Cobwebs of Thought | Page 6

term; it
is called Consciousness, Being, Ego, and anything else but mind.
Notwithstanding, we all feel what we mean by the word. Though the
senses divide the non-ego, the world outside us, into five separate
parcels, things seen, things heard, things smelt, things touched, things
tasted, there is a faculty of unifying, a sensation of unity in us, which
makes us conscious of all these separate sensations as forming a whole
in any object which comes into our consciousness. Kant has given this
unifying faculty, or sensation, a long name, which does not make it any
clearer. What is this inner power, which unifies sensations and how
does it come? In some way the mind supplies it to its mental states or
consciousness. And within us this unifying faculty, which we call Mind,
is felt through the infinite number of modifications of sensations or
mental states, for we are aware that what we call a mind exists in us. It
is this consciousness of unity in complexity, which makes memory and
identity possible. The exploded idea of mental substance and its
attributes, held by the School men, was probably suggested to them by
the consciousness of this mental unity. In our mentality there is
something which makes each one say "My mind," not "My minds."
Now it is this unity of sensations, which is lost, and the mind with it, if
the ego is divided as Professor W. James divides it into many egos such
as--the inner self--the complex self--the social self--the intellectual
self--and so on. For how does that help us? It is the same unknown
quantity in different circumstances. The self that ponders in thought,
knows itself as the same that talks in society. The strange power of
being able to analyse ourselves at all is one of the strangest things
about us. What a world of difference lies between the unconscious self
of the animal and this conscious self of man! Professor James'
brilliantly written chapter of investigation into the self leaves us
amused rather than enlightened. Against all arguments to the contrary,

we should refuse to give up the word mind, whether it is considered
vague or defective in any or every way. Mind in all its complexity, is
what we have to investigate scientifically. Mind in all its complexity is
what the philosopher has to explain, not mind, analysed into simple
acts of consciousness. The hypnotist talks of double, treble and
quadruple personalities with totally different characteristics "under
suggestion," but it helps us little for we have not yet defined mind on
its sane and normal sides. Considering the acuteness and the sanity of
the French mind, it is somewhat strange that the French psychologists
should devote themselves chiefly to the study of the insane and
hysterical. Philosophy, though it gives us soaring thoughts, grand
speculations, and metaphysical schemes, from Spinoza, Kant, Hegel,
and Schopenhauer, to Herbert Spencer, and Mr. Mallock, cannot give
us any knowledge in which they mutually agree. Mr. Mallock sums up
philosophy as a necessity to the mind. We must believe in some theory
of mind, some religion, some philosophy, else life is dreary and
unlivable. This appears to be the result of his book "The Veil of the
Temple," and this is simply the doctrine of utility. But no philosopher,
can tell us why mind works on certain lines and not on others, because
they cannot tell us definitely that they know what mind is. Mind is a
function of _Matter: Matter_ is a function of thought: Mind is
Noumenon the unseen and unknown, as contrasted with Phenomena the
seen and known; the universe, the creation of the mind; the mind, the
product of the universe. All these ideas and many others so widely
differing can none of them receive a demonstrable proof;--these
contrary statements show how far we are from possessing any real
knowledge of what mind is. After all that has been written, elaborated
and imagined, do we actually know more than Omar Khayam knew?
"There was the door to which I found no key; There was the veil
through which I could not see; Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee
There was--and then no more of Thee and Me."
Philosophy is still powerless to tell us what mind is; the self, the ego
always vanishes as we seem to be nearing it, it always eludes our
deepest probings--we only demonstrate our failure in regard to our
knowledge of it. All this is true, but should we therefore despair? If we
are born with the record on the brain of the inexorable desire to know,
the very failure should stimulate us to further, and greater, and more

fruitful questionings.

II.

CONTRASTS.
CARLYLE, GEORGE ELIOT, MAZZINI, BROWNING,
All contrasts drawn between writers, and thinkers should have for