for the government of the race.
Nowhere is there a compendium of law equal to the
Ten Commandments. It is claimed that they are
copied, or adaptions. But, whenever they were first
conceived, they were inspired. I claim that it is an
impossibility for man from physical impressions to
have conceived a precept better than he himself, for
in that case, the creatiu-e would be better than the
creator. I claim tljat every advanced idea is by in-
spiration. As I have said before, this maturing of the
inspiration depends on aspiration and the reasonable-
ness of the perception as interpreted to consciousness.
As a physical, verbal agreement between a Supreme
Being and man, the Mosaic conception appears to me
as ludicrous as Paine and IngersoU have pictured; but
to a human being at that stage of development, such a
conception of man's relation to God is sublime. If man
would obey the laws, he would Uve long upon the land
which the Lord God had given him. And to keep this
fresh in their minds, there was frequent sacrifice to
obtain the blood of the covenant, showing that the
testator was dead and they were really heirs, and as
gods, stood in his place, and must, therefore, be good
and make the land fruitful and multiply. It is adaptive
to a degree, for all conceptions, to be comprehensive,
must be adaptive to appeal to the people. But, as a
conception, it is equal to any in history. The mistakes
arising under this covenant were many. The law is
weak, and it is only a makeshift. Through a later
inspiration, it was perceived there must, in time, be a
change; another covenant. They, the Hebrews, God's
chosen people, had failed under the law which God had
given them, and a means of salvation would finally come.

Jesus Christ 355

The new covenant was prophesied. What was this
new covenant promised them, and to which, by faith,
they looked forward, and by their faith preserved
themselves a unique people in the world? Jesus Christ
thought and taught that all people might become heirs
under the new covenant. By this conception he
incurred the lU-will of His own people, the Jews, and
was reviled by the Gentiles, for who, at that time, would
want to be heirs of the Jews' God? Christ died an
apparent failure. Many a tear have I shed in sympathy
for Him — something I never did when I believed Him
to have died a glorified God. His disciples believed
in Him and expected His return, but it is plain that they
did not comprehend His teaching. The perception
came to Paul of the truth of Christ's conception, and
with such force as to nearly paralyze his mind. This
mental paralysis (ecstasy), under conscious perception
of a great truth, is a matter of record in many cases,
and is a well-known phenomenon to psychologists.

The logical mind of Paxil soon began to fit in the
teachings of Christ to the previous conception of God.
Not all of Paul's ideas or logic are correct. When he
said that the graft partakes of the nature of the vine,
he was mistaken; when he said that a seed must die to
live again, he was mistaken; and we have just as much
right to think that when he gave, as being literally true,
the quotation that Jonah was three days in the whale's
belly, he was again mistaken. These are not proofs
that there is no inspiration, but illustrations showing
that all that may be written under inspiration is not
necessarily infallible.

Paul brought out forcibly the idea that, according to
Christ's conception, the time of the new dispensation
was come; that Christ was the mediator of the new

356 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

covenant, and that, to make it more forcible, He had
given His own blood, which sealed the covenant, and
that under this covenant the old dispensation had
passed and the old law was of non-effect and that they
were aU heirs under the new covenant. The new
covenant, or testament, — what is this new testament —
this revised will of God? If an attorney went before
a judge and stated that his clients were living under a
will or testament that he was prepared to show was
superseded; that a will or testament of a later date had
been found, and according to its terms should now be in
effect, and he wished the old will with its requirements
to be set aside, and that his clients be allowed to live
and inherit tmder the provisions of the new wiU, the
judge would g,sk him to produce his new testament.
Now, suppose at this point the attorney should say,
"Well, judge, I cannot produce the exact testament, but
I can tell you the tenor of it. I know what it means.
You can take my word for it. I know just how the
people should live under this new testament, and I have
a lot of books written about it, called the ' Books of the
New Testament,' which I will submit, if you wish."
What would be the probable reply of the judge? We
will assume that this is what the judge (people) said
to him: "Why, you are the hundredth person who has
come here representing himself as the attorney for that
new testament, and not one of you has produced it ; and
no two of you agree as to what it means, or just how
your client is to be benefited by it. Now, you get
out of here, and do not come back until you can produce
the testament. "

Of all the preachers I ever asked not one has been
able to tell me off-hand what is this new testament,
this new will of God, for which he is supposed to be an

Jesus Christ 357

attorney. My Christian friend, you who are pre-
tending to Uve under this new dispensation, do you
know the words of the new testament? Do you know
what is now the Will of God? A new covenant that
was put into effect because the old was weak and because
the people should not Uve thereby. If your^ preachers
do not know, and you do not know, how do you know
that you are getting your rights under the will of God?
Jeremiah and others prophesied the words of this
new testament. Christ claimed that the time had
arrived to have it enforced, and Paul, repeating its
words, said that Christ had sealed it with His blood.
I will quote:

This is the covenant : I will put my laws into their mind,
and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a
God, and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not
teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord ; for all shall know me f ronl the least
to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unright-
eousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember
no more.

Nowhere else in the Bible is there any language stating
anything different from this, as being a new covenant,
and I claim that any one who claims to give to the Bible
any authoritative value is estopped from preaching
anything contrary to the wording of this new testament.
When I come as a client of the attorney and ask to be
told what are my rights under the new covenant, I am
told that in addition to the Mosaic Laws, there are
added a lot of Christian Laws and Pauline Laws, all
of which are written in some books called the "Books
of the New Testament, " and all of which I must obey
to be saved. And not only must I speak privately to

358 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

my neighbor and brother, saying, "Know God," but
must chip in to keep the paid pulpiteer, who will
proclaim publicly, saying, "Know God," and to cap
the climax I am told, "And if you do not believe this
and do this, God will know and remember, and damn
you through all eternity. " When the attorney teUs me
that this is the new testament, when any one may see
that it is exactly contrary to the new testament, should
you, my friend, be surprised if I denounce him in
language equally as forcible?

I believe the new covenant ; therefore, I do not believe
the popular preacher. I believe the new covenant,
not because it is in the Bible, but because it accords
with my idea of the relation of man to the Supreme
Being. When this document, purporting to be the
latest will of God, is worded so concisely, so wonderfully,
so truly, I say that it was conceived by inspiration. Were
I able to conceive anything more wonderful than this,
I would proclaim it as the "Latest Will of God. " But
the new covenant, as prophesied by the prophets of old,
and placed as the central gem in the books surrounding
this new testament, seems to be a final document.

God in the mind and heart ; all to know God ; none to
fear God, for our sins are to be remembered no more.
What a wonderful conception ! How old, and yet how
different from what we hear from the pulpit! No
written laws to be misinterpreted, to cause contests
and divisions, conflicts and wars. No duties imposed
to hamper and hinder the aspirations and inspirations,
which result from God in the mind. No rewards
offered, and still better, no ptmishments threatened,
to deter one that might fear to listen to this "still
small voice," which, on accoimt of one's not listening,
has seldom been impressive. No wonder the preachers

Jesus Christ 359

say this conception was meant for the millennium.
But who is to bring about this millennial condition?

I know this is visionary and ideal, but it is the Will
of God. We have been living under the law, lo! these
many years; we have had our priests and preachers,
our guides and teachers, yet, do we "Know God"?
Suppose God could appear? — ^but that is an impossible
conception. Suppose Christ could appear and be
recognized by each individual? How many would drop
in terror of the judgment? "They that live by the
law shall be judged by the law." "For, if that first
covenant had been faultless, there should no place
have been found for the second. "

Reader, is it safer to follow a written law or to follow
God's aspiration and inspiration in the mind? Which
will teach us more of God? Which will quicker mark
one as the child of God? And then, when aU shall
know God from the least to the greatest, that is only
the beginning. When men are capable of being guided
by the "Holy Spirit of God" (Highest Desire), following
the aspirations and inspiration, naturally, without
hope of reward or fear of punishment, then is just the
beginning. Then will man be in a fit condition to do
that for which he is manifest on earth — a work which
God can do only through man, and man may know how
to do only through the direction of God. Then, the
Desire revealed to us as aspiration and inspiration, but
with a conception more correctly interpreted by an
increasing knowledge, will cause us to establish a king-
dom of heaven of which Christ and Paul had but a first
and faint conception.

Impossible! is the usual exclamation. Yes, im-
possible, under these innumerable, conflicting laws and
contending leaders. And so long as there is no proof

360 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

that one is more nearly right than the other, there is
little chance for unity. But when we have liberty to
follow Desire and utilize Power, then will we appear
supernatural. There are hundreds of organizations,
but, from all indications, no person is any nearer to
knowing God in one than in another, — at least there is
no evidence to that effect. It is a mere matter of
belief, which, no matter how it came to be fixed, is
well-nigh unchangeable by exterior suasion. But there
is a continually increasing number of minds that
have independent ideas, and if these ideas are inspira-
tional, and there is but one source of inspiration, and
these minds becoming more reasonable, or, with more
knowledge, will more correctly interpret these aspira-
tions and inspirations, that will mean a unity of mind.
If there were an association of minds on a platform so
broad that there would be no conflict, and the organiza-
tion should produce results that were convincing in
their benefits, such a band would aggregate and attract
to itself a number who might unconsciously bring about
the millennium.

It is generally assumed that there is in every person
something that is good. Were such the case, the
Highest Desire in such a person must be good, and in
any person must be the best incentive to action or
the incentive to the best actions. Granting this,
could we logically say that there could be a better
leadership than the Highest Desire within us? You
may say, "Who is to be the judge of what is the Highest
Desire?" Who judges now? We are judged by the
preacher, priest, and the people. Who made them
judges? Are they competent judges? They judge
according to their own idea, and they are apt to criticise
just as quickly one who has inspirations above their

Jesus Christ 361

comprehension as one who has low inclinations; not
only as quickly, but with a more severe judgment.
The case of Christ and Barabbas continually repeats
itself in the history of human judgment.

We recognize in the present stage of civilization the
necessity of laws and penalties for the government and
organization of man's conduct in the economic and moral
bearing to his fellow-man, but there are thousands who
care not for the laws and penalties in use for the pur-
pose of regulating their denominational religious conduct.

To the millions who fear the judgment, no matter
what the means by which they think they are to be
judged, I say, there is only one authoritative leader,
the Highest Desire within you, that is God's law written
in the mind and heart. I might, in all sincerity, add
this supplication: "I beseech you, dearly beloved,
to follow this Holy Spirit, for Christ's sake, Amen."

There is a sasdng, "There is no great loss without
some small gain." And I believe there is an equal
amount of truth in this: "There is no great gain
without some small loss. " The feeling of responsibility
still attends the feeHng of liberty, for liberty always
denotes a latitude of license into which each man more
or less departs. We may sometimes wish to shun com-
pletely this responsibility. What man is there who at
some time does not have that same feeling that ani-
mated him as a boy and caused him to throw himself
into his mother's arms and say, "Oh, mother, I 've
been so bad, won't you forgive me?" And when his
mother fondled him and forgave him with a kindly
chiding, what a relief he felt at this responsibility for
wrong,, as a burden rolled away! Was it real relief?
As real as anjrthing on earth. And all of us, at some
time, echo in our hearts:

362 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Backward, turn backward, oh, Time, in thy flight,
Make me a child again just for to-night.

Just for to-night, not all the time, but just long
enough to get rid of that load of responsibility. Mil-
lions have the satisfaction of their imaginary God, to
whom they go in prayer. Does it seem cruel or wicked
to do anything to destroy this faith in the efficiency of
this God? No more cruel than it is for nature to permit
a child finalty to grow into the statture of a man.

I doubt the existence of a God that can hear prayer.
The belief in such a God has been, in the past, a soiu-ce
of great satisfaction, as it is now to millions. And even
now, what satisfaction it would be to me to have a God
that would forgive all my sins, rectify all my mistakes,
and lift the .burden and let me start fresh! But I
regard that just as impossible as the ttiming backward
of time in his flight.

When I cut my finger, I know it is apt to heal up,
but I do not therefore continue to cut it. When I do
wrong, it may, in time, be rectified, but there may
remain a scar. To one who gets any satisfaction from
cutting the finger, or from doing wrong rather than
right, I can only say that I believe there is more satis-
faction to be gained from the normal than from the
abnormal. And the correct condition of the human
being is to follow the Highest Desire, which will lead
to a physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. A
normal condition, with normal surroimdings, would be
a condition practically free from fear. The happiness
to be attained from such a condition is, I believe, only
the normal condition of man. Man is not in a normal
condition, now, but in a transitory condition, nearer
animal than inspirational ; influenced more by fear than

Jesus Christ 363

by faith. "Now, faith without works is dead." Who
is to direct our works?

I am thoroughly impressed with the idea that sub-
missively following human authority (and all exterior
authority is human, whatever its origin) accounts for
the slow progress of humanity to a higher state of
mentality and spirituaUty. The millions who are
following the guide of books or man should realize that
there is no authority in them, only such as is delegated
to them by their followers. The Supreme Being has
not delegated the power to any one to lead you or me.
I wish that you could be impressed by the idea that
if in following these self-appointed leaders, you are not
following the Highest Desire within you; or, if by listen-
ing to them, you close your perception to aspiration,
and inspirations, your responsibility cannot be shifted
to those who are your guides. If the blind lead the
blind, and they both fall in the ditch, the followers
suffer just the same as the leaders.

Refusing to acknowledge any authority superior to
the Highest Desire within us does not necessitate our
going contrary to all other authority. On the other
hand, we will be surprised when following our Highest
Desire to reaHze how thoroughly we are in accord with
the best teachings of aU sects and denominations.

As I said in the introduction, it is the difference
which we magnify that makes our conflicts and troubles.
What makes this situation so ludicrous is the fact that
these differences are not fimdamental, but are differ-
ences in opinions and beliefs in the unknown, and many
times unknowable things. Let us admit what all
sects teach : that man is individually responsible for his
choice of right or wrong. Now, let each individual
decide what is his Highest Desire, and follow it. Will

364 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the condition be better or worse than if we each try to
force the other to follow some exterior gtiide which is
fuUy as apt to be misinterpreted as are the aspirations
and inspirations within? Organizing under the leader-
ship of the Holy Ghost impressed me twelve or fourteen
years ago as such a reasonable solution of our denomi-
national difficulties that I proposed an outline of such
an organization. At the time, I was surprised that
any one should refuse to join such an association. But
now I realize that no matter how good or how true a
thing may be, there must be a certain synchronism of
opinion to allow a person to be able to accept it. There
wiU sometime be an association of kindred spirits,
and whether formally or informally organized, they
will become recognized. Did every one who acknowl-
edges no leadership but the Highest Desire claim mem-
bership in such an organization, how many would there
be? In another place I wUl give my outline for such
an organization.

To succeed, man must necessarily have faith in his
aspirations and inspirations, that is, in his interpretation
of his Highest Desire. The teaching of most forms of
religion is to discredit the Ego; to direct the mind and
place the faith on some exterior source of guidance.
As I have said before, it is characteristic of the mass of
mankind to be subservient to exterior authority. This
may have been necessary in the past, and may be for a
limited time in the future ; but sometime in the future,
man will have to discriminate, and, while he may have
faith to believe in what another knows, he wiU not have
such immitigated credulity in what another can only
suppose. Man must have faith in something; whether
it be in a prophet, priest, or preacher, a book, or a law,
or a teacher, or in the personal aspirations and in-

Jesus Christ 365

spirations, each has his faith. Whether faith comes by
volition, will, or conditions, or is subject to voluntary
change, I do not know. However, I am satisfied that
faith is an essential part of progress.

CHAPTER XXII

FAITH

FAITH is a wonderful thing. Confidence is sublime
even when it is ridictdous. The effect of faith
and confidence has no fixed relation to the truth or
falsity of the object of faith.

I might define faith as the ability undoubtingly to
accept perceptions deduced from suggestions, whether
the suggestions are sensual, mental, or inspirational.
Faith may be modified by the faculty of reason. Deduc-
tion and induction are processes of interpretation which
are functions of the brain, but which extend in a less
degree to the ganglia, and, by an infinitely reduced
degree, to any organized combination of atoms.

When it is admitted that matter is incomprehensible,
and that mind is incomprehensible, it is no more absurd
to say that matter thinks than to say that mind thinks.
But the fixed idea that matter is inert and mind active
causes one statement to seem more absurd than the
other.

I have said that matter was the manifestation of
Power and Desire. The material aspect is of the Power ;
the mind aspect is of the Desire. These are not simply
inseparable; they are one and the same, although the
aspects are so different. According to this conception,
it would not be consistent to say that mind is the intelli-

366

Faith 367

gent part of matter. Mind is matter no less than
matter is mind. Each term represents an abstraction
which we do not comprehend. Matter is materialized,
and we are conscious of it on the material plane. We
may call that function of the brain which interprets
these sensual impressions the objective mind; that is,
it is the medium between object and subject. It is
developed by observation and experience.

A suggestion is in no way different from an impres-
sion, though we use the latter more frequently as
indicating an objective, material source. A mental
or an inspirational suggestion must be interpreted in
sensible terms, i.e., in terms of sense, no less than the
objective impressions. We may call the ftmction
of the brain which interprets these inspirational sug-
gestions the subjective mind, that is, it is the medium
between spirit and subject.

As I said before, each suggestion or impression, from
whatever source, may be interpreted to consciousness
either inductively by concrete reasoning (objective
mind), or deductively by abstract reasoning (subject-
ive mind) . I see no reason for thinking that the objective
mind and subjective mind are ftmctions of two different
entities. The inductive process, taking more time
and energy, undoubtedly requires more machinery,
and a larger part of the brain dedicated to practical
reason may be used especially in that process. We may
arrive at the solution of a problem algebraically or
arithmetically; the true answer will be the same in
either case. If a question be suggested, the true
answer would be the same, whether by the process of
deduction or induction. That the answers do not always
agree shows that the process of interpretation is faulty.
Each method has its advantages and disadvantages.

368 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

When the algebraical, deductive method will work, it
is quicker, less liable to error, and wiU give answers
to questions incapable of solution by the other method.
But as most of us are still ignorant as yet, we must use
the more laborious, arithmetical, inductive method,
arriving at conclusions by the slow process of concrete
reason. If the two processes were by two separate
entities, there would be no relation. But the correct-
ness of the perception by the deductive method depends
in most cases on the development or ability of the brain
to interpret by the inductive method. Were this not
so, there would be no necessity for getting learning
and developing reason in order to acquire knowledge.

I have rather strained the ordinary use of the term
"deduction" in making it cover the idea of intuition.
But there cdUld not possibly be a consciousness of an
intuition without deduction or induction, for, as stated
before, a single thing has absolutely no meaning until
related to some other thing. And this relating is a
function of the brain which always acts deductively or
inductively, or, it might be said, either philosophically
or scientifically.

The more one depends on the inductive power of
concrete reason, the less dependence there is on the
deductive power of abstract reason. This, by no
construction means that the more knowledge, the less
faith. The more knowledge, the more there is which we
know that we know not, and on gaining perceptions of
the unknown, we may be guided in our actions resulting
from inspiration and aspiration, either by faith or by
reason.

So long as people act by faith alone, there will be
many cases of misplaced confidence. So long as people
act by reason alone, there will be but little progress. Of

Faith 369

the two, I would prefer faith; of the two, I am prone to
act by reason. Scepticism is not pleasant, but it
seems necessary.

Faith can have its greatest reward only when founded
on truth. What is truth? When we know that we
are not walking by faith but by knowledge. Is there
no infallible guide to right? No answer to prayer so
plain that there is no chance to err? To the average
man I would say emphatically, "No," for the average
man is not normal. It sounds queer, but you must
admit that correctness is the normal state, though it
may not be the usual state. Perfect health is the nor-
mal physical state, but few enjoy it. To the drunkard
or glutton, the appetite is not a correct guide to physical
needs. To the moral pervert or fanatic, the conscience is
not a correct guide. When the body is normally healthy,
appetite is a suitable guide. When the brain is normally
healthy, the conscience is a suitable guide. And when
body and brain are normally healthy, and one is con-
scious of an aspiration and an inspiration, then, when
there is a contest between faith in the Desire and the
reason for not following it, which shall decide? I say
(and it reaUy does so in most cases) let Fear decide.
This may seem queer to say : when between the Devil
(Pear) and the Deep Sea (reason) to allow the Devil
to decide. But, remember, in the normal, Force is
controlled by Power. Fear is controlled by Desire.
Force and Fear are necessary; they have their place
and their work. Fear, in the beginning, is used as a
signal of danger, and, in a perfectly normal state, might
be a safety stop. You avoid the road which you fear
the most.

As knowledge gives more reason, and as one gets
more faith in the value of inspiration, it might seem that
24

370 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the chance of error would be greater, but I conceive the
opposite to be the case. For each time the right path
is chosen, the chances are less for taking the wrong
one the next time. In other words, the more we util-
ize this deductive part of the faculty of perception,
the more nearly correct will be the interpretation of
inspiration.

Excuse me for taking so many words to say so little.
All this was expressed in a few words two thousand
years ago, when Paul said, "But, strong meat belongeth
to them of full age, even those who, by reason of use,
have their senses exercised to discern both good and
evil." I think many moons ago man might have
attained to an age when he was ready for meat had he
exercised his senses to discern good and evil instead of
asking the priest, or looking in the Bible, or going to
the Lord in prayer.

When I started this chapter on Faith, I intended to
consider it in its physical and mental aspects, but I
got into the more important spiritual aspect, and the
inspirational or religious aspect may have so many
interminable ramifications that I always move in danger
of getting far from the original subject.

The effect of faith is not simply conscious perception,
or concept of the Ego; it reacts on mind and body
(mental and physical conditions). "If thou have faith
as a grain of mustard seed, thou mayest say unto this
mountain, 'Be removed,' and it would be removed."
I have seen a granite rock, weighing many tons, that
had been split three feet apart by the faith of a seed.
Year after year the towering elm forces farther apart
the sides of the immense rock. Suppose one had never
seen this or similar restdts. Given a little seed; in
the seed, a desire to gain to fuU perfection its charac-

Faith 371

teristic form; a cleft in the rock only wide enough to
contain the seed; an aspiration to grow; but look at the
impossible conditions ! Were you conscious of such a
position, would you allow faith or reason to decide
the possible result? Scientists who have viewed this
tree say, "Wonderful, but all from natural forces."
So are all results of faith from natural causes, but the
point is, to have the faith when you can see no natural
cause to bring about the desired result. Comparing
the size of the man to the size of the seed, were his
faith in the same proportion, what would be the size
of the mountain he might remove? Christ concluded
the sentence by saying, "and nothing shall be impos-
sible to you. " Is it well for me to dispute it?

I have said that conditions limit Desire. I also
asked to what extent we may change conditions. In
answering this I will say I believe that faith is far more
able than reason to change conditions. Faith may fail
a million times, but if it succeeds once in accomplishing
the apparently unreasonable, it has done more than
reason, for reason wotdd not have made the attempt.
Of course, I mean the person acting by faith or reason.
I wiU make some practical applications. In medical
jurisprudence, I venttu"e to say that more discoveries
and restilts have been derived from the unforeseen
termination of experiments than from the facts that
were inductively perceived by reason and afterward
demonstrated. More cases of an obscure nature are
treated by faith in the remedies (experiments) than are
treated by a knowledge of what correctly applies. In
other words, in advancing into the unknown, there is
usually more of faith than of reason.

When a subject has been told by the hypnotist that
his arm is paralyzed, the arm is paralyzed, To every

372 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

physical test, there is paralysis of the arm. Were the
suggestion enforced, the arm would continue in that
condition of helplessness and finally shrivel from non-
use. This is a physical result following a mental
impression. The brain was conditioned so that the
reason was restrained, confidence gained, and the
suggestion received, not only by the consciousness of
the Ego but by the consciousness of the atoms con-
trolling the organ affected. They all believe the sug-
gestion. They have faith that the impression is true.
BeUeving that it is useless to act, they will not, cannot
act. Reverse the conditions. Suppose a person's
arm to be paralyzed from a shock, and the impression
was so permanent as to cause the controlling atoms to
refuse to act, and then suppose some person could gain
their confidence, and, through restraint of reason,
suggest that apparently impossible idea, that the arm
could move. The belief in the suggestion, and the faith
that it could be done, allowed, in the abeyance of
reason, the effort to be made and the arm moved.
Call it suggestion, hypnotism, mental therapeutics,
faith, or a miracle. So far as known, the process is
the same.

How most medicines act is not known. In rare
instances are they mechanical in their action; in but
few instances is the chemical action to be traced and its
reaction identified. In most cases, it seems that certain
drugs make an impression that is interpreted so as to
cause a certain action of the organ affected. These
actions are known by empirical means. No ca^se can
be given for the effect. Could the same impression be
given mentally, the result would be the same. It is
well known that the action and reaction of the mental
and physical are pronounced. That the mental atti-

Faith 373

tude has great influence over the physical condition
is a phase of faith that is well illustrated by a prominent
sect. Where faith can act, it is a most valuable cure.
Are there cases where conditions prevent the action of
faith? I think so. But I have said that I suffer from
a moiety of reason. Faith seems to be essential in
the various phenomena called psychic. I have said
the perceptions of the Ego were physical, mental, and
inspirational, as they originated from the body (physi-
cal), brain (mental), or Desire (spiritual).. One function
of the brain is to interpret the various impressions in
sensible terms. The attitude of the mind is according
to the method of use. If it is called to interpret music,
it is apt to do it better if it has had frequent use for
that purpose. If it interprets by reason, it may give a
different answer than if it interprets by a fixed rule,
or by impulse, or by chance. If there be prejudice, it
cannot be just. At present, conditions compel prejudice.

The only difference I am able to give in the phases
of faith expressed as confidence, or as credulity, is that
one is well placed and the other misplaced. To one
person, you may appear as a man of great faith; to
another, you may appear as a poor, credulous fool.
I had rather be called a poor, crediolous fool than to
have no faith in anything and no confidence in any one.
There is truth, and there is righteousness. Blessed are
they who have their faith rightly placed.

I have not answered the question, how far can faith
influence conditions; for I do not know. I can say this
without fear of dispute, that all the improved conditions
for which man hopes will be realized only by faith and
works, and if aU the faith and works were rightly
placed, conditions would change so quickly that it
would weU be called a miracle. Men do not agree as

374 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

to what is of paramount importance, — economic or
moral conditions. I think perfection in one would
necessitate perfection in the other. I also think that
under the present economic conditions, no one can be
morally perfect. From this I infer that, at present, the
improvement of economic conditions is of paramount
importance. Few doubt that economic conditions
might be improved. There are many plans and plat-
forms, but apparently little chance for agreement. It
would seem to me that the best chance for an agreement
would be on a plan that would meet with the least
opposition ; a plan that permitted, instead of compelled.
In the following chapter I will give an outline of the
kind of economic plan that I suggest. In the succeeding
chapters, I will enlarge on the present and probable
futvure conditions of man.

CHAPTER XXIII

EQUITY

THE failure to make a success of business is, in most
cases, I believe, due more to the economic fal-
lacies of our present business system than to the lack
of ability in the individual.

The saying, "competition is the life of trade," is
being recognized by the capitalists as an economic
fallacy. They are therefore ceasing their competition
and are combining their mutual interests.

The reason the mass of the people do not see that
co-operation is better than competition is because they
believe that each or any one of them has a chance to
succeed in business and to secure an income sufficient
to support him in his declining years. Now, certainly
not more than one fourth of the people succeed by any
kind of labor or business in securing an income that
will support them without labor. Every person does
not have that chance, but some few have it, and each
one in his ignorance of the future fondly imagines
that by merit or luck he may be one of those who suc-
ceed. But state it another way. Seventy-five per
cent, of the people will absolutely fail in gaining an
independent income, i.e., in being supported in affluence
by the labor of others. If a majority of the people
realized that they were included in this number, would

375

376 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

it be imagining too much to think they would formulate
a plan whereby the results of labor would have a more
eqioitable distribution?

There is an ethical difference between a profitable
exchange and the profit of exchange. The latter, the
profit system, the desire to advance by the labor of
others, to gain something beyond an exact equivalent,
is the basis of our economic laws, and the belief of the
majority that they will eventually be among the ones
profited continues those laws in effect.

The successftil tell how to succeed, but the advice is
fallacious, for it is meant for exceptional and not
general application. "Never go in debt, but save all
you can, putting your money where it will bring inter-
est, " is a specimen of the advice. In the first place,
if each one savbd all he could, there would be a universal
disaster to various kinds of industries ; and in the second
place, if no one went in debt, who would pay interest
on the money saved?

Another says, "Invest all you can borrow, so your
brains will make it yield a larger profit than the interest
you pay. " Probably this advice has been followed to a
successful issue in more cases than the other, but the
number of failures show that something is lacking to
make the advice infallible.

The man who invests his money is considered more
meritorious than the man who spends his money. Any
one who spends his first thousand dollars beyond the ne-
cessities of life for any other purpose than to make more
money is called a spendthrift and fool. The one who
invests it at five per cent, has, in twenty years, two
thousand dollars, and in forty years four thousand
dollars, three fourths of which he has not produced,
but he is spoken of in terms of respect. He is a capital-

Equity 377

ist. They say: "He has made his money earn more
money." But this is another fallacious saying, for
money cannot earn money.

Otir civilization necessitates our production being
carried on by accumulated labor in the shape of machin-
ery, manufacturing plants, etc., which we call invested
capital, of which money simply represents the exchange
value. The capitalist trades on this necessity to obtain
a portion of the new production, which he himself had
no part in producing.

It is said that the capitalist, the mantifacturer, is
a public benefactor, that he gives employment to thou-
sands of laborers, but if the capitalist and his millions
were annihilated, laborers would continue to produce
and Uve. The manufacturer claims that it is his
brains, his management, that makes the capital produc-
tive; but the expense account is charged with interest
on investment, as well as with the services of the pro-
prietor, if actively engaged, at a salary which equals
his brain worth in any other institution, and if the
balance sheet does not show a profit in addition to all
this, he thinks the business has been a failure.

In most large corporations many of the stockholders
have no knowledge of the business whatever. The
largest stockholders are frequently officers on Hberal
salaries, but they seldom conduct the business. There
are managers, overseers, engineers, etc., who have the
technical knowledge necessary to conduct the business,
but they are working for wages because their earlier
earnings went toward getting this technical knowledge,
and then their later earnings are spent in enjoying, as
best they may, this small part of the fruits of then-
labor.

A few of the animals have the faculty of accumula-

378 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

tion, though none but humans use such accumulations
as a means whereby other animals are forced to support
them. Certain men have this faculty of accumulation,
and conditions cause this accumulation to become
necessary to others, thus enabling them to levy an
unrighteous, though legal, tax, which is called interest.
We also have a system of distribution whereby is
extorted the commonly considered legitimate "profit
of exchange." In addition to these taxes are the
extra expenses, which the competitive method has
placed on all industries, but which have ultimately to be
borne by the laborer. One object of trust organization
is, by escaping these expenses, to lower the cost of
production and exchange, but the power which enables
the combiners to do this, also makes them able to put
this saving in their own pockets, instead of allowing the
producer or consumer to have the benefit.

The laborer says, "competition is the life of trade,"
and wants to "bust the trust, " but he does not believe
that competition in labor improves the life of the
laborer. Not long ago laborers fought against the
introduction of labor-saving machinery. It came in
competition with them. It threw them out of work.
But the fight was useless. Inventions multiplied, and
gradually the laborer saw he was benefited thereby.
Even if the benefits are unequally divided between the
machine and the man, between capital and labor, yet
the laborer is better off.

Power saved is equal to so much power discovered.
If natural power exists, we think it ought to be utilized,
even if it does come in competition with horse-power or
man-power, but the laborer does not want all the man-
power utilized. He opposes the laborers of other
countries. He even antagonizes his fellow-laborers

Equity 379

here. The labor platform proposes to support all
convicts in idleness, for fear they will come in com-
petition with other laborers ; as logically only one mem-
ber of a family should be permitted to work for the
support of an entire family, in order to prevent the
other wage-earners in that family from coming in
competition with families containing but one wage-
earner.

Another fallacy is the idea that the law of supply
and demand is superior to conditions, an immutable
law, which man is powerless to modify. This law, now,
has nothing in common with the many wants and
Hmited gratification of the mass of the people. It is
true that usually the price of the supply is influenced
by its ratio to demand, but only those who have money
are in a position to demand. A thousand starving
families without money cause no fluctuation in the
market. Demand is the bear of the market, and supply
is the bull of the market, but there is no fixed law by
which the price is graded or governed according to any
ratio of supply to demand. When the ratio of supply
is less, the price is just as high as the bulls can boost it,
which is close to the figiure which the highest buyer wUl
give. When the ratio of supply is greater than the
demand, the price is just as low as the bears can bring
it, which is close to the figures for which the lowest
supply will sell. There is no fixed schedule of fluctua-
tion, but each side takes every advantage the conditions
allow, no matter how foreign they may be to the needs
of the people; therefore, the extremes of the market
are far greater than the actual difference in cost of the
supplies would warrant.

Trusts are to some degree able to control and prevent
these fluctuations, but the ability of monoplies to buy

38o An Unorthodox Conception of Being

at their own price and sell at a price which they con-
sider profitable, is believed by some people to be a
dangerous power, and they wish it destroyed by law,
but the law did not confer that power nor can it destroy
it, unless it also has the right and power to prevent
any two men from going into a partnership.

Experience has demonstrated that trusts cannot be
suppressed. Nor do I believe it desirable to go back
to the old competitive methods. The trusts are a
step in the ultimate, complete co-operation of manjcind.
If the laborer and producer could adopt their methods,
they ought to have the advantage, for capital cannot
create labor, while labor is the creator of capital.

The laborer should realize that three fourths of his
class has absolutely no chance of living, excepting by
their own labor. And that imder existing economic
conditions they not only support themselves but the
other one fourth who live on incomes from capital, and
also a large proportion of the actual laborers who are
engaged in unproductive labor or work, useless under a
co-operative method. If laborers realized this and
would co-operate under a plan that would give each one
an equitable proportion of the products, it seems plain
that they would be better off.

AU competition or co-operation should be to benefit
* the many, not to gain an advantage over the many;
yet credit is given to the man who gains an advantage
and lives off his fellow-man. A righteous plan would not
interfere directly with property rights, nor radically
change existing laws, but wotild enable the laborer to co-
operate, and become less dependent on the capitalist.

The essential is to obtain an equitable distribution
of the products. The following propositions seem like
axioms: (i) Co-operative production and distribution

Equity 381

are essential to our present and future civilization.
(2) The greater the proportion of producers, including
the necessary distributors, to the total population, the
greater may be the production. (3) The greater the
production, the greater (ought to be) the wealth and
prosperity of the whole people. Probably no one will
contradict the first proposition. We may also accept
the second proposition, but we are doing all we can to
repudiate and nullify it. Instead of trying to increase
the niimber of producers by becoming or remaining one,
we are each trying to reach the point where we can
have an income: that is, live off the labor of others.
The third proposition seems Hke a logical conclusion
from the other two, but it is contradicted by experience.
In spite of the idea that the truly great man is he who
makes two spears of grass grow where only one grew
before, a financial panic would result if he should double
the grain crop for two consecutive years. But whom
or what could we blame, the great man, a bountiful
nature, or our present economic laws of exchange?

It is acknowledged that our present plans of pro-
duction and exchange are not equitable. Theories have
been offered to remedy it, but most of them are too
radical or too complex. Co-operation of laborers in
commimities has accomplished a limited success, but
the trials have always lacked the items necessary to a
general success. There has usually been an absence
of individual right in receipts and expenditures, and
the presence of a chance for dishonesty among the
leaders; but chiefly a limited co-operation gives no such
advantage as is gained by a trust or monopoly.

The following plan of co-operation in distribution is
submitted. The enactment of a law would be necessary,
but in its simple passage there would be no need of

382 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

radical change of existing laws. The effect would
depend wholly on the advantage labor might have
under the law, of which these should be the main
features :

When a stated number of people shall petition the
government, there may be established an exchange in
such locality, and with such a manager as may be
selected by the petitioners.

The manager shall be provided with sufficient scrip,
amply protected from counterfeit, to be given in pay-
ment for all products; market price to govern, but
modified by an estimate of time and intrinsic value.'
This scrip shall be redeemable with products through
any exchange at a sufficient advance in price to cover
rtmning expenses of exchange {i.e., cost of distribution).

In case of foreclosures, bankruptcies, failures, etc.,
of any firm or corporation in any line of business, the
assets shall be turned into the nearest exchange, and
the market value of same shall be paid to the creditors
in scrip. When one of the larger interests fail, a receiver
shall be elected to conduct the business the same as
though he were manager of an exchange.

The products of all jails, reformatories, workhouses,
penitentiaries, etc., shall be turned into the most con-
venient exchange, the scrip therefor to be redeemed
by the exchange with supplies to be used for the
institution, and the surplus to be paid out proportion-
ately to prisoners on the expiration of their sentence.

All real estate placed in charge of an exchange, also

' The essential diflference between this idea and Owen's "Eqiu table
Bank of Labor Exchange" is that in this exchange "market value"
must govern, which would be following the natural law of supply and
demand. Owen and Weitling each endeavored to compel exchange on
the basis of time cost of production, or ' ' labor value. ' ' Many Socialistic
theories involve the fallacious idea embraced. in this latter plan.

Equity 383

government lands not otherwise used, shall be rented
for scrip at a low rate on its estimated value.

Upon application and payment of pro-rata share
on actual cost, insurance shall be given against loss
by fire, water, wind, or lightning, accident or sickness,
and to support actual dependents in case of death or
disability of supporter.

The anticipated results of such a plan would be a
perfect co-operation of exchange at actual cost of
distribution. Such a combination would eliminate the
profits of the middlemen. It would tend to make the
producer independent of the capitalist. There would
be a great saving in the cost of distribution by elimina-
ting advertising expenses, duplicate and excessive
stores, superfluous clerks, soliciting agents, drtimmers,
etc., necessary to competition, and the excessive rents
occasioned by rivalry for choice location, also a saving
on interest, taxes, licence, insurance, salaries, etc.
There would be, in fact, all the advantages that the
present trusts and monopolies confer without their
disadvantages. It would make the laborer a partner
instead of a competitor.

Under the present plan, the greater the production,
the lower the price, which usually restilts in a loss
instead of a gain; but with an equitable system of
exchange the more one produced, the more one would
have. There wotild be a greater incentive to produc-
tion. Co-operation of producers would naturally follow,
not to limit production, as combines do at present,
but as a mutual benefit to increase production. Pro-
duction would not slack imtil every want was supplied;
then more time would be taken to enjoy the benefits
tmtil recreation and labor balanced.

There would be less chance for dishonesty. Though

384 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

the scrip would be negotiable, it should not be legal
tender as an equivalent for currency, or interest bearing.
With the insurance feature there would be no need of
hoarding money. It would allow the same individual
preference as now in the matter of spending or accumu-
lating. The accumulation either as personal property
or as working capital would be beneficial, but it would
not give the compelling advantage that it does at
present. This plan would not be paternalism. It is
simply a method to give producers a chance co-
operatively to exchange independently of capitalists.
As in the case of other monoplies, it would cause the
failure of other institutions, which would under the
law become part of the new scheme. It would be but
a question of time until all laborers and productive
enterprises would be included in this monopoly.

One essential point in this plan is its relation to
bankrupts. It would not be unconstitutional or in-
volve the taking of property for public use without
rendering due equivalent. The creditor need not
force the assignment, but if he should do so, he would
have the option of taking the assets, less the commission,
as at present; or as a just compensation he would get
scrip, which would make the assets equal a like amount
of any other commodity, but this would no more be
legal tender than the goods assigned. It is not the
payment of the debt, for bankruptcy acknowledges the
inability to pay the debt.

The bond and stockholders of railroads or of
semi-public corporations which might be forced into
receivers' hands, or voluntarily placed in the exchange,
would be paid according to actual value of residue of
property, and it would be run for twenty years at five
per cent, additional to actual cost. The property would

Equity 385

then belong to the exchange and become the working
capital of the people, under their government. The
scrip given in pajment thereof would caU for commodi-
ties from the exchange until it had all been absorbed
by producers, and then the original holders of bonds
and stock would have to become producers. Labor
would cease to pay income to capital. Capitalists
would have the return of their principal, but no more,
nor are they entitled to more. Though this gives
the debtor an equal advantage, it repudiates no moral
obligations. It gives the creditor his pound of flesh
without permitting him to take the heart's blood.
This is one method of obtaining government ownership
of public utilities.

Actual government laborers might be permitted to
exchange their wages to a limited extent for scrip,
and the money thus obtained would pay for the neces-
sary transportation between exchanges until such
time as the transportation lines would take scrip or
until they became part of the exchange system. Ulti-
mately all government work would be carried on from
the commissions deducted as a part of the expense for
labor necessary to distribution and exchange. This
would eliminate the intermediate profits and much of
the expense necessitated by oiu: present system of
exchange, taxes, and legal tender.

Instead of having labor and its products both on the
supply side, it would put labor on the demand side.
At first there would, no doubt, be some discrepancy in
quality and quantity of supply to demand, but under
more equal liberty to demand, it could not work any-
thing like the inconvenience or irregularity that it
does at present. I have seen acres of potatoes lying
undug on account of low prices, with farmers lacking

2S

386 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

shoes ; and at the same time the shoe factories shut down
on account of a glutted market, the laborers idle and
wanting potatoes. Nothing as bad or foolish could be
possible tmder the equitable exchange system.

Co-operation of a varied class of producers would be
necessary at first to form a complete stock. The cost
of production based on time, trouble, and talent, could
in a comparatively short time be determined, and a
greater equality in price would natiiraUy result. The
compensation of the distributors could be arranged in
the same way. Shortage on production from unpre-
ventable cause, not covered by other insurance, could
be compensated according to the present plan of
average when goods are jettisoned. Or by a mutual
insurance and sale of futures there would be a purely
mutual gain or loss by good or poor crops.

The smaU per cent, of gain of one line of production
over another would hardly influence the supply to such
a degree as at present, where competition plays such a
disturbing part. One can hardly imagine over-pro-
duction for some time to come, when one sees how great
a want there is at present for the necessities of life; and
when these are supplied there is inexhaustible Art,
Literattu'e, and Travel to be suppUed to those who now
hardly dream of such things as possibilities.

Wlien trusts and monopolies shall have closed the
channels to individual advancement, and the mass sees
that it wUl be virtually impossible to get into the class,
some change wiU be made. This exchange plan with
its results or something equivalent must appeal to all
who are not dishonest enough to want to Uve by the
labor of others without giving equitable return.

One great advantage to be gained is, by making the
laborer feel assured of a living, to eliminate the constant

Equity 387

fear of being thrown out of work. It does not seem
likely that man is created so his life must be given
solely to supporting its physical necessities, yet the
life of the majority of men is so spent, and is often
troubled with fear that even that scant measure of
success will not continue. It seems as though the
necessities of life should be provided as surely and
almost as automatically as the air we breathe, leaving
sufl^ent time to devote to the actual objects of life
whenever in the futtue we may determine what these
purposes are.

The Society of Equity, it seems, contemplates bringing
about vdtim^tely a condition imder which there will
be a more equitable distribution.

Equity among men is essential to a perfect manhood,
and reaUy we must make some effort to attain to the
measure of the Golden Rule before we may expect to
receive other inspirations guiding us to a knowledge of
the glorious age to come.

Let us co-operate to obtain greater .economic free-
dom in order that we may have more liberty to follow
our Highest Desire.

CHAPTER XXIV

LIBERTY

LIBERTY is freedom to follow and utilize a self-
enforcing law. Any natural law is a self-en-
forcing or rather a spontaneously-enforcing law.

The term law has several definitions. I have criti-
cised the use of the phrase, "law of gravitation," as a
cause. We Taiow, or suppose we know, what the
law of gravitation is, but we do not know what attrac-
tion is. Therefore, when we say that bodies faU toward
each other "on account of," instead of "according
to," the law of gravitation, we assume to know what the
cause is.

There is a tendency to use modes of expression which
convey the impression that the cause of phenomena is
known. The cause of phenomena is unknown except
so far as it may be conceived through its manifestation
as phenomena. The cause of inspiration is unknown
except so far as it may be known through the percep-
tions of the inspirations.

Law is a description or definition of a mode of motion,
action, or conduct. Spontaneous motions and actions
are grouped under various definitions and descriJDed as
natural laws. These laws are usually expressed as
statements. Actions and conduct, which are to a
greater degree artificial, are grouped tmder various

388

Liberty 389

definitions and inscribed as statute laws. These laws
are usually expressed as commands or commandments.
Our perceptions and conceptions of law are usually
that it is a command that must be enforced, and action
and conduct coerced to comply with the command.
Similarly we assume that the natural law is a command
given to matter by an external God, whereby its motions
are to be coerced (mechanically) in a definite manner.
I think we will be nearer correct if we reverse the as-
sumption. Let us assume that according to its Desire,
the Power moves in its materialization and acts in its
manifestation in such a definite maimer that we, by
observation and inspiration, are able to describe their
motions and actions and express them in statements
which we term laws of nature, or natiu-al laws. We
may also suppose that the actions and conduct of the
higher forms must, to manifest properly the Higher
Desire, be definite and bear some specific relation one
to another. These limitations we, by observation and
inspiration, perceive, describe, and express as commands
to be enforced for the good of one and all.

That there is a definite relation between certain parts
of Power and their movements (planetary motions)
is of comparatively recent discovery. That the natural
law, which is supposed to be confined to the physical
world, extends into the spiritual world is a recent
statement received more as a romance than as a fact.

If the same Desire instigates the various forms of
motion, action, and conduct, and if the forms of motion,
i.e., natural phenomena, can be grouped and described,
and their relation expressed as natural laws, I think
it logically follows that the various forms of action and
conduct can be grouped and described and their re-
lations expressed as natural laws. On account of their

390 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

manifold complexities, action and conduct are not so
definite in their relations as are the motions, but the
commands or statutes to which action and conduct are
supposed to conform are just and righteous in the
proportion to which they conform to the natural laws.

Motion, action, and conduct, I assume, are always to
satisfy Desire. Desire, by a co-operation of its various
parts, is ever seeking through more complex or higher
forms to be gratified with a greater degree of satisfaction.
This Desire is the self-enforcing principle in the evolu-
tion of form. Self-enforcing does not mean instan-
taneously-enforcing. If it did, motion, action, and
conduct would all be absolutely automatic.

The diversity of individual Desires occasions conflict,
and the hindjance which one Desire may occasion
another gives a certain latitude to the motions, action,
and conduct. This latitude increases according to the
complexity of form. A specific action may represent
the aggregate latitude of a great aggregate of motions,
and the latitude of conduct may represent the aggregate
latitude of an aggregate of actions. This latitude I
will term license.

License is the freedom to depart from a self-enforcing
law. Liberty is limited by artificial laws. License is
limited by self -enforcing or natural laws.

We admit that Power exists : we assume that it is
atomic in its structure : we state that by motion it is
manifest. ' The simplest motion that could be made
would be that of two atoms moving toward each other
in a straight line. An aggregate of such motions
within a given space would be manifest as density; or
relating the atoms in one part of the space to the atoms
in the other, the relations would be manifest as weight.
These motions are manifest only through their resis-

Liberty 391

tance to some exterior motion. Resistance is a natural
law of the manifestation of motion.

This resistance we may overcome and there will be
in this given space less density and less weight. But we
have not overcome or annihilated the Power which had
been manifest within that space. The decreased den-
sity in the given space necessitates an increased density
in some other space. The decrease in the relative
weight necessitates an increase in some other relative
weight. The mass remains the same. We assume that
the Power is persistent in its attraction. Persistence
of motion is another natural law.

If it is demonstrated that any material has only the
attribute of density and weight, we would have to
acknowledge that Power could be manifest as a single
and separate entity, but I am not aware of any material
but what has other attributes. In the chapter on
Force I tried to show that material was not solely a
manifestation of Power.

If two atoms moving toward each other in a straight
line should by a resisting Force be stopped in their
progress, the motion of the Power being persistent,
there is only one possible way in which this motion
cotild exist. That motion is as rotation. If the atoms
were deflected in their progress, the deflection being
persistent would necessitate a motion as revolution.
If this motion of rotation or revolution were simply a
transformation of the straight line motion, the speed of
rotation and revolution could be no greater than the
velocity of the lateral motion. In some material there
is an energy of motion (insensible and immeasurable,
often termed latent, which I assume exists as a motion
of rotation and revolution of its atoms) much greater
than could be generated by a lateral velocity of the

392 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

mass. Therefore, I assume that this greater energy,
or excessive motion of rotation or revolution is due to
the energy of the Force.

The resistance and persistence of the energy of these
motions is a natural law. Resistance to a certain
motion may overcome that specific motion, but it ■wiU
be thereby transformed into another motion. Force,
the cause of motion, is persistent. We have assumed
now a Power which is persistent in its motion and a
Force which is persistent in its motion. These two
entities are manifest to each other through their mutual
resistance. The density and weight, manifestations of
Power, are overcome in one place and dispersed to an-
other place by the expansive Force. In that other place
the excessively large orbit of a revolution is overcome
and curtailed iDy the attractive Power and its peculiar
form of motion transformed or dispersed ; that is, there
is a constant shifting in the relations of Power to Force.
Assiiming a persistent Power and a persistent Force
whose forms of motions are mutually resistant, we
have a self-imposed condition which we might think
wotdd be extremely chaotic in its manifestation.
Saying that the condition is self-imposed does not mean
that it is arbitrarily imposed or could be primarily
changed. Saying that two and two are four is a self-
imposed condition and law of mathematics, does not
mean that there is a God of Arithmetic who has made
this law and could change it if he wished. There are
many who believe the condition of sin and suffering
is imposed, or at least permitted, by an Omnipotent
God who might in answer to prayer change the con-
ditions if he would. Because God does not change these
conditions in answer to prayer many take the advice of
Job's wife, "Curse God and die."

Liberty 393

Under the assumption that Power and Force are
an unintelligent and unconscious energy, physical only,
we have no explanation of Being as it is. Under the
assumption that there is an exterior psychic will or
law that directs the energy, there is an explanation,
but the explanation perplexes the intellect of one who is
sufficiently developed to comprehend its weakness.
Under the assumption that the Power and Force are
conscious and intelligent, and are moving in accordance
with a Desire which is giving to the motions a form of
ever-increasing complexity, and that it is doing this
because these higher or complex forms are allowing and
enabling the Desire to be gratified with an ever-in-
creasing degree of satisfaction, we have an explanation
which seems logical in itself, consistent with facts, and
simple as a conception of Being.

That the evolution is not more rapid is because the
conditions prevent, but this does not signify that the
steps of evolution are equal in length or are taken at
equal intervals. Observation shows us that in the
culmination of an action the final motions are more
rapidly executed than they are in its incipiency; also
that each successive higher form has been completed in
relatively less time. From this I draw the conclusion
that the higher complex forms of organization essen-
tial to the government of man in his future evolution
will be perfected in relatively less time than was neces-
sary for the evolution of any of the present forms of
government.

The question arises, can evolution be delayed or
expedited? Defining evolution as an ever-increasing
complexity of form; and that form is motion, action,
and conduct; and that motion is persistent and resist-
ant, — we may conclude that a specific form would be

394 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

expedited or retarded according to whether in its
formation it freely followed the Desire or whether it
was inhibited by Fear. But there may be more in the
issue. It will depend on whether the parties (atoms or
man) essential to the forms have liberty to move as
impelled by Desire, the self-enforcing law. There
must be not only the willingness to move according to
the Desire but there must be the energy essential to
the motion. If a certain amount of energy is essential
to a specific action and this specific amount of energy
is used in some other action, it is plain that the specific
action cannot be performed at that time: that is, that
the evolution will be delayed. Again, if we contemplate
a certain action — say, splitting a block of wood — and
we try to split it across the grain, we delay the action.
If we are compelled to complete the action by cutting
across the grain, we have not liberty of action: that is,
we are not free to utilize a self -enforcing law.

Desire is always right, the Highest Desire is righteous.
While it may be true that "whatever is, is right," it
does not follow that whatever is, is righteous. Fol-
lowing the Highest Desire is the nattural and shortest
road of evolution. As stated before, a certain deviation
from the straight and narrow road is allowed, which
deviation or latitude we term license. This license is
limited by the self-enforcing law of Desire, but to the
exact degree to which we take advantage of license just
to that degree is the evolution delayed.

Liberty is not only curtailed by the inhibition of
Fear, and by artificial laws or comptilsions, and by
license and the necessities of the lower Desire, but also
by ignorance or absence of knowledge of how to utilize
the self-enforcing or nattual laws. The development
of the various parts of Being, as ordinarily manifest,

Liberty 395

we term natural growth. If a specific form persists
in following a lower Desire or is compelled to refrain
from following a higher Desire, we say such a condition
is unnatural. Suppose a specific form had liberty and
did follow a higher Desire, and had imusual knowledge
of how to utilize the self-enforcing or natural laws, it
is certain that we should call many of the actions of
such a form supernatural. Many of the actions of the
civilized man to-day would seem supernatural to the
man of three or four centuries ago, just as many of the
actions of men diuing the period of the Inquisition
seem unnatural to the men of to-day.

By the terms unnatural or supemattu-al actions we
do not mean actions contrary to or without the natural
law, but simply actions that are extremely below or
above the ordinary and usual modes of action essential
in the development of man.

If these asstmiptions are true, then in proportion to
man's Kberty will his actions seem supemattu^al.
Liberty is essential to a rapid development. The
development of the various social organizations, reli-
gious, political, economic, etc., is to a great degree free
from the material conditions which impose the greatest
resistance to the development of physical forms. Pear
is fast failing as a barrier to our gaining the road to
Uberty. When we realize that neither the permission
of man nor the sanction of Chturch nor the artificial law
can make license equal liberty, or the gratification of a
lower Desire equal the gratification of a higher Desire
in giving the greatest degree of satisfaction, then we
will recognize that the proper ftmction of Fear is to
guard the paths that deviate from the highway of
liberty to the byways of license.

When we realize that by acting according to our

396 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

aspirations and inspirations, we are forming a conduct
whose character is righteous — ^not essentially because
the motives and' motions of the conduct are right, but
because in its formation we are following a Desire whose
gratification will give us the greatest degree of satis-
faction — then we will cease to be impressed by the idea
that we are "giving up the pleastu-es of the world" in
becoming righteous, but that, on the contrary, we are
increasing our capacity for enjoyment. When we
realize this, then instead of saying, "the spirit is willing
but the flesh is weak," we may say, "the spirit is
strong and the flesh is willing. "

It seems obvious that the artificial or written law,
which the more nearly conforms to the natural law, will
allow the greater degree of liberty. I will give a few
specific examples to illustrate the statement. That
form which man may organize to aid him, whether it
be a machine, a law, or a society, is best which is the
most effective with the least degree of responsibility
to the individual; that is, which curtails least the
liberties of the man. We see this law enforced through
the efforts of inventors to make machines to be to as
great a degree as possible automatic, dispensing with the
attention of man, relieving him of responsibility and
increasing his liberty. That the liberty thus gained
may be immediately curtailed by some other condition
does not damn the machine or detract from the truth
of the statement.

Under the restrictions of partnership law each part-
ner was responsible for all liabilities, on account of which
responsibility the business required considerable atten-
tion of each person connected therewith. This re-
striction was eliminated under a form of corporate law
which relieved the individual of all but a limited amount

Liberty 397

of responsibility and gave him liberty to diversify his
investments, also liberty to attend to something else
other than the details of a specific business. This law
gave a great advantage to capital. It is freely admitted
that had it not been for this corporate law, removing
the restrictions of the partnership law, the wonderful
industrial organizations and the magnificient utility
plants would not have developed so rapidly. That the
advantages and liberty thus gained may have been
curtailed by other conditions is no proper excuse for
"busting the trust," or good reason for denying that
co-operation is a natural and self-enforcing law of
economics.

That the automatic machine originated by man is an
aid to his liberty is denied by few. That the monopo-
listic organization of man is an economic aid and a
natural evolution is being more freely admitted. That
in spite of these developments the condition of man has
not improved proportionately to the machine and
organization is also freely admitted. If not, why not?
We may agree as to the condition, but as to the remedy
there is certainly disagreement. We must have liberty :
to have liberty is to be free to follow and utilize a self-
enforcing law. We must be free to follow our aspira-
tions and be free to fully utilize all available power in
manifesting our inspirations. What hinders us from
so doing? Some say, human nature. If this were so,
there would not be much hope of rapid improvement,
for human nature seems to be much the same the world
over, and in the present the same as in the past. In-
stead of blaming nature for our troubles we would
better blame our ignorance and search for the special
artificial barrier to our progress.

We will further illustrate by an instance where we

398 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

are not following and utilizing a sdf-enforcing law.
In our system of exchange and distribution we use as a
medium of exchange what we term money. Money,
according to our present standard, must, in the first
place, possess equivalent value; in the second place, be a
standard of price, and in the third place, be a medium
of exchange. It is acknowledged impossible for any
specific thing to possess or successfully fulfil these
three conditions at one and the same time. It is like
the sides of a triangle. One side cannot be changed
without necessitating a change in either one or both the
other sides. One angle cannot be changed without de-
stroying the relativeness which previously existed. If
the equivalent value changes, as it does when the process
of obtaining gold is cheaper, it changes its relation to
the standard of price. The fluctuating standard is
sure to cause a fluctuation of the quantity of the medium
available and always in the opposite direction to that
which the situation demands. If two sides of the
triangle are fitted to the situation, changing the third
side in an endeavor to also make that side fit will
immediately upset the other correct relations.

Suppose between two points we have a transportation
line with the quantity of vehicles of exchange sufficient
to transport a normal traffic. If the traffic increases,
the number of cars (which are the medium of the
exchange) may not accommodate the traffic, the goods
are delayed in the process of exchange, traffic is con-
gested, and business is stagnated. Some shippers may
through fear or favor get more than their share of the
cars and thus obtain an advantage. Some may get
more cars than they can immediately use, but instead of
allowing some one else the privilege of using them, they
hoard them, for the chai;ce of loss in not getting the

Liberty 399

cars when needed offsets the demurrage (interest)
paid for keeping the cars on hand. This aggravates
the congestion of freight and increases the demand for
cars. The shippers begin bidding against each other
for the use of the cars, and continue to do so vmtil the
cost of the transportation is greater than the supposed
profits of exchange. Some, through inabiUty to bid
high enough for their cars, are tmable to fill their orders
or fulfil their obligations. Others, not wishing to fill
their orders at a loss, cancel their obligations. Thus,
this transportation panic passes through the well-
known phases of a financial panic, and in a short time
cars are idle, awaiting a business which has ceased to
exist.

Is there no way of preventing a periodic occiurence
of these troubles? The obvious remedy would be to
have an unlimited supply of cars or medium of exchange.
This seems impractical in transportation, for cars have
an equivalent value. But suppose a new transpor-
tation line was organized which could put on cars of
practically no equivalent value that would do the work
of transportation or exchange just as well. Then, as
there would be no question of supply in time of need
and no capital invested in cars, there is no question but
what the new line would be able to command the busi-
ness. This may not be immediately applicable to
transportation but it may be applied to the methods of
exchange. By the use of scrip instead of money of
intrinsic value, as suggested in the chapter on Equity,
the Exchange would have an advantage that would
soon command the business.

The institution of a corporation law did not compel
the abandonment of partnership, but under the per-
mission to do business in that way people were impelled

400 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

by self-interest to incorporate their business. The
permission to use a scrip of no intrinsic value would
relieve people of the responsibility of endeavoring to
maintain a triangular form of currency whose angles
are constantly shifting, changing the relations of the
sides. The equivalent value is fluctuating according
to cost of production. Silver was demonetized on this
account. As a standard of price, it is shifting according
to supply and demand, and locally sometimes doubles
or halves within a short time (call loans). As a medivun
of exchange it varies in its available quantity, varying
always the wrong way for the interest of the producers
of the products to be exchanged.

The criticism which would be immediately made to
the plan of using scrip as a medium of exchange is
that, as it has no equivalent value, it could not be a
measure of value (standard of price). But it can meas-
ure value without being the equivalent of that value.
We can measure weight on a spring scale, and we can
measure length with a quadrant, neither measure being
in any way equivalent to the standard. There is a
standard yard; a yardstick may be intrinsically equiva-
lent to the standard, therefore, an acctirate measure
of a yard, but if yardsticks should be tendered you as a
medium of exchange for yards of cloth, you might
realize the paradox of our present monetary system.

The tmit of our money measure is a dollar and the
standard dollar is fixed by law as 25.8 grains of gold,
nine-tenths fine. This is supposed to fix its value,
making it a "safe and sane" standard. Capitalists
say if we have a medium of exchange whose value is not
fixed, we will have chaos in business. Some Socialists
say we can fix something else as a standard of value
that will do as well as gold. They are both wrong.

Liberty 401

Business does not depend on fixing value. Values
cannot he fixed, and there is no such thing as an absolute
value which may bear a fixed relation to other things.
The endeavor by capitalists or Socialists to have an
absolute, fixed standard of value is not following and
utilizing a self -enforcing law, because it is contrary to
natural law.

Value must be appraised in three distinct ways, which
have no fixed relation the one to the others. These vari-
ous ways exist and no law can prevent their existence
or make them bear a fixed relation to a single standard.
I will term these various ways of appraising value:

(i) Time Value: the cost in time and energy of
producing a specific thing (equivalent value).

(2) Intrinsic Value: the worth of the specific thing
to the user as a source of maintaining life, developing
mentality, giving pleasure, increasing spirituality, etc.
(use- value).

(3) Market Value: the price which a specific thing
will bring in the market, which is fixed or fluctuates
according to supply and demand (exchange- value). ]

No one value can be fixed independent of the other
for there is an inseparable relation, but not a fixed or
definite relation. A few illustrations may make this
idea plain.

Take, for instance, a bushel of wheat. The time
value, intrinsic value, and market value might, at a
given time, be equal. But suppose that the wheat
becomes weevily : the time value remains the same; the
intrinsic value decreases, but still may be more than
nominal, as it cotild be used to make starch or feed
chickens. But the market value would depend upon
whether or not there was a demand for it for any such
purpose.
26

402 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

Take two paintings. The time value may be equal,
the intrinsic value of one may be little and of the other
very great. Circumstances might be and often are
such that the one of least intrinsic value would have
the greatest market value.

Take a hat in a milliner's window. We will be
credulous enough to assume that the price card fairly
represents its time value, intrinsic value, and market
value. It is sold, and we will hope that the piu-chaser
got value received. A similar hat is put in its place.
It remains unsold. Finally we notice a card: "Your
choice of these $5.00 forms for twenty-five cents. "
The fashion has changed; the time value and intrinsic
value are practically the same, but the market value has
disappeared. No matter how credulous one may have
been about its 'stipulated values at first, no one would
be credulous enough to believe that any law could be
enforced making women give these hats a market
value such as they had at first.

Take the old cent that was ploughed up the other day.
It did not cost a cent in time, its intrinsic value is doubt-
ful, but its market value is over two hundred dollars.
Could the law fix its absolute value, or if it did, should
a written law define which of the numismatists shotild
have possession?

But, it may be said, the measure of the value in each
case, whether much or little, was in dollars and cents,
and without that standard we would be lost in any
endeavor to transact business. If there were two
standard yards and through process of time it was
discovered that one standard was only half that of
the other, most people would try to buy by the long
standard, and sell by the short standard, and this would
occasion more or less confusion. This was the condition

Liberty 403

when we had the silver and gold double standard, there-
fore one of the standards was eliminated. That the
people were nearly evenly divided as to which of the
standards should be chosen shows that many did not
believe that a specified equivalent value of the dollar
was essential to transact business. But, it may be
said, they agreed that there should be some standard,
some absolute value to the real dollar.

How many times have you ever taken the trouble
to exchange your currency for real money? How many
times have you ever known of its being done solely
for the purpose of having the real gold doUar instead
of the ideal paper dollar? How many times is it ever
done in practical business? So seldom that we might
say never. Between nations there is still a certain
fetish of fear which compels the balance to be paid in
gold, but the gold used is not money. It is not counted
or treated as money, but as a commodity. It is weighed,
analyzed, and priced at its market or exchange value.
"The stamp which makes the dollar good the world
over" cuts no figure with another nation nor anywhere
else except in financial fiction. The capitalizing stamp
can no more fix the value of a dollar and prevent the
fluctuation of the value of the gold under it, than a
Socialistic ukase can fix the value of a bushel of wheat
and prevent its fluctuation.

I think that from the illustrations given (which are
only samples of many that might be given, each one
differing from the other in some respect) it may be
seen that the market or exchange value will fluctuate,
and that it is fixed only at the time of the exchange by
the natural law of supply and demand. The natural
law of supply and demand is the only factor which can
fix an exchange price. That the natural supply is some-

404 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

times curtailed and the price increased, and that some-
times the supply is increased and the price curtailed ;
that the natural demand is sometimes unnaturally
limited and the price decreased, or that it is some-
times abnormally developed and the price increased,
does not affect the statement that the supply and
demand are the deciding factors as to the basis of an
exchange. Any law which endeavors to fix an arbi-
trary basis of exchange will curtail our liberty. We
can enhance our liberty by in aU ways possible becom-
ing free to follow and utilize this self -enforcing law of
supply or demand.

I conceive the first step toward this freedom is to
make the medium of exchange free. That may be
done by allowing those who wish it the privilege of
exchanging their labor freely, not troubled by being
compelled to use a medium of exchange which has an
equivalent value so great that sometimes its interest
is more than the profit of exchange, causing the dis-
tributer to refuse to trade, congesting business, and
paralyzing the producer; but by being allowed to use a
scrip of no time value (costing little), though given
a protection equal to that given to currency. This
scrip would be simply a medium of exchange and a
measurer of value. It would have no absolute value
and could give no value to the supply. Values are
given by the demand. As a measurer of value, or as
a medium of exchange, the scrip could not fluctuate,
being unlimited in supply. Therefore, the measurer
and the medium would have a fixed relation in the
scrip, which would be impossible if it also had eqttiva-
lent value. If trade were relieved of the periodic and
local stringency in the money market, then the process
of exchange and distribution would continue more

Liberty 405

nearly the average and there would not be the inequali-
ties in transportation that there are under the present
system.

The currency of our country and even the bonds are
supposed to be redeemable in gold, and it is asserted
that this redeemability is what maintains its value as
money. In times of panic we know that gold is at a
premium. Suppose that every one who had currency
or mattired bonds should at a stated time demand
gold? What would be the price of a gold dollar? If
the demand was imperative, and it should be satisfied
pro rata, one gold dollar might redeem a ten-dollar bill
or possibly a one-hundred-dollar bond (I do not know
the exact relation), but we all know that the cturency
of this or any other cotmtry is not redeemable in gold
excepting when the demand does not exceed the supply.
It is obvious that this is a self-enforcing law. The
producers should be free to follow and utilize this
self -enforcing law by having a scrip plentiful enough
to represent and redeem anything which may be
produced and not be limited to the amount propor-
tionate to the part which it is supposed may actually
demand to be redeemed in gold.

Currency redeemable in gold? Why, you cannot
even get your own currency from the bank in time of
panic, to say nothing of having it redeemed in gold.
The reluctance to adopt a scrip of no equivalent value
is because the ordinary mind firmly believes that money,
to be good, must possess a fixed, redeemable value.
They weigh with a potmd weight and measure with
a yard measure, which are standard and remain in-
trinsically the same and are boimd to remain the same
for an infinite period. They buy with a gold dollar
that is standard, but this measure of value does not

4o6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

remain equivalently and intrinsically the same. It
is subject to constant fluctuation. Some authorities
say that the value of gold has decreased at least one
half during the last ten years, but the price remains
the same, for an artificial law says a specific niunber of
grains of gold shaU be worth a dollar. Thus we have
a standard of price which is itself changing in value.
So rapid has been this change that many financiers
advise increasing the amount of gold in the standard
dollar. It should be plain to any thinking person that
there has never been anything that is an tmchanging
standard of value, which is constantly equivalent to
that value, and that it is impossible that there shall
be. If a thing is limited in supply, the value increases
in some ratio to demand; if the supply is tmlimited, it
has no estimable value; therefore, a thing possessing
time value cannot be an unfluctuating standard of value.
If our present monetary system is contrary to a
natural law, then it might be said to be based on an
unnatural law, and as such it is more advantageous to
an unnatural person. An unnatural person has been
defined as one who persists in following a lower Desire,
that is, one who is below the average according to the
highest standard of development. It is freely admitted
by intellectual people that the profit system of exchange,
'which is essential when the medium of exchange has
time value, has a tendency to debase the higher ideas:
that is, that man is not free to follow his highest Desire,
when, for the protection of himself and family, he is
impelled to attempt to profit by an exchange. Man's
economic condition is easily susceptible of improvement,
if honest, high-minded men will demand their freedom
and adopt some plan where they are at liberty to pro-
duce freely and exchange their products equitably.

Liberty 407

Another step that wotild make us free to follow and
utilize the self -enforcing law of supply and demand is
to have a scientific knowledge of the time value and
the intrinsic value of at least the staple articles of
commerce. Probably the only authorized attempt
which has ever been made to get this knowledge was by
the Btueau of Mines. This does find intrinsic value
of varieties of coal according to the ntimber of heat
units evolved, which knowledge it is said has benefited
both producer and consumer. I believe, however, it
is one of the duties of the present Tariff Commission
to gain this information on protected articles. This
knowledge would act simply as a balance or governor
and give more intelligent reason to our demand. A
self-enforcing law wiU in time impel man to demand
that which is of the most worth to him. Then a
knowledge of intrinsic values will be useful. Now
those who are most able to demand give little thought
to intrinsic value. Does the increased expenditure
of money by the rich increase their worth as an indi-
vidual in a like ratio? Aside from absolute main-
tenance, man's labor must make him worth more;
his knowledge must make him worth more ; his pleasures
must make him worth more, or they are wasted so far
as the man or humanity is concerned. That man is
worth the most who has attained the greatest degree
of liberty; that man is the most worthless who is the
most licentious. One man may be intellectually free
and physically bound by sin, another man may be
physically free from sin and licensed to preach lies.
Men crave liberty. Liberty is freedom to follow the
highest Desire and utilize Power. "Ye shall know the
truth and the truth shall make you free." What is
truth? Simply natural law.

CHAPTER XXV

MAN

1SAID in the introduction that my conception of
Being embraced ideas regarding man's existence.
I did not mean that I had any conception of what the
ptirpose of man's existence embraces. The common
conception of the pitrpose of man's mtmdane existence
is that it is a probation for the ptirpose of testing his
fitness for an eternal celestial existence in personal
companionship with the Creator. "Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. " The test
of this belief is a conformity to certain Church laws and
the doing of a certain amount of work (paying for a
substitute will answer) to get others to believe, with
the possible tdtimate of getting all to believe and be
saved. That this was the conception of Christ and
Paul I do not believe. That future immortality is no
part of the Hebrew religion is plain to many. As they
had no inspiration on that point, they were divided in
opinion among themselves.

The definition of the term "salvation," as interpreted
according to the different religions, will vary. In one
it means individual life after death ; in another it means
an immerging of the individual into the whole; in
another, it means the final perfection of man on earth.
Salvation, according to these conceptions more or less

vague, with sundry variations thereon, forms the

408

Man 409

central theme of all religions. The first definition is
accepted by many, Christian and SpirituaKst. The
second definition is accepted by many, Materialists
and Buddhists. The third definition is accepted by
many, as Elihu, Paul, and myself (it is easy, on paper,
to get into good company).

I believe the object of man's existence as a human
being is to be matured on this earth, and as soon as
man, or a sufficient number of men, is in a condition
near enough perfection to permit, the revelation of the
object of man's existence will be manifest in some form.

Let us analyze man's present condition. We may
view it in five relations: as -physical, mental, moral,
economic, and spiritual.

Man's physical condition is perfected. To avoid
criticism I must define this broad statement. The
genus homo is as nearly perfect as any other genus.
It may be true that the erectile ear muscles, the coccyx,
the vermiform appendix, etc., are useless remnants of
former conditions and that in the future these may more
fully atrophy. But, with the exception of the adaptive
development of certain parts of the separate person,
there is no proof or even suggestion that the character
of the genus homo has altered in the geological past,
or must alter in the futvue. We say, therefore, that
the physical man is perfected. The physique of the
individual is modified by heredity and environment.
Each of these in turn depends to a great degree on the
economic condition. The term "economic" will be more
ivlly defined later. Here it may be admitted that the
man who works too hard on too little nourishment, and
the man who works too little with appetite satiated,
will physically deteriorate, and there will be more or
less tendency to transmit such deterioration to his

4IO An Unorthodox Conception of Being

descendants. The present economic condition of civi-
lized people shows its results on the physique. Take a
number of persons at random from a civilized commu-
nity, and an equal number from an aboriginal tribe,
where natural opportunities are equally as good, and
those of the civilized class will show a greater divergence
from the type, and rather more below than above the
normal line of physical perfection. This, we say, is
the result following the unnatural condition of civiliza-
tion, and may be remedied by getting back to the
"simple life." I wish to interpolate here that I do
not believe that getting back is a solution of any
imperfection, for, if any former condition had been
satisfactory, there would have been no aspirations
which would have resulted in changing those conditions.
The physical condition, which I, in common with all,
admit might be bettered by the simple life, is only one
part of the general condition of man.

Man's mental condition is not perfect. By mental
condition I mean the condition contingent on brain
development. I do not mean that it is essentially
imperfect, but that it is in process of development.
This development depends, in a great degree (some say
entirely) on heredity and environment. And, as I
said before, these in turn depend to a great degree on
economic conditions. It is a recognized fact that
pupils in school cannot develop mentally unless properly
nourished, and it is a fact (frequently exaggerated)
that the majority of the pampered children of the rich
fall below the average requirements of mental develop-
ment. Take a number of persons at random from any
civilized community and an equal number from any
aboriginal tribe, and those of the civilized class will
show a great divergence from the mental type, but the

Man 41 1

divergence is above the normal line, instead of below,
as before. As I said that the proper development of
the mental condition, as well as a perfect physical
condition, depended, to a degree, on economic con-
ditions, and as getting back to the simple life will not,
in the ultimate, develop the mental condition, my
definition of a proper economic condition cannot be
synonymous with the simple life. This synonsmiy
is an orthodox belief with many.

Before defining my idea of a proper economic con-
dition, we must consider man's moral condition. My
term "moral " is susceptible of many descriptions. It
might, by combining the various definitions, be easy
to show that one man was as moral as any other man,
or that every man was whoUy immoral. Morality may
be measured by rules, laws, utility, sympathy, religion,
motives, conscience, etc., giving so many standards
that, in speaking of man's moral condition, it is possible
only to generaUze. Let us take an equal number of
any race of people, and, judging by their own standard
of morals, one race is no way morally different from
another. Take an equal number from any of the
various religions, and, judging by their standard of
morals, one class of believers is no more moral than
the other. Take, even, two congregations of the same
denomination, say a Methodist congregation in the
city and another in the mountains of West Virginia.
Their religion and creed are the same, yet the moral
standard of the two is different. Theatre-going and
bridge would damn one in the country, while feuds and
moonshining would equally damn one in the city.
While their religion or creed does not sanction these
practices in any case, yet the moral standard does
allow to a degree practices in one place that would not

412 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

be allowed in the other place. But all classes, accord-
ing to their own standard, are equally moral. Take an
equal number of the "bloated monopolists," members
of the Bar, "Wall Street sharks, " East Side merchants,
and denizens of the Bowery dives; all these are classed
as thieves by some, but extend the classes to embrace
the artists of Bohemia, and farmers in a specific com-
munity, and the commission men who handle their
produce; it is obvious that all these classes are not
botmd by the same standard of morals, or, as it is
usually expressed, "code of ethics."

Designating one phase of morality, honesty, most of
us would impulsively say that the farmers were as a
class the most honest. "The honest old farmer, " is a
current expression. But, of a certain number of farmers,
what proportion would stand to lose half their fortune
by simply a nod of the head or a wave of the hand?
Or, to put it more direct, if you had the nod of the
head of ten brokers, "on change," confirming a deal
which meant the loss of a thousand dollars to each and
a gain of a thousand dollars to you from each, and, on
the other hand, if you had the unwitnessed word of
each of ten farmers, confirming a deal, which maturing
before any other security was given, showed a net loss
to each of a thousand dollars and a like gain to you,
through which source would you expect to come the
more nearly getting your ten thousand dollars? In
spite of the obvious answer, the broker would not pose
as more honest than the farmer. The standard of
morals enforced in their business is different. Between
these two classes, who shall decide which standard is
the higher? In aU these classes there will be about an
equal degree of conformation of the individuals to the
standard by which they are governed.

Man 413

The moral standard is gauged by its bearing finan-
cially, socially, and religiously. Nowhere and in no
class is there a recognized standard of morals. Therefore,
instead of saying that people are governed by a standard
of morals, it might be more nearly correct to say that
the condition of the class to which the individuals belong
fixes their kind of moral standard.

Is it not obvious that if we are given the financial,
social, and religious condition of the people in a com-
munity, or of a specific number of people in any com-
munity, we may arrive at a standard of morals to which
each individual will so closely conform that we say that
he is governed by that standard? Condensing this
further, we may say that the condition of a class of
people fixes their morals, or man's moral standard is
fixed by conditions. This conclusion may be more
obvious than enlightening.

So far man's condition has been related as physical
and mental, and it has been stated that these conditions
depended to a large degree on his economic condition.
If morals depend on a condition not defined, the only
condition we have mentioned by which it can be defined
is the economic condition.

Before going on to consider the economic condition,
I will draw another obvious conclusion regarding the
moral condition. Let us compare the various stand-
ards of morality by which we say the various classes are
governed. According to our ideas of morality, we say
some standards are high and some are low. The
purely physical standard, which prevents one from
IdlHng another tmless he is able, or keeps one from
stealing from another, while being watched, seems to be
one of the first standards, which, as a condition, we
would enforce. The higher physical standard, given

414 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

authority in some of our statute laws, may be too high
for some and is certainly too low for others. The mental
standards, called utilitarian, or altruistic, are still
higher, and takes one into conditions that are as yet
ideal, and, therefore, give a standard difficult ^to follow.
This difficulty is well brought out by Tolstoi, who
says in My Religion (not quoting verbatim but in sub-
stance). "I divide my substance with the poor. I
have only a crust and a blanket left ; here comes a poor
beggar with neither. I share with him my crust; I
share with him my blanket. I arise in the morning
and find the blanket covered with the beggar's vermin.
I bid him take the blanket, for, to me, cleanliness is
next to godliness. I am naked and hungry, and have
naught left but my reHgion. "

Now, viewmg the various standards of morals of
high and low degree, the obvious conclusion I wish to
draw is this: of that class governed by the low standard
of morals, a larger proportion will live rather above the
standard; while of that class governed by the high
standard of morals (including even the "wholly sancti-
fied"), more will fall below the standard than will
live above it. This is obvious, not only from observa-
tion, but from the fact that the mean is between the
extremes. I can imagine many ready to criticise this
way of neutralizing man's moral condition, and armed
with any number of arguments to show that man's
physical, mental, and economic condition are all de-
pendent on man's moral condition. Will such critics
claim that man's spiritual condition depends on his
moral condition, instead of vice versa? I think not,
so let the criticism pass until we have finished.

The position of neutrality which I give morality
comes, not only on account of its mean position between

Man 415

the physical and mental, and the economic and spiritual
conditions, but on account of the utter lack of a specific
standard of morality. The motive is frequently taken
as a measure of morality. I have no doubt that the
motives of the Thug and of the Nihilist are as good as
yours or mine. But, for all that, we do not Hke their
standard of morals. While we will all agree that our
standard is the correct one, we will likewise disagree
in any attempt to define it. ^

I win go on now to consider the economic condition
of man. __We said that man's physical condition was
perfect, personally modified by his heredity and environ-
ment, and influenced by economic conditions. We said
that man's mental condition was developing, and, in-
dividually, this development was modified by heredity
and environment, and influenced by economic condi-
tions. As we said that civilization showed a tendency
towards physical deterioration, but a mental develop-
ment, civilization cannot be synonymous with the best
economic condition. I wiU define economic condition
by saying that it is the condition in which and whereby
man maintains his being. That would then be the
best economic condition which would best preserve a
perfect physical condition and would best aid the
development of the mental condition. And if morality
is subject to conditions, or is a condition, that of
necessity would also correspond.

So far the definitions and assumptions will hardly be
denied, but I do not expect such an agreement with my

■ According to the Comprehensive Conception, high or low morals
simply confonn to high or low Desire, and that Desire is Highest
whose continued gratification yields the greatest degree of satisfaction.
Opinion as to which Desire would lead to the greatest degree of satis-
faction would naturally vary according to the development of the
comprehension, and conditions may hinder or aid the development.

4i6 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

description of this condition. One might impulsively
say that the man who had the most money was in the
best economic condition. This might hold, if financial
and economic were synonymous terms. The Hotten-
tot in his tent and the magnate in his mansion are at
opposite extremes of the financial scale, but the natural
effects of their economic condition may be equally de-
plorable. When Solomon said, "give me neither pov-
erty nor riches, " he seemed to recognize the fact that
riches did not perfect condition, though, like the most
of us, had we Hke opportunities, his faith in the assertion
was not strong enough to cause him to refuse the riches.

Before describing the best economic condition, I must
define my meaning of two words to be used. All that
has been produced by man may be divided into two
parts called '^vealth and capital. Any specific kind
of thing may be in either class. Wealth is that which
represents the necessities and luxuries of life. Capital
is that which is used in producing or distributing, or as
a source of income. House, clothing, and food we will
call necessities; carpets, pictures, and piano we will
call luxuries. As a man may rent his house and owe
for his piano, he is using another man's capital. So,
in speaking of a man's wealth, I wiU mean only the net
part which is free from incumbrances. Capital might
be defined as aU that which is used as the tools of labor,
or as a means of profit, and wealth be defined as the
balance. House, clothes, pictures, or education might
be either capital or wealth, according to its use. While
this use of the words is not without authority, I will
admit that it is rather arbitrary, but, as it is for the
purpose of defining a condition, such use should be
admissible. Having defined the words " wealth " and
"capital," I wiU continue.

Man 417

The best economic condition is that in which the
personal capital is the nearest to the average, and the
wealth the greatest above the average, with each
increasing.

I will make various applications according to this
description and see if it holds good. We will first
suppose that all have ap. average capital. This is
practically the state of aboriginal man, where all have
to work to an equal degree for a living, and capital is
small. This may, in various ways, be brought up to
the point where the capital is very large, but, being
used in common, the average is maintained and all
have to work to an equal degree for a living, although,
on account of the increase of capital, each would not
have to work so hard and the work would bring greater
proportional results. It will hardly be denied that a
certain amotmt of work is necessary for the best physical
and mental condition and even the moral condition.
Work would be a necessity according to the best
economic condition. This does not define whether the
work is two hours a day or ten hours a day. Nor,
according to the definition, with education (meaning
mental or special talent of any kind), classed as capital,
would it mean that each should perform an equal
amoimt of manual labor. Nor does it mean that,
with the same capital, each would be restricted to the
same amount of production. It really means that, so
far as production goes (distribution being essential,
is understood), that is the best economic condition
which gives each one the nearest to his eqidtable share
of his production and the greatest amount of production
according to his labor. This statement is so self-evident
that he who contradicts it is self -convicted of selfishness.
There is no way of evading the fact that, for each
37

4i8 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

amount that one gets above his share, some one or more
must have an equivalent amount below. The chapter
on Equity showed how capital might be quickly
equalized to a certain degree by co-operation of the
producers competing with the capitalists. Then, if
capital was rendered tinproductive from lack of labor,
it would qtiickly exchange for products. That is, go
from the hands of capitalists to the hands of producers.
The equaHzation of the opportunity to produce will
not, of itself, be the best economic condition. This
equalization, and even an equal division of the products,
forms the essential feature of many Socialistic proposals
to solve the problem. Men are not equal, nor do I
believe they ever wiU be, and, therefore, equality forms
no part of mjj ideal existence. Equity is essential to
our highest development but equality is not essential
or material.

Under equal opportunity of production (meaning
the same as possessing average capital), some wotild
produce more than others; some, by working longer
hotus, and some by working more skilfully or intelli-
gently. The way in which the products are utiUzed
fixes man's economic condition no less than the ability
to produce. Ordinarily, according to the present eco-
nomic plan, the greater the proportion of the product
that is converted into capital, the better financier is
such a producer supposed to be. The object of this
is supposed to be to obtain a greater income. The
income obtained from capital beyond a certain amount
is almost invariably at the expense of a part of some
other one's share of the product. There are many at
present, who are unable to expend their income, even
by extravagant means, and this excess is of necessity
issued as capital. This inverted pyramiding of capital

Man 419

must, of mathematical certainty, have its limit. This
limit is extended, at present, by increased gold produc-
tion, increased banking facilities, increased inflation of
securities, increased credit, and increased prices. The
increased income must be taken from the producers'
share. Whenever, for any reason, there is inability of
the laborer to give his share (scarcity of labor), or there
is imwillingness of the income class to accept the pro-
ducts (over production), there is depression, prices are
affected, credit shrinks, and securities depreciate.
That is, a certain amount of capital ceases topayincome,
and that relieves, to some extent, the effect of the
inverted pyramiding. A few are able to take advantage
of these depressions, but with these few exceptions,
every panic has a tendency toward equalizing capital.
The few who are able to take advantage are those who
do not have to sacrifice securities, whose credit is
better than that of some other one. Every panic
helps to make the rich richer, but not, as many say,
"and the poor poorer. " It shakes back into the pro-
ducing class thousands who supposed they were getting
into the income class. Were this not so, it would be
only a question of time before twenty-five per cent,
of the people would be supporting the other seventy-
five per cent., instead of seventy-five per cent, support-
ing the other twenty-five per cent. It is the thousands,
yes, millions, and I have no doubt the vast majority
who have evolved into the "near rich," on accoimt of
their owning some stock, even if it is no more than in a
paper gold mine, and who having a taste or an antici-
pation of a taste of an income, make almost any co-
operative plan inoperative, if that plan has a tendency
to sacrifice the income dream.

It would conform to the idea of equal capital if, like

420 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

in the good old time, each one raised all he used
and used all he raised, but economic civilization has
enforced a co-operation. Manufacturing plants and
railroad systems are but a co-operative evolution. By
enforced monopoly or mutual co-operation, this will
necessarily extend through all productive and distri-
butive channels to the economical limit.

The individual carmot win in competition with the
monopoly. Individual producers must co-operate.
Monopolists cannot win in competition with co-oper-
ative production.

At present, even the best of the laborers, mechanics,
artisans, chemists, inventors, etc., are dependent on the
capitalist. Co-operative evolution would absorb the
best producers, for they will want the best, and there
can be no better for an honest man than getting his due
share of his production. This wiU gradually leave the
capitalist more and more dependent on what is now
considered the most dependent class, the weak, the
shiftless, the lazy, the degenerate. These, to the degree
to which they had less capital than the average, would
have to labor for those whose capital was above the
average. Economic conditions would gradually elim-
inate these classes. For the present, we will consider
them negligible and continue with the application.

Legal compulsory co-operation cannot succeed any
more than legal compulsory competition can succeed.
Legal Socialism would be as futile as are the anti-trust
laws. Successful co-operation must be spontaneous,
but when successful, economic conditions will force in
the recalcitrant just as they are now forced into the
trust. According to a plan similar to that outlined in
the chapter on Equity, the bankrupt property placed
in the exchange, essentially capitalistic in its nature,

Man 421

such as factories, railroads, banks, etc., would remain
as capital, but bankrupcty is not legal compulsion;
though its form of receivership is under legal direction.
True independence can come only by co-operation.
The evolution may be gradual.

Simply equalized capital is not the best condition,
but, granting an equal opportunity to the producer, let
us see how he might improve his condition. Co-opera-
tion means more product with equal labor, or the same
product with less labor. Those who retain, for any
reason, a disinclination for labor, will produce just
sufficient to satisfy, and the latter option, of less labor,
will be chosen. Others, who have greater requirements,
wiU labor more and obtain a greater production. What
is done with this production will fix, to a degree, the
economic condition. The result of one's labor will go,
as it does now, according to the personal inclination,
but under the differing conditions, there will be different
inclinations than at present exist. There would be
limitation to the incomes, which limitation, being
known, would eliminate the present incentive to "put
on," to give the impression of a "near rich," and a
"has arrived." Then, there would be no need to put
on style to obtain credit, for there woidd be no credit.
"No credit!" I hear the financier howl in derision;
"Why, the whole economic fabric of the cotmtry is
built up on credit; business is maintained by credit."

Now, I do not mind being heterodox in finance any
more than I do in science or religion. "Business is
maintained by credit," sounds orthodox, does it not?
Business is maintained by debts, sounds foolish, does
it not? Yet the statements are absolutely alike. Every
credit is a debt. But, debts or credits, checks or cash
have no influence whatever on the productive ability

422 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

of this country. They simply represent the unequal
distribution of capital, and, under a co-operative basis,
debtor and creditor would cease to be antagonistic.
To return to the disposition of the products. Some
might squander them in riotous living, but that would
injure the physical condition, and such a condition
would not maintain the best economic condition. The
product, aside from the portion essential to an increase
of capital, represented by improved machinery, addi-
tional distributing facilities, etc., must necessarily go
in such a way as to show that man's other conditions
are preserved or improved. We do not directly seek
to improve our moral condition. We each think we
can be more or less moral irrespective of conditions.
The physical condition is maintained by a certain
amoxmt of work, and refraining from spending the
products thereof to the injury of the body. We now
have left only the proper development of the mental
condition. After absorbing a sttfficient quantity of the
product as food, clothing, and shelter to sustain the
body, and increasing the capital as stated, there should
remain a fair portion as net wealth, acciimulating in
quantity and quality according to individual inclina-
tions. As production would depend (capital and hours
of labor being equal) not only on the physical but the
mental condition, the wealth would give the necessary
material for mental development. Wealth does not
mean simply accumulated material, but worth. Many
a mansion has books and pictures of no worth because
they are there to give the impression that the owner
has a mental condition that is entirely lacking. The
books are not read, the pictures are not appreciated,
and their position renders them worthless. That wealth
is of most worth which, by its accumulation, tends best

Man 423

to a development of the mental condition. That which
would best develop one brain would not be best for
another. A year's travel might be wealth to one; the
acquisition of a Stradivarius might be wealth to another.
The mental requirements are of such contrasting variety
that wealth would have no absolute standard. To set
its standard by its use in mental development according
to the increased productive power would be to capitaKze
it and, to that extent, degrade it. Many believe there
is something essential to the welfare of man aside from
the purely utilitarian. I will make no attempt to
show the difference. I have made my application in
such a way that I hope my meaning is plain, even if it
is not accepted. I say that the best economic condition
is when capital is nearest the average and wealth the
greatest above the average, and each increasing.

I will now consider the spiritual condition of man.
The Idealists say that these imperfect conditions are
illusions which faithful ignoring will dispel ; that Being
must of necessity be perfect. Materialists and Monists
say that the conditions I have considered are all the real
conditions there are; that there is no real spiritual con-
dition ; that Being must of necessity be imperfect. Dual-
ists say there is a spiritual condition, but measure it by
adherence to Chiurch creed or a spectacular foray against
the Devil and his works, or by an ascetic fight against
the flesh and the appurtenances thereof, or by a sublime
renunciation of the world and all therein. They make
psychic religions and spiritual conditions synonymous.

I conceive the spiritual condition of man to be that
condition which permits a cognition and interpretation
of the Desire of the Ego. The interpretation would of
necessity be sensual, and the result of the manifestation
would be physical, or mental which could be manifest

424 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

in an objective form. Therefore, the Materialists say
they are of physical or mental origin. So obvious is it
that there are no purely spiritual results here, that
Dualists say the results are to be in the Hereafter.

The best spiritual condition is that in which the
individual can best perceive and follow his aspirations;
when he can best cognize and most accurately interpret
his inspirations; when he can best comprehend and
follow his Highest Desire. The best economic condition
will give the opportunity for the best spiritual condition.
It seems obvious that it gives the best opportunity for
following aspirations, but other things so affect the
equation that the results would show many exceptions.
In the first place, every man would have to be his own
judge as to whether or not he was following his Highest
Desire in his accepted aspiration. Time would tell
whether or not his aspirations were correctly interpreted
and executed. It is plain, from my definition of
volition, that aspirations and inspirations would be
more subject to volition than would be the physical
and mental impressions. With inspiration especially
subject to volition, and volition subject to no definite
cause, it is plain that it would be a mere speculation to
definitely co-ordinate the best spiritual condition with
the best of the other conditions.

The spiritual, or inspirational, condition of Shake-
speare and Poe was good, but, from the records, we would
say that their other conditions were not good. If
the spiritual condition of Byron and Goethe were good,
it is plain that, according to the general standard, it
is not synonymous with the moral condition. While
the best physical, mental, and economic conditions will
not, of necessity, give the best spiritual conditions, yet,
to say that the best spiritual condition is independent

Man 425

of these wotild be to say that it was through chance
that Spinoza was a Caucasian instead of a Tasmanian.

The suggestion of the Highest Desire, which we
cognize as being an aspiration and inspiration, is no
more like the interpretation which we give it, although
the interpretation may be correct, than a pain is like
a pin. I believe that all that can be known a priori as
a fact could be known intuitively, deductively, but it
would be a thousand chances to one against any specific
intuition being correct, that is, being correctly inter-
preted. Mathematics would be the least subject to
misinterpretation. There have been numerous mathe-
matical prodigies of whom Zera Colbum is the best ex-
ample. He would answer instantaneously mathematical
questions which would require many hours for mathema-
ticians to solve. His solutions were by the deductive
method, but when he was educated to use the inductive
method, or reason, he lost the ability to interpret by the
deductive method. His mental condition improved, but
his spiritual condition failed. It points the contrast in my
use of the word spiritual, v/ithout casting any reflection,
when I say that he then became a Methodist minister.

I have tried to make plain that, according to my
conception, evolution is on account of Desire. It is
primarily aspirational, inspirational. While I use the
words as applying to the Ego, yet it is in no liigher
sense than atomic desire (except as already defined).
Man's mental evolution as manifest in civilization
and knowledge is primarily aspirational, inspirational,
spiritual. This is applicable to every phase of man's
development, secular as well as sacred. It is hard to
understand how any one believing in the immanence of
God can find a radical difference in the application of
these two words, secular and sacred.

426 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

"The idea possesses the man." Intuitions, aspira-
tions, inspirations. Inner Light, Comforter, Holy Ghost,
Spirit of Truth, Highest Desire, are all terms expressing
the same conception. It seems to me that Highest
Desire is the most expressive of what we are to find
in the introspective search for a personal guide. It
designates the abstract with a definite meaning.

The potter may be as necessary as the painter. A
mental failure might have succeeded as a "fiddler on a
saw buck." "Now there are diversities of gifts, but
the same spirit. " "Nay, much more those members of
the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. "
In the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters of
I. Corinthians, Paul brings out this subject much more
clearly than I could.

But, granting that man may finally reach a condition
in aU respects nearly perfect; what then? In answer to
that, I will say, I do not know. I cannot even conceive.
I believe that such a condition is the essential condition
of man for the beginning of the accomplishment of the
object of his mundane existence. It will reqtiire some
work to get ready to begin. We must be saved first.
We must work out our own salvation with fear and
trembling, not in fear and trembling, but with them.
When we can get rid of these we are saved.

The economic condition of man is the most concrete
of the given conditions. It is the one condition which
seems to be under otir control. It is the one condition
on which, to a greater or less degree, the previously
mentioned conditions depend. ' I have defined the best

' It seems that this idea has been fully worked out by Marx and Engels
and is now recognized by the phrase "economic determinism," first
applied to it by Enrico Ferri, Socialism and Modern Science, page 163:

"If we leave out of consideration the two unscientific explanations

Man 427

economic condition. I have vaguely outlined a plan
which might aid in bringing about such a condition.
But I have admitted that the best spiritual condition
wotild not necessarily follow. As a supplementary
aid to the establishment of the best spiritual condition,
and in lieu of or in addition to the present denomi-
national organizations, but with an authoritative
head higher than any of the churches acknowledge, I
submit the following plan; to which plan you are at
liberty of pledging yoturself without waiting for the
consent of any other person or nation on earth.

FEAR NOT
GOD IS LOVE

Certificate and Pledge of active Membership in the
Association of Love.

1. Our only Officer, Leader, and Lawgiver in this
Association is the Highest Desire within Us.

2. Our Corporate Name is Love.

3. Our Aggressive Motto is, "Perfect love casteth
out fear. "

4. Our Defensive Motto is "Judge not that ye be
not judged. "

5. Our Object in Organizing is to Free Ourselves
and Others from Fear.

6. Our Result will be Freedom from Fear, which

State is Happiness.

Signed

of free will and divine providence, we find that two one-sided and there,
fore incomplete, although correct and scientific, explanations of human
history have been given. I refer to the physical determinism of Montes-
quieu, Buckle, and Metchnikofif, and to the anthropological determinism
of the ethnologists who find the explanation of the events of history in
the organic and physical characteristics of the various races of man.
" Karl Marx sums up, combines, and completes these two theories
by his economic determinism. "

428 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

The word happiness as used here has been criticised.
If you know of any other word more expressive of
man's consciousness of a relatively perfect condition,
use it. The condition is of more importance than the
word used to typify that condition.

There has never been any need to fear God. Many
men are recognizing this fact. The fear of the Devil
is needless so long as we obey the law and preserve our
liberty. The fear of man is an actual condition. But
this fear we may escape at some time more or less re-
mote, through concerted efforts similar to The Society
of Equity and The Association of Love.

The last enemy to be conquered is Death. Then,
may we say, "O death, where is thy sting, O grave,
where is thy victory?" This cannot be logically
interpreted as an escape from spiritual death or anni-
hilation. It means just what it says, that "this mortal
must put on immortality. " It is an entirely different
conception from that expressed by "we shall shufHe
oflf this mortal coil." Death comes. Many think it
is a necessary occurrence within a duly appointed time.
There is no agreement by scientists as to why it is
necessary in the case of man. Niimbers of the infusoria,
several of the tree family, and probably the tortoise
or turtle die through accidental causes only. So far as
known every cause of death of man is theoretically
preventable, even those causes which are usually lumped
under the head of "old age." The practical applica-
tion to meet all the emergencies of any individual case
may be exceedingly complex, though I am under the
impression that, in the evolution of medicine and sug-
gestive therapeutics, the final solution will be relatively
simple.

By a mental suggestion, we may cause certain glands

Man 429

to secrete saliva. Under the proper suggestion, properly
given, any gland in the body would secrete or inhibit a
secretion. The secretion of a proper opsonin by sug-
gestion would seem more simple as well as more practical
than causing the secretion by the injection of dead
germs as they do at present; and the prevention of
toxin would seem logically better than injecting anti-
toxin. However, we had to crawl before we could
walk, and there was quite a spell of walking before we
could fly.

In psychology as well as hygiene a correct diagnosis
of the trouble is the essential point, and in "fact the
longest step toward a remedy. While I do not say that
freedom from Fear will insure immortality, I believe
it will constitute an important and essential feature.
And when I say that I believe that freedom from Fear
can come only through perfect Love, and that God is
Love, why should the orthodox "damn " my heterodoxy?
My only defence is, "Judge not that ye be not judged. "

CHAPTER XXVI

ONTOLOGY

IN speaking of the immortality of man, I do not mean
to convey the idea that this human form wotild
continue to all eternity, but even at that, I would prefer
the human form to the angelic, with the incumbrance
of two wings and a harp. My family history shows that
I never was an angel — I am sure I have never wanted
to be one, and my Christian friends are equally sure
that I never will be one.

I can be no more definite in my limitation of immor-
tality than I was in my limitation of time. Some Hmit
it to the Millennium (a thousand years, I think, is the
figure). I do not believe that any limit is fixed for
the duration of life.

There is a common sa3dng that "man proposes, but
God disposes." I think this is transposed; it should
be, "God proposes, but man disposes." If we should
follow the Highest Desire; if we should live according to
the Will of God; if we should obey the laws of nature
(you may take your choice of the statements, they mean
the same thing), you will acknowledge that our condi-
tion would be better. God is disposed to do well by us,
but we do not have the disposition to follow His law
written in the mind and heart. "In vain do ye worship
Him, for ye accept for doctrine the commandments of

430

Ontology 431

men." Without fixing a limit to immortality (which
state has yet to be attained), I am satisfied that where
there is a beginning, there is an ending. I have not
made even an effort to conceive a thing with only one
end. This is as applicable to the angelic state (shotild
there be such a state) as to the human state.

Of the transcendental ideas relating to man, the first
in sequence would be that of a beginning. I have said
that the Ego is eternal, having neither beginning nor
end, Kant has shown rather conclusively that this
idea (eternity), as well as the idea of individuality
(simplicity), and volition (liberty), and inteUigent
desire (design), as a thesis or antithesis, may be proved
or disproved according to his accepted rules of logic.
But he admitted that, while not warranted by Ptire
Reason, yet, to satisfy the mind, the thesis must be
believed.

The mental development of man on the deductive side
reached its high tide during the time of the Scholastics.
The Scholastic philosophy was naturally antecedent
to the philosophy of Hume and Kant. Deductive
philosophy, ungovemed by the inductive, is erratic.
Himie and Kant, by Pure Reason, put an everlasting
limit to the erraticism of the Scholastic schisms. The
Baconian inductive method had already begun to be
effective. Knowledge was building on a sure foun-
dation. So thoroughly were the deductive methods
discredited that many denied that such methods were,
or could be, of any effect. So far to the other extreme
have the MateriaUsts gone that they do not agree with
Kant's arbitrary admission of the thesis, but, with a
greater degree of dogmatism, insist that anything but
the antithesis is an insult to the mind. I think the
high tide of Materialism has been reached. The

432 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

scientific publications of the present century show
theories that are much more nearly akin to deductions
than to inductions. Philo says, "Inspiration comes
ahead of demonstration. " I believe that the scientists
of the future will not be ashamed to acknowledge that
the deductive function of the brain is as valuable as
the inductive; that inspiration really preceded reason,
and that a progress where each is balanced, and devel-
oped, will be greater than by either alone.

Let us see if an agreement in the thesis and anti-
thesis of the transcendental idea is necessary to co-
operation in following the Highest Desire.

(i) Was there no begiiming (eternity)? We will
all probably admit that every form had a beginning,
and will in all probability have an ending; or at least
we are bound to admit that every form is changing
and the time of a complete change is the measure of the
duration of that form. This admission would cover
every form from a molecule to a universe, and is cer-
tainly all the agreement that is necessary. In fact,
anything more definite would be unprofitable.

(2) Is there an individual (Ego)? Is there an
indivisible atom (electron — simplicity)? We can agree
that, so far as we are concerned, there is, and always
will be, an ultimately indivisible. I may call this
psychically, the Ego; physically, the atom. You
may call it psychically, the soul; physically, the cor-
puscle or electron. Psychically or physically they can
be no different, for, in admitting the individuality, we
deny the essence (essential parts). Also, I think, we
will be forced to agree that whatever names are even-
tually found to best aid the logical conception of Being,
will receive authoritative (popular) sanction.

(3) Is there such a thing as volition (liberty)?

Ontology 433

I think we will agree in this; that Fatalists and Deter-
minists who disbelieve it, and various others through all
degrees to and including the Dualists who believe that
every motion or thought is subject to volition, all
perform their acts entirely uninfluenced by such belief
or unbelief. Therefore, the admission or denial of
volition will make absolutely no difference in our pro-
gress. But Materialists and Monists have no right to
deny the existence of volition and then criticise my
right to affirm its existence. My right to affirm is based
on as pure reason as their right to deny. If they will
say that they do not know whether it exists or not, I
wiU say the same. So we either agree or agree to
disagree, and the argument is ended without making
any difference.

(4) Is there an intelligent Desire (Designer) ?
We may agree that atoms act as though they were
conscious. They respond accurately to impulse. There
is a periodicity of their arrangement (atomic weight)
and of their motion (octave of sound and spectrum of
light). We may admit that nature would give the
impression of being designed. To me it seems more
plausible to think that nature manifests the Designer
by a spontaneous response of its atoms to a conscious
Desire, which varied Desire appears as Design, than
to think that the atoms move mechanically according
to an unconscious law, and these automatically result
in nature ; or to think that they are moved by mechani-
cal means by an exterior, objective Designer. When I
assume the existence of a conscious Desire (Designer),
no Materialist who denies its existence has a right to
criticise my affirmation, for my dogma is based on as
pure reason as his. If he says he does not know whether
One exists or not, I will reluctantly agree that I do

28

434 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

not know, but I will immediately affirm that my belief
in such an Intelligent Desire is so firmly fixed that the
denials of others, no matter how great the majority,
would not change that belief.

My conception of God may have changed since youth,
but it is still a belief, and I feel with Job, "though he
slay me, yet will I trust in him." But, whatever we
affirm as the nature of the Highest Desire, we must
admit that, of the Desires of which we are conscious,
one is the Highest, and that when there is apparent
conflict, the Highest would be the best one to follow.
Unless there is Design in this Desire, I see no reason
why following the right is preferable to following the
wrong. Aiding the Designer is following the Desire ; is
doing the Will o^God ; is conforming to the law of nature.

One other idea, that is not so much transcendental
as metaphysical, is the conception of the two anti-
thetical entities. Power and Force. This special idea
I supposed to be imique. Of course, there are Spirit and
Material; God and Devil; Matter and Motion; but
none of these combinations were expressive of enough,
and nowhere is there an attempt to make them, in a
logical way, include all. Even if there were one word
embracing the idea of Power and Desire, and another
word embracing the idea of Force and Fear, the new
words would find less use than these which express the
physical and psychical aspects.

I said I supposed the conception comprising the whole
universe in the two entities to be unique, but on reading
Poe's philosophical work, Eureka, ' I found that he had

' [Published as "Eureka: A Prose Poem, " Geo. P. Putnam, New York,
1848, and dedicated to Alexander von Humboldt.]

[To the few who love me and whom I love — to those who feel rather
than to those who think — to the dreamers and those who put faith in

Ontology 435

the same idea. He uses similar words (Attraction and
Repulsion). It is true that he reverses them, saying
Repulsion and Attraction; conceiving Force, the unseen
as the more spiritual, and Power, the material, as the
baser part; Force, the supernatural, and Power, the
natural. That this idea, elaborated in the longest of
Poe's works and embellished with his ability, should
have apparently sunk into oblivion augurs poorly for the
acceptance of my independent idea. Unless perchance
his prophesy shall come true that, "It will rise again
to the Life Everlasting. "

We may admit the existence of the Absolute;
acknowledge that it is unsearchable; agree that it
is unknowable; and yet consistently claim that the
conception of its Being may be simple. The statement,
that, "all is God, which is perfect, and all else is illu-
sion," seems simple, but when we observe that the
most we perceive is imperfect, we think the statement
should be, "all is Illusion but god. " It is much easier
to ignore the little "god" than the prominent illusion.
Those who say that all is mind ignore the complexity
of phenomena. Those who have deduced, and the
many who have adopted, the statement, "all is elec-
tricity, " admit that the positive and negative charges
are not the same, nor is it affirmed that they are
interchangeable.

dreams as in the only realities — I offer this Book of Truths, not in its
character of Truth-Teller, but for the Beauty that abounds in its
Truth; constituting it true. To these I present the composition as an
Art-Product alone: — let us say as a Romance; or, if I be not urging too
lofty a claim, as a Poem.

What I here propound is true: — therefore it cannot die: — or if by any
means it be now trodden down so that it die, it will "rise again to the
Life Everlasting. "

Nevertheless it is as a Poem only that I wish this work to be judged
after I am dead.]

436 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

I have used the term Dualists, for that is an authori-
tative name designating those who beUeve in a Creator
separate from the creature, but the name is not com-
prehensive enough, for practically all Dualists believe
also in a personage (Devil) with the ability to conduct
a successful rebellion against the Creator, corrupt the
creatures, and attempt to bribe the Creator's Son to
join his side. Such ideas are comprehensible, but to
take them as comprehensible and try to correlate them
with other facts of Being, makes what to me at least
is an impossible conception.

The Monists are Idealistic Materialists. — I have been
called that myself as well as all other words expressive
of heterodoxy. The Materialists are practical Monists.
The Monists insist on one entity. It is true that my ad-
mission that Force is never manifest (physically) except
as motion is nearly equivalent to saying that there is
only matter and motion. To many this is the more sim-
ple conception, and it presents fully as great possibili-
ties, but, to me, it seems rather inert. While I admit
that matter in motion is all there is, yet, when I see the
motions vary while the co-relative mass does not vary,
I cannot help but conceive a separableness which
demolishes absolute Monism. If a specific amount of
motion is separable from a specific amount of matter
'(and, apparently, they may be separated), which is
the cause? Is it matter in motion or motion in matter?

The words Power and Force have an expression of
virility. It seems easy to conceive of Power and Force,
the two universal entities, as being conscious. But it
reqtiires an effort (which I am not surprised the Monists
do not make), to conceive that motion and matter are
conscious. When we say that Power is manifest as
matter, and Force is manifest as motion, and that these

Ontology 437

are materialized and become objectively perceptible
to us through energy, and subjectively -perceptible
to us as Desire and Fear, we have a logical sequence
and a consistency of expression. This seems to me a
simple yet comprehensive conception.

While this conception is my religion, because it
embraces my relation to the Supreme Being, yet I do
not advance any idea as a new religion. I make no
statement as having any authoritative weight. If my
conception appeals to any one, or aids any one in an
independent conception, I shall be pleased.

Equity, or the immediate improvement of the
economic condition of man, is a practical subject which
; should appeal to all. Some things have been tried and
failed. Let us try something else. Continued failures
may bring the necessary experience for success. Eu-
genics, or some other method of man's future develop-
ment, may become more practical as the ideal future
seems attainable. If the energy used, and practically
wasted in preparing for the hereafter, coidd be utilized
in improving the here, wonders might be accomplished.
Ontology, or the study of Being as a whole, may not
appeal to many, but, to the thinkers of the age, the
solution of its problems must appeal. Chemical action,
planetary motion, psychic phenomena, and all other
phenomena are related within the scope of man's
conception.

Is it worth while to endeavor to obtain a correct
conception of Being?

Physicists of the past century have accumulated a
wonderful aggregate of facts, many of them related,
some left unrelated logically because they cannot be re-
lated mechanically. Materialists insist that they con-
ceive of Being only as phenomena. Idealists say the

438 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

phenomena are changeable, fleeting, cannot be eternal,
and therefore, are of far less iraportance than the
noumena. Each looks at one side of the shield only.
There are two sides. The practical side is the one to
which we, as human beings, belong. Practically Being
is all phenomena. Every sensation is based on phe-
nomena, and every action must be expressed as phe-
nomena. Yet our reason is not satisfied alone with
phenomena. Materialists say it is all we can know.
True, but knowledge is not built on facts alone, but on
the correlation of facts. "Man cannot live on bread
alone, but by the word of God. " To conceive of Being
means to go beyond what we know of Being. What we
know has advanced civilization, but I doubt if to any
individual the knowledge has been any more satis-
factory than the acquisition of the knowledge, nor, if
we can take Spinoza's word, was the result any more
profitable than the pursuit.

In any comprehensive conception of Being, the
noimiena is as essential as the phenomena. Power and
Force are the noumena ; material and energy the phe-
nomena. Power and Force, alias a thousand other
names, afford great scope for the Idealistic romancer.
Confined to the noumena it is essentially a romance, for
it caimot be known as a fact. When one aims to
philosophize with these abstracts alone, the logical
entanglements are many and but few have met with
much success. It is doubtful if Gautama has ever been
surpassed. When one aims at a synthetic philosophy
relating the noumena to the phenomena in a logical
consistent way, it is building with little precedent.
This may be an advantage. It is much easier than the
more complex pursuits — just have a few ideas and a
few facts ; then patch them together logically and con-

Ontology 439

sistently. This is what I have aimed at in this book.
I do not know that I have even hit the target. I have
shot my independent ideas in that direction, and it is
some fun shooting, anyhow. When others have aimed
and shot (I am deeply convinced it is worth gunning
for), we may, in time, get some one to write a standard
of synthetic philosophy, a Critique equal to Kant. I
might, by dogmatism, have caused some to believe in
my ideas, but I much prefer that these ideas should
suggest to some one a line of thought that will lead to
good, or that some one may be persuaded to search for
an inspiration and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

One criticism that may be made of the book is that
it is superficial. How could a conception of Being ex-
pressed in f otir hundred pages be otherwise than super-
ficial? I have expressly avoided taking up any phase
of Being except such as seemed essential to show my
conception to be consistent with phenomena. I also
try to show it to be consistent with other conceptions.

I say there is nothing but what is or may be manifest
in the materialization of Power and Force. This is
Materialism.

I say there is nothing but what is or may be a mani-
festation of Desire limited by Fear. This is Idealism.

I say there is no form but what is or may be created
by Power and Desire (God and Holy Spirit), limited by
Force (Devil), and that these forms are the creatures.
This is Dualism.

I say there is nothing materialized but what is the
result of spontaneous movement of the atoms which are
identical in their essence (essentially alike). This is
Monism.

There are in these statements no meaningless words
used, and no qtiibbling or unequivocal language, yet,

440 An Unorthodox Conception of Being

with but a slight deviation, they are similar. What is
the diiJEerence? Simply a difference of conception.
These are the iow historical conceptions of Being.
Each and every one is reconciled in my conception,
not necessarily to the satisfaction of their adherents
but to my own satisfaction. For, unless I am able to
reconcile that which is true in each, I am not satisfied.
There is truth in each, or they would not be historical.
It is the refusal to recognize truth co-ordinated that
sects or separates the people.

I say, with the Materialists, that man is nothing but
a bunch of atoms (or electrons, to satisfy Idealistic
Materialists). I say, with the Idealists, that man is
formed by mind (Desire). I say, with the Dualists,
there is an immortal spirit in man (the atom, Ego).
I say, with the Monists, that man is the restilt of the
spontaneous movement of the atoms.

These simple statements do not by any means explain
the complexities of man. The life of every cell of the
body might merit volumes and teach only physiology.
We could go all over it again with the same cells, and
teach only psychology; and then again and teach only
biology.

It seems simple to differentiate the physical body and
the mental brain. The brain is no less physical than
the body. With every cell a living entity, every gan-
glion a conscious centre, the body is ho less mental than
the brain. Assume in addition to body and brain an
Ego, the seat of the individual consciousness, memory,
and volition. Desire of the Ego, as aspiration or in-
spiration, to be manifest to others, must be displayed,
by an action of the body. Consciousness must, to be
sensible, be interpreted. Memory, to become cognized
by consciousness, must be recollected. Volition is only

Ontology 441

manifest by will. Each of these mental reactions is a
function of the brain. The various organs of the body-
have their different functions. The various parts of
the brain are each identified with a special mental
function. Man is admittedly the most complex, but
all organic structures and even the inorganic are
indescribably complex.

I have made no attempt in this book to describe my
conception of Being except in its simplest relation.
Only the most profound of the specialistic scientists
have any conception of the complexities of the relations,
and they all admit that the further they are able to
penetrate the intricacies of even the simplest forms, the
more are they amazed at tne wonders of nature.

Some may criticise my presumption in calling this a
comprehensive conception, or for even expressing such a
conception. Such a criticism would be unjust if it is
understood that I make no pretence of giving it au-
thoritative value. Whether these ideas are valueless
remains to be seen. They are simply my independent
ideas. They might be more graphically and logically
expressed and the language in which they are clothed
might be changed so as to have literary merit. But
that there could be any better relation of man to God
than I have defined, or any higher work for man than I
have faintly suggested, or any better guide for this
work than man's Highest Desire, I cannot conceive.