if. 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY OR- CALIFORNIA 
 
 Received. 
 Accessions No. .'t s/u if JVo... 
 
 ;-S',v-., 
 
 ' ;: ^'":;.:':l 
 
THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM M. BRYANT. 
 
 "In each there is something of all." Anaxagoraa. 
 
 CHICAGO: 
 S. C. GRIGGS AND COMPANY, 
 
 1890. 
 
'B7T 
 
 COPYRIGHT 1890, 
 BY S. C. GRIGGS & COMPANY. 
 
 PRESS OF 
 
 KNIGHT & LEONARD CO. 
 CHICAGO. 
 
PKEFACE. 
 
 present volume owes its origin to studies that 
 -*- began more than twenty years ago. The studies 
 themselves were prompted by a desire which soon became 
 imperative. And that desire was to find a satisfactory 
 answer to the question: What is " Man's Place in 
 Nature ?" 
 
 Many things highly interesting and suggestive were 
 said from time to time -by the naturalists upon this 
 theme. And yet, as I came at length to notice, the 
 question itself seemed to be ambiguous. For, whatever 
 answer might be given it, all must depend at last upon 
 the answer to this further question, namely : What is 
 that reality which we call "Nature?" Allowing that 
 man is a product of "Nature/' there still seemed no 
 other way to learn the real nature and destiny of man 
 than through a successful inquiry as to the essence, 
 the inmost nature of "Nature" itself. If this term 
 "Nature" should prove to have a wider, and even so 
 much wider as to be a radically different, significance 
 from that which it is usually assumed to represent, 
 then our estimate of "man's place in Nature" must be 
 correspondingly modified. And this might very likely 
 
 iii 
 
IV PBEFACE. 
 
 mean nothing more nor less than that man's " nature " 
 is far more complex than could be inferred from any- 
 thing we are able to learn through what is commonly 
 understood by the descriptive phrase "Natural Science." 
 
 At the same time, the results in this particular field 
 of inquiry show a vitality in the method of inquiry 
 through which the results are obtained, that could not 
 be lightly esteemed. Indeed, the more I learned of the 
 "speculative" method of inquiry on the one hand, and 
 of the method of inquiry in Natural Science on the other, 
 the more did it appear to me that so far as men really 
 think, the method of their thinking not only must 
 prove, but actually does prove, to be one and the same. 
 The method may be consciously pursued, and thus may, 
 or rather must, itself become the object of investiga- 
 tion in which case it shows itself as explicitly " specu- 
 lative;" or, on the other hand, it may be unconsciously 
 pursued and applied (for example) in the investigation 
 of physical phenomena; in which case it is still "specu- 
 lative," though it is so only implicitly its form here 
 being that of "hypothesis." 
 
 It appeared, then, that in the scientific movement of 
 the present time we have the conspicuous external 
 counterpart, or rather complement, of the speculative 
 movement, which first assumed an explicit scientific 
 character with the Greek schools of thought, and which 
 again developed into special vigor and effectiveness in 
 Germany during the closing years of last century and 
 the first quarter of the present. 
 
PEEFACE. V 
 
 In short, the famous Hegelian dialectic is in truth 
 nothing less or else than the speculative aspect of the 
 doctrine of the Conservation of Energy, which consti- 
 tutes the vital element of all that is known as " Modern 
 Science." The former presents the principle of Evolu- 
 tion in its most abstract, but also in its most rigidly 
 consistent form. The latter unfolds the "dialectic" 
 under the form of the necessary relations or laws that 
 "govern," or rather constitute, natural (in the sense 
 of physical) phenomena. 
 
 Thus, instead of being contradictory the one of the 
 other, these two great movements are in reality but 
 complementary and increasingly adequate phases of the 
 ceaseless struggle on the part of the human mind to 
 bring itself into harmony with the actual world in its 
 essential, and therefore ultimate, significance. 
 
 It is true that on his part Hegel treated slightingly 
 the work of the empirical school, which had already 
 developed admirable results in his time. And the 
 members of this school have ample revenge when they 
 point to the astounding absurdities to be found in 
 Hegel's " Naturphilosopliie;" a work which, it cannot be 
 reasonably denied, consists in great part of a series of 
 perverse assumptions defying all observed facts. But, 
 on the other hand, empiricists who scoff at that method 
 which they (wrongly) assume to be fairly illustrated in 
 this work, have on their part only too often attempted 
 to interpret "Nature" without the guidance of any 
 clearly defined speculative principle; and precisely for 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 that reason they have been now and then betrayed into 
 speculations that would grace the most arbitrary pages 
 of Hegel's " Naturpliilosophie." 
 
 What Hegel needed was a better appreciation of the 
 empirical aspects of inquiry. What the empirical scien- 
 tist needs is a better appreciation of the speculative 
 aspects of inquiry. And clear indications are not 
 wanting that the true relation between the empirical 
 and the speculative is coming to be better understood 
 by many in both these special schools of thought. 
 
 If this be true, we may infer that the scientist of 
 the future will not be content, nor even feel secure, 
 without a " speculative" training; while the specialist in 
 speculative studies will not dare, even if he should 
 desire, to remain in ignorance of the special methods 
 and results of the so-called empirical sciences. 
 
 Indeed, as was just intimated, these sciences are 
 already far from wanting in sufficiently daring specula- 
 tions. And it is to be added that the culmination of 
 these speculations, in their most elaborate and most 
 consistent presentation, we owe to Herbert Spencer. 
 It is for this reason that I have never been able to 
 separate the work of Mr. Spencer from that of Hegel, 
 widely as these two are contrasted in many respects. 
 Evolution, and fixity of order in Evolution that is the 
 key-note of both systems. The one develops this con- 
 ception in the form of the necessary process of Thought 
 itself. The other traces the evidences verifying this 
 conception throughout the realm of " Nature " consid- 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 ered as the physical universe. The system of Hegel 
 has been named: Absolute Idealism. Mr. Spencer calls 
 his own system: Transfigured Realism. The latter 
 begins with the external and simpler forms of Reality 
 and traces them through their relations to their ulti- 
 mate source to which indeed he would evidently find 
 satisfaction in applying the term : Absolute Being, 
 though he refrains from using any more definitely de- 
 scriptive name than : Persistent Force. Hegel begins 
 with the simplest, most abstract concept which it is 
 possible to form, and names that concept "Being." 
 And this name, it is all-important to notice, is the name 
 of a concept only; that is, the name of a concept cor- 
 responding to which there is no reality other than the 
 concept itself. But to become aware of the fact that 
 there is no outer reality corresponding to the inner real 
 concept of mere pure being, that is to form in the mind 
 another concept with reference to this outer no-reality. 
 And it is a fact sufficiently familiar to all that to this 
 other concept the term Nothing is applied. It turns out, 
 then, that the term nothing, equally with the term being, 
 represents a real concept, while yet in each case there 
 is equally no objective reality to which the concept or 
 its corresponding category can apply. Hence the often 
 repeated and seldom understood expression of Hegel 
 that " Being and nothing are the same." 
 
 But in these barren concepts it is impossible for 
 thought to rest. On the contrary, it is driven onward 
 by its own nature to more and more concrete concepts 
 
Vlll PEEFACE. 
 
 until there is reached the concept expressed in the 
 category of Totality with all that this implies; in short, 
 until there is reached the concept of Cause in the 
 sense of a totality that is eternally complete in its own 
 self-activity. And this,, as it seems to me, is just the 
 Persistent Force to which Mr. Spencer's system leads up 
 only with far more adequate and consistent definition 
 than Mr. Spencer gives it. Mr. Spencer traces out an 
 "established order" in the world of Things. Hegel 
 traces out the necessary or "established" order in the 
 world of Thought. 
 
 Thus far these two systems seem on first view to 
 be merely antithetical. And yet, as I have attempted 
 to show in the argument of the present volume, the 
 established order of the world of Things is what it is 
 precisely because it is the outer expression, and nothing 
 else than the outer expression, of the ' ' established " 
 that is, the necessary or logical order of Thought. In 
 other words, Thought and Things are but the necessary 
 complementary aspects of the one Totality of Existence. 
 
 In short, what I have attempted to do is: To trace 
 out, and thus to render explicit, the speculative thread 
 that is already present implicitly as the vital principle 
 of the modern scientific movement. It will thus be 
 manifest that my purpose has not been "critical" so 
 much as interpretative. I have not been concerned to 
 discover the momentary weaknesses of that movement 
 so much as to find its central, permanent elements of 
 power. 
 
PKEFACE. IX 
 
 Feeling the need of help in my efforts to solve for 
 myself the problem that involves the whole significance 
 of life, I have not hesitated to seek for help wherever 
 there seemed promise of finding help being no less 
 grateful for a clue in the realm of empirical science 
 than for one in the realm of speculative science. Thus, 
 at length, it became clear to me that Nature is not 
 something apart from Mind. On the contrary, it became 
 manifest that Nature is nothing else than the outer 
 mode of, and hence has its only truth in, Mind. And 
 this conviction seemed to already present, at least in 
 germ, that solution for which I had been seeking. For 
 now the relation of man to "Nature" was seen to be in 
 truth his relation to the Mind which manifests itself in 
 Nature a conclusion which gives to the question as to 
 man's Nature and destiny an immeasurably more hope- 
 ful aspect than Natural Science in the usual acceptation 
 of the term would seem to warrant. 
 
 And not only so, but there appears to be here pre- 
 sented a basis for the complete reconciliation of what have 
 only too commonly been regarded as contradictory views 
 of the world. As already indicated, the empirical and 
 the speculative aspects of thought are by no means 
 necessarily antagonistic. On the contrary, when rightly 
 estimated, they are but the complementary phases of all 
 true inquiry. Nor is this all, for in the given view 
 (justified, as I hope, in the following pages) we have a 
 secure basis for the complete reconciliation of all science, 
 whether predominantly speculative or predominantly 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 empirical, with any Religion that is worthy the name. 
 For according to this view the whole course of Science, 
 whatever aspect may for the hour be predominant, 
 really tends to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that 
 the one all-inclusive Substance is in its very nature a 
 conscious Energy; or, in other words, that it is the one 
 absolute Person. 
 
 On such view, it is evident that the "conflict between 
 Science and Religion" is rather imaginary than real; 
 even though an occasional dogmatic scientist should still 
 persist in announcing, as by authority, the overthrow of 
 Religion as nothing more than an old wives' fable; and 
 though here and there a skeptical theologian should 
 more or less scoffingly declare that Science is only a 
 collection of idle fancies, having their origin in the 
 unregenerate pride of man. 
 
 In short, just as the empirical and the speculative 
 aspects of science cannot be separated from each other 
 without destroying science; so Religion approaches only so 
 much the nearer to gross superstition the less it is per- 
 vaded by the scientific spirit. To bring one's thought 
 into unison with the established order of the World 
 itself a world of Reason that is the religion of the 
 intellect. To deliberately bring one's conduct into har- 
 mony with that order that is the religion of the will. 
 To harmonize one's feeling, the entire range of his 
 sentiment, with that order, so that he delights in doing 
 whatever is consistent with the rational World-order 
 that is the religion of the emotions. And yet these 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 three are but the essential and complementary aspects 
 of Eeligion in its genuine, practical, concrete signifi- 
 cance. 
 
 To decry science is to commit oneself to the per- 
 petuation of superstition. To decry religion is to 
 threaten the existence of the ultimate motive leading 
 to any and every effort in the field of science. Equally 
 true is it, whether in the realm of science or in the 
 realm of religion, that nothing can survive save that 
 which is adapted to its environment. And in the out- 
 come the one. real environment of human thought, as of 
 human faith, is the abiding Truth of the World. 
 
 While, then, it may be true that "man is what he 
 eats (Mann ist was er isst,") it is equally true that 
 man is what he thinks and what he does in pursuance 
 of his thinking. So that " man's place in Nature" is 
 essentially his relation as a thinking (and therefore 
 indestructible) agent to -the ultimate Reason, which con- 
 stitutes all that is of the reality we call "Nature." 
 
 Such are the convictions at which I have myself 
 arrived. Whether the following discussion will justify 
 these convictions to the reader must, of course, be deter- 
 mined by the reader himself. 
 
 I have only to add that for the carefully prepared 
 index accompanying this volume, I am indebted to the 
 kindness of my young friend, Mr. Charles L. Deyo. 
 
 ST. Louis, March, 1890. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION. ELEMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF KNOWLEDGE, . 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 MATTER AND ITS PROPERTIES, ... 40 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PHENOMENON AND NOUMENON. THE ATOM AS FIGURED IN IMAG- 
 INATION, .... 53 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 TRUTH OF THE ATOM. PENETRABILITY OF MATTER, . . 65 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 TRANSITION TO THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS OF MATTER THROUGH 
 INCREASE IN QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS, . .71 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 DEFINITE QUANTITATIVE RELATIONS IN MATTER, . . 80 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 As TO CONTINUITY AND DISCRETENESS OF QUANTITY IN MATTER, 83 
 
 xiii 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE PHASES OF QUANTITY IN MATTER, 86 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 MEASURE AND THE MEASURELESS, 97 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MOTION IN GENERAL, . . . 109 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 OF THE NATURE OF MOTION, . . . . . .122 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 THE LAWS OF MOTION, . 131 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 ENERGY AS ADEQUATE CAUSE OF MOTION, . . . .143 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, . . 150 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 MOMENTUM, 157 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 LAWS OF PALLING BODIES, 163 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 CURVILINEAR MOTION, . . 170 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 MOLECULAR MOTION, . . . . . . . 178 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 CORRELATION OF FORCES AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, . 196 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 DOCTRINE OF CAUSE, 207 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 CREATOR AND CREATION, . .... 215 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 THE WORLD-ENERGY AS SPIRIT, ... .218 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL MODES OF MANIFESTATION OF THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 AS SPIRIT, . 242 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 EVOLUTION OF LIFE-FORMS, 255 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS TO THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE-FORMS, 265 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 CULMINATION OF THE LIFE-PROCESS IN A LIVING UNIT WHICH 
 IS CHARACTERIZED BY REFLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS, . . 286 
 
THE WOKIJWB^ffRGY Al^D ITS 
 SELF-CONSERVATION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. ELEMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF KNOWL- 
 EDGE. 
 
 a. FACT AND THEORY. 
 
 POPULAR convictions have ever tended toward com- 
 pact embodiment in the form of maxims. Nor in 
 truth is this anything else than the inevitable outcome 
 of the inherent demand of the mind for definition, clear 
 formulation. There is nothing really surprising, there- 
 fore, in the fact that examples of this tendency present 
 themselves in the scientific world no less than in the 
 world of every-day affairs. 
 
 There is one maxim, indeed, that has found special 
 favor among men of science. No other has, in fact, 
 been received more widely or with less question. This 
 favorite maxim commonly runs thus: " Facts rather 
 than theories." In other words, in all investigations, 
 whether in the physical world or in the world of mind, 
 one ought always to put his trust in facts rather than 
 in theories. The latter are always to be distrusted. 
 The former alone can safely be relied upon. 
 
 i 
 
2 THE WOKLD-ENEKGY 
 
 From the confidence with which this rule has com- 
 monly been urged, it would seem that there could be 
 no question as to the precision and adequacy of its sig- 
 nificance. And yet it can require no very prolonged or 
 very profound reflection to discover that if a fact is to 
 be truly a fact for us, it must first be subjected to 
 interpretation by us. We can never know a fact until 
 we have given it some sort of interpretation. And our 
 knowledge of the fact will depend, for its completeness,, 
 precisely upon the adequacy of our interpretation. 
 
 But "interpretation" is substantially the construction 
 of a "theory." For theory is primarily just a look- 
 ing-at or contemplation, which in turn unfolds into a 
 conviction of the mind requiring nothing but conscious 
 formulation to render it clearly recognizable as a "theory," 
 in the ordinary sense of the term. Hence a fact becomes 
 real and trustworthy as a fact to us, only in so far as we 
 have formed a theory concerning it. 
 
 It appears then, that, in our experience, "facts," 
 without theories, are just as empty and worthless as are 
 theories without facts. Or rather, it would agree with 
 the truth still more precisely to say that, so far as the 
 experience of any thinking being is concerned, it is 
 impossible that there should be any such thing, either 
 as a fact without a theory or a theory without a fact. 
 The fact may be misapprehended that is, misinter- 
 preted but it does not become a fact at all for the indi- 
 vidual otherwise than through his giving it his interpre- 
 tation, however distorted the interpretation may be. 
 
 Thus it can become a fact in its truth for him only 
 in so far as he gives it a true interpretation, only in so 
 far as he forms a rational theory concerning it. And 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 3 
 
 now, recurring to what was said at the beginning, it 
 may be added that a maxim is nothing else than an 
 abridged statement of a theory. Following which it 
 would perhaps not be wholly amiss to inquire whether 
 the "scientific" maxim we have just been considering 
 is wholly exempt from the untrustworthiness so confi- 
 dently assumed to inhere in all other theories. In truth 
 it is extremely likely to be just that theory which has 
 been least scrutinized, least subjected to criticism,, which 
 turns out to be the most untrustworthy. 
 
 b. FUNCTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 It is impossible then that a "fact" should come into 
 the consciousness of an individual otherwise ' than as in 
 part the actual creation of that consciousness. A sup- 
 posed passive impressibility of the mind is, in truth, 
 but a contradiction in terms. In order that the mind 
 may be impressed as mind, it must be no less active 
 than passive. It must receive that is, actively take up 
 into itself the element or force tending to produce an 
 eifect upon the mind from without. 
 
 But this active reception is also a transformation. 
 It adds to the outward element an inner element 
 namely, that of the mind's own activity and the two 
 are now fused into a single, indivisible fact of con- 
 sciousness. The spontaneous activity of the mind itself 
 is a necessary phase of every fact of consciousness, with- 
 out which phase, therefore, it would be impossible that 
 any such fact of consciousness should ever arise. 
 
 The first "facts," then, for which the mind must 
 account* are the facts of its own consciousness. Nay, 
 rather the only facts with which the mind can ever 
 
THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 deal the only facts that can exist for it are the facts 
 of its own consciousness. The only world for me is the 
 world I know. 
 
 At the same time, this statement is far from being 
 equivalent to saying that at any given moment the 
 individual, empirical consciousness already possesses all 
 the facts that can ever exist for it. This would indeed 
 be manifestly absurd, for the reason that the indi- 
 vidual consciousness has even thus far been unfolded 
 into reality only through the reciprocal activity that 
 has taken place from time to time between the " inner " 
 mind and the " outer " world. On the contrary, it is 
 to be understood as meaning that no new fact can be 
 added to the world of the individual save through the 
 activity of the individual in his character of a conscious 
 unit. And this is as much as to say that each new 
 "fact," as it comes into the consciousness of the indi- 
 vidual, passes through a transforming, creative pro- 
 cess, the primary element of which process, so far as 
 the individual is immediately concerned, is the spon- 
 taneous activity of the individual's own mind, consist- 
 ing in the seizure and fusion with itself of the given 
 outer element. It is only thus that any "fact" what- 
 ever can become known to the individual at all. 
 
 Whence, let us repeat, it is impossible that the indi- 
 vidual should ever really know any fact whatever, other- 
 wise than in so far as it has already come to be a fact 
 of his own consciousness. So that the function of con- 
 sciousness appears to be primarily this: To seize upon 
 the elements offered it in the outer world of nature 
 and to interpret those elements into the inner world of 
 thought. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERYATION. 5 
 
 C. RANGE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 We have next to observe that these facts of the indi- 
 vidual consciousness necessarily have relation to a world 
 lying beyond the range of the individual's immediate 
 experience. They had a beginning as such facts of con- 
 sciousness, and with whatever powers we may regard the 
 mind of any individual man as endowed, we cannot in- 
 clude as among those powers the ability to create, out 
 of pure nothing, the facts which go to make up its own 
 world of growing consciousness. If, in a certain sense, 
 the individual consciousness possesses creative powers, 
 those powers can still be regarded as creative only in 
 the sense of being powers of transformation, or rather 
 of transfiguration. It reaches out to a world "beyond 
 itself," and in that world finds material which it seizes 
 upon and appropriates to its own uses. At the same 
 time, this " reaching out " is but a self -expansion of the 
 individual consciousness so as to include in, and assimi- 
 late to, its own inner world more and more of what 
 previously belonged to a world that was external and 
 apparently alien to such consciousness. 
 
 And yet this gradual appropriation by the individual 
 consciousness of the world which, at the outset, lies 
 beyond such consciousness, could not take place at all, 
 if that world were wholly an alien world. Rather, it 
 demonstrates that the world lying beyond the immediate 
 range of the individual consciousness is still in vital 
 relation to the actual present facts of such consciousness. 
 
 The limit of the possible experience of the individual 
 then is to be found only where the "outer world" ceases 
 to be in relation to the world of consciousness at all. 
 
6 THE WORLD-EKERGY 
 
 It is only because the unknown is fundamentally related 
 to that is, possesses the same nature as the known, 
 that it can ever be transformed into the known. Just 
 that and only that which is wholly unlike the known, 
 and hence wholly incapable of ever being brought into 
 relation with the known, is, with the utmost ease and 
 certainty, already known as being absolutely "unknow- 
 able." It is opposed to intelligence in its very nature, 
 and hence may be at once " recognized " by the intelli- 
 gence as unknowable, simply because of its sheer vacuity, 
 because of its being absolutely void of any characteristic 
 through which it can or could ever be an object to the 
 intelligence. 
 
 The only world, then, which can possibly be known, or 
 even conceived as existing, is a world essentially related 
 to, and hence possessing, in truth, the same fundamental 
 nature as the knowing self. Such would seem, at this 
 point, to be the natural inference. 
 
 There is suggested here also this further inference : 
 That the only intelligence I can ever know is of the same 
 fundamental nature as my own intelligence. For I could 
 only know it by taking up its modes of activity into my 
 own consciousness. And that must mean that thus far 
 the modes of my own consciousness are the same as the 
 modes of that intelligence assumed to be essentially differ- 
 ent from my own. It is only by an act of my own reason 
 that I could conceive of a reason as different from my 
 own. But in the very act of conceiving it as different 
 from my own I must pronounce such " reason " to be 
 unreason. In other words, such conception utterly con- 
 tradicts itself and thus annuls itself in the very process of 
 its formation. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 7 
 
 There is then a universal ideal or type of intelligence 
 to which every particular intelligence, so far as it truly is 
 intelligence, must conform. Whence the limit of possible 
 development for each individual intelligence is nothing, 
 less or else than the total round of facts and relations 
 capable of being justified to such intelligence as an abso- 
 lutely rational world. 
 
 And further, since the universal ideal of intelligence 
 as such is the true ideal of every individual intelligence 
 realized as a person, it would seem that if the individual 
 can ever trace out the fundamental characteristics of this 
 universal ideal or typical nature common to all intelli- 
 gences, he will, at the same time, trace out the funda- 
 mental nature of all that can ever appeal to reason of all, 
 therefore, that can be conceived as pertaining in any way 
 to a rational world. In other words, he will trace out the 
 fundamental system of the only knowable that is, the 
 only possible world. 
 
 It appears, then, that all looking implies a looking 
 within ; all investigation, an investigation of self ; all 
 judging, a judging of that which pronounces judgment. 
 All seeing is double. Every act of the mind is two-fold. 
 It seizes upon a world beyond itself, and yet, in so doing, 
 identifies that world with itself ; or rather, in so doing, it 
 discovers an essential identity as already existing between 
 that world and itself. 
 
 The ultimate range of consciousness is thus seen to be 
 commensurate with the total round of the rational world. 
 
 d. SENSATION THE PRIMAKY PHASE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 In any inquiry into the nature and limits of the exter- 
 nal world, then, it is essential, first of all, to consider the 
 
8 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 mode in which such external world comes within the 
 range of the individual consciousness. And it is to be 
 remarked that the simplest phase of the mind's activity is 
 precisely that through which the mind comes into relation 
 with this external world. That the experience of every 
 individual necessarily begins with and in sensation, is a 
 philosophic truism. It is, then, of the first importance to 
 ascertain the conditions under which sensation can and 
 must take place. 
 
 It is evident, first of all, that there are two phases of 
 these conditions. The one phase is subjective the phase 
 in which the mind itself is specially considered. The 
 other phase is objective the phase in which "objects/' 
 in the sense of things of the external world, are specially 
 attended to. Every sensation necessarily implies an act of 
 an individual mind and also an object other than such 
 individual mind, which yet the individual mind seizes 
 upon. Sensation is a concrete relation between subject 
 and object, and its primary condition is the direct " con- 
 tact " between the two factors concerned. 
 
 Of this concrete relation between subject and object 
 there are many degrees. It is that degree of such con- 
 crete relation in which the subject seizes upon the object 
 so as to result in a definite and more or less abiding 
 "impression" or "image" in the mind that is appropri- 
 ately termed perception. 
 
 But this perception, this seizure and appropriation of 
 the object by the mind, through the sensory organs, 
 implies that the object perceived is specially characterized 
 by externality. It is made up of parts which are outside 
 one another. Whence it is evident that the object of 
 sensation is necessarily in space. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 9 
 
 On the other hand, the act of sensation is either after 
 or before other such acts. That is, the act of sensation is 
 necessarily in time. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that both space and time are 
 necessary conditions of sensation. Without these condi- 
 tions not a single act of sensation would be possible. 
 
 We have accordingly to consider the precise measure 
 in which these conditions determine all our sense-per- 
 ceptions. 
 
 1. Space as a condition of sensation. The object 
 of sensation, as being extended, is necessarily in space. 
 It cannot be perceived save as occupying space. On 
 the other hand, it is perfectly easy to withdraw atten- 
 tion from all actual objects in space and thus think of 
 space as itself mere blank extension. Thus we come to 
 recognize that objectively space is at once a necessary 
 condition of the existence of bodies and a relation of 
 body to body. That is its "reality." Otherwise it is 
 mere boundless nothing. Remove bodies, and you remove 
 the one positive characteristic of space. 
 
 But space is not merely a necessary condition of all 
 possible objects of sensation. This fact itself is dis- 
 covered only through, as being necessarily involved in, 
 the further fact that in every possible sensation, space is 
 necessarily presupposed as a fundamental condition of 
 the very act of sensation itself. For sensation is ever a 
 practical, concrete relation between a sensitive subject 
 and a space-bounded and space-occupying object. And 
 this concrete relation completed, shows us the object with 
 its space-characteristics as taken up into the conscious- 
 ness in the form of an "image," which image is, in 
 truth, just a mode of the mind, of which the outer 
 
10 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 " object" has been merely the occasion. But the image 
 can no more be dissociated from space. than can the object 
 of which it is the image. In any sensation there is an 
 interfusion of a given subject or mind, with a given 
 object or definite quality of matter, and the product of 
 this interfusion is an "image." So that while the image 
 is a subjective fact, it has also an objective origin. It is 
 a creation of the mind and in the mind, but is neverthe- 
 less subject to the limitations characterizing the material 
 out of which it is created. Act-of-sensation and object- 
 of-sensation are the necessary complementary factors of 
 every possible sensation. Whence, in every sensation, as 
 well as in every product of sensation, both subjective 
 characteristics and objective characteristics necessarily 
 inhere. 
 
 Thus space is seen to be a necessary condition of both 
 object and act of sensation. In so far, therefore, as it is 
 a necessary condition of the object of sensation, space is 
 objective; while in so far as it is a necessary condition of 
 the purely mental act of sensation, space is subjective. 
 It is neither exclusively the one nor exclusively the other, 
 for the reason that it is both the one and the other. 
 
 The objective and the subjective, let us repeat, are 
 but complementary aspects of every knowable that is, 
 of every possible fact. 
 
 It is to be noted, however, that, considered objectively, 
 space is a purely negative factor. It has no positive 
 characteristics or properties. It is pure void, and as 
 such can be known only as relation of externality between 
 object and object, or between part and part of a given 
 object ; though this latter case can, of course, be resolved 
 into the former, since the moment one's attention is 
 
AKD ITS SELF-COKSEKVATIO^. 11 
 
 explicitly directed to the parts of an object, those parts 
 become, in turn, mutually exclusive objects of attention. 
 
 Now, as pure void, space can have no limits. For any 
 possible boundary of space could only be the limit between 
 the given space and another space on the other side of 
 the boundary. Any possible limited space must have 
 geometrical form. But every geometrical form is neces- 
 sarily bounded by surfaces. Nay, a surface is ever to be 
 regarded as a boundary in a two-fold sense, if we are to 
 accept the guidance of mathematicians by whom in gen- 
 eral, and by Professor Clifford in particular, a surface is 
 denned as ' ' the boundary between two adjacent portions 
 of space. "* 
 
 But a real boundary that is, a surface constituting a 
 transition between two volumes distinguishable in quality 
 can have no reality for space as such, since space, merely 
 as space, possesses and can therefore present no positive 
 difference in quality by which one space or portion of 
 space can be distinguished from another. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that any supposed limit of space 
 could only be a limit in space, the limit having objective 
 reality only through the existence of some object occupy- 
 ing space. So that all talk of a possible "curvature of 
 space" is at once chargeable with confounding extension, 
 as the universal and purely negative possibility of all 
 physical modes of existence, with a particular, positive, 
 material, extended object that might (and must) exist in 
 space, but could never coalesce with space. 
 
 The distinction here indicated was long ago pointed 
 out and emphasized by Kant in his " Metaphysical 
 Foundations of Natural Science," where he speaks repeat- 
 
 * "Common Sense of the Exact Sciences " (N. Y. Ed.), P 50. 
 
12 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 edly of "empirical space/' "relative space/' and "mova- 
 ble space."* 
 
 Applying such terms to " the sum total of all experi- 
 ence" for the sensuous consciousness, he, at the same 
 time, emphasizes the absurdity of confounding such 
 " empirical, relative space " (by which he evidently means 
 extended objects in general) with "pure, non-empirical 
 and absolute space/' which is necessarily presupposed as 
 the universal and indispensable negative condition of 
 that is, total absence of resistance to all movement 
 whatever. 
 
 In defining space as such, then, we can, it would 
 seem, use no other than negative forms of expression. 
 In space, pure and simple, all definite dimension is 
 annulled. It is true that space presents the possibility of 
 all dimension. Space is formless, and hence wholly indif- 
 ferent to form. But just for that reason, space is in a 
 negative sense again the possibility of all form. That 
 is, it has no characteristics offering any opposition to the 
 development of form. Objects are said to be " in space." 
 At the same time, every definite that is, arbitrarily 
 selected portion of space, however large or however 
 small, is still an " outside " to every other portion. 
 
 It is further evident that space has no twternality at 
 all ; for that would imply positive or real characteristics by 
 which one portion of space could, on its own account, be 
 distinguished from another portion. On the contrary, it 
 is only through our sensations of objects in space that we 
 can distinguish between space and space, or ever know 
 anything at all about the purely negative, empty infinitude 
 
 *See Kant's "Prolegomena," etc. Translated by Belfort Bax (Bonn's 
 Library), p. 151, and elsewhere. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 13 
 
 which we call space. For we can only know space as 
 the negative of body.* It is not even true that space 
 has extension, for space just is extension, pure and sim- 
 ple. That is its one positive characteristic* In its object- 
 ive character, it is nothing else than indistinguishable, 
 immovable, boundless externality. It is the pure blank 
 form of perfect continuity. No power can quarry out a 
 block of space and carry it away. 
 
 Subjectively considered, on the other hand, space is, as 
 we have seen, the pure form or mode of all possible per- 
 ceptions of external objects. So that, on the one hand, 
 space proves to be a universal and necessary condition of 
 the existence of all possible objects of sensation; while, on 
 the other hand, it is seen to be a universal and necessary 
 form or mode of the subjective fact or act of sensation 
 itself. 
 
 2. Time as a condition of sensation. But besides 
 perceptions of external objects, there are perceptions of 
 changes in those objects, and not only so ; there are also 
 perceptions of internal states of consciousness and of 
 transition from one to another of these states. 
 
 These transitions, however, involve, or rather are 
 themselves forms of, succession. But it is precisely the 
 relation of succession that constitutes time. Thus, just 
 as no object can be perceived except as in space, so no 
 change in a perception, implying change in a perceived 
 object, can take place otherwise than as in time. Time 
 
 * Strictly speaking, a point is the true negation of space. But it is such 
 merely as the simplest phase of limit ; and limit can be realized only in and 
 through body. So that the point, which is the abstract negation of space, 
 may be regarded as the initial phase of body which is the concrete negation, 
 that is, the realization, of space. In other words, the point is the transition 
 from pure to empirical space. 
 
14 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 is thus the universal form of all succession,, as space is 
 the universal form of all physical co-existence. 
 
 Transition, in short, is change a going over from one 
 state to anothe*. But this takes place both in the inner 
 consciousness and also in the outer sensuous object of 
 consciousness. Thus it becomes evident that time, as the 
 universal form of all change,, both inner and outer, is also 
 both subjective and objective. 
 
 Like space, too, time is, merely as time, an abstraction 
 pure and simple. Just as we could never become con- 
 scious of space, save through the perception of objects in 
 co-existence, so we could never become conscious of time, 
 save through the perception of events occurring in suc- 
 cession. And just as space would be meaningless save as 
 a relation of object to object, so time would be devoid of 
 meaning save as a relation of event to event. Both are 
 purely negative factors, and yet, with their utter lack of 
 all positive characteristics^ they are precisely the factors 
 in our perceptions of objects and changes in those objects 
 which we find it absolutely impossible to eliminate from 
 our perceptions. 
 
 Neither space nor time can be perceived by the senses, 
 and yet it is alone through our perceptions that we 
 become aware of space and time. They are not objects of 
 special perception, and this they could not be, for they 
 are the universal forms of all possible perceptions. It is 
 this fact that lifts the conceptions of space and time com- 
 pletely out of the domain of merely empirical knowledge. 
 
 The proposition, " Every force is a form of electricity," 
 is an empirical proposition which has been more or less 
 definitely affirmed at different times within the present 
 century, in spite of the somewhat arbitrary and exclusive 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 15 
 
 way in which it reduces energy, a universal mode of exist- 
 ence, to one of its particular phases. 'But the proposi- 
 tion, " Every event must take place in time," is seen upon 
 reflection to be necessarily implied in every single instance 
 of the perception of an event. For it would contradict 
 reason itself to say that an event can take place apart 
 from the conditions of time. 
 
 It may be noted finally, that, while internal or subject- 
 ive transitions as such may occur within the limitations 
 of time alone, no external or physical change can take 
 place otherwise than as conditioned by both time and 
 space. 
 
 6. SENSE-PERCEPTION FURTHER IMPLIES CONCEPTION. 
 
 We have seen that space and time are the universal 
 and necessary modes of all perception. And yet, on fur- 
 ther examination, perception is found to involve as one of 
 its essential factors a mode of mind extending beyond the 
 limits of perception, as such. It has already been inti- 
 mated that every phase of mental activity necessarily pre- 
 supposes a two-fold character. We have now to note 
 more explicitly that even the simplest perception is still 
 a highly complex fact. For the sensuous consciousness 
 of an object arises not merely from a fixing of attention 
 upon a given object; it is also a singling out or selection 
 of that object from among an indefinite number of objects 
 all presenting themselves to notice. And still further, it 
 is a direct reference of the perceived object to the self as 
 perceiving. 
 
 It is true that in these acts of selecting objects and 
 referring them to himself as a conscious unit, the individ- 
 ual is not necessarily aware of the fact that he is making 
 
16 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 such selection and reference. Rather,, in common experi- 
 ence, the process goes on without the individuaFs noticing 
 the details of the process. At the same time, however, 
 reflection shows that in every such act the selection itself 
 is necessary in order that the perception may be distinct, 
 and the reference of the object to the self is necessary in 
 order that the perception may exist at all. And thus 
 again the receptivity of the mind in perception is seen to 
 be quite as definitely active as passive; or rather, it is 
 evident that passivity is but receptivity, or reaction. 
 
 But now this reference, whether of object to object, or 
 of an object to the self (both of which must take place in 
 every act of perception), implies a seizure of a relation; 
 and this seizure of relations does not belong to perception 
 as such, though necessarily involved in every act of per- 
 ception. The office of perception as such is to seize par- 
 ticular objects. The relation of object to object can 
 come into the consciousness in no other way than through 
 a seizing together of the objects related. And this seizing 
 together of objects is again a primary, original act of the 
 mind an act which has appropriately come to be called, 
 in English, conception. 
 
 Individual sensuous objects are perceived. Relations 
 can only be conceived. 
 
 But now let us note that this relation seized through 
 conception is a relation at once of identity and of differ- 
 ence. A number of objects different from one another 
 are yet found to possess some characteristic through 
 which they are all similar to one another. The several 
 objects could not be seized as several as separate 
 otherwise than through the seizure of their difference. 
 But this seizure of the difference separating object from 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 17 
 
 object is itself a reference of those objects to one another. 
 Their severalty, or state of severance., can not be compre- 
 hended in thought save through a corresponding recog- 
 nition of their unification or identity. 
 
 In other words, the recognition of them in their par- 
 ticularity necessarily implies the recognition of them in 
 their universality. These, indeed, are but complementary 
 phases of every possible stage of knowing. The recogni- 
 tion of difference between objects is the negative reference 
 of those objects to each other that is, the recognition of 
 their dependence upon one another in that, to a greater 
 or less degree, the one has what the other lacks and lacks 
 what the other has. On the other hand, the recognition 
 of their similarity is the positive reference of them to each 
 other that is, the recognition of their tendency to coa- 
 lesce into one continuous, independent whole. 
 
 The negative reference of object to object is the basis 
 of the recognition of multiplicity. The positive reference 
 of object to object is the basis of the recognition of unity. 
 Whence it is evident that the "one "and the "many" 
 are but complementary aspects of one and the same total. 
 
 But, let us repeat, both the negative and the positive 
 reference of object to object is the seizure of a relation; 
 and while the seizure remains implicit in every act of per- 
 ception it becomes explicit as an act of ^owception. Thus 
 perception necessarily implies conception. The single 
 object cannot be seized in isolation. The seizure of it as 
 a single object is already implicitly a seizure of it in its 
 relations. On the other hand, the seizure of a relation 
 between objects necessarily implies that the objects them- 
 selves are already, in that very fact, perceived. Whence it 
 is evident that these two phases of the mind's activity 
 
18 THE WOELD-ENEEGY 
 
 perception and conception mutually and necessarily 
 imply one another. However far the one may predomi- 
 nate in any given instance, the other is always involved in 
 the same act. Or, as somewhat picturesquely expressed 
 in a phrase attributed to Kant * (whom we are here sub- 
 stantially following), (i Conceptions without perceptions 
 are empty. Perceptions without conceptions are blind/'' f 
 
 Nevertheless, perception is of a distinctly lower rank 
 than conception in the scale of the mind's modes of activ- 
 ity. As we have seen, the former is the distinctive mode 
 by which particular objects are taken up into conscious- 
 ness; while the latter is the mode by which the more 
 wide-reaching result is obtained of bringing into clear 
 definition in the individual consciousness the comple- 
 mentary relations of identity and difference necessarily 
 involved in the objects which appeal directly to the 
 senses. So that mere sense perception, so long as it pre- 
 dominates as such in the activity of any given mind and 
 thus includes conception only in its implicit phase, is 
 necessarily a very inadequate, superficial stage of mental 
 activity. And the development of conception into its 
 explicit phase as the dominating mode of mental activity 
 is essential to anything approaching adequate knowledge, 
 even of the simplest fact. 
 
 Any " fact," indeed, can be truly known in no other 
 way than through its relations ; and it is,, let us repeat, 
 
 * I have to acknowledge my indebtedness in the study of Kant to the 
 expositions of Dr. W. T. Harris, and also to Professor E. Caird's admirably 
 clear " Critical Account of the Philosophy of Kant" 
 
 t Kant's own expression is: Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer, Anschau- 
 ungen ohne Begriffe sind blind. (Kritik, der reinen Vernunft. Ed. Harteu- 
 stein. S. 82.) But the context shows that the form given above the form 
 used by Professor Caird, and which also exactly translates the words used in 
 SchwegleVs exposition (Geschichte der Philosophic, i2te Auflage, S. 191), 
 is a perfectly accurate rendering of Kant's meaning. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 19 
 
 only through the power of conception that the fact can 
 be seized in its relations and thus thoroughly compre- 
 hended. This remarkable power of the mind, then, 
 which we call conception, is found in its most elementary 
 character to be a subordinate phase of perception. And 
 yet, through its own expansion into its complete, explicit 
 significance and vigor, it transcends perception, includes 
 and subordinates it, and proves to be the mode of activity 
 by which the outer world of objects and relations is 
 brought together or comprehended as a harmonized, uni- 
 fied whole, completely within the grasp of the mind.* 
 
 /. PRIMARY UNITY OF SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 It will now be desirable to bring into more explicit 
 statement the significant fact already more than once 
 referred to : That in every act of knowing, whether that 
 act be predominantly perceptive or predominantly con- 
 ceptive, there is necessarily involved not merely a refer- 
 ence, implicit or explicit, of object to object ; but also a 
 reference of every object to a self as perceiving and as 
 conceiving. Thus every possible act of knowing necessa- 
 rily implies a self-reference as the fundamental character- 
 istic of the individual consciousness. 
 
 Knowing is, first of all, ^//"-knowing a knowing- 
 together, as the word consciousness itself implies. And 
 this collectedness and vital unification of knowing in 
 selfhood has been further emphasized among English- 
 speaking people in the term se^-consciousness. It is, 
 
 *It will be noticed that the term conception is here used in a sense so 
 wide as to include thought an extension of meaning not without prece- 
 dent, and not without psychological justification. For just as conception is 
 implicit in every act of perception, so thought, properly speaking, is implicit 
 in every act of conception. Hence the frequent use of the expression "to 
 conceive," meaning " to think." 
 
20 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 indeed, precisely in self-consciousness that every possible 
 phase of knowing must, in the first place, take its rise, 
 and in the outcome find its culmination. Nay, the self is 
 in truth the fundamental, vital unity actually constitut- 
 ing the whole manifold series of perceptions and concep- 
 tions that take shape in the individual consciousness. 
 
 It is, therefore, nothing more than a truism to say 
 that, apart from this unity, the series could never be 
 known, either as a whole or in its parts ; for without the 
 unity the series could have no existence. The unity oi 
 self is the universal which, at first abstract, brings itself 
 into concrete realization, through its own activity dis- 
 played in the development of the manifold particular 
 phases of perception and conception. 
 
 Underlying all knowledge, then nay, rather consti- 
 tuting the very core of all knowledge is the primary, or 
 rather primordial, unity of self -consciousness. 
 
 At the same time it is easy to see that this unity is far 
 from being a simple, abstract, empty unity. On the con- 
 trary, it is dual and triple, nay, infinitely manifold. 
 First, as that which knows, it is subject; secondly, as that 
 which is known, it is object; and thirdly, as that which in 
 its very nature is self-known, it is subject-object, which 
 also necessarily implies infinite complexity. 
 
 This indeed is substantially the standpoint of all mod- 
 ern philosophy. Descartes, the founder of modern philoso- 
 phy, finds the ultimate ground of certitude in self-refer- 
 ence. "I think, therefore I am." I, who think, first of 
 all know myself as thinking; and so long as this conscious 
 self-reference continues, I am absolutely assured in that 
 very fact of my own existence. I can indeed conceive of 
 an object as having existence, and yet as being destitute 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 21 
 
 of consciousness. But I find it absolutely impossible to 
 conceive of a consciousness that yet has no existence. 
 
 It may indeed prove, in the sequel, that every phase of 
 existence implies intelligence or consciousness; but it is 
 manifest without further demonstration that every phase 
 of consciousness explicitly and of necessity involves exist- 
 ence. Thus it appears that consciousness is the wider, 
 richer term, and involves existence. And it may be that 
 perfect consciousness is precisely the highest term of exist- 
 ence, that it is just another name for self -existence. So 
 that existence not otherwise defined, is vastly the poorer, 
 more abstract, and hence subordinate term. 
 
 Self-consciousness, then, appears to be the root from 
 which every branch of knowledge springs. If I turn 
 " experimentalist," and apply myself to the acquisition of 
 knowledge of external things, here too, as I have seen, 
 every step imperatively demands, absolutely cannot be 
 taken without, the reference of all to self. Every fact, 
 however simple or however complex, must inexorably be 
 tested by reference to laws which I find in my own con- 
 sciousness laws which I find it impossible to think of 
 as undergoing change. For change itself is meaningless, 
 save in so far as it is referred to the permanent, to the 
 changeless, as the standard of judgment. 
 
 Nor will it avail here any better than elsewhere to take 
 refuge in the mists of " relativity." For the " relatively 
 permanent " must in the outcome ever prove to be some- 
 thing undergoing change. Such standard is therefore in 
 its very nature self-contradictory, since a changing stand- 
 ard can be in truth no standard at all. 
 
 This truth is verified that is, empirically " proven" 
 in the ordinary affairs of life. In so far as standards of 
 
22 THE WORLD-ENEKGY 
 
 value fluctuate, they cease to have reality as standards. 
 It is rightly assumed that the value of the changing can 
 be estimated only in comparison with that which is abso- 
 lutely unchanging, with that which is permanent, in the 
 ultimate and legitimate sense of the term. Even stand- 
 ards of weights and measures are assumed to be unchang- 
 ing. Not a single transaction in commerce, nor an exper- 
 iment in science ever occurs that does not involve this 
 assumption. Otherwise, indeed, no sane people, and 
 therefore no people at all, would exist to pursue .either 
 commercial or scientific or any other interests. 
 
 To this it need only be added here that any change in 
 consciousness that is not subordinated to the unity and 
 therefore permanent identity of consciousness could be 
 nothing else than a complete break in, and hence the utter 
 annihilation of consciousness. And this is as much as to 
 say that consciousness, in its universal character, in its 
 ideal nature or type, can never undergo any change. 
 Underlying the unity of the self, and constituting its 
 fundamental characteristic, is the law of self-consistency, 
 which may be stated in the following form : Perfect con- 
 sistency in consciousness is the ultimate and absolute 
 ground of all certitude. 
 
 By this standard every " fact " must be accepted or 
 rejected, every " theory " approved or condemned. Here 
 is the ultimatum of " experimental," as of all science. It 
 is upon the results of the supreme, inner experiment 
 which thought performs upon thought that all knowledge 
 must ultimately rest. 
 
 Thus while all really systematic, scientific research 
 begins with the outer or physical, it culminates and 
 must ever culminate in the inner or spiritual. And while 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 23 
 
 these two phases or fields of investigation may appear to 
 be mutually exclusive, they in reality merge into one 
 another; so that the physical may be rightly described as 
 the initial phase of the spiritual, the spiritual as the 
 maturity, the fulfilment of what is only vaguely inti- 
 mated in the physical. 
 
 On one side our knowledge depends upon sensuous 
 experience ; on another side it transcends that phase of 
 experience ; while finally it coincides with experience in 
 the widest, richest meaning which the term experience 
 can have. Knowledge is, in truth, the very core of 
 experience, and experience is but the unfolding or outer 
 realization of knowledge. Experience is practical knowl- 
 edge ; knowledge, theoretical or reasoned experience. 
 
 Evidently, then, sensuous experience is neither all nor 
 the best experience. Bather, the best experience is that 
 which realizes with the most perfect consistency the 
 greatest extent and degree of truth. That, doubtless, is 
 the most "practical" way of life which serves best to 
 symmetrically unfold the spirit into the concrete reali- 
 zation of all its powers. 
 
 Once more, then, the sensuous is seen to be the poor- 
 est, least adequate phase of experience, for the reason that 
 it is but the simplest, most rudimentary phase thereof ; 
 while "experience," in its truth and completeness, is 
 just the total process of the development of man in the 
 entire compass of his nature. 
 
 All genuine knowledge is, in truth, experimental. 
 There can be no other. If experimental science has its 
 initial point in the discovery of physical relations, it has 
 its culmination in the discovery of the higher relations 
 unfolded in the world of thought. 
 
24 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 g. THE LAWS OF THOUGHT. 
 
 The " necessary laws of thought" are nothing else 
 than the technical presentation in three abstract proposi- 
 tions, expressing successively, with greater explicitness, 
 the conviction above set forth, namely: That perfect 
 consistency in consciousness is the ultimate and only 
 absolute ground of certitude. 
 
 The law of identity declares that "whatever is, is." 
 Regarded formally, this is pure, empty tautology. But 
 the statement also contains implicitly the deepest signifi- 
 cance. It declares in effect that existence is absolute and 
 uniform. Already in the fifth century before the Chris- 
 tian era, this truth was felt, and Parmenides sought to 
 give it utterance in his dictum that "Being alone is and 
 non-being is not." Aristotle also reaffirmed it in his 
 representation of the " Unmoved mover of the world," 
 while in the modern world it reappears in the affirmation 
 that the total quantity of matter or of energy can never 
 be either increased or diminished. 
 
 Thus the first law of thought is, in germ, the doctrine 
 of the conservation of energy. It implies that existence 
 can never be changed into non-existence, nor the latter 
 into the former. So far as existence itself is concerned, 
 there is neither past nor future, but only a ceaseless, 
 changeless present. 
 
 This law is, then, the law of consistency under the 
 form of absolute continuity. The truly existent, how- 
 ever great its complexity, however much of mutual oppo- 
 sition there may possibly be between its various multi- 
 form phases, can still never contradict itself. The law, as 
 stated, says nothing whatever as to whether multiplicity 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 25 
 
 is or is not necessarily involved in existence. It simply 
 affirms existence as changelessly one with itself. 
 
 Nevertheless, this is but vaguely intimated in the law 
 of identity, which thus proves to be sufficiently ambigu- 
 ous. And yet, as already shown, the formula may be fairly 
 interpreted as meaning that whatever is cannot cease to 
 be, and still more, that whatever is cannot, at the same 
 time, not be. 
 
 Thus the first law of thought, when unfolded into the 
 negative form, is found to involve also the second law, or 
 the law of contradiction, which, in truth, only empha- 
 sizes and aids in rendering explicit the law of identity. 
 The law of contradiction declares that " anything can- 
 not both be and not be." And this is simply an 
 advanced form of the law of consistency. 
 
 Nor does this advanced form of the law of consistency 
 exclude the dialectic of change inhering in all things 
 finite. This is sufficiently evident even in the form 
 just quoted, and which is the form in which the law of 
 contradiction is more commonly stated. But still less 
 does this law exclude change when stated in the form 
 given it by Aristotle, namely: To Y&P " /* onapxeiv 
 
 xal fjiij U7!:dp%iV) dduvarov rw aoroj xard TO auro. f{ It IS 
 
 impossible that precisely the same phase of reality should 
 both begin and not begin at the same time and in the 
 same sense." * 
 
 Thus stated, Aristotle declares the law of contradic- 
 tion to be the "most firmly established of all first princi- 
 ples." And as he makes this statement immediately 
 following the declaration that the philosopher must come 
 provided with a first principle that is "independent of 
 
 * "Metaphysics," Lib. III. (IV.), cap. III. 
 
26 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 hypothesis," it is evident that he regarded this as the 
 primal law of the reason, and as such necessarily self-evi- 
 dent in its truth. 
 
 With such assurance from such a thinker, then, one 
 may well be encouraged to inquire with care and diligence 
 whether there may not be something more in this law, 
 even in the form ordinarily given it, than the shallow, 
 contradictory abstraction which, as simply the negative 
 power of the law of identity, it has been represented by 
 Hegel as being. * When it is declared that A can not be 
 both A and not A, it is implied in the very form of the 
 statement that A may be either A or not A, according as 
 it is siibjected to this or that set of conditions. It is sim- 
 ply declared that the two affirmations, " A begins " and 
 " A does not begin," could not possibly both be true at 
 the same time and in the same sense. 
 
 But if A possesses any definiteness, that is, any reality, 
 then so far as the characteristics of A are determined by 
 any given set of conditions undergoing change, A must 
 necessarily change as the conditions change, and in so 
 doing must thus far necessarily become not A. For 
 example, with sufficient increase of temperature, a given 
 portion of carbon now constituting a diamond may be 
 vaporized and combined with oxygen; the resulting car- 
 bon-dioxide may be decomposed through absorption into a 
 vegetable organism, the carbon that was diamond now 
 becoming woody fiber, to undergo still further trans- 
 formation, perhaps into coal, etc., etc. 
 
 Thus the same group of carbon particles may be both 
 diamond and not diamond. But if by this declaration it 
 is meant that both these mutually exclusive states can be 
 
 *." Werke" (ate Auflage), VI., 230. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATIOK. 27 
 
 assumed at the same time, by the same group of particles, 
 it can be true only in a special sense. If true in the same 
 sense it can be only in different times. At the moment 
 when the particles constitute diamond in reality, they can 
 at that moment be said to constitute not-diamond (woody 
 fiber, coal, etc.) only in the sense of potentiality. Or, in 
 general terms, any given quantity of matter can be in one 
 and only one state at one and the same time; so that, 
 whatever the number of states possible for such given 
 quantity of matter, those states can be realized by and for 
 it only serially, or through successive periods of time. 
 
 Thus the law of contradiction might also be called the 
 law of consistency as exhibited in the actual world the 
 law of precision in the modes of existence. 
 
 It would seem then that the true significance of the law 
 of contradiction is rather this: First, that whatever the 
 forms successively assumed by any portion of substance, 
 that portion of substance, through whatever transforma- 
 tions it may pass, still exists absolutely, and is wholly 
 excluded from non-existence in the sense of mere nothing- 
 ness; secondly, throughout its transformations a given 
 portion of substance can as a unit assume at any given 
 moment but one consistent grouping of its parts, from 
 which it follows that no two contrary descriptions could 
 be true of it at the same time. It is perfectly consistent 
 with our conception of the existent that it should assume 
 all possible forms of existence; but it is wholly inconsist- 
 ent with that conception to suppose that the existent 
 in any of its possible aspects should ever become utterly 
 null or non-existent. 
 
 It is to be noted, too, that while the law of identity 
 would seem on first view to exclude change, and while it 
 
28 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 does exclude change from existence as a whole, yet the law 
 of contradiction, which is but a more explicit form of 
 stating the same truth as that contained in the first, dis- 
 tinctly assumes change to be perpetual for every finite 
 form of existence. Any given thing is perpetually in pro- 
 cess, and can <( begin/' at any given moment, in this or 
 that particular phase of the process only. 
 
 The first law declares the permanence and continuity 
 of existence as a whole. The second law declares that the 
 particular aspects of existence are in a ceaseless process. 
 
 Again let us regard A as a symbol of the totality of 
 all that exists. Then it becomes evident that while all 
 change is involved in A, there can never by any possibility 
 be any change of A. 
 
 We find ourselves thus contemplating that absolute 
 Identity which includes all possible difference within 
 itself. Here the seemingly negative law of contradiction 
 is found to negate the non-existent absolutely, and thus 
 to be the positively developed form of the law of identity 
 in that it is the absolute affirmation of all reality. 
 
 The "law of excluded middle" finally, announces that 
 the existent and the non-existent exhaust the possibilities 
 of thought. " A thing must either be or not be; " there 
 is no third or " middle " possibility. Whatever is, not 
 only must T>e, but must be in a state of perfect definiteness. 
 
 The first law of thought affirms positively that what 
 exists is self -consistent; the second affirms the same thing 
 negatively in declaring that the existent cannot contradict 
 itself, either by being at the same time non-existent, or by 
 presenting the same portions of itself at the same time 
 under mutually exclusive forms; while the third law 
 reaffirms absolutely the self-consistency of the existent as 
 being necessary. 
 
ITS SELF-CONSERVATIOK. 29 
 
 Rightly understood, then, these laws are valid and 
 vital as the laws of thought. They affirm under a pro- 
 gressive series of forms the primordial law of perfect con- 
 sistency in consciousness as the absolute test of certitude.* 
 They are " necessary laws," not in the sense in which 
 Professor Jevons seems to think that expression must be 
 understood, namely, in the sense that they are "laws 
 which cannot but be obeyed;"! but rather in the sense 
 that one's thinking must inevitably be self -contradictory 
 in just so far as it fails to be in conformity with those 
 laws. They are the laws in accordance with which one 
 must think if he is to think truly. The order of the only 
 world we can ever really know is the order of reason, of 
 self -consistency. And this is a " necessary " order, in the 
 sense that it can never change without destroying itself. 
 Whence no thinking can really be true thinking that 
 is, self-consistent thinking -unless it follow this law of 
 the inner necessity of reason itself. 
 
 Doubtless it is in this sense that one ought to under- 
 stand the remark of Hegel that, " True thinking is the 
 thinking of necessity." J 
 
 A. THE LAWS OF THOUGHT ARE THE LAWS OF THJNGS. 
 
 It is certainly not without significance that while these 
 laws are named the laws of thought, they are neverthe- 
 less formulated as the laws of things. At first view this 
 seems a radical inconsistency. And yet it is not neces- 
 sarily so. They are rightly named "laws of thought," 
 because, as has just been pointed out, they are the three 
 
 *This appears to me to summarize the aspects of truth involved in the 
 three laws of thought; though Prof. Jevons expresses doubt as to the possi- 
 bility of such summary statement. "Principles of Science," (3d ed.) p. 6. 
 
 t Ibid, p. 7. t " Logic of the Encyclopedia," 119. 
 
30 THE WOELD-ENEEGY 
 
 essential forms positive,, negative and infinite (or abso- 
 lute) under which the primary law of the necessary 
 unity and self-consistency of thought may be presented. 
 But they are equally the laws of things, since the only 
 "things" with which thought can really deal, and hence 
 the only things concerning which affirmations possessing 
 any real significance can be made, are the facts of the 
 world such as they present themselves in consciousness ; 
 that is, in thought. But thus presented in conscious- 
 ness, these facts, so far as they are really facts for the 
 individual, are just the perceptions and conceptions 
 which the individual has formed in his own mind. 
 
 No doubt any given perception has taken place in any 
 given mind only in consequence of certain stimuli which 
 such mind has received from outer "things." But to 
 say this, is only to describe another conception which the 
 individual has formed concerning the conditions under 
 which perceptions and conceptions in general can arise in 
 his mind. That is, while such statement emphasizes 
 the fact, that in one sense, we can never get beyond our 
 own perceptions and conceptions, and that thus all our 
 knowledge seems purely subjective ; yet the very con- 
 sciousness of these subjective states necessarily involves a 
 reference of them to some external exciting cause and 
 thus proves that knowledge is no less objective than sub- 
 jective in its nature. 
 
 It is especially worthy of note in this connection, too, 
 that even in the ordinary use of language it is the sub- 
 jective phase of mental activity that is called thought, 
 while the objective aspects of that activity are denomi- 
 nated "things." And again, this implicit rationality of 
 the ordinary consciousness is developed into more explicit 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 31 
 
 form by the psychologist, who points out the fact 
 that the only " objects" which we can ever know are 
 in reality our own perceptions of what seems to us to 
 be objects lying beyond and independent of us and of 
 our perceptions. 
 
 The complementary relation between thought and 
 things thus indicated, is made still more evident if we fol- 
 low out the clue and consider 
 
 i. THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF IDEALISM. 
 
 The first aspect of idealism is that in which the ideal- 
 ist presents himself in his subjective, most elementary 
 stage of development. In this stage he puts his own 
 interpretation upon the fact to which the psychologist 
 has drawn attention. "Yes," he declares, "the only 
 ' things ' I can ever know are, indeed, just my own states 
 of consciousness. That is the only real world for me, 
 and hence for me the only true world. What I really 
 think, that is true for me and the only truth. Allowing 
 the existence of an ' objective' world, I can never know any- 
 thing of its real nature and can not even find any valid 
 proof of its existence. So, also, allowing the existence 
 of other minds, their convictions, however valid for them, 
 can have no significance for me, to whom there can be no 
 truth apart from my own mental states." 
 
 Such is the standpoint of what may be called sub- 
 jective idealism, pure and simple ; or, as it has commonly 
 been known since the time of the later Greek thinkers, 
 it is the standpoint of sophistry. It has appeared again 
 and again with more or less elaborateness and subtlety of 
 form and presenting a greater or less degree of substan- 
 tial truth. 
 
THE WOELD-E^EKGY 
 
 But such one-sided view could not but be confronted 
 by its opposite that is, by objective idealism* Naturally, 
 too, the latter is marked by distrust of the ' ' human intel- 
 lect " and its powers. "Speculation" is regarded as idle 
 and mischievous. If one is ever to put himself in posses- 
 sion of the truth, he must abandon the absurd effort to 
 find it in the empty depths of his own consciousness, and 
 must turn his attention to the real objective world. It is 
 in the world of nature alone that one can hope to find 
 continuity, consistency, truth. Here the "ideal" is that 
 of an outside, solid, material world. It is of a world 
 already given, but given one knows not how. 
 
 Doubtless the investigator in this field would prefer to 
 be known as a realist; and indeed the "speculations" 
 that inevitably force themselves into formulation here as 
 elsewhere do lead up to a very lofty phase of idealism 
 which has been named (by Herbert Spencer) "trans- 
 figured realism.'' And yet this transfigured realism is 
 itself a speculative or ideal representation of the object- 
 ive world, as that world is conceived to be in its essence. 
 
 Finally, there comes a third idealist and appeals in 
 turn to each of the other two. To the subjective ideal- 
 ist he says: "You have abandoned reason and in its 
 place have substituted caprice. You are right in declar- 
 ing that thought is all one can know; but radically wrong 
 
 *The reader familiar with the history of philosophy will notice the 
 difference between the use here made of these terms and that given them in 
 Germany in the early part of the present century. At the same time I cannot 
 but think that the crude form of subjective idealism specially referred to in 
 the text is in reality nothing more nor less than the initial aspect of what in 
 its subtler form develops into such theories as that of Berkeley; or even, in 
 another direction, into theories like that of Fichte. It is scarcely necessary 
 to add that the " objective idealism " here referred to is that (apparently for 
 the most part unconscious) aspect of idealism involved in the current move- 
 ment in natural science. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 33 
 
 in your assumption that the mere private, and very likely 
 wholly undisciplined, thinking of the individual is the 
 only attainable form of thought, or that it is necessarily 
 true thought at all. If the thinking of each individual is 
 the truth for him, then there can be no truth at all, since 
 the untrained mind makes no effort to avoid contradictory 
 thought, nor does it even recognize the fact that contra- 
 dictions are constantly arising in its own thinking. And 
 yet thought can only be true, as thought, in so far as it is 
 consistent with itself. The contradiction of thought by 
 thought must be the utter negation of thought ; that is, 
 must prove that what was taken for thought is in reality 
 not thought at all. 
 
 " If, therefore, you are sincere in your search for truth, 
 you must recognize that your standpoint is one-sided and 
 superficial, and therefore requires to be supplemented and 
 deepened through fusion with another element. That 
 element is the objective phase of thought. Thought, as 
 such, is universal and necessary in its nature. It is abso- 
 lutely consistent and unchanging. That is the funda- 
 mental characteristic of thought ; and because no sub- 
 jective caprice which you or I may entertain can ever, in 
 the least, affect this fundamental nature of thought, as 
 such, the latter may very properly be called objective or 
 true thought, in contrast with our own subjective, often 
 self-contradictory, and in such case necessarily untrue 
 thought. 
 
 "I readily admit, and with you emphatically declare, 
 that it is only by our own individual thinking that we, as 
 individuals, can reach any conclusion at all. But I also 
 declare, with no less confidence, that we must ever and 
 inevitably be led to the conclusion I have just been 
 
34 THE WOKLD-EISTEBGY 
 
 stating, if we carefully put our individual thinking to the 
 crucial test of self-criticism. For self-criticism must ever 
 culminate in the clear recognition of the fundamental law 
 of perfect consistency in consciousness as the absolute, 
 unchanging, and hence objective test of certitude as to the 
 truth in any given case of inquiry. It is only when the 
 thinking of the individual unfolds into this objective 
 character that it becomes genuine, true thinking/' 
 
 So, again, this third idealist will appeal to the idealist 
 of the second type, and say to him: tf Admirable as are 
 your work and the results of your work, there is, never- 
 theless, a phase of your method that remains as yet almost 
 wholly implicit ; and this fact proves at times to be the 
 occasion of serious error. You say rightly that truth is 
 to be attained only through a searching examination of 
 the objective, real world. But you seem to have not suf- 
 ficiently regarded the fact that the only way by which a 
 real knowledge of the ' objective ' or outer world can be 
 attained is through the exertion of your own subjective or 
 inner powers. You are thus led to look upon the object- 
 ive world as something independent of your own mind, or 
 even as independent of mind in any and every sense. So 
 that when you discover necessary laws in ( nature' you 
 not only regard the necessity of those laws as a ' natural ' 
 necessity, but also make the unwarrantable assumption 
 that f natural' is synonymous with ' physical/ And 
 yet, as a matter of fact, you can scarcely fail to admit, 
 upon reflection, that ' natural' means the same as 
 t rational/ if it means anything. For whatever contra- 
 dicts reason, the reason cannot but regard as unnatural; 
 and it is only through reason that we can pronounce upon 
 this, or, indeed, upon any question whatever. 
 
AND ITS SELF-COKSERVATION. 35 
 
 " Do but remember that the ' nature ' in the study of 
 which you find such delight, and whose orderliness and 
 symmetry you have so superbly demonstrated, is by no 
 means all there in space is by no means objective merely 
 in the sense of being outer and foreign to mind ; but 
 rather that it is ' objective ' in the sense of being the 
 embodiment of consistency, of necessary truth,, and hence 
 as involving mind or reason as its very essence. Indeed, 
 with every advance in your investigation of nature, you 
 develop more and more conclusive proofs that nature is 
 an embodiment of ' laws ' that justify themselves to the 
 trained reason as possessing universal and necessary 
 validity. 
 
 " Thus there is constantly increasing ground for confi- 
 dence in the justice of the maxim which virtually under- 
 lies all your work. And we may well go to nature and 
 trust to the guidance of its "facts" if we would find the 
 truth. At the same time, it is of the utmost importance 
 that we should know, as precisely as possible, both the 
 character and the extent of the significance which the 
 maxim contains. 
 
 "And, on careful examination, this appears evident 
 enough. Thus the maxim implies that truth is in 
 Nature, and that the truth thus embodied is not beyond 
 the reach of thought. For it is, indeed, only through 
 thought that we can go to nature, or ' go ' anywhere in 
 search of truth. 
 
 "If, indeed, nature were something wholly distinct 
 from thought, then the proposal to go to nature in order 
 to find the truth would imply that thought must abso- 
 lutely go beyond itself to find the truth. In which case 
 thought must itself appear to be something untrue. At 
 
36 THE WORLD-E^EKGY 
 
 the same time, taken in the absolute sense of the term, 
 the demand that thought should 'go beyond itself ' is 
 wholly self -contradictory, and therefore destitute of mean- 
 ing. It is only when taken in a special, limited sense that 
 the expression is found to be consistent and to possess 
 real significance. Thus, the ' thought ' of the individual 
 human mind, considered in the sense of the actual state 
 of consciousness of a given person at any given moment, 
 may indeed, be developed or ' expanded ' into greater com- 
 plexity and consistency. But it can do this only because 
 it already contains implicitly in itself, as its own funda- 
 mental nature, objective universality and truth. 
 
 "In so far, then, as the individual consciousness devel- 
 ops or ' expands" itself, it is only harmonizing or iden- 
 tifying its real self with its ideal or true self. That is, 
 in 'going beyond itself it is merely going beyond its 
 present immature, untrue self, and in so doing is coming 
 to its substantial, universal, true self. 
 
 ' ' But now, you who insist upon the truth that the 
 total quantity of energy forever remains unchanged, must 
 admit that the individual human mind has no power to 
 produce out of pure nothing any phase of reality what- 
 ever, least of all the richest of all phases of reality 
 realized reason itself. The human mind doubtless has the 
 power to discover and transform, but not the power to 
 create, in the sense of producing something which abso- 
 lutely had no existence before. So that every step by 
 which the individual mind 'goes beyond itself as an 
 imperfect embodiment or realization of reason, implies of 
 necessity, that both the phases of reason already reached, 
 and also all the phases possible to le reached, by such mind 
 must already possess perfected and permanent realization 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 37 
 
 in the universe as a whole. Otherwise the growth of the 
 individual as a power-to-think, must ultimately involve 
 a change in (and of) the total quantity of energy. 
 
 "But thus, again, it becomes evident that wherever 
 the individual as a power-to-think can 'go/ there thought 
 is of necessity already present in realized form. The 
 ' where ' of thought proves to be just the total round of 
 the possible modes of thought itself ; which modes, to be 
 possible at all, must be already realized in the universe 
 as a whole. Whence it appears that the thought of the 
 individual can ' go ' to nature on this one condition 
 alone: that thought, in its universal character, is already 
 there present and realized in nature. 
 
 " You would separate nature from thought as if 
 nature were something objective and thought a merely 
 subjective process. And this is right as far as it goes. 
 But it remains only a half-truth until supplemented by 
 the recognition of the fact that in the strict sense of 
 the term the only possible objects of thought are pre- 
 cisely thought itself, and the modes of thought in their 
 manifestations. 
 
 "And, in truth, your maxim really conforms to this 
 view. For our examination of it has already shown sub- 
 stantially that the thought of the individual can go to 
 nature only on the condition that thought in at least 
 some of its essential modes is already there in nature. 
 But thought can only be 'in' nature by being fused 
 with nature. 
 
 "I submit, therefore, that this is the real truth of 
 the case: Nature is the external and thought the internal; 
 internal, that is, in the sense that thought is the inner, 
 vital principle, which manifests, unfolds, utters or outers 
 
38 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 in nature. So that, nature is ' object ' not in 
 the sense of being external to thought, but rather in 
 the sense that it is the externalization of thought. It 
 is, in short, as a mode of thought, and only as a mode 
 of thought, that nature is accessible to intelligence in 
 any degree whatever. 
 
 "Thus, it appears that the separation between nature 
 as object, and mind as subject, is valid only in so far 
 as concerns the experience of this or that individual 
 mind. To the untrained mind nature, and still more, 
 all the more complex modes of thought, are quite 
 foreign or external. On the other hand, as the untrained 
 mind ' goes to nature ' and expands its own powers into 
 fuller realization, it approaches more and more nearly 
 to the apprehension of that great truth that, in the final 
 outcome, subject and object are but the necessary com- 
 plementary phases, not merely of each individual human 
 mind's experience, but also that they are the necessary 
 complementary phases of the one only world or universe. 
 
 ' ' On this view it is perfectly ' natural ' (i. c. rational) 
 that on the one hand the. individual mind in its investi- 
 gations of nature should discover .everywhere in nature 
 the most beautiful manifestations of the law of consist- 
 ency, harmony, continuity, rational system; and that 
 on the other hand the testing and verifying this dis- 
 covery should lead at length to the recognition of the fact 
 that this law is, in truth, one and the same with the law 
 of consistency, harmony, continuity, rational method 
 underlying the very nature of thought itself. 
 
 (( Thus the laws of thought and the laws of the only 
 things that can ever be known by thought prove to be 
 identical. And the truth is to be attained, not by an 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 39 
 
 exclusively ' subjective ' method, as if one could exhaust the 
 possibilities of thought by a mere examination of his own 
 inner consciousness; nor by an exclusively ' objective' 
 method, as if one could possess himself of the whole or 
 even the highest phase of truth by a mere examination of 
 that outer world of appearances occupying space, and 
 which is commonly called ' nature.' On the contrary, the 
 truth, in its vital reality, is to be attained only through 
 a complete blending of these two methods; that is, 
 through a constant recognition of the true relation 
 between the outer and the inner, between the objective 
 and the subjective, as the mutually complementary modes 
 of existence in its ultimate reality and perennial vigor as 
 the ever-living truth/' 
 
 Such would be the appeal of our third idealist, who, as 
 insisting upon this: that the absolute fusion of the sub- 
 jective and the objective is the truth alike of things and 
 of the method of inquiry concerning things, proves to 
 be the representative of absolute idealism. 
 
 And because this mode of viewing the world appears 
 to bring us to, or at least to point us toward, the ultimate 
 equilibrium of thought, it is the mode of view which we 
 would hope to maintain in all our further investigations. 
 
 What follows in the present volume is an attempt to 
 develop dialectically the fundamental characteristics of 
 nature. This logical process of thought in the investiga- 
 tion of nature leads up to a conclusion in which there is 
 found to be represented the logical presupposition of 
 nature. Our final discovery is the primal Fact. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 "MATTER" AND ITS PROPERTIES. 
 
 T~N the introductory chapter, it has been shown that 
 -7 every object of sense-perception must necessarily 
 occupy space. It must, in other words, be extended. 
 We come, then, to ask, in the next place : What is the 
 necessary significance of this characteristic inhering in 
 the matter of sense-perception ? 
 
 a. RESISTANCE OR REPULSION. 
 
 To answer this question, we have but to reflect that 
 our impression of an object as extended is due primarily 
 to the resistance which the object offers to our activity. 
 Without such resistance we could never even know that 
 the object exists. 
 
 But the resistance which an object presents to our 
 activity necessarily implies that the parts of which the 
 object, as a whole, is composed, must themselves be mutu- 
 ally resistant. I attempt to compress a given object. I 
 feel the object as resisting. That is, the object presents 
 itself to my consciousness as resistance. 
 
 Thus the object, as object of perception, is not only, 
 by that fact, necessarily extended, and hence made up of 
 mutually exclusive parts ; but this very mutual exclusion 
 is found to be realized under the form of mutual resist- 
 ance. The entire body resists my efforts to compress it, 
 because the parts of which the body is composed resist 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 41 
 
 any effort, either to bring them into mutual mclusion, or 
 to alter their positions relatively to one another. 
 
 In other words, while the mutual resistance of the 
 component parts of a body would seem, on first view, to 
 be a merely positive characteristic, consisting of the sim- 
 ple action of a force from the center outward, it really 
 proves, on further examination, to be quite as much neg- 
 ative as positive. It is not merely that the body holds 
 together in a given positive form, but also that each com- 
 ponent part excludes every other part. And in this 
 respect the parts or particles are negative, as toward 
 one another, and thus give to matter the negative, or 
 at least negatively named, characteristic, of impenetrabil- 
 ity. That is, so far as we regard matter merely under 
 the aspect of resistance, it is evident that we can have no 
 doubt of the impossibility of any two bodies ever occupy- 
 ing the same space at the same time. 
 
 Apparently, then, the truth of anything I can know as 
 a body is found in the characteristic of resistance, or, 
 otherwise named, repulsion. And yet I have but just 
 noticed that the resistance which any given body offers to 
 any effort I may make to change its form consists in part 
 of the resistance which the parts composing the body pre- 
 sent to any change in their positions relatively to' one 
 another. But this can only mean that the parts are 
 positively connected with one another, that they hold fast 
 upon one another so as to hinder my efforts to bring 
 them into a relatively different position. That is, they 
 attract, as well as repel, one another. 
 
 Besides, were the negative characteristic of repulsion 
 the sole truth of bodies, we must be driven to a conclu- 
 sion wholly at variance with the very idea of body. For 
 
42 THE WOKLD-ENERGY 
 
 unrestrained repulsion, as between all portions of matter 
 
 between the smallest, no less than between the largest 
 
 absolute continuity of repulsion must have the effect to 
 infinitely diffuse each body through space. Whence, not 
 only must every particular body lose all outline or boun- 
 dary, and thus contradict the conception of body as 
 something both extended and also limited ; but every 
 particular body must thus penetrate every other body 
 completely, and hence occupy the same space at the same 
 time. In other words, there would be but one uniformly 
 diffused mass, which, by the very fact of its infinite pene- 
 trability, must forever remain wholly unknown to us. 
 
 It appears, then, that a " matter " which should 
 consist solely of resistance must, by that very fact, be 
 infinitely diffused, and hence infinitely penetrable, or 
 absolutely non-resistant. And this is the same as to say 
 that the conception of matter as consisting solely of resist- 
 ance is a self -contradictory conception a conception 
 wholly at variance with the law of consistency, the 
 central law of all thought and of all reality that can ever 
 be known by thought. 
 
 Our conclusion is, then, that though mere resistance 
 may be the truth of matter as extended, it is far from 
 being the whole truth of matter. 
 
 We have, then, to make this further inquiry : What is 
 the real truth involved in the conception of resistance ? 
 
 We have certain impressions, to the objective phase of 
 which we give the name "body," or "matter." And for 
 us body or matter consists of a resistance which we name 
 repulsion. We cannot account for these impressions in 
 any other way. And yet, thus accounting for them, we 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 43 
 
 find ourselves involved in contradiction. From this con- 
 tradiction we are to seek a way of escape. 
 
 In doing so, let us assume any series of particles, as : 
 
 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 
 
 If repulsion is an essential characteristic of matter, 
 then each of these particles must repel every other in the 
 series. Hence (3) repels (2) and (1) on one side, and (4) 
 and (5) on the other side. But each of these repels (3) 
 in turn. That is, repulsion is a relation of reciprocal 
 action. One particle cannot repel the other without 
 being in turn repelled by it. Indeed, there can be no 
 exertion of force in any direction except in so far as there 
 is opposition or resistance from that direction. There 
 can be no push without something to push against no 
 action without a corresponding reaction. And the degree 
 of force actually exerted in either direction will depend 
 upon the degree of force actually exerted in the opposite 
 direction. So that, no matter what possibility of force 
 there may be in (3), it can actually repel (2) only in so 
 far as it is repelled by (2). And the same is true of 
 whatever pair we may consider. 
 
 But (3) repels (2) not merely by its own isolated 
 power of repulsion (setting aside for the moment the ques- 
 tion of the possibility of such isolated power), but also 
 with the added impetus which it receives from the repulsion 
 exerted upon it by (4) and (5). It is evident, then, that 
 not only do (1) and (2) mutually repel each other, but also 
 that (2) is actually driven toward (1) by the cumulative 
 repulsions between itself and (3), (4) and (5). 
 
 It is true that while (4) and (5) repel (2) through 
 (3), they also repel (1) through both (3) and (2); so 
 
44 THE WOKLD-EKEBGY 
 
 that it would seem as if (1) must be driven from (2) still 
 more powerfully than (2) is driven toward (1). At the 
 same time, however, it must be remembered that (1) is the 
 limiting particle of the series on one side. As such its 
 repulsion for (2) and for the remaining particles in the 
 series must be less than that of (2) for those remaining 
 particles. For the repulsion of (2) for (3), (4) and (5) 
 is intensified by the repulsion between (1) and (2), which 
 thrusts (2) back upon (3), but only to be the more pow- 
 erfully urged toward (1) again. 
 
 Thus the tendency of the repulsion between (2) and 
 the particles of the series beyond (2) is to cause an actual 
 approach of (2) toward (1). And it is to be also noted, at 
 the same time, that the repulsion between (1) and (2) 
 counteracts in a measure the tendency toward separation 
 between (2) and (3) ; and so throughout the series. 
 
 But, again, it has already been incidentally observed 
 that each intermediate particle in the series exerts its 
 repulsion in two precisely opposite directions. In the case 
 of (3), indeed, these repulsions in opposite directions 
 must balance each other. Hence, (3) is the point of 
 equilibrium in the series. And it is to be noticed especially 
 that the repulsion of this middle particle for those on either 
 side presents this peculiar aspect : that in thus exerting its 
 power of repulsion in opposite directions, it necessarily 
 concentrates upon itself. And this brings to explicit utter- 
 ance the truth that no particle, under any conditions 
 whatever, can push outward in any direction from itself 
 save by pressing in upon itself in the same act. 
 
 Repulsion, then, even in so inadequate an example as 
 the one assumed, proves to be something more than a mere 
 tendency toward indefinite diffusion. Instead of being 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 45 
 
 merely a more explicit phase of externality, of matter as 
 the extended, it proves to be a tendency toward concen- 
 tration as well, and hence to involve internality no less than 
 externality. And this will become only the more apparent 
 the more concretely it is viewed. 
 
 Imagine the particles in such series as that above repre- 
 sented to be retained in the same relative positions, and 
 the whole revolved about the central one in such way that 
 the several other particles shall describe concentric circles 
 in the same plane. It is evident that every possible 
 diameter of the circles thus described has been repre- 
 sented in succession by the line joining the series of par- 
 ticles, and that the same relations would be true in every 
 position assumed by the series. 
 
 If, now, the distances of (1) and (2) from (3) in the 
 original series be assumed to be different from the distances 
 separating (4) and (5) from (3), then we should have four 
 circles, each with a material circumference about a com- 
 mon material center. In such case it is evident that the 
 complexity of relations must be vastly multiplied, since 
 the repulsions will be exerted not merely between the 
 members of each series in any given diameter, but also 
 between each member of each series, and every member 
 of each and all the other series as well. 
 
 But, again, let us imagine each diameter to be rendered 
 material throughout its whole length through the further 
 multiplication of particles. We should then have a con- 
 tinuous disc, involving still further complication of repul- 
 sions and counter-repulsions the lines of relation running 
 out from each particle to every other particle in the whole 
 disc, and thus forming a most minutely complicated web 
 of relations. 
 
46 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 And yet, once more, suppose the disc itself to be 
 revolved about one of its diameters., so as to describe a 
 sphere. The described sphere would be a material one, 
 such that every section through a great circle of the 
 sphere would present a- set of relations identical with 
 that of the revolved disc. We should then have not 
 merely an indefinite repetition of the web of relations 
 existing in the disc, but also a wholly new and immeasur- 
 ably more complicated network of relations, consisting of 
 lines of repulsion between each particle and every other 
 particle throughout the entire sphere. Each particle 
 would be repelled by every other particle; that is, every 
 particle within the sphere would be repelled in all 
 directions. Hence it would be driven toward as well 
 as from every other particle. And, still further, each 
 particle, as exerting repulsion in all directions, is driven 
 in upon itself from all sides; so that the more intense 
 and complicated the repulsion exerted by it, with only 
 so much the greater energy must it concentrate upon 
 itself. 
 
 Finally, let the sphere since there is no necessary limit 
 to its volume be regarded as co-extensive with space ; 
 that is, let it be regarded as infinite. The repulsion of 
 part for part would then necessarily react in such way that 
 the tendency to concentration would, in the total quantity 
 of matter, exactly balance the tendency toward expansion. 
 In other words, the " repulsion" must prove in its very 
 development as repulsion to constantly unfold into its own 
 opposite, and to be in its very nature attraction no less than 
 repulsion. For "attraction" is the name we give to the 
 inherent tendency of matter toward aggregation or con- 
 centration upon itself. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 47 
 
 And here it is to be remarked, that not only is there no 
 necessary limit to the ultimate " sphere/' or total volume 
 of matter in the universe; in reality it would seem that 
 no such limit is possible. For, on the assumption that 
 such limit existed, the particles of matter at the surface 
 would then be bounded on one side by pure space. That 
 is, in all directions from the center there would be repul- 
 sion outward, which would, indeed, on first view, seem 
 to develop itself into attraction about the center of the 
 sphere. But, on the other hand, at the surface there 
 would be complete absence of reaction; that is, there 
 would be absolutely no resistance to the thrust outward 
 from the center. Hence the sphere must go on expand- 
 ing indefinitely through space, and result at length in 
 the complete dissipation of whatever energy may be 
 allowed to have been accumulated, by whatever incom- 
 prehensible means, upon the supposed center in past 
 time. 
 
 Thus I find that in reality it is impossible for me to 
 conceive that any definite portion of " matter" should 
 be so aggregated as to present a definite surface and an 
 appreciable resistance (through which alone I could ever 
 become conscious of its existence) otherwise than upon 
 the condition that the total volume of matter is co-exten- 
 sive with s]face; that is, upon the condition that the total 
 quantity of matter is infinite. 
 
 It appears, then, that every portion of matter exists, 
 not merely on its own account, but also and necessarily 
 that is, in its very nature for every other portion of 
 matter. It has just been seen that resistance the primary 
 characteristic of the objects of sense-perception proves 
 this to be true. And the conviction that such is the 
 
48 THE WORLD-ENEKGY 
 
 case a conviction arrived at, apparently, by no very 
 explicit dialectic lias long since become general under 
 the form of the " impenetrability " of matter, which term 
 is defined as meaning that " no two portions of ' matter' 
 can occupy the same space at the same time." 
 
 It is especially important to notice, too, that though 
 presented in the negative form, the definition is expressed 
 as having universal and absolute validity. If no two 
 portions of matter can occupy the same space at the same 
 time, then we but alter the mode of statement in saying 
 that every portion of matter is necessarily related as repel- 
 lant to every other portion of matter that every portion 
 of matter exists not merely by itself, or in isolation, but 
 also for all other portions of matter ; that is, in essential 
 relation to them. Nor is the mutual repulsion of all 
 portions of matter for one another a merely negative rela- 
 tion. It is also, as we have seen, a positive relation or 
 connection, which we can only name attraction. 
 
 If again, we still further consider the nature of repul- 
 sion, it is evident that this universal characteristic or 
 property of matter is essentially a strain of separation. 
 And yet a strain in one direction, let us repeat, necessarily 
 implies a strain in the opposite direction. Already, in 
 the very conception of repulsion between two bodies, 
 there is necessarily implied that the bodies ai^ related to 
 each other positively as well as negatively. For the fact 
 that the action of a force is required to separate them, or 
 to widen the already existing separation between them, 
 necessarily presupposes that there is already in action a 
 force drawing them toward each other. Repulsion would 
 therefore be absolutely meaningless were there not con- 
 stantly presupposed in it its own correlative phase of 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 49 
 
 force, that is, attraction. And in tracing the dialectic of 
 repulsion we have seen how, in its own activity as repul- 
 sion, it necessarily develops into its own opposite, that is, 
 into attraction. Thus it would seem that either of these 
 two modes of force is wholly unthinkable apart from the 
 other. They appear to be but different aspects of one and 
 the same force or energy. And this becomes only the 
 more evident as we trace out the dialectic of attraction 
 from the assumption that it is an independent mode of 
 force. 
 
 1. ATTRACTION. 
 
 Throughout the scientific world attraction is con- 
 stantly referred to as if it were regarded as pre-emi- 
 nently the one universal mode of force. And in some of 
 its phases it does seem to act quite independently. It will 
 be well, then, to examine it in its seeming independence. 
 
 Objects of sense-perception present definite boundaries, 
 and we have seen that they offer resistance to any force 
 tending to compress them. But they also offer resistance 
 to efforts made to change their shape, or to divide them. 
 Evidently then the particles hold fast upon one another 
 attract each other. 
 
 Thus at once it comes to light that the resistance which 
 a body offers to pressure is due, not merely to the repul- 
 sion of its particles for one another, but also quite as much 
 to the relation of attraction between them holding them in 
 fixed relative positions. So that the impenetrability of 
 bodies proves to be a repulsion, which in large measure 
 has its truth in attraction. If I press a piece of moist 
 clay between my fingers it yields, not because of the lack 
 of repulsion between the particles in the immediate line 
 
50 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 of resistance, but rather because of the feeble attraction 
 between particles in other directions. 
 
 But let us trace out the nature of attraction in the same 
 way as that in which we examined into the nature of 
 repulsion. Assume the same series of particles, and 
 regard them now under the aspect of attraction. Remem- 
 ber also that attraction, to be attraction at all, must be 
 mutual. No relation can be wholly one-sided. 
 
 Each particle in the series, then, attracts and is in turn 
 attracted by every other. Applying this in detail, (3) 
 evidently stands in the relation of mutual attraction with 
 (1) and (2) on one side, and with (4) and (5) on the other. 
 But in this double relation it is drawn at the same time 
 in contrary directions. And since the drawing is partly 
 its own, it draws itself in contrary directions. 
 
 But this drawing in contrary directions thus proves to 
 be an opposition of the particle against itself, tending to 
 separate it from itself. So that the middle point of the 
 central particle as the " center of gravity" of the whole 
 series is precisely the point where gravity cancels itself 
 and becomes null ; or rather it is the point where gravity, 
 or attraction, undergoes transformation into its own oppo- 
 site, that is, into repulsion. And this must be true in 
 greater or less degree of every intermediate particle in 
 any series, since such intermediate particle must, in the 
 very fact of its being intermediate, be drawn, and hence 
 must draw itself, in opposite directions at the same time. 
 
 Thus attraction proves to involve not merely the 
 approach of particles toward each 'other, but also their 
 separation from each other nay, it involves with each 
 and every particle a tendency toward separation from 
 itself. For every particle situated between two other 
 
AND ITS SELF-COKSEEVATION. 51 
 
 particles is, we have seen, necessarily drawn, and even nec- 
 essarily draws itself, in opposite directions ; and thus the 
 particle inevitably tends toward its own infinite division. 
 On the other hand, as we have already seen, the repulsion 
 which a particle exerts in opposite directions must have 
 the effect to concentrate such particle upon itself. 
 
 In further consideration of attraction we need hardly 
 do more than mention briefly that, as before, our single 
 series of particles may be conceived a^revolved about the 
 middle one, so as to form a series of concentric circles in 
 the same plane, while these circles may be conceived as 
 having their perimeters made up of actual particles, thus 
 forming circular bands, through which every diameter 
 will present the same conditions as the series we have just 
 considered. Thus at the same time we should have the 
 additional attractions between each particle in each 
 series, and every particle in every other series, with the 
 same results of counteraction and transformation of at- 
 traction into repulsion throughout. And this complica- 
 tion must go on increasing with the increased complexity 
 of grouping of particles, as the circular bands are con- 
 ceived to coalesce into a solid disc, and the disc, by revo- 
 lution on its own diameter, to unfold into a sphere. 
 
 At the same time there should be borne in mind the 
 vastly complex network of attractions and counter-at- 
 tractions, involving the connection of every particle 
 with every other particle throughout the sphere, and the 
 consequent tendency, not, merely toward infinite concen- 
 tration of the total mass upon its own center, but also 
 toward the obverse phase of its expansion, and even of 
 the disruption, not only of the sphere itself, but also of 
 every particle of matter in the entire sphere. 
 
52 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Lastly, conceive the sphere to be the total quantity of 
 matter in the universe, in which case it is evident that we 
 should again have the total of attractions so reacting upon 
 itself as to unfold into an exactly balancing total of 
 repulsions. For in the physical universe as a whole (that 
 is, the only extended universe we can ever know) the sum 
 of reactions in attraction, just as the sum of reactions in 
 repulsion, must be equal to the sum of the actions. 
 
 And the more fully to satisfy ourselves that this is the 
 case, we have only to repeat that the action of a force in 
 any given direction necessarily implies that there is resist- 
 ance to overcome. In other words, there can only be 
 action in so far as there is reaction. In the sum-total of 
 the physical world it could not, in the nature of things, 
 be otherwise than that " action and reaction are equal, 
 and in opposite directions." 
 
 Thus, once more, attraction and repulsion prove to be 
 but the complementary modes of an all-pervading force or 
 energy, which constitutes the fundamental characteristic, 
 the inmost essence, of "matter" of whatever is real 
 and at the same time extended. They are thus the truly 
 essential " properties of matter." 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 PHENOMENON AND NOUMENON. THE ATOM AS FIGURED 
 IN IMAGINATION. 
 
 TT is now to be further noted that, as implied in our 
 -I- investigation of particles in their relation to one 
 another in any series, there are present in inseparable 
 union throughout the minutest possible portion of matter 
 both attraction and repulsion, as the necessary comple- 
 mentary phases of that force which constitutes the sub- 
 stance of matter. Neither of these phases can exist 
 anywhere, in however limited a sphere, except through 
 the co-existence of the other phase throughout the same 
 sphere. 
 
 There is latent here, indeed, the long-vexed question 
 of the relation between phenomenon and noumenon, be- 
 tween appearance or manifestation, and reality. Plato 
 would have it that there is a world of ideas or archetypal 
 forms constituting the real, the eternal and unchanging 
 world; while the world of man's experience is the world 
 of appearance, of change, and hence a vanishing world. 
 So, again in modern times, Kant urged that we can only 
 know phenomena, while the noumenon, or thing-in-itself 
 (Ding-an-sicJi) is forever beyond our ken. And again, in 
 quite recent times, it is confidently affirmed that while 
 appearance may be regarded as fairly within the grasp 
 of the finite mind, the reality must forever remain to 
 such mind something wholly unapproachable, absolutely 
 unknowable. 53 
 
54 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 It would seem worth while to note, however, that the 
 phenomenon, otherwise called appearance or manifesta- 
 tion, must at least be allowed " reality " as appearance, 
 and that thus it cannot be absolutely separated from 
 reality. Similarly also, the reality can only be known as 
 reality through its manifestation. And, since it is the 
 only " reality/' the manifestation so far from being some- 
 thing apart from reality, is simply the reality manifesting 
 itself. 
 
 Indeed, Mr. Spencer himself declares that by no mental 
 effort is it possible to suppress the idea of absolute being, 
 that the unknowable, as absolute being, manifests itself, 
 and that this self -manifestation is in accordance with an 
 " established order." * And from this standpoint it would 
 seem that one ought to recognize the truth that all reality 
 exhibits or manifests just its own essential being precisely 
 in unfolding itself in phenomena. In other words, mani- 
 festation is not " something " apart from reality. It is 
 nothing unless the manifestation of reality. Whence it 
 would seem that the ultimate Reality or Absolute Being 
 can be rightly called the Unknowable only in a relative 
 sense; that is, in the sense that we can only progressively 
 learn all there is to know about it, that we can never 
 absolutely know it in the sense of having attained an 
 absolutely complete, exhaustive knowledge of it in all its 
 infinitely manifold details. 
 
 The term noumenon has indeed already faded away into 
 what might very properly be styled a mere phenomenon. 
 It simply marked a confused phase of thought, which must 
 therefore prove a vanishing phase. 
 
 *" First Principles' (N. Y. Ed.), pp. 117, 122, and elsewhere. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 55 
 
 It is to be further noted that physical science has long 
 used forms of expression clearly implying the insepara- 
 bility of reality and manifestation. Certain of the ' ' prop- 
 erties of matter" have been classed as essential an 
 expression which can mean nothing else than that these 
 properties are the very essence of matter; that matter 
 exists in and through these properties, and could have no 
 existence without or apart from them. This, indeed, we 
 have seen to be the case in our tracing of the simplest 
 relations necessarily involved in the objects of sense-per- 
 ception, which are, in general, the sum of things extended 
 or characterized by externality. 
 
 And yet physical science has not been able to prevent 
 the re-appearance of the shadowy nqumenon within its 
 own domain. For, from the unquestionably just opinion 
 that there can be no action save as there is something 
 to act upon, the conclusion has been leaped to that force 
 can act only upon matter as a something apart from 
 force. 
 
 Of course physicists have not failed to note the contra- 
 diction involved in this conception. Thus Thomson and 
 Tait, in their "Elements of Natural Philosophy" ( 173), 
 after remarking that they "cannot, of course, give a 
 definition of matter which will satisfy the metaphysician," 
 proceed to say that " the naturalist may be content to know 
 matter as that which can be perceived by the senses,, or as 
 that which can be acted upon by, or can exert, force." To 
 which they immediately add that "The latter, and 
 indeed the former also, of these definitions involves the 
 idea of 'Force, which, in point of fact, is a direct object of 
 sense; probably of all our senses, and certainly of the ( mus- 
 cular sense.' " 
 
56 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 This remarkable paragraph, in which the identity 
 between matter and force is fairly asserted, concludes with 
 the statement that " To our chapter on the ' Properties of 
 Matter ' we must refer for further discussion of the ques- 
 tion, What is matter 9 " 
 
 The part of the joint work of these two physicists con- 
 taining the promised chapter on the properties of matter 
 does not seem to have appeared. But a volume under 
 that title has been published by Professor Tait, while Pro- 
 fessor Thomson has also separately developed his own 
 theory upon the subject ; from which it may be guessed 
 that the two could not entirely agree as to what should 
 be said upon this particular theme. 
 
 Indeed, after certain introductory remarks, Professor 
 Tait declares (p. 11) that these "have been brought in 
 with the view of warning the reader that we are dealing 
 with a subject so imperfectly known, that at almost any 
 part of it one may pass by a single step, as it were, from 
 what is acquired certainty to what is still subject for mere 
 conjecture." To which he adds that : 
 
 "An exact or adequate conception of matter itself, 
 could we obtain it, would almost certainly be something 
 extremely unlike any conception of it which our senses 
 and our reason will ever enable us to form." 
 
 A little further on (p. 14) this declaration of nescience 
 on the part of the scientific man concerning matter is even 
 more emphatically set forth. He has been indicating the 
 various theories concerning the constitution of matter, and, 
 referring especially to W. Thomson's theory of vortex atoms, 
 declares that this "has the curious peculiarity of making 
 matter, as we can perceive it, depend upon the existence 
 of a particular kind of motion of a medium which, under 
 
AND ITS SELF-COKSERVATION. 57 
 
 many of the definitions above, would be entitled to 
 claim the name of matter, even when it is not set in 
 rotation." 
 
 After thus indicating that the theory which his former 
 associate had developed, with a view to explaining the 
 constitution of matter, has the " curious peculiarity " of 
 assuming the thing it was proposed to prove, Professor 
 Tait adds : " But as we do not know, and are probably 
 incapable of discovering, what matter is, what we want at 
 present is merely a definition which, while not at least 
 obviously incorrect, shall for the time serve as a working 
 hypothesis." 
 
 He therefore chooses to "define, for the moment, as 
 follows : 
 
 ''Matter is whatever can occupy space;" and this for 
 the following reason : 
 
 "Experience has proved that it is from this side that 
 the average student can most easily approach the sub- 
 ject." * * * 
 
 The point of view from which we have set out in the 
 present essay, then, is not one that the strictly scientific 
 mind would call an " obviously incorrect " one. And it is 
 reassuring to have such confirmation from one who has 
 gained the right to speak as one having authority, and not 
 as the scribes, or "paper scientists." 
 
 Amid such uncertainties, too, it would seem to be 
 not wholly unwarrantable for even the "mere meta- 
 physician" to throw in his conjecture also, though, 
 from the expressions Professor Tait uses, it can hardly 
 be expected that such conjectures will be estimated 
 above the merest infinitesimals by the mere ( ?) mathe- 
 matician. 
 
58 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Even the infinitesimal has its value, however, and so 
 we proceed upon the line of our argument, not without 
 some glimmer of hope. 
 
 The course of the argument thus far has tended toward 
 the conclusion that the essence or truth of matter is force 
 or energy. And we have seen that such eminent physicists 
 as Thomson andTait define matter to be "that which can 
 be acted upon by, or can exert, force/' We have also seen 
 that Professor Tait accepts as a tentative definition of 
 matter, "whatever can occupy space." 
 
 In either case matter cannot be a something apart from 
 force, but, rather, must be identical with force, so far as 
 we can ever know anything about it. For, as already 
 noticed, it is only through a counter force opposing the 
 force we ourselves exert that we can know anything about 
 " whatever occupies space," or about space either, seeing 
 that we become aware of extension only through the 
 extended. 
 
 But that which is extended, or "can occupy space," is 
 in that very fact divisible, at least theoretically, without 
 limit ; and it is divisible, experimentally, far beyond our 
 powers of observation. Whence all bodies within our ex- 
 perience must be aggregations of infinitesimal bodies 
 beyond our experience at least beyond our sensuous 
 experience. Nor is there any necessary contradiction 
 between the " metaphysical " conception of the infinite 
 divisibility of matter, and its practically limited division, 
 as will perhaps become more evident with the further 
 progress of the argument. 
 
 The Democritean conception of the atom, or ultimate 
 division of matter, has, of course, long been given up. 
 Instead of the minute, absolutely hard, and therefore 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 59 
 
 inelastic and eternal, body named "atom" in the ancient 
 doctrine, physical science has first cautiously defined the 
 atom as the smallest division of matter arising in chemical 
 reactions, and has lately come to look with favor upon the 
 conception of the perfectly elastic and plastic vortex atom 
 as somehow existing in, as parts of, a, perfectly elastic fluid 
 pervading all space. 
 
 That the atomic theory has been an instrument of 
 wondrous efficiency in the furtherance of physical science 
 there can be no question. And this can only be because 
 there is an essential truth involved in that theory. At the 
 same time, as leading scientists themselves clearly recog- 
 nize and explicitly affirm, this does not necessitate the 
 conclusion that the atom, as a necessarily permanent, 
 unalterable unit, is anything more than a mere product of 
 the "scientific imagination" something, indeed, not so 
 very far removed from things " metaphysical." 
 
 So long as modern science held fast to the conception 
 of rigid atoms, it was under the necessity of also assuming 
 the "void," in so far as " pores" were indispensable to 
 the elasticity of a body. But this again led to another 
 assumption. As "action at a distance" is unthinkable, 
 according to Newton, and also according to anyone else 
 who has done any genuine thinking, and as atoms, never- 
 theless, act upon one another, though separated from 
 each other by the void "pores," it was assumed by 
 Clausius and others that each atom was surrounded by a 
 sphere of force which was elastic, but which also prevented 
 the enclosed atom from ever coming into contact with any 
 other atom. 
 
 With the impact theory, on the other hand, the force- 
 sphere seemed no longer indispensable. Each atom, having 
 
60 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 an irrepressible and more or less irresistible way of beat- 
 ing about among its neighbors as if it were a "little 
 demon/' preserves its own eminent domain inviolable. 
 The impetus given in such impacts would produce the 
 phenomena of repulsion, while the rebound', allowing the 
 atoms to be elastic, would give rise to like phenomena 
 in opposite directions, and the approach of atom to 
 atom in either way would likewise give rise to the phe- 
 nomena of attraction. At the same time, the tf ^void" 
 appears here in its primitive simplicity. 
 
 Indeed, this theory approaches nearest to that of 
 Democritus, the difference, in one respect at least, being 
 that the cause of motion in the atoms is left as something 
 unknown, if not inexplicable, while, in the other, the 
 atom is assumed to have an inherent eternal motion 
 a kind of self-activity. From such crude "science" as 
 that of Democritus, indeed, one could hardly expect the 
 mythical element to be wholly excluded. Accordingly, 
 with him the atom seems to have been a sort of uncon- 
 scious symbolical eternizing of the beautiful, self-complete 
 divinities of the Greek popular faith. Thus, with the 
 father of the atomic theory, matter, or substance, was 
 absolutely discrete, and "bodies" such as those appealing 
 to our senses could only result from the accidental and 
 temporary aggregation of the ever-self-sufficient and, in 
 some sense, divine, atoms. 
 
 It is also to be noted that, however superior the modern 
 methods of science, the impact theory still leaves us no 
 alternative. From this theory we must also accept the 
 absolute discreteness of matter, and thus find ourselves 
 forced into irreconcilable contradiction with the conception 
 of the continuity of matter. And this is as much as to 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 61 
 
 say -that it is irreconcilable with the theory of the all- 
 pervading,, perfectly elastic fluid, which fluid would seem 
 to be in its very nature perfectly continuous in spite of 
 its seeming discreteness as developed in the vortex atom. 
 
 To this it may be added that,, on the supposition that 
 matter consists solely of atoms, and that it is therefore 
 absolutely discrete, then the essential properties of matter 
 must really be the essential properties of the atom. Thus, 
 in the first place, the atom must be pervaded throughout 
 by attraction at least, since, being of a definite volume, it 
 must be drawn together by an infinite force in order that 
 it may be able to maintain its integrity as against all 
 forces tending toward its disintegration. And yet, as we 
 have already seen, the attraction thus demanded for the 
 assured existence of the atom must appear, in however 
 limited a compass, as the complement of repulsion. Nay, 
 the incompressibility of the atom is itself once more a 
 manifestation of repulsion, which is at the same time 
 equally the infinitely vigorous truth of its attraction. 
 In other words, here, as everywhere, the existence of 
 attraction at any point necessarily implies repulsion at the 
 same point, and equally the contrary. 
 
 It may be added, too, that, on the supposition of rigid 
 atoms, in order that the atom may retain its rigidity in 
 form and volume, it would be necessary that the relations 
 between the attractions and repulsions within it should 
 never be disturbed. And this again would require that 
 the . external relations of the atom should forever remain 
 unchanged. In other words, the atom could only be and 
 remain absolutely rigid upon condition that the whole 
 universe should likewise remain absolutely rigid, and 
 hence wholly destitute of motion in any and every sense. 
 
62 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 On the other hand, should the external conditions 
 change, then the relations between the attractions and 
 repulsions within the atom must change, following upon 
 which or, rather, necessarily accompanying which the 
 volume and the form would undergo change. That is, the 
 "atom" must then prove to be itself an aggregate of an 
 indefinite number of parts, each of which must in the 
 same way prove to be changeable in volume, and hence 
 also to be made up of parts, and so on until the atom slips 
 completely from our grasp, and the irritating, if not terri- 
 fying, "metaphysical" conception of the infinite divisi- 
 bility of matter once more stares us in the face. 
 
 In fact, there is here presented to us an intimation that 
 there is some other relation between the discreteness and 
 the continuity of matter than that of their mutual exclu- 
 sion. And, it may as well be added, this is the one valid 
 excuse for introducing the foregoing discussion of the 
 rigid atom. 
 
 What that other and truer relation really is will, it is 
 hoped, appear in the further course of the argument. 
 
 In resuming, it may be remarked that the tendency of 
 the argument thus far is to show that while, of course, 
 force cannot act save as there is something for it to act 
 upon, the " something" required is not a "matter" as 
 apart from force, but rather it is force itself. Force can 
 in truth act upon nothing else than force. It can, let 
 us repeat, prove itself to be force no otherwise than in the 
 opposition of contrasted phases. Force is exerted only in 
 opposing force, and force not exerted is no force at all. 
 
 In the common acceptation of the term "matter," 
 there is implied just the passive phase of the physical 
 world, while " force" is the active phase. Or, to use 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 63 
 
 G. H. Lewes's form of expression, te Matter is the passive 
 aspect of existence/'* But we have already seen that force 
 is,, in its very nature, at once active and passive. So that 
 the conception of a matter apart from force only darkens 
 the stream of thought with a sediment having no corre- 
 sponding reality in nature. 
 
 The theory of Clausius, already referred to, has a germ 
 of suggestiveness which may be put to use along with the 
 theory of Boscovich. In the theory of the former, the 
 material atom is surrounded by a sphere of force. In the 
 theory of the latter, the atom or ultimate element of mat- 
 ter is a mathematical point, from which radiate out to a 
 greater or less distance, both attraction and repulsion. 
 
 In either case the force-sphere, as limited, must still 
 present the difficulty of "action at a distance. " It is 
 also evident that in the theory of Clausius the atom itself 
 plays absolutely no part whatever. All that is done is 
 done by the force-sphere surrounding the atoms. What- 
 ever action is directed toward an atom is already received 
 and reacted upon by the sphere of force in which the 
 neither active nor passive atom is imprisoned in blissful 
 unconsciousness, it may be presumed to all eternity. 
 
 It seems evident, then, that any supposed matter as 
 apart from force, is the veriest fiction; that, in short, the 
 " atom," as generally figured, is simply an unscientific 
 creation of the insufficiently restrained phantasy; that is, 
 of the -wwscientific imagination. In other words, it is 
 simply the re-appearance, under a changed and scarcely 
 improved form, of the mysterious, unapproachable, met- 
 aphysical noumenon of the Middle Age modes of thought, 
 from which it might reasonably be supposed that the 
 
 * " Problems of Life and Mind" (Boston Ed.), II., 302. 
 
64 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 progressive science of the nineteenth century should long 
 ago have freed itself. 
 
 And mainly, indeed, this has actually been accom- 
 plished. The word " atom" is used more and more in a 
 symbolic sense, and now really involves no contradiction 
 with the conception that matter, as that which is ex- 
 tended, or which can occupy space, simply consist of its 
 properties manifested in various degrees, under various 
 conditions. And let us recall that, thus far in the present 
 essay, two opposite and complementary forces, or modes 
 of force, have appeared as constituting the very basis or 
 essence of matter as that which is extended. 
 
 From whatever side we view the subject, then, force 
 appears to be the sole reality of matter; while the " atom," 
 as a something existing apart from force, proves to be 
 nothing else than a phantasmal product of that "bad 
 metaphysics," which is, perhaps, indulged in most of all 
 by those who know least of, and therefore Have least 
 patience with, metaphysics, properly speaking. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 TRUTH OF THE ATOM. PENETRABILITY OF MATTER. 
 
 ^TEVEKTHELESS, as already stated, the conception 
 -*--^ of the atom has served an excellent purpose in the 
 progress of physical science. And we have next to in- 
 quire what the truth of this conception is. 
 
 We have seen that the really essential elements of mat- 
 ter in its most rudimentary state must be the two comple- 
 mentary modes of force, attraction and repulsion, and 
 thus have grounds for the assurance that matter consists 
 of, and is nothing apart from, force. It has also become 
 evident that neither of these modes of force can exist in 
 reality, save as in completely blended unity with the 
 other. Indeed, when either is assumed as real, the 
 other necessarily proves to be already contained in it. 
 Or, more strictly speaking, each is not itself merely, but 
 is itself and the other. 
 
 It cannot be too strongly emphasized, then, that in 
 every minutest possible portion of whatever is real, and at 
 the same time characterized by externality, attraction and 
 repulsion must be present in completely blended unity. 
 Or, it may just as well be said, each must be present, both 
 as itself, and the other. And this is but to say that 
 everywhere where " matter" exists there must be at every 
 point a center whence force radiates in every direction, 
 and with an intensity diminishing uniformly with in- 
 crease of distance from that center. 
 
 65 
 
66 THE WOKLD-ENEKGY 
 
 Thus far, indeed, it would seem that matter would 
 necessarily be distributed uniformly through space, and 
 that therefore " body" would have no meaning. To this 
 objection an answer will develop in the further course of 
 the argument. 
 
 What we have now to note is that the force radiating 
 from the centers everywhere appearing in whatever 
 occupies space, would not, according to the conception of 
 the constitution of matter thus far developed, ever reach 
 any absolute limit. And this would seem to be the same 
 conception as that which would result from the fusion of 
 the two theories before mentioned. The " atom " of 
 Clausius vanishes into the non-extended point of Bosco- 
 vich, and from such focus a sphere of force extends indef- 
 initely, though with gradually diminishing intensity. 
 That is, the points of force in the one case and the atoms 
 in the other are seen to be each in reality just a focus of 
 force. That, it would seem, is the truth of the "atom." 
 
 But, this once recognized, a number of important in- 
 ferences are seen to logically follow. In the first place, 
 if the atom is in truth nothing else or less than a focus of 
 force, it is evident that it has no absolutely fixed boundary. 
 Its nucleus must indeed possess a maximum of tension, 
 but as it radiates outward in all directions, its extent or 
 volume must be indefinitely great. 
 
 Hence, secondly, we would express the truth more 
 precisely if, instead of using the formula, " every par- 
 ticle of matter attracts every other particle of matter," 
 we were to say: Every focus of force, through its unlim- 
 ited expansion, takes hold upon every other focus of 
 force. And thus, thirdly, instead of the atoms, or foci 
 of force, being merely side by side in space, and 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 67 
 
 therefore characterized in their absolute isolation by exter- 
 nality solely, it is evident that each in its unlimited 
 expansion includes all at the same time that it is included 
 in all. In other words, each "atom," in its relation to 
 every other " atom/' includes the whole physical universe. 
 It therefore has in some sense internality as well as exter- 
 nality ; that is, the greater its extent, the greater also 
 would seem to be its intent or content. 
 
 NorJn saying this is there any latent purpose to trifle 
 with the reader's time. We are attempting to examine 
 the "atom" in its nature and essence. That is, we are 
 endeavoring to trace out its fundamental characteristics 
 and relations. And in so far as this is really accom- 
 plished, there lies open before us the fact that this 
 so-called ultimate, simple division of matter is in truth 
 a highly complex phase of the physical universe. It exists 
 not merely by itself, or in isolation that is, within abso- 
 lutely fixed boundaries but rather it exists for all else- 
 that is extended just as all else that is extended exists 
 reciprocally for it. 
 
 That is, the total sum of the extended can only be con- 
 ceived as an indivisible unit, which is at the same time an 
 immeasurably complex manifold ; though in our present 
 investigation only the relatively simplest phases of this 
 manifoldness have as yet received explicit statement. 
 
 The next thing, indeed, that lies on the surface after 
 what has already been developed is the solution of the con- 
 tradiction between impenetrability and compressibility as 
 properties of the extended. Even in the diffusion of 
 gases "matter" shows itself to be practically in greater or 
 less degree penetrable. And while this is usually explained 
 on the theory of the <( porosity" of matter, yet in every 
 
68 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 chemical combination there is evidently a genuine inter- 
 penetration on the part of the elements, so that at no 
 minutest point is there to be found any particle of either 
 element untransformed. "Atoms " combine, become inter- 
 fused, mutually penetrate, whenever a chemical reaction 
 takes place. 
 
 Thus, even empirically, the porosity theory, in expla- 
 nation of so-called impenetrability, is found to be unneces- 
 sary, at least in such cases, seeing that in such cases 
 " matter " is really penetrable. And on the theory which 
 we have seen reasons to adopt namely, that the atom 
 is just the nucleus of an indefinitely extended force- 
 sphere porosity appears to be in its ultimate character 
 simply a fiction, having its only claim to reality in the 
 complementary fiction of the absolutely rigid "atom." 
 
 Nor can we too strongly emphasize the proposition that 
 this force-sphere constituting the truth of the "atom" 
 (and, hence, constituting the truth of " matter") is a 
 reality. And because every "atom" is indefinitely or, 
 rather, infinitely extended, then there can be no part of 
 space where there is no force, no physical reality. Doubt- 
 less this plenum presents various and varying degrees of 
 tension, but everywhere it would appear that there must 
 be some degree of tension, some degree of reality. 
 
 Thus, what are called "pores," or inter-atomic spaces, 
 are to be regarded as relative degrees of density in the 
 matter that fills all space. So that when the atoms or 
 molecules of two gases mutually occupy the "pores" of one 
 another, it would seem that the gases really penetrate one 
 another, according to the law that motion takes place in 
 the direction of greatest traction or of least resistance. 
 Least resistance, not no resistance. 
 
ITS SELF-CONSERVATIOK. 69 
 
 But, still further, and leaving aside such concrete 
 example, which at the present stage of our argument must 
 be considered an anticipation, it is evident that the rela- 
 tions of force running out from every minutest center, 
 and connecting it essentially, really, with every other 
 center, must penetrate each other to an unlimited extent. 
 It is, once more, the mutual inclusion of each in all and 
 all in each. 
 
 It appears, then, that impenetrability, as already hinted, 
 is but the negative aspect of resistance or repulsion, which, 
 as we have seen, also necessarily involves attraction the 
 opposite but also the necessary complement of repulsion. 
 Whence we may conclude that a body is " impenetrable " 
 in this sense, and this sense only: That in so far as it is 
 real it is simply a nucleus of force; or, if one prefers, it 
 is a compacted cluster of such nuclei. It cannot, there- 
 fore, be infinitely compressed that is, reduced in volume 
 to a point, or to no-volume because, if that is to be 
 accomplished, whatever force is brought to bear upon it 
 must be applied on all sides. That is, the applied force 
 simply unites its own volume with, by completely sur- 
 rounding, the body to be compressed, and then presses in 
 upon that body on all sides. In other words, since what is 
 to be compressed is enfolded in and now constitutes the 
 central portion of that by which it is to be compressed, 
 the whole now constitutes in reality one continuous 
 system, which to all intents and purposes can compress 
 nothing but itself. It is a proposed self-crusher. 
 
 But the greater the strain applied toward the center 
 the greater the strain developed from the center. As the 
 hollow golden sphere forces its way into the enclosed 
 water, the water at the same time forces its way out 
 
70 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 through the enclosing sphere. It is an initial metamor- 
 phosis, in which the outer shows its readiness to become 
 inner, and the inner an equal readiness to become outer. 
 But as to crushing anything out of existence that can 
 never be done; not even were the whole universe to join 
 in the attempt. For it would still be the universe strain- 
 ing at self-annihilation, and all the while in such effort, 
 nay, as the very consequence of such effort, only suc- 
 ceeding in bringing into fullest manifestation or realiza- 
 tion whatever could possibly lie within it as hidden or 
 potential. 
 
 " Matter " is impenetrable, then, in this sense, and in 
 this sense only: That action and reaction are, in the long 
 run, absolutely equal and in opposite directions, and that 
 therefore force or energy is forever indestructible. 
 
 At the same time, as previously noticed, so far as there 
 may be local changes of relation between attraction and 
 repulsion, bodies will inevitably alter in volume. The 
 bringing external pressure to bear is itself a change of 
 conditions; and a change of such character as, within 
 certain limits, to diminish the volume of that is, to 
 compress the given body. Limited portions of matter 
 (bodies) are measurably compressible, but not indefinitely 
 so. Compressibility is, in fact, just a relation between 
 attraction and repulsion, the two elementary factors of 
 matter. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 TRANSITION TO THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS OF MATTER 
 THROUGH INCREASE IN QUALITATIVE CHARACTERIS- 
 TICS. 
 
 ~| FERE, we may now observe, there is already presented 
 -* *- to us the ground of the varying states of "matter," 
 or the extended. Attraction tends toward concentration, 
 repulsion toward diffusion, of matter. According, then, 
 as the former or the latter predominates at any given 
 moment in any given portion of matter, the tension will 
 be increased and the volume diminished, or the contrary. 
 With the predominance of attraction, the given portion 
 of matter will be in the solid state. With the approach 
 toward a balance of the two complementary modes of 
 force, the solid will become viscid. With further increase 
 of the relative degree of repulsion, the liquid state will be 
 reached ; and the continuance of increase in this tendency 
 must result at length in the matter assuming the gaseous 
 state. 
 
 Similarly, on the contrary, relative increase of attrac- 
 tion over repulsion must result in a given gaseous mass 
 becoming condensed into a liquid, and again in the liquid 
 passing into the solid state. Of this, indeed, something 
 more remains to be said at a later stage of our inquiry. 
 
 What has just been said concerning the relation between 
 attraction and repulsion brings us to note this further 
 point: That there is doubtless more in the distinction 
 
 71 
 
72 THE WORLD-EKERGY 
 
 between ponderable and imponderable matter than modern 
 scientists are for the most part disposed to admit. " Pon- 
 derable " matter is matter that has weight. But weight is, 
 properly speaking, an accident of matter, not a necessary 
 property. It is wholly erroneous to regard it as identical 
 with attraction. It is, as Professor Tait points out, a rela- 
 tion between bodies ; or, as we should here prefer to say, 
 weight is simply the excess of attraction or centripetal 
 force over repulsion or centrifugal force. Even in the 
 ordinary text-books on physics, indeed, it is pointed out 
 that the " weight " of a given body is less at the equator 
 than at any point distant from the equator, and that the 
 greater " weight " always corresponds with greater distance 
 from the equator. Of course this difference in the weight 
 of a body, corresponding with difference in latitude, is due 
 chiefly to centrifugal force that is, to the mass of the 
 body itself combined with, or "multiplied into," the 
 "tangential velocity." And one need only recall the 
 frequently repeated calculation that, were the equatorial 
 velocity increased to seventeen times its present rate, 
 the weight of bodies at the equator would be just nil. 
 That is, even solid bodies would become thus far 
 "imponderable." 
 
 But in another way matter may become imponderable. 
 Weight, as we have seen, is the measure of the excess of 
 attraction over repulsion, or centrifugal force. We have 
 also seen that in respect of the states of matter, the excess 
 of attraction over repulsion is the condition essential to 
 the solid state (the production or retention of matter in 
 the solid state through pressure, being but a special phase 
 of attraction). Thus what we know as "ponderable 
 matter " is directly associated with a large mass of solid 
 
AND ITS SELF-COtfSERVATIOH. 73 
 
 matter the earth. On the other hand, it would seem 
 that imponderable matter is in this sense just that phase 
 of matter in which repulsion is so highly developed that 
 within a given volume (of any finite extent), the tendency 
 toward separation is vastly greater than the tendency 
 toward concentration, and that therefore in such volume 
 even gravity is masked, while weight would have no 
 existence at all. 
 
 Thus, as all matter consists primarily of the interaction 
 of attraction and repulsion, and as there is no absolute 
 limit to the degree in which this interaction may vary 
 locally, so there is no absolute limit to the possible diffuse- 
 ness of matter in any given portion of space. 
 
 It would seem, then, that throughout the spaces far 
 removed from large, dense masses of matter, there is dif- 
 fused what may properly be called imponderable matter. 
 And there seems no good reason why we should not adopt 
 for this imponderable matter the name, ether. It is the 
 " unseen universe "; nay, in some sense the unseeable uni- 
 verse, since it is that part of physical reality which, as 
 such, must forever elude all efforts to bring it to the test 
 of the chemist's balance. It seems in some sense to 
 especially court inquiries of the metaphysical kind, and 
 more or less to refuse answer to questions put in any 
 other form. 
 
 Doubtless the reader has already observed that the 
 proof of the possibility of any change whatever in matter, 
 considered as constituted of absolutely balanced modes of 
 force, is not as yet by any means forthcoming in the 
 present essay. It is well, at least, to have this explicitly 
 called to mind, in order that the demand for such proof 
 may not be forgotten or in any degree slurred over. Nor 
 
74 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 shall we omit to look carefully for such proof as we 
 proceed. 
 
 For the present, however, we must leave the question 
 in abeyance. Change unquestionably does take place in 
 the extended world which constitutes the object or sum of 
 objects of our perceptions, however these changes may be 
 ultimately accounted for. What has thus far been proven 
 is that the truth of the extended world is force, which in 
 turn is a complex of mutually inclusive, everywhere inter- 
 penetrating, attractions and repulsions. What is proven 
 is, that the world is so constituted. What remains to be 
 shown in this connection is, how such balance of forces 
 can result in an active universe. 
 
 What follows will, it is believed, be seen to join on 
 naturally to the already completed portion of proof, and 
 furnish an important stage in the movement leading up 
 to the more adequate developments of the argument. 
 
 It has already been shown that increase in the number 
 of atoms or radiant centers, within a given compass, must 
 increase the complexity of lines of relation between those 
 centers. From this it is to be inferred that with the 
 advancing concentration of matter in any given locality 
 from any cause, there could not fail to be increased 
 intricacy of interpenetration of the indefinitely extended 
 dynamical spheres. 
 
 But increased complexity of dynamical relations can 
 only be manifested as increased complexity of material 
 characteristics. On the contrary, the more widely sep- 
 arated the radiant centers are, the less intricate and 
 less tense must be the dynamical relations, and hence 
 also the less must be the complexity of material char- 
 acteristics. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 75 
 
 While, then, attraction is a strain toward simple unity, 
 in that it tends to concentrate all into a single totality, it 
 proves also to be a strain toward the heterogeneous, in that 
 it tends to develop a multiplicity of qualitative differences 
 within that total. And so, also, on the other hand, while 
 repulsion is a strain toward infinite multiplicity, in that it 
 is a continuous outputting or development of yet other 
 ones from the total one, it proves also to be none the less 
 a strain toward the homogeneous, since it is, after all, a 
 development of " ones," each qualitatively indistinguish- 
 able from the others; the result being a cancellation or 
 annulment of qualitative differences. Condensation 
 means increased tension, and increased tension means 
 increased complexity of matter; just as, on the con- 
 trary, rarefaction means decreased tension, and de- 
 creased tension means decreased complexity of matter. 
 
 Such is the logical conclusion to which the argument 
 thus far leads. And this conclusion is distinctly in agree- 
 ment with the results of the most searching investigations 
 in physical science, and especially with the brilliant results 
 achieved by means of the spectroscope, in connection with 
 the nebular hypothesis. * 
 
 It is well known that, previous to the invention of this 
 remarkable instrument, there was no means of answering 
 the question whether certain cloud-like patches in the 
 heavens consisted of diffuse incandescent matter, or of 
 star-clusters so distant that, to the eye of an observer 
 from the earth, their light blended together. With the 
 invention of the spectroscope, however, scientists found 
 themselves in possession of an instrument that revealed 
 
 * See the special works on "Spectrum Analysis,' 1 '' by Schellen and by 
 Lockyer, the latter in the "International Science Series." 
 
76 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 instantly whether or not the light received into it was 
 from a body in the gaseous state. Not only so, but in 
 addition to this it also revealed the remarkable fact that 
 each of the so-called elements has its own peculiar and 
 exclusive spectrum. 
 
 With this instrument the vexed question as to the 
 reality of true nebulae was at once set at rest. The 
 spectrum of nebula after nebula was found to present 
 unmistakable characteristics-, showing that these were 
 actual masses of matter in extremely attenuated gaseous 
 form. 
 
 But what is especially to our present purpose is the 
 fact that of these nebulae some were found to consist of 
 but few elements, mainly hydrogen and nitrogen; while 
 in the spectra of others there are lines indicating a greater 
 number of elements, and so on, until the continuous 
 spectrum indicating the presence of all the known elements 
 is developed from the sun and other incandescent bodies 
 in the solid or in the liquid state. 
 
 From these grounds alone, the logical or natural that 
 is, rational inference is that increase in multiplicity of 
 elements, which is the same as increase in complexity of 
 matter, goes hand in hand with, and is a consequence of, 
 the increased complexity of those force-relations consti- 
 tuting matter which must inevitably result from the con- 
 densation of nebulous masses in space. Thus it seems 
 that the more diffuse the nebula, the more simple the 
 spectrum; that is, the more simple the constitution of 
 the "matter" composing the nebula; while the more 
 advanced toward solidification, the more complex must be 
 the spectrum; in other words, the more complex the con- 
 stitution of the " matter'" composing the nebula. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 77 
 
 What shall we say, then, of the claim that all matter 
 is permanently divided into seventy or more elements, all 
 differing essentially from one another ? It is true that 
 chemists themselves are beginning to doubt the finality of 
 their analyses ; and while the tendency still is in the main 
 to look to a further increase in the number of elements, 
 there is already arising here and there a guarded query as 
 to whether, after all, the elements may not prove to be only 
 specialized conditions of a <( matter" that, theoretically 
 at least, is primarily homogeneous.* 
 
 I say "theoretically," because it is evident that there 
 can be no actual case of concrete matter which can be 
 strictly homogeneous. This we have already seen in the 
 attempt to form a conception of matter as consisting 
 solely of repulsion. It was found that such conception 
 cannot be formed, because no sooner has the representa- 
 tion of such assumption been made than it becomes evi- 
 dent that any real repulsion must develop attraction as a 
 necessary aspect of such real repulsion; just as any real 
 attraction must include, as a necessary phase of itself, 
 repulsion also. 
 
 In this connection the following significant paragraph 
 from Lockyer (" Spectrum Analysis," N. Y. Ed., p. 190) 
 may be cited. "It is," he says, "abundantly clear that 
 if the so-called elements, or, more properly speaking, 
 their finest atoms those that give us line spectra are 
 
 * It was not until after the foregoing was written that I read Mr. Spen 
 cer's " Principles of Psychology" and found therein (N. Y. Ed., Vol. I., p. 155) 
 the following statement: "Moreover, there- is reason to suspect that the 
 so-called simple substances are themselves compound, and that there is but 
 one ultimate form of matter, out of which the successively more complex 
 forms of matter are built up." Other suggestions of a similar nature had 
 been previously made as that hydrogen is the ultimate form of matter; 
 though this has the obvious fault of regarding one of the various differen- 
 tiated phases of matter as itself the primal undifferentiated aspect of matter. 
 
78 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 really compounds, the compounds must have been formed 
 at a very high temperature. It is easy to imagine that 
 there may be no superior limit to temperature, and there- 
 fore no superior limit beyond which such combinations 
 are impossible. Because the atoms which have the power 
 of combining together at these transcendental stages of 
 heat do not exist as such, or rather, they exist combined 
 with other similar atoms, at lower temperatures. Hence 
 association will be a combination of more complex 
 molecules as temperature is reduced, and of dissociation, 
 therefore, with increased temperature there may be no 
 end." 
 
 To this conclusion, indeed, the facts brought to light 
 by means of the spectroscope clearly point, and thus, as 
 already remarked, offer a strong confirmation of the argu- 
 ment we have presented above in abstract form, showing 
 that increased complexity of " matter" must necessarily 
 result from increase of condensation, involving, as that 
 necessarily does, increased complexity of concrete relations 
 in the mass; while, on the other hand, this complexity 
 must grow less and less with the diffusion of matter into 
 wider space. 
 
 We can but conclude, then, that matter is not only 
 constituted by and of force, and that it is thus ultimately 
 (at least in a relative sense) homogeneous, but also that 
 the seeming complexity of matter that is, the multi- 
 plicity of " elements " is in reality but the increasingly 
 complex grouping of and multiplied tension between the 
 indefinitely extended dynamical spheres which constitute 
 the initial phase of the development or manifestation of 
 force the added complexity of grouping and increased 
 intensity of relation being due to the steadily accumulating 
 
AND ITS SELF-CCWSERVATION. 79 
 
 strain incident to the condensation of nebulous masses 
 into stars and suns and their attendant spheres. 
 
 It is a notable fact, too, that even by artificial means a 
 gas may be subjected to so great a pressure as to cause it to 
 give off a continuous spectrum. It is as if, out of a single 
 element, the increased complexity of grouping of centers 
 of force together with the intensified strain between those 
 centers corresponding to increase in the number of ele- 
 ments by the analogous process exhibited on the grand 
 scale in nature could thus temporarily be reproduced at 
 will in the laboratory. 
 
CHAPTEK VI. 
 
 DEFINITE QUANTITATIVE RELATIONS IN MATTER. 
 
 WE have seen that as the qualitative relations of 
 matter develop into increased definiteness they 
 necessarily involve quantitative aspects also, though this 
 has appeared thus far only in the form of indefinite mul- 
 tiplicity. We have now to trace this quantitative aspect 
 into its more precise forms. 
 
 The elements of which we have just traced the origin 
 constitute in large measure the subject-matter of what is 
 known as modern chemistry. It was largely in the inter- 
 ests of chemistry that the atomic theory was revived in 
 modern times; and it is directly in the field of chemis- 
 try that the more elaborate part of the theory in its spe- 
 cially modern character, and particularly in its quantita- 
 tive aspects, has been developed. The " atomic weights " 
 of the several elements have been ascertained with at 
 least the appearance of great precision. 
 
 Nor is there any sufficient reason to call in question 
 the substantial accuracy of these results, so far as they are 
 understood merely as the expression of the quantitative 
 relations necessarily involved in matter. And, as we 
 have already mentioned, the more advanced chemists 
 themselves regard the "atom" as hypothetical, and even 
 look to an entire change of view respecting the so-called 
 "elements. " 
 
 80 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 81 
 
 What has thus far been said, then, far from conflicting 
 with the assured results of science, proves rather to be 
 quite in harmony with those results. The only conflict 
 developed is with what scientists themselves have already 
 begun to call in question, and which they are definitely 
 prepared to set aside as forming no necessary part of any 
 of the various phases of truth which science has brought 
 to light and verified beyond all reasonable question. 
 
 It will be quite in the direct line of our inquiry to 
 trace some of the more characteristic of the confirma- 
 tions which science presents to our theory, and to develop 
 such consequences as the theory thus confirmed may be 
 found to involve. 
 
 We may recall that the development of the interrela- 
 tions of attraction and repulsion necessarily involve on 
 the one hand the unifying of matter in that at every point 
 there is a center of attraction fundamentally related to 
 the whole of the material universe. This, as has been 
 shown, is involved in the received statement that every 
 particle of matter attracts every other particle of matter, 
 an expression which, developed so as to explicitly con- 
 form to the conception that matter has its substance in 
 force, would take the form: Every nucleus of force radi- 
 ates outward to the farthest points of space and takes 
 hold on every other nucleus of force. 
 
 Thus, it may be remarked by the way, the physical uni- 
 verse, regarded as commensurate with space, is a verita- 
 ble sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circum- 
 ference is nowhere. It is also manifest that there is no 
 possible object in space that can be in absolute isolation, 
 since even the simplest force-center still radiates outward 
 into the whole of immensity. 
 
82 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 The smallest thing in the universe, then, is still, in its 
 truth, commensurate with the universe itself. The small 
 is not merely included within the great; the great is also 
 included within the small. Each presupposes the other 
 and could not exist without the other. Force regarded 
 as attraction, let us repeat, then, unifies the extended 
 world absolutely, gathers the physical universe into an 
 absolutely indivisible One. 
 
 On the other hand, however, we have also seen that 
 the complementary mode of force, namely, repulsion, puts 
 restraint upon this unifying tendency and gives rise to an 
 infinitude of independent centers within the all-embracing 
 one. And yet this one itself is but the totality of rela- 
 tions between attraction and repulsion. Thus the One, 
 as this totality of relations, itself gives rise to an infini- 
 tude of ones within itself, each of which in turn is essen- 
 tially related to the whole, and thus also to all the other 
 ones. 
 
 Thus the phase of unity finds its necessary comple- 
 ment in an infinite multiplicity which, however, still 
 proves to be but a mode of the unity itself. The appear- 
 ance of multiplicity is but the unfolding of the unity. 
 The qualitative distinctions as they emerge into view 
 prove to already necessarily involve quantitative distinc- 
 tions also. Each center of force is already something 
 definitely opposed to, as well as connected with, every 
 other center of force. And each in comparison with 
 every other is seen to be necessarily a greater, or a less, 
 or an equal, as regards that other. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 AS TO CONTINUITY AND DISCRETENESS OF QUANTITY IN 
 MATTER. 
 
 AT this point we come upon the question as to the 
 relation between continuous and discrete quantity 
 in matter. And in our search for the answer to this 
 question we have but to revert to what has already pre- 
 ceded. We have seen that matter, as constituted of force, 
 is simply a manifestation of the relations between the 
 complementary modes or phases of force attraction and 
 repulsion. But the interaction of these phases of force 
 cannot but result in the focusing at every point in space of 
 a greater or less intensity of strain between those phases. 
 And yet each of these foci of force necessarily ex- 
 tends outward so as to act upon, and in turn to be reacted 
 upon by, every other focus of force. Thus constituted, 
 then, matter is necessarily continuous. At the same time, 
 however, the very focusing of force through the interac- 
 tion of its two complementary modes is a setting up of 
 distinctions which necessarily mark off or limit one por- 
 tion of matter as thus far separate, at least quantitatively, 
 from every other portion. Whence it is to be concluded 
 that matter is not merely continuous, but is also at the 
 same time, and not less truly, discrete. That is, the same 
 totality presents itself under the two different but also 
 complementary aspects of discreteness and continuity. 
 
84 THE WOKLD-ENERGY 
 
 Thus in a concrete sense the continuity of matter 
 necessarily implies the absolute fluidity of matter; just 
 as, on the other hand, the discreteness of matter no less 
 necessarily implies its perfect rigidity. But it is precisely 
 in this concrete sense, as we have already seen, that 
 matter (that is, force) in its very character of the con- 
 tinuous develops within itself infinite discreteness. The 
 infinite fluidity of the extended is nothing more nor less 
 than the varying relation between the complementary 
 aspects of force, known as attraction and repulsion, 
 whereby any and every given quantity of "matter" is 
 constantly undergoing expansion or contraction, and 
 whereby, at any given moment, therefore, the complete 
 disruption of the given quantity of matter may begin; 
 following which, or even accompanying which, such given 
 quantity may become completely fused with other quan- 
 tities and thus undergo entire re-constitution. And 
 it may be that the conception here presented is not so 
 very far removed from that of the perfectly elastic fluid 
 which, in the vortex-atom theory, is assumed to fill all 
 space. 
 
 Here, then, the puzzle of the infinite divisibility of 
 matter finds its solution. Considered as continuous merely, 
 matter is, like space, infinitely divisible ; for as simply 
 continuous matter must be as absolutely indifferent to 
 division as is space itself. But, on the other hand, matter 
 considered as merely discrete and such the atomic theory 
 makes it cannot possibly be thought as undergoing infinite 
 division, since it has already undergone final division, and 
 hence consists of ultimate, unalterable particles. 
 
 It would seem, then, that the reconciliation of these 
 two apparently irreconcilable views is found in the fore- 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 85 
 
 going conception of matter as force which necessarily so 
 unfolds itself as to present everywhere two primary and 
 complementary aspects rendering matter fluid through- 
 out its whole extent, and at the same time specializing it 
 into more or less complex and distinct, but still more or 
 less unstable, concrete masses. As is well known, the 
 densest mass still retains the character of fluidity. And 
 this must be true of the minutest (i atom" no less than of 
 directly perceptible masses. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE PHASES OF QUANTITY IN 
 MATTER. 
 
 TT is to be noted that, in so far as matter is considered 
 -* as merely continuous, its qualitative characteristics 
 do not appear. On the other hand, its discrete character 
 arises from distinctively qualitative phases of the relation 
 between attraction and repulsion. It is precisely through 
 qualitatively developed differences that discrete quantity 
 is perceivable in matter. 
 
 But the more and less of strain, as between the con- 
 centrative and the expansive tendencies, within any given 
 sphere involves still another quantitative contrast. With 
 diminished strain there is a canceling of qualitative differ- 
 ences and an increase in mere space-occupancy. As the 
 tension diminishes the extension increases. That is, the 
 intensive quantity proves to be inversely as the extensive 
 quantity. 
 
 Here, indeed, then, comes to light the deeper meaning 
 involved in the contrast between extensive and intensive 
 quantity, as set forth in the ordinary formal logic. There 
 the term having the greatest extent of meaning is ordina- 
 rily understood to be merely the most abstract term, since, 
 in order to increase the number of objects included within 
 it, the term must be restricted to fewer and fewer distin- 
 guishing characteristics. That is, with increase of extent 
 there must necessarily be decrease of intent or content. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 87 
 
 So that, formally, the intensive phase of quantity must be 
 completely set aside in precisely the same measure that the 
 extensive phase is brought into prominence. 
 
 But "set aside" may also mean, "held in abeyance," 
 rendered latent or potential. It is evident, for example, 
 that the matter of a nebula is, in the first place, quantita- 
 tively extensive ; and yet the quantity will not be dimin- 
 ished by its development of the intensive phase through 
 condensation into a planetary system, with the resultant 
 unfolding of chemical elements, followed by the appear- 
 ance of the whole vast order of compounds in vegetal 
 and animal organisms. 
 
 Doubtless through this development (which is also an 
 envelopment) there will be a differentiation of tendency 
 toward the merely extensive phase of quantity in the sub- 
 stance through the radiation of the most diffusible phases 
 of the substance into space as the concentrative process 
 goes on. But also in this concentrative process the ten- 
 dency toward diffusion, toward mere extensive quantity, 
 still remains as a necessary factor in every stage of the 
 condensation. For while the latter is the process in which 
 the intensive phase of quantity is realized, there is also 
 necessarily involved in this the development of the ten- 
 dency toward expansion, toward diffusion, toward the 
 extensive aspect of quantity. Or, in the more concrete 
 terms of physical science, pressure toward a common 
 center must inevitably develop its complement, heat, 
 which is pressure away from the common center. * 
 
 * Professor Helmholz's calculation showing that the continued high tem- 
 perature of the sun is fully accounted for by its continued concentration 
 upon its own center will doubtless occur to the reader as verifying what is 
 said in the text. 
 
88 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 In the same way, also, the extensive term in logic im- 
 plies, though it does not explicitly include, all the charac- 
 teristics of all the special objects included under it. The 
 term "rock" formally excludes all the special characteris- 
 tics, which distinguish granite from sandstone, and either 
 from marble. But since the term "rock" includes all 
 these, there is implicit in it all that belongs to whatever 
 objects it may be applied to. 
 
 The quantity of steam used in propelling a ship in safety 
 from New York to Liverpool would, if developed instanta- 
 neously in its boilers, inevitably shatter the ship to atoms. 
 The quantity might be precisely the same in either case; 
 but in the former it would be predominantly extensive, 
 while in the latter it would be predominantly intensive. 
 In either case the qualitative result depends upon the 
 relation between the extensive and the intensive aspect of 
 the quantity of force in exercise. 
 
 With continued preponderance of attraction, as we 
 have already seen, there is also corresponding increase in 
 the development of qualitative characteristics, from the 
 diffuse, almost qualitiless nebula, to the solid earth, with 
 its intense strain of forces and endless wealth of quali- 
 tative developments. At the beginning of this process of 
 concentration the quantity of matter is indeed mainly 
 extensive, and hence only in the simplest degree special- 
 ized in point of quality. At the very outset, indeed, this 
 extremely diffuse matter is already found to qualitatively 
 distinguish itself into the two opposite but complementary 
 phases of attraction and repulsion. 
 
 Now, extension is itself a universal form of all physical 
 magnitude, while magnitude, as a phase of extended real- 
 ity, is a given quantity of matter, which must necessarily 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 89 
 
 be both extensive and intensive, these phases appear- 
 ing always as reciprocals. So that attraction and re- 
 pulsion are, in the first place, the initial and funda- 
 mental qualitative differences, constituting the reality of 
 matter, or the extended. And the varying relations 
 between these complementary phases of the extended 
 must involve the whole series of relations between exten- 
 sive and intensive quantity. 
 
 At the same time, the transition in matter from the 
 state in which its quantity is predominantly extensive to 
 that in which the quantity is predominantly intensive 
 proves to be a process of qualitative evolution. That is, 
 the increase in the degree of strain between attraction 
 and repulsion within any given quantity of matter results 
 necessarily in the increased complexity of qualitative 
 manifestations within the matter. 
 
 Attraction and repulsion, then, appear in the first 
 place as if merely qualitative; but as the complementary 
 phases of the extended they prove also to be quantitative, 
 while their varying quantitative relations under the re- 
 ciprocal forms of extensive and intensive quantity again 
 give rise to an infinitude of qualitative determinations. 
 So that quality and quantity prove to be but different 
 aspects of the same sum of facts in the physical universe. 
 And science has for its special mission to unfold into 
 explicit form the orderly representation of this entire 
 sphere of relations. 
 
 A few illustrations, selected mainly from chemistry, 
 may serve to make clearer the truth of what we have just 
 been saying. 
 
 It has already been more than once remarked in the 
 present inquiry that the condensation of a nebulous mass 
 
90 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 into solid spheres must, through an increasing strain 
 between attraction and repulsion, develop as a phase of 
 that strain a correspondingly increasing tension in and 
 between the local centers of force constituting the sub- 
 stance of the sphere, and that increase of such local ten- 
 sion is the real secret of the development of the so-called 
 chemical elements. It is now to be added to this that 
 the farther this process of condensation has advanced in 
 any given portion of the developing system the greater 
 will be not only the actual number of these elements, but 
 also of the actual number and complexity of the combina- 
 tions of these elements. All chemical compounds appear 
 as manifestations of the special phase of attraction known 
 as <( affinity." At the same time chemical decomposition 
 also appears as a negative aspect of chemical combination; 
 for the separation or dissolution of a compound may be 
 due to the approach of an element between which and 
 one of the elements of the compound there is a still 
 stronger attraction or "affinity" than exists between the 
 elements already in combination, That is, the breaking 
 up of an existing compound may be involved in the very 
 process of the formation of a new compound. One degree 
 of attraction is annulled in its qualitative result by the 
 interposition of a greater degree of attraction, bringing 
 about a different result. 
 
 On the other hand, the phase of repulsion, as such, 
 must tend toward the complete disintegration of all com- 
 pounds. As the separative phase of force it still further 
 tends to dissolve all solids and to dissipate all liquids into 
 vapor, and again to still further attenuate the vapor until 
 it ceases to belong to the type of ponderable matter at all, 
 and thus comes to exist in the state of imponderable 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEBVATION. 91 
 
 space-filling substance, where, as we have previously 
 intimated, it is the true ether. Such would seem to be 
 the legitimate inference. And in any case it is evident 
 that where the separative tendency as yet greatly over- 
 balances the tendency toward concentration, the number 
 and complexity of chemical compounds must be corre- 
 spondingly limited. So that in the sun, for example, with 
 its enormously high temperature that is, with the still 
 existing relatively intense repulsion or strain toward sep- 
 aration the number of chemical compounds must be 
 exceedingly few and those compounds must be of the 
 simplest character. More explicitly, it is impossible that 
 oxygen and hydrogen should there realize their combi- 
 native tendency in the actual formation of water, even in 
 the vaporous state, while not a single one of the whole 
 series of known carbon compounds can possibly exist 
 otherwise than in the purely potential state. 
 
 It is to be noted further that the whole of modern 
 chemistry is built up from the precise quantitative rela- 
 tions existing between the " elements. " So that on this 
 side chemistry is simply one form of applied mathematics. 
 As M. Berthelot declares in closing his remarkable work, 
 " Essai de Mecanique CMmique," chemistry "approaches 
 more and more nearly to that ideal conception, followed 
 out for so many years by the efforts of scholars and of 
 philosophers, in which all speculations and all discoveries 
 tend to establish (concourent vers) the unity of the uni- 
 versal law of natural movements and forces." That is, 
 chemistry is coming more and more to be regarded as 
 simply a branch of mechanics in the general sense of the 
 term in proportion as chemical phenomena are found to 
 be capable of mathematical treatment. At the same time 
 
92 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 this in no way obscures the fact that each new compound 
 developed through change in quantitative relations ex- 
 hibits new qualitative characteristics. Take, for exam- 
 ple, the simplest cases those of allotropic substances. 
 Oxygen combines with itself, the result being what is 
 called ozone. The quantitative change is simply one 
 from extensive to intensive quantity. Externally the 
 only change is a reduction of one-third in volume. So, 
 too, carbon presents the three strikingly different states of 
 graphite, coal, and diamond, by mere variety in the com- 
 bination of carbon particles with carbon particles. 
 
 The same remarkable development of qualitative dif- 
 ference through mere change in quantitative relation is seen 
 again in all those cases where one element combines with 
 another in more than one ratio. A conspicuous example 
 is found in the various oxides of nitrogen, where a con- 
 stant quantity (28 parts by weight) of nitrogen combines 
 successively with five different quantities (16, 32, 48, 64 
 and 80 parts by weight) of oxygen, producing as many 
 qualitatively different results. It is noticeable that each 
 succeeding quantity of oxygen in the series is a simple 
 multiple of the first. And chemists have often called 
 attention to the fact that no combinations take place be- 
 tween these elements in other proportions than those given. 
 It was precisely such facts as these that led Dalton to enter 
 upon those investigations which resulted in his revival of 
 the atomic theory under a genuinely scientific form. 
 
 The core of Dalton's discovery is that this combination 
 in definite proportions is the universal characteristic of all 
 chemical activity that chemical compounds are, without 
 exception, dependent upon precisely fixed quantitative 
 relations. Nor is it without significance that in Dalton's 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 93 
 
 theory the numbers representing the proportions in which 
 the elements combine have direct reference to the weights 
 of the combining atoms. For weight, as we have seen, is 
 simply the excess of attraction over centrifugal force in 
 the neighborhood of a gravitating body like the earth. 
 So that the relative weights of the atoms of different ele- 
 ments really means the relative excess of attraction over 
 centrifugal force as between the earth on one side, and the 
 atoms or force-centers in the elements taken severally. 
 
 Now, the weight of an atom of hydrogen being taken 
 as 1, the weight of an atom of nitrogen is 14, and that of 
 an atom of oxygen is 16. But the simplest compound of 
 nitrogen and oxygen known to take place consists of two 
 parts of the former and one of the latter. Hence the 
 combining numbers for these two "elements" expressed 
 in their atomic weights are: 28 for nitrogen and 16 for 
 oxygen. And since the " atoms " can only combine as 
 wholes, the next more complex compound, supposing the 
 quantity of nitrogen to remain fixed, would be that in 
 which the quantity of oxygen would be doubled, and so on. 
 
 Allowing, then, that the atom is real, not as an infin- 
 itely hard, absolutely fixed particle of something existing 
 independently of force, but rather as itself simply a focus 
 of force which constitutes a relation that must remain 
 fixed so long as the surrounding conditions remain ap- 
 proximately the same ; allowing this, we can see that the 
 law of multiple proportions only becomes the more sig- 
 nificant, without losing in any degree its simplicity. 
 
 This law, indeed, but expresses the fixed relation be- 
 tween the general mass of the earth in its present rela- 
 tively matured stage of condensation and the various 
 classes of force-centers constituting, through their varied 
 
94 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 intensive quantities, the qualitatively different phases of 
 force-substance known as the elements, and in any given 
 case arbitrarily assumed not to be of the earth's mass. 
 In reality, the mass of the earth holds these force-centers 
 in definite relation to itself/ and in definite relations to one 
 another. Thus many compounds take place " naturally" 
 (the mass and temperature being what they are) which 
 would be impossible as "natural" compounds on the sur- 
 face of a sphere of very much less mass, or of very much 
 greater temperature. In short, all chemical compounds 
 must arise as the realization of inherent relations of 
 attraction and repulsion between definitely determined 
 force-centers, which, doubtless, there is 110 harm in call- 
 ing atoms. And should there be more than one compound 
 possible between any two elements, as in the example of 
 oxygen and nitrogen cited above, it is evident that the 
 several compounds formed must show in the successive 
 groups of atoms that the combining numbers of one or 
 the other element stand to each other in such relation 
 that all after the first are exact multiples of the first. 
 
 The law of multiple proportions, however, presents the 
 external conditions of chemical combinations; or, more 
 precisely, the qualitative relations here presented are 
 figured rather as the relations of extensive quantity. On 
 the other hand, the phase of intensive quantity is shown 
 in affinity, properly speaking in the energy of attraction 
 between the particles themselves. At the same time 
 there is, as must ever be the case, a variation of the 
 intensive quantity presented in the compound, through a 
 variation in the extensive quantity of combination. And 
 this variation of the intensive quantity is precisely what 
 determines the qualitative differences of the several 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATIOJtf. 95 
 
 compounds. Thus, the several oxides of nitrogen already 
 referred to present each its own group of distinguishing 
 qualitative characteristics. 
 
 The whole of chemistry is, indeed, but an extended illus- 
 tration of this, so that we need here do no more than call 
 special attention to the immense number of exceedingly 
 complex compounds which carbon forms with one or more 
 of the three other elements, oxygen, hydrogen and nitro- 
 gen the great number of the compounds being rendered 
 possible, as the chemists assure us, by a "fundamental 
 and distinctive property of carbon itself." That property 
 is the power, possessed by no other element in so high a 
 degree, of combining with itself, and forming a variable 
 basis for multitudes of complicated compounds involving 
 one or more of the other elements just named. 
 
 The point we have here specially to emphasize is, that 
 the mere variation of the quantitative relations in the 
 combinations of these four elements gives rise to the entire 
 series of qualitative differences which lend such immense 
 variety to the products, both of the vegetal and of the 
 animal world. 
 
 To what has been said respecting the relation between 
 extensive and intensive quantity as illustrated in chem- 
 istry, there may be added the following, from what is 
 known of electricity. Statical electricity is said to be 
 characterized by intensity, while dynamical electricity is 
 distinguished by its quantity. And yet these two modes 
 of electricity do not differ in kind, but rather in the 
 mode of their development, which fact becomes explicit 
 in the alternative names: frictional and chemical 
 electricity. Not only so, but a Leyden jar may as well 
 
96 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 be charged from a Voltaic battery, as from an electrical 
 machine. 
 
 The real truth of the relation between statical and 
 dynamical electricity comes out in the estimate of Fara- 
 day,* that a current of dynamical electricity which would 
 decompose a single grain of water by acting upon it during 
 three and three-fourths minutes would, if its whole force 
 were expended instantaneously, be equal in intensity to a 
 powerful flash of lightning. Here the quantity of force 
 is evidently the same. Acting through a longer time, it is 
 extensive quantity; while the instantaneous expenditure 
 of its whole energy presents the same quantity of force 
 under the character of intensive quantity. 
 
 Statical electricity, then, is a phase of force, whose 
 quantity is characteristically intensive, while dynamical 
 electricity is a phase of force whose quantity is characteris- 
 tically extensive. And, as is well known, all that is neces- 
 sary in order to concentrate the extensive quantity of the 
 latter, so that its manifestation shall be specifically inten- 
 sive, is to introduce into its circuit an induction coil. 
 
 It is evident, then, that the "intensity" of statical 
 electricity is simply intensive quantity, while the " quan- 
 tity " of dynamical electricity is quantity manifested under 
 the specific character of extensive quantity. And when 
 it is said that quantity and intensity are inversely the one 
 as the other in electricity, it is evident that this is but 
 a loose way of saying that in any given quantity of elec- 
 tricity as of any other phase of force : the extensive and 
 the intensive aspects are reciprocals. 
 
 *See his "Experimental Researches in Electricity," (3d Ed.) L, 250. 
 
OHAPTEE IX. 
 
 MEASUEE AND THE MEASUEELESS. 
 
 WE have thus seen that the extended world is first 
 known to us through the qualitative differences 
 of attraction and repulsion; that these in turn, through 
 their necessary interactions, develop, or rather are seen to 
 involve, an unlimited complex of quantitative relations; 
 and again, that these quantitative relations reciprocally 
 serve to render completely explicit a whole world of qual- 
 itative characteristics. It is also evident that these 
 mutually inclusive qualitative and quantitative relations 
 constitute the reality of the extended world. 
 
 Let us noAV inquire further of this extended world and 
 obtain, as far as we may, a more adequate knowledge of 
 its fundamental character and modes of existence. 
 
 In the first place, it is evident that whatever knowledge 
 we possess of the quantitative relations of this extended 
 world must involve comparison of one phase with another. 
 But these comparisons also imply a fixed standard. And 
 comparison with a fixed standard constitutes measure. 
 
 At the same time, we must soon become aware that all 
 standards of measurement in the extended world must be 
 arbitrary, and hence the measure must be purely relative. 
 Hence, it may be remarked by the way, there can be no 
 absolute distinction between extensive and intensive quan- 
 tity. On the contrary, a given quantity may be regarded 
 as either extensive or intensive, according to the standard 
 
 A^ /"! Trt-TT * 
 
98 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 of comparison. The rending force of gunpowder would 
 be regarded as intensive compared with that of freezing 
 water, while on the other hand, it would rather bear the 
 character of extensive quantity, when compared with 
 dynamite. In other words, any given quantity of energy 
 is not merely extensive or intensive; it is both extensive 
 and intensive. The distinction between these phases can 
 never be suppressed, while, at the same time, their unity 
 is inseparable. 
 
 And yet all measure proves to be relative, even abso- 
 lutely relative. So that, as it seems to turn out, we know 
 absolutely that all our knowledge, especially our exact 
 knowledge, is relative. It is a hopeful-discouraging out- 
 come. Assuredly, if we are anywhere to obtain knowledge 
 that may be called absolute, it must be in the realm of 
 measure, which is pre-eminently the realm of the exact 
 sciences. There is, at least, one science universally ac- 
 knowledged to be exact the science of pure quantity, or 
 mathematics. And yet, even here, there have been skep- 
 tical murmurings, not to say loud protests. The very 
 axioms of mathematics have been called in question.* 
 And not only so, but here and there, especially in the 
 applications of mathematics, there is full confession of the 
 necessity of approximation, as will be seen more fully 
 when we come to consider the subject of motion. So that 
 a momentary shadow of suspicion arises lest the very sci- 
 ence in which men have so long confided with absolute 
 serenity may prove to be, after all, only the exact science of 
 approximation. And so much the more as those sciences 
 which have come to be called " exact/" through the 
 
 * See, for example, Helmholz's criticism cm The Axioms of Mathematics, 
 in his Popular Scientific Lectures (Second Series). 
 
AND ITS SELF- CONSERVATION. 99 
 
 application of mathematics to them, must keep within the 
 limits of measure, seeing that they have constantly to do 
 with the quantitative phases of the extended world, and 
 must, therefore, bear the mark of "relativity" inherent 
 in all things within the realm of measure. 
 
 In sober truth, that the application of mathematics to 
 the actual extended world may be brought within the 
 range of finite powers of thinking, it is necessary to con- 
 fine the calculations to a simple set of relations more or 
 less arbitrarily chosen, and to regard this set of relations 
 as if completely isolated from the rest of the universe. 
 For example, Thomson and Tait, in their " Treatise on 
 Natural Philosophy," call special attention to the fact 
 that even in so simple a case as that of the investigation 
 of the lever it is necessary to assume that a lever is a 
 bar, perfectly rigid, inflexible, and without weight an 
 assumption which, of course, can never be realized. 
 
 In short, the assumption made in every single instance 
 in the application of mathematics to the concrete sciences 
 is more or less in direct contradiction to the actual facts. 
 Or, if not exactly this, at least all except certain more or 
 less arbitrarily chosen aspects of those facts are of neces- 
 sity ignored in each and every problem proposed. 
 
 It is true that the very purpose of the mathematical 
 phase of the sciences is to discover the exact measure of 
 things. And yet the really exact is not the approximately 
 exact. The former is, no doubt, that which is desired, 
 though the latter is the utmost that is ever actually 
 attained. The " exact sciences" propose an ideal which 
 they can never hope to realize ; and this is inevitable from 
 the very nature of the case. The so-called exact sciences 
 are necessarily restricted to the realm of measure that is, 
 
100 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 to the realm of infinite. For in every such case measure 
 consists in the comparison of any given object with an 
 arbitrarily chosen, and therefore finite, standard. Every- 
 thing measured is by that fact limited. Hence it is that 
 the realm of mathematics is the realm of finite thought. 
 
 At the same time, we have seen that the sum-total of 
 the extended world is necessarily a unit a whole of 
 which the infinitely varied phases constitute the specific 
 objects of all sense-perception. That is, these objects 
 are but the precisely defined forms resulting from the 
 activity of the total World-Energy. 
 
 But measure is the comparison of these various forms, 
 one with another, or with some purely conventional stand- 
 ard. That is, these forms present the only realm of the 
 actually measurable ; so that the world, as a whole, thus 
 proves to be measureless. 
 
 And yet these forms, we have just seen, are not only the 
 specific objects of sense-perception, but they are also the 
 direct product of the activity of the World-Energy. They 
 are modes of its manifestation. In other words, the 
 measurable proves to be just a phase of the measureless. 
 Or, again, the measurable is found to constitute the 
 modes in which the measureless manifests itself. Nay, 
 Mr. Spencer himself, as we remember, allows that even 
 the "Unknowable" has an established order of self- 
 manifestation. 
 
 Thus the measurable is found to be the finite, while 
 the measureless is the infinite ; so that the finite is not 
 something contrasted with the infinite, but is in truth a 
 mode or phase of the infinite. Otherwise the infinite 
 would have to maintain itself in contrast with, or in 
 opposition to, the finite. It would then be in external 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 101 
 
 relation to the finite that is, it would be limited ~by 'the 
 finite, in which case it would itself prove to be something 
 finite, and not the true infinite. 
 
 Thus the infinite and the finite prove to be but the 
 more adequate aspects of what were previously called 
 continuous and discrete quantity. 
 
 Bjit here something further suggests itself. It is this: 
 As the true infinite must include the finite within itself 
 as phases of itself,, then the infinite must be the compre- 
 hensive total of all reality. And as such it must be abso- 
 lutely equal with itself. It can be compared with noth- 
 ing else than itself, for it is itself the only reality. It is, 
 then, absolutely immeasurable by any finite standard, and 
 yet at the same time it is the eternally self-measured. 
 
 Thus the finite is seen to constitute nothing else than 
 the endlessly varied modes of the self-measurement of the 
 true infinite. The world as a whole is, therefore, a 
 mighty process in which all that is finite or measur- 
 able is dissolved and absolutely fused in the infinite or 
 measureless. 
 
 In this connection a significant hint is found to be 
 latent in the most elementary phase of mathematics. The 
 beginner learns that "once one is one." At a later stage 
 he learns something of the "powers "of numbers. He 
 learns that 2 multiplied by itself produces 4, while 1 
 multiplied by itself is still 1. Unity, he is assured, is 
 peculiar to itself in the fact that it remains unchanged, 
 however persistently it may be multiplied by itself. 
 
 Surely that is a wonderful property wonderful, in- 
 deed, if true! Let one attempt its verification in prac- 
 tice and see what the result will be. If 1 is a line, then 
 1 x 1 is a surface still 1, it is true, but 1 having a quite 
 
102 THE WORLD-EKEKGY 
 
 new value. So again 1 x 1 x 1, is a solid. It is still 1, but 
 1 with added wealth of meaning. 
 
 And what do the higher "powers" of numbers signify 
 but varying degrees of "solidity"? And what are these 
 varying degrees of solidity but varying degrees of tension 
 within a given mass, resulting in qualities that is, in 
 enriched modes of existence? That plaything of modern 
 mathematics the "fourth dimension in space" is in 
 truth a symbol representing the transition from extensive 
 to intensive quantity. And the higher "powers" of 
 numbers in general are nothing else than abstract ex- 
 pressions hinting obscurely at the concrete fact that the 
 more intensive a given quantity of energy becomes, the 
 richer does it become in quality. 
 
 In other words, what is commonly called quality as 
 distinguished from quantity is in reality, let us repeat, 
 nothing else than intensive quantity, which is the recip- 
 rocal of quantity in its aspect of extent. 
 
 But again, the abstract formula, 1x1 = 1, not only 
 seems unquestionable. It is unquestionable from two 
 points of view. The first is that point of view (the usual 
 one) from which the formula is taken in its purely ab- 
 stract sense. In pure or formal mathematics the express- 
 ion: Ixl=l 2 =l is faultless. On the other hand, the 
 second point of view is that in which unity is taken in its 
 richest, most concrete significance. From this point of 
 view it is equally unquestionable that the absolutely per- 
 fect unit, the total, self-sufficing Energy, maintains its 
 eternal self-equality by the faultless continuity of its 
 fusion, its combination, its multiplication of itself with 
 itself. And here indeed the formula is no longer 1x1 = 
 l a =l;but 1x1 = 1 a =1. 
 
AND ITS SELF-COKSEKVATION. 103 
 
 Again, zero is commonly defined as a symbol which, 
 when standing alone, expresses no value. That seems 
 simple enough. And yet on further examination the 
 symbol represents, even in its very lowest term, a 
 product of very abstract thinking. It really represents 
 the negation in thought of all reality. That is, its 
 subjective meaning may be said to be greatest when 
 its objective meaning is least. Or if, as is sometimes 
 done, we take the term "objective" to mean valid, 
 true, then we would have to change the mode of our 
 expression, and say that the objective significance of 
 the term zero in its ultimate abstraction consists pre- 
 cisely in its subjective character. For in its ultimate 
 abstraction the term zero represents a perfectly valid 
 concept to which there is no corresponding reality other 
 than the concept itself. It represents just that nega- 
 tive concept which consists in the recognition that 
 beyond reality there is absolutely no limitation, for 
 limitation is itself a mode of reality, or, if the technical 
 reader prefers, a mode of actuality. 
 
 But still further, in concrete science zero represents a 
 multitude of values on occasion. In the higher geometry 
 a right line is represented by an equation, of which one 
 member is 0. Again, in physics zero of temperature (Cen- 
 tigrade) represents that balancing of the molecular attrac- 
 tions and repulsions in water, the slightest disturbance of 
 which one way or the other will (under given conditions 
 of pressure) cause the water to assume the solid state or 
 assure its remaining liquid. But this is by no means all. 
 The theoretical "absolute zero" (273 below Centi- 
 grade) gives a scale in which Centigrade is found to 
 represent an "absolute" positive temperature of 273. 
 
104 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 It seems worth remarking, too, that the "absolute 
 zero " logically represents the complete absence of molec- 
 ular repulsions, and therefore also the complete absence 
 of molecular attractions. But this can only mean the 
 complete absence of matter that is, complete vacuum 
 (such vacuum itself being in great danger of collapse, one 
 might suppose). 
 
 But not to extend illustrations further, we may say in 
 general that in concrete science zero represents a positive 
 value; and that value is always of precisely one character. 
 It is invariably a point of indifference, or equilibrium. 
 And this is the clew to the ultimate, most concrete sig- 
 nificance of zero. For, as representing the equilibrium 
 of concrete modes of energy in general, it becomes evident 
 at once that the ultimate, most concrete significance of 
 the symbol, is that of the equilibrium, the perfect self- 
 poise of the total Energy; just as 1, in its richest meaning, 
 represents the absolute wholeness of the total Energy. 
 
 Finally, the formula ^ = oc is meaningless if stands 
 for pure nothing. Or, if it represents any positive quan- 
 tity, the formula is absurd if 1 stands for any finite 
 quantity. It can have genuine concrete significance only 
 when 1 represents the absolute totality of existence, and 
 the absolute equilibrium of that totality, in the sense of 
 the absolutely perfect method of the totality, as self- 
 consistent energy. In the first of the supposed cases it 
 is a formula of division, representing no-division. In the 
 last case it represents, not the division of one quantity by 
 another, but rather, the absolute self-division of the total 
 Energy; and such self -division is nothing else than the 
 self-specialization, the self-differentiation, that is, the 
 self-realization of the total World-Energy. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 105 
 
 Thus, there comes into something like distinct view 
 the one central conception which has been gradually 
 focusing into definite utterance throughout the whole of 
 our inquiry, thus far. 
 
 Before proceeding with the further stages of the argu- 
 ment, it seems worth while to notice that the result here 
 reached is altogether in agreement with the doctrine re- 
 garding the relation between substance and its attributes, 
 as defined by Spinoza. That is, to use his phrase, " attri- 
 butes are what we may know of substance." So, also, the 
 same results may be reached through a consideration of 
 the interdependence of the categories of Aristotle. 
 
 It has been claimed that Aristotle gathered his cate- 
 gories together in more or less arbitrary fashion, from the 
 current speech of his time. But it is also to be borne 
 in mind that his writings have reached us in exceedingly 
 fragmentary form, and that our judgment regarding the 
 arbitrariness of his mode of procedure ought to be guarded 
 accordingly. In any case, the categories as they stand in 
 the list handed down to us as the one he proposed, are 
 open for interpretation. And it seems but reasonable 
 and just to allow that the most adequate and consistent 
 interpretation which can be given them is the one which 
 Aristotle himself put upon them, in more or less explicit 
 fashion. Or if not so much as this, at least it ought to 
 be allowed that such interpretation is not inconsistent 
 with the general estimate he gave them. 
 
 Let us see, then, what interpretation will be borne by 
 these categories as presented in the Organon. They are 
 as follows: Substance (ob<rta), Quantity (xoffov], Quality 
 (noiov), Relation (npos r:), Where (nob), When (TTOT^), 
 
106 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Position (xsiffdat), Possession (exetv), Action (xoieiv), 
 and Passion (ndffzzt*;). 
 
 It is true that in the logical treatise of Aristotle these 
 categories receive a treatment that seems rather formal 
 than essential. And yet, even here, and still more strongly 
 in the metaphysics, Aristotle intimates his conviction, not 
 only that substance must be (logically) prior to its attri- 
 butes in any given object, but that substance is one and 
 indivisible, as well as primal and primordial. 
 
 Doubtless this would be a somewhat violent interpre- 
 tation if taken from the logical treatise alone. But its 
 justification is found to be fairly complete through the 
 frequent references to, and even extended discussions of, 
 substance in the metaphysics, where it is represented as 
 equivalent to the very being, essence or nature of a thing, 
 and where the conception that substance must be pri- 
 marily one is explicitly referred to with approval, and 
 something approaching proof of its necessity. And when 
 taken in connection with the outcome of the discussion 
 of the nature of cause, with which he identifies substance, 
 it is fairly evident that the oiW was to him what sub- 
 stance is in modern thought namely, that which sup- 
 ports and unifies all attributes, or rather, that which 
 enfolds all "attributes" within itself, as no thing else than 
 modes of itself. Thus, evidently, it is that without 
 which the attributes themselves could not be. 
 
 From this point of view it is manifest that quality and 
 quantity can be real only as attributes of substance. 
 They are simply the what-kind and the how-much of 
 substance. Similarly, relation can exist, in the first 
 place, only as between substance and the attributes inher- 
 ing in substance, and secondly, as between the attributes 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 107 
 
 themselves. Indeed, in our present discussion, we 
 have seen that substance, so far as the extended world 
 presents its developed reality, is just the unity (relation) 
 of quality under the form of mutually opposed and yet 
 mutually inclusive forces, on the one hand, and quantity, 
 on the other hand, as measure or limitation, and hence as 
 a phase of differentiation, or the rendering explicit what 
 lies latent in substance. 
 
 "Where" and "when" are manifestly relations re- 
 spectively of time and place. " Position " indicates atti- 
 tude or relative place, including relation of part to part 
 in the thing having position. " Possession " is but a rela- 
 tion between a superior (more complex) and an inferior 
 (less complex) phase of substance. So that thus far, we 
 have in reality but three categories as attributes of sub- 
 stance namely quantity, quality, and relation. 
 
 At the same time it is noticeable that these three at- 
 tributive categories could have no existence apart from 
 substance, nor could substance exist without involving 
 what those categories imply. They are essential phases 
 of substance. 
 
 So, too, the remaining categories show themselves at 
 once to be only mutually implying modes of substance. 
 For the reality of substance can be shown only in its 
 activity; and as substance contributes the sum-total of 
 reality, it must be no less truly passive than active, since, 
 as the total, it must receive the whole of its own activity. 
 Passion or passivity is simply sufferance or receptivity. 
 But receptivity is not merely passivity ; it is just as truly 
 activity. It is, in short, but another name for reaction. 
 It may be remarked by the way, then, that in his categories 
 Aristotle presents us with the simplest possible scheme 
 
108 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 of thought. For those categories are nothing else than 
 the names, first, of that which is necessarily presupposed 
 in all thought, and, secondly, of those fundamental 
 modes in which alone it can be comprehended in thought. 
 We may criticise the list as we will. It still is a series of 
 names representing concepts without which thought and 
 things would be alike impossible. 
 
 Let us now remind ourselves once more that the funda- 
 mental qualities of the matter or substance of the extended 
 world are, primarily, attraction and repulsion, and that 
 these are opposed and yet also mutually inclusive phases 
 of force. Whence it appears that action and passion are 
 but further (that is, more explicit) aspects of the neces- 
 sary interrelation between attraction and repulsion. They 
 are the phases of action and reaction in the total process 
 of the self-measured. 
 
 We have already seen how quality finds its truth in the 
 intensive phase of quantity. It now appears, too, that 
 quality and quantity are but modes of substance, or of 
 the self -measured Total. So that the ultimate truth of 
 relation is found to be the self-relation of the Total. 
 
 The substance of the extended world, then, is Energy, 
 which presents itself as an all-inclusive process, whose 
 fundamental phases are action and reaction. This is the 
 essence, the very nature, the true internality of the 
 external world. It is the noumenon or reality bringing 
 itself into open manifestation through or, rather, as 
 the all-pervasive, all-energizing process of the world. 
 This, indeed, brings us to the consideration of motion, 
 which involves not merely the space-relations already 
 brought under review, but also the fundamental relations 
 of succession that is, time-relations. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MOTION IN GENERAL. 
 
 THE doctrine of Heraclitus that all is a becoming was 
 unquestionably the most important phase of the pre- 
 Socratic philosophy. It unified the elements which had 
 previously been brought into definition, and which in the 
 Eleatic school were not only opposed to each other, but 
 were also held in mutual exclusion. The central doctrine 
 of Parmenides, the chief representative of that school, 
 was that "being alone is, and non-being is not." 
 
 This doctrine involves the conception that everything 
 is all that it can ever be. It therefore has no potential 
 phase, and so can by no possibility pass out of its present 
 state. Hence no change, quantitative or qualitative, can 
 ever take place. All seeming change is mere illusion. 
 The senses only deceive us. It is by reason, and by 
 reason alone, that we can ever attain a knowledge of the 
 truth. The senses tell us that the things of the world 
 change ; reason assures us that no change whatever is 
 possible. 
 
 Thus, in defense of this doctrine, Zeno's dialectic 
 comes to have an exclusively negative employment. Its 
 central, if not its sole, purpose is to prove that the con- 
 ception of motion (and hence of change) is a self -contra- 
 dictory conception, and hence impossible. A thing, he 
 says, must move either where it is or where it is not. 
 On the one hand, however, it is impossible that it should 
 
 109 
 
110 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 move where it is ; for the moment it begins to move, it 
 must in that very fact leave the place where it is. On the 
 other hand, it can not move where it is not, since it is 
 impossible that it should be in more than one place at 
 the same time. Hence it is impossible that anything 
 should move ; or, in other words, motion of any kind 
 whatever is impossible. 
 
 It was doubtless a very elf ective sarcasm on the part of 
 Diogenes when, on hearing this argument through, he 
 silently and contemptuously filliped a pebble into the brook 
 with his not too tidy great toe, though it could scarcely 
 serve as a philosophic answer to the argument. 
 
 The fallacy, in fact, lies in the ambiguity of the ex- 
 pression, "where it is." In truth, the place where any- 
 thing is is absolutely indifferent as regards space in gen- 
 eral; while, on the other hand, the place where a thing is 
 is no less absolutely inseparable from the thing itself. No 
 matter, then, whether the thing be moving or motion-, 
 less, the "place-where-it-is" pertains absolutely to the 
 thing itself, and is indifferently any portion of space 
 whatever. 
 
 Thus, the " place-where-it-is " is by no means to be 
 understood as an absolutely fixed division in or of 
 absolute space. On the contrary, space is simply an 
 infinite series of indifferent "places," each of which in 
 turn comes to be the "place-where-it-is" as the thing 
 passes into it, and comes again to be the place where it 
 was as the thing passes out of it that is, again, if such 
 "place" could possibly be defined apart from body. 
 
 It is not true, then, that, in order to move, the thing 
 must leave the " place-where-it-is ; " for the "place-where- 
 it-is" is not a fixed portion of absolute space, but is, 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. Ill 
 
 instead, precisely the abstract externality or volume per- 
 taining to the thing itself, and inseparable therefrom. 
 It can occupy only just so much of space as corresponds 
 to its volume, neither more nor less ; and thus, in a cer- 
 tain sense, it carries with it the <( place-where-it-is", 
 the latter being, in short, nothing else than a given 
 quantity of what Kant calls "movable space. " It may 
 also be said that the whole of pure space is the "here" of 
 every particular body, since it is impossible to say where, 
 in space as such, the body is. It can, in fact, be located 
 only with reference to other bodies. Apart from body, 
 then, "place" has no meaning, so that a body cannot 
 leave the "place-where-it-is", simply because it cannot 
 separate itself from its own volume. On the other hand, 
 as to the particular portion of abstract space which the 
 body is in, it is impossible for us ever to know whether a 
 body is moving or not, so long as the body is viewed apart 
 from other bodies. As will be shown more fully below, 
 neither motion nor rest could ever be ascribed to an 
 isolated body in abstract space. Motion and rest are 
 terms that cannot be applied with any meaning to a 
 body, save as expressing a relation of that body to some 
 other body. 
 
 Thus motion proves to be the very first and simplest 
 phase of "becoming" or change in any portion of the 
 extended world. That is, in such "change" the object 
 is found theoretically to undergo change or modification 
 only in a purely external sense ; for there occurs no real 
 change in the object, but only a change in the purely 
 external relations which the given object sustains to 
 other objects. 
 
112 THE WOKLD-ENEEGY 
 
 It may be, indeed, that even such external change 
 necessarily involves internal change also, though that is 
 not immediately apparent. Nevertheless, as was already 
 seen at an earlier stage of the argument, any change in 
 the relative position of any given force-center must in- 
 volve a change in the strains to which it is subjected, and 
 hence must develop greater or less modification within 
 the force-center itself; and not only so, but it would 
 seem that the continuity of substance must render such 
 interrelation inevitable in every sphere of existence. Of 
 this we will see more as we proceed. 
 
 Another form of Zeno's argument is as follows: Grant- 
 ing that motion is possible, an arrow, for example, can 
 never actually pass through any assigned space. For 
 since space is infinitely divisible, there will be an infinite 
 number of divisions or spaces between the point of be- 
 ginning and the assigned terminus of its flight. At the 
 same time, it must occupy a definite portion of time in 
 passing through each of these spaces. But, as there is 
 an infinite number of spaces to be passed over, the arrow 
 will necessarily occupy in its flight an infinite number of 
 moments or divisions of time. That is, an infinite time 
 will be required for the arrow to reach its terminus. 
 Therefore no assigned space can be traversed by any 
 object in any finite time. 
 
 It is as if all velocities were subdivided into what the 
 acute eye of modern science has been able to recognize as 
 "infinitely small" velocities, which in truth is but a 
 calm adoption, with or without recognition, of the dread- 
 fully metaphysical conception of the infinite divisibility 
 of both time and space ; f or " velocity" is just the product 
 of space and time. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 113 
 
 Here, indeed, the fallacy is not so very deeply hidden 
 as has been sometimes supposed. Space is assumed to 
 be infinitely divisible. Then a finite space is assumed to 
 be actually divided to infinity. Then one of these " in- 
 finitely small " divisions is assumed to have absolutely no 
 dimensions at all. That is, an " infinitely small " portion 
 or extent of space is assumed to be identical with the 
 point which, so far from being a space, even an "infi- 
 nitely small " space, is just the absolute negation of space. 
 
 On the contrary, no matter how far the division of 
 space may be considered to have been carried, even though 
 it be to "infinity," yet will the smallest actual division 
 still be space, and will thus have actual dimensions. So 
 that, each extending over a definite part of the distance, 
 there will be but a finite number of spaces to pass 
 through. 
 
 But, again, as Aristotle did not fail to observe, time 
 is infinitely divisible, as well as space. And, hence, a 
 portion of time, however small, may be stretched out to 
 infinity by the same process, and thus a fictitious infinite 
 time produced to render the passage of the arrow through 
 the assumed fictitious infinity of space reasonably suc- 
 cessful and prompt. 
 
 Nay, let the same mode of proof be applied to the 
 arrow itself (since matter is also infinitely divisible), and 
 it will be found that the arrow consists of an infinite 
 number of parts, each of which has a certain extent. 
 Whence the arrow, as a whole, has infinite dimensions, 
 and thus offers a solid bridge whereon one may safely pass 
 from the earth to the remotest star in space I For thus, 
 evidently, the arrow itself is already the star and the 
 earth, and all things else extended. Hence, too, it is 
 
114 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 already at the point of destination without even leaving 
 the point of departure. 
 
 But one fallacy is not explained, still less explained 
 away,, by putting another by its side. A really valid 
 answer to the one here under consideration is found in 
 the contradiction involved in the expression, "infinite 
 number." 
 
 Doubtless there may be, and is, a reality corresponding 
 with the expression, infinite quantity ; and mathematics 
 is commonly defined as the "science of quantity." Nev- 
 ertheless, as we have seen, mathematics deals, and from 
 its nature can only deal successfully, with the finite 
 aspects of quantity. To quantify in the mathematical 
 sense means to find a definite measure. And whenever 
 a "mathematically exact "result is reached, that result 
 is represented by some definite number. But number, as 
 a given definite number, is and can only be finite. ' Any 
 given number may be added to, or may be multiplied 
 either by itself or by any other number. Hence the ex- 
 pression, an " infinite number." has really no meaning in 
 the strict sense of the term. The infinite is beyond all 
 number, and no given number can ever represent the 
 infinite. So that the phrase, "infinite number," is an 
 "expression," indeed, but an expression of nothing more 
 than the vague conception of a quantity very great, but 
 as yet undefined ; unmeasured, but by no means absolutely 
 
 In short, the Zenonian fallacy can possess even the 
 color of truth only so long as one fails to recognize the 
 essential relationship between the continuous and the dis- 
 crete aspects of quantity the true relation of the meas- 
 urable to the measureless. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 115 
 
 A valid reason is found, as I think, for the attention 
 here given to the fallacies of the Zenonian dialectic, in 
 the re-appearance of those fallacies under varying forms 
 in modern science. In this connection it will suffice to 
 mention the mathematical theory of "variables and lim- 
 its"; in which it is supposed to be shown, for example, 
 how a polygon may actually become a circle;* and, as a 
 typical case in physical science, that of work done by 
 weight with a lever of infinite length. Mathematics 
 struggles courageously toward the infinite, and produces 
 magnificent results within its appropriate domain of 
 the finite. 
 
 In contrast with the Eleatic doctrine that "Being 
 alone is and non-being is not," Heraclitus declared that 
 "Being no more is than non-being." In the former the 
 conception of "being" is equivalent to that of absolute 
 reality, while by "non-being" is evidently meant the 
 absolutely unreal; that is, mere nothing. In the latter or 
 Heraclitean doctrine, on the contrary, the term "being" 
 evidently represents the present state in which any given 
 phase of reality is, while the term "non-being" stands 
 for any state that a given phase of reality may assume 
 other than that which it now is in. That is, Heraclitus 
 seems to have been the first to see clearly that nothing in 
 the finite world is ever at any one moment all that it is 
 possible it should be the first to see at all clearly the 
 true distinction between the real and the potential. Thus, 
 according to his doctrine, any individual object has being 
 at any given moment in just so far as its potentialities 
 
 *In some mathematical works it is, indeed, explicitly stated that the 
 "limit" can never be actually reached; though the conception of a number 
 " becoming infinite " seems to present no difficulties. 
 
116 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 are realized in that moment. On the other hand, 
 whatever of its potentialities are unrealized at any 
 given moment, such potentialities constitute its non- 
 being. 
 
 But these unrealized phases of potentiality belonging 
 to an object and constituting its non-being are no less 
 constituent factors in the total significance of the object 
 than are the phases which are for the moment realized, 
 and which thus constitute its being. The being of an 
 object may cease as being and come to be as non-being; 
 but it can do so only on condition that some phase or 
 phases of its non-being shall cease as non-being, and thus 
 come into the state of being. Thus his somewhat enig- 
 matical saying that being no more is than non-being is 
 seen to be entirely justified. It is an explicit announce- 
 ment of the condition necessary to any and every change 
 or becoming. Whence his doctrine is called the doctrine 
 of Becoming, emphasizing as it does (in opposition to the 
 changelessness of Being as affirmed by the Eleatics) the 
 evident fact that all things are in a ceaseless process 
 that all things perpetually flow or become. 
 
 It seems probable, too, that we have here the clue to the 
 peculiar form which Aristotle gave to that law, which he 
 regarded as the fundamental law of all true thinking. 
 As has already been stated (in the introductory chapter) 
 the "law of contradiction" as formulated by him declares 
 that "a thing cannot both begin and not begin at the 
 same time and in the same sense." It is as if Aristotle 
 wished to emphasize in his formulation of this central 
 conception of all real science the truth of the doctrine 
 of Becoming, and the necessity of its recognition in all 
 rational inquiry. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 117 
 
 And that this is by no means a strained interpretation 
 is shown in a remarkable passage of the "Metaphysics," 
 (Lib. XL [XII. ] cap. II). The entire book is devoted to 
 a discussion of substance. In the second chapter change 
 is especially considered as pertaining to that phase of sub- 
 stance perceptible to the senses. In the preceding chap- 
 ter he has remarked that in this phase of substance there 
 is an eternal element or factor. Here he indicates that 
 this permanent factor in the midst of the changing is to 
 be called matter (obj). Directly after is found the pas- 
 sage to which reference is made above, and which is as 
 follows: "If there were four modes of change one as 
 to type (TO ri), one as to quality (TO notov), one as to 
 quantity (ij noffov), one as to place (ij TTD); and if sim- 
 ple integration (yfrsffis) and 1 disintegration (QOopa) [were 
 to take place] according to the first of these modes, in- 
 crease and diminution according to that of quantity, 
 change, [in quality] according to passivity, and motion 
 according to place; then in every case change would be 
 a contradiction." Thus far, as if with reference to the 
 Zenonian arguments in disproof of the possibility of 
 change. But he adds immediately a statement that 
 seems to refer distinctly to the Heraclitean doctrine of 
 Becoming as the essentially true one in respect of change. 
 The statement is this: "Whence, of necessity, all possi- 
 ble change in matter is two-fold [or of reciprocal nature] . 
 But, since being is two-fold, everything changes from 
 potential being (duvdpst OVTOS) into real being (ivsp^sia 6v); 
 as, for example, from light potential to light real. Simi- 
 larly with increase and diminution. Whence it is by no 
 means accidental that all things are developed recipro- 
 
118 THE WOELD-ENEEGY 
 
 cally from non-being and from being" (* py ovros, d>Ua 
 
 xa} ovro-). 
 
 Thus Aristotle interprets into clearness what remained 
 a somewhat obscure theory with Heraclitus, namely, that 
 non-being is as the reciprocal of being, and that, as poten- 
 tiality, non-being may be of any degree whatever the 
 greater the degree of reality in any given case the less the 
 degree of potentiality; the less the degree of reality the 
 greater the degree of potentiality. When the rose-bud is 
 real, the rose is the next natural phase of potentiality. 
 When the rose is the real, the next phase of potentiality is 
 decay, etc. And the actual rose is the total round of pos- 
 sibilities of the rose, both the realized and the unrealized. 
 That is, the actual total world is the entire range of both 
 reality and potentiality, of being and of non-being; and 
 every object of the world appealing to the senses, is in 
 constant process or rather it is itself a constant process 
 with both beginning and ceasing, with both being and 
 non-being, as the necessary reciprocal factors of its pro- 
 tean existence. 
 
 Thus motion is inevitable. It is not so difficult to 
 conceive its existence as to conceive its non-existence. 
 
 To this it need hardly be added that Hegel takes, as 
 the starting-point of his famous (though, it is to be 
 feared, little known) dialectical development of the cate- 
 gories of thought (and of reality) this same doctrine of 
 Heraclitus concerning the relation which being and non- 
 being sustain to each other in becoming, though of course 
 with a subtle refinement upon these concepts as they were 
 left by Heraclitus. 
 
 It appears, then, that motion, activity, /becoming, has 
 long been considered as constituting the vital truth of the 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 119 
 
 world. And modern science is but tracing out in more 
 precise details what the greatest " metaphysical " thinkers 
 of preceding ages have shown, each in his own way, to be 
 the one truly rational theory of the world. What is, per- 
 haps, wanting more than anything else in the work of 
 modern science, is the clear guidance of the universal 
 principles which these great thinkers have outlined with 
 such admirable consistency, and which modern investiga- 
 tors themselves are seeking after, through their so-called 
 inductive methods. In reality, the fundamental princi- 
 ples of all science are discovered rather by reflection than 
 by pursuit of details. And what are called discoveries are 
 commonly nothing else than the outward, conspicuous 
 verification of the accuracy with which the inward incon- 
 spicuous process of thought has traced out this or that 
 fundamental principle in nature. Thought anticipates 
 experiment. Experiment is the process of measuring 
 one's thought by applying it to the unvarying standard of 
 nature. 
 
 Doubtless thought, to be successful, to be real as 
 thought, must in a certain sense be experimental, must 
 keep in view the " facts " of nature, though, again, these 
 " facts " could only be known as such by means of thought. 
 Similarly, on the other hand, no experiment or observa- 
 tion is worthy the name unless thought is present as the 
 very soul of the process so named. As we saw at the out- 
 set of our inquiry, it is absurd to suppose that theory and 
 fact are separable elements in human inquiry. No theory 
 is trustworthy that did not more or less have its origin in 
 " experiment," and that does not constantly find its con- 
 firmation in experiment. But, equally true is it that no 
 "experiment" is of any real significance unless it has 
 
120 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 begun in thought, and is continuously guided "by thought. 
 And, after all, the supreme "experiment" is that which 
 thought performs upon itself, clarifying itself by self- 
 criticism, and thus making sure of its own consistency, of 
 its own harmony with the supreme law of thought which 
 law, let it be ever remembered, is also the central law of 
 all reality. This is the value of the universal logic 
 which, as Kant expresses it, is a "cathartic of the ordi- 
 nary understanding." 
 
 To resume, then, Heraclitus is seen to have solved the 
 contradiction inherent in the doctrine of the Eleatic con- 
 ception of the world, by the discovery, substantially, that 
 quantity is not to be regarded as either continuous or 
 discrete; but that, rather, quantity is necessarily both 
 continuous and discrete that the discrete or measurable 
 is itself a necessary phase of the continuous, or measure- 
 less. And this discovery is also found to be distinctly 
 recognized as the discovery of the central truth of at least 
 all extended reality, by both Aristotle and Hegel. So 
 that, with them, motion, activity, becoming, constitutes 
 the central, vital truth of the world. 
 
 And what is this but the doctrine of evolution in large 
 outline? Here, too, "all flows." There is no rest in the 
 sense of mere quiescence. Perpetual activity, perpetual 
 motion, characterizes the sum of all reality. 
 
 At the same time, it seems well worth noticing, that 
 the first rigidly reasoned and, at least approximately, 
 consistent development of the doctrine of evolution 
 in modern thought, assumed a metaphysical character. 
 And this we owe to Spinoza, who presents the doctrine 
 under the form of a demonstration of the necessary 
 relation existing between substance and its modes 
 
AKD ITS SELF-COKSERVATIOtf. 121 
 
 between the continuous and the discrete aspects of 
 existence. 
 
 Having thus shown not only that motion is possible, 
 but also that it is inevitable, in all extended objects, we 
 have next to trace the fundamental characteristics of 
 motion. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 OF THE NATUBE OF MOTION. 
 
 WE have seen that the question of the possibility of 
 motion engaged the attention of thinkers at a very 
 early period. We also found that the difficulties in the 
 way of conceiving the possibility of motion are due to a 
 misconception of the relation between the extensive and 
 the intensive aspects of quantity, together with entangle- 
 ment in the fallacy that the " infinitely small" is abso- 
 lutely without dimensions. 
 
 Thus it requires no very extended research to enable 
 us to set aside the arguments of Zeno as having no real 
 force or validity. But we shall find another contradic- 
 tion in the conception of motion, considered from the 
 modern standpoint, which, at least within the limits of 
 inquiry allowed by anti-metaphysical investigators, is far 
 more difficult to solve than those presented by Zeno. This 
 difficulty will develop of itself as we proceed. 
 
 Let us note now that space presents no obstacle to mo- 
 tion. On the contrary, it is a primary condition of motion. 
 It is, besides, a veritable abstraction. It is, and yet is 
 just nothing. It possesses not a single positive character- 
 istic, and has therefore no negative limitations or distinc- 
 tions by which one part of space can be distinguished 
 from any other part of space. 
 
 So far as space itself is concerned, then, neither Zeno 
 nor anyone else could by any possibility ever tell from the 
 
 122 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 123 
 
 closest scrutiny of a given body, in its relation to space 
 merely, whether such body were moving or motionless. 
 Granted that space could be emptied of all objects with 
 the exception of one single body, that body could not be 
 said either to be at rest or to be in motion. For, space 
 being "infinite," in the double sense that it is without lim- 
 itation both externally and internally, there could be no 
 possible fixed point in space as such with reference to 
 which the body could be said to be either stationary or 
 moving. 
 
 On the supposition, however, that two definite bodies 
 are in existence, it is evidently possible to recognize 
 whether the distance between the two remains the same, 
 or increases, or diminishes. And with the aid of the 
 spectroscope this would be possible, even though the ob- 
 servations were taken from one of the given bodies, 
 though, of course, on condition that the other body 
 should be incandescent. 
 
 But, again, in such case it would be impossible to 
 judge whether the system composed by the two bodies 
 were moving or not, for the same reason that it would be 
 impossible to judge whether the single body in the former 
 case were moving or at rest. Nor would it be possible to 
 tell whether the one, or the other, or both the bodies 
 composing the system were moving, in case the distance 
 between them were ascertained to be increasing or dimin- 
 ishing. And, again, the two bodies might be revolving 
 about each other with any velocity, and the fact must re- 
 main forever unknown to an observer from either body, 
 supposing an axial rotation in each exactly corresponding 
 with the motion of their revolution about each other. 
 Or, supposing an axial rotation in the body from which 
 
124 THE WOKLD-EKERGY 
 
 observations are taken, and not corresponding with any 
 given movement which the bodies might have about one 
 another, the observer could never detect the axial rotation 
 in his own sphere. On the contrary, he must inevitably 
 attribute to the observed body a movement about his own 
 sphere, even though the bodies were at rest with reference 
 to each other. While, in case an actual revolution exr 
 isted, it could in no way be detected, and the apparent 
 motion might be exactly opposite to the actual one. The 
 former case is sufficiently illustrated by the apparent revo- 
 lution of the sun around the earth; the latter by the 
 apparent 'motion of the moon contrary to its actual 
 motion about our planet discrepancies which could never 
 have been discovered save through observation of the 
 motion of many bodies. 
 
 Finally, what has been said of the relativity of motion 
 must be true in any system composed of any number of 
 bodies. Any motion of the system as a whole could 
 never be detected, save in comparison with some body, or 
 group of bodies, outside the system. That is, no positive 
 judgment could ever be formed of any state of motion or ' 
 rest respecting the bodies composing the system, save 
 with reference to one another. 
 
 Thus, we may perhaps be permitted to say, we 
 know absolutely that all our knowledge of the mo- 
 tions of bodies must be relative though the special 
 discussions of those motions constitute several of the 
 most important of the " exact sciences" which, as such, 
 ought, it would seem, to lead us to absolute knowl- 
 edge of some sort. Perhaps, after all, it will yet be 
 discovered that these are the absolute sciences of the 
 relative. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION". 125 
 
 A striking example of the absolute relativity of our 
 knowledge of motion is given in Clerk MaxwelFs admira- 
 ble little treatise on " Matter and Motion" (p. 36). He 
 says: " If, when referred to a certain point, the body ap- 
 pears to be moving northward with diminishing velocity, 
 we have only to refer it to another point moving north- 
 ward with a uniform velocity greater than that of the 
 body, and it will appear to be moving southward with 
 increasing velocity." 
 
 We may, in short, heartily agree with the same author 
 when he declares it to be "unscientific to distinguish 
 between rest and motion, as between two different states 
 of a body in itself, since it is impossible to speak of a 
 body being at rest or in motion, except with reference, 
 expressed or implied, to some other body." 
 
 It is assuredly "unscientific," not to say unphilo- 
 sophic, to attempt to set up a distinction in thought 
 where it is "impossible," even absolutely impossible, to 
 discover any distinction in fact. 
 
 It would seem, then, that there is a possible contra- 
 diction involved in the conception that all our knowledge 
 of motion is relative in its nature. It would seem that, 
 so far as we have knowledge at all, such knowledge 
 must belong to us as a phase of our own consciousness. So 
 much, at least, we may fairly be allowed to know abso- 
 lutely. And further, we know, by an application of the 
 law of contradiction which, we have seen, is also to 
 be regarded as one phase of the larger law of con- 
 sistency that the only space we can truly think ; that 
 is, the only space we can ever know, in any rational 
 sense of the term is, in its very nature, absolutely 
 unlimited. We know absolutely, also, that, as there are 
 
126 THE WOKLD-ENEKGY 
 
 no distinguishing points whatever in space, considered 
 merely as space, it is wholly "unscientific to distinguish 
 between rest and motion as between two different 
 states of a body in itself." And still further; we know 
 absolutely that if the actual distance between two bodies 
 increases or diminishes, one or other, or both the bodies, 
 must move. By the law of consistency, thought must 
 accept this as true and must utterly repudiate any 
 asserting by which it is contradicted. 
 
 Motion, therefore, is primarily a change in the space- 
 relations of two or more bodies. And this, too, we may 
 fairly claim to know absolutely. 
 
 But now another phase of the subject presents itself. 
 We have just seen that all our knowledge of motion is 
 a knowledge of change in space-relations between 
 actual bodies. But change of any kind can only take 
 place in time. Whence it appears that our knowledge 
 of motion is a complex knowledge, involving the rela- 
 tions both of time and of space. At the same time, 
 however, it is to be noted that though our knowledge 
 of motion is, in its nature, a knowledge of relations, it 
 by no means necessarily follows from this that all we 
 can know of motion is to be counted as merely relative 
 knowledge. 
 
 It seems well worth while to notice, by the way, too, 
 that the ambiguity just noticed is precisely that which 
 underlies the whole theory of the relativity of knowl- 
 edge the advocates of which seem to find not the 
 slightest difficulty in knowing with absolute certainty 
 that absolutely nothing can ever be certainly known. 
 Nor are they likely to become aware of such difficulty 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 127 
 
 until they have learned to distinguish between knowl- 
 edge of relations and relative knowledge. 
 
 It is relations, indeed, that constitute the marrow, 
 the essence, all that has substance and vitality in our 
 knowledge ; for relations constitute the core of all 
 reality. It is for this reason, and not because of the 
 hopeless limitations of our powers of knowing, that we 
 can learn so little concerning space. For space is 
 utterly destitute of relation within itself. It has, as 
 already noticed, no qualitative differences by which one 
 portion of space can be distinguished from another. 
 This is the reason why it is "unscientific" to speak of 
 motion or of rest as pertaining to an isolated body in 
 space. Thus, as being without inner or qualitative 
 relations, space is barren of reality. Hence, not a single 
 positive proposition can be made concerning it. Space 
 has no secret save an infinitely wide open one. It has and 
 can have no relation to bodies beyond the purely neg- 
 ative one of absolute non-resistance to their movements. 
 Hence there is neither fixed nor fixable position or 
 direction in space apart from bodies in space. Position 
 and direction could, in fact, have no possible meaning 
 apart from bodies. 
 
 In short, space is only as a relation between bodies ; 
 though still only the purely negative relation of mere 
 separation. 
 
 Our interest in (f absolute space, " then, can only be 
 our interest in the emptiest, the most "absolute" of all 
 abstractions ; our interest in boundless nothing. 
 
 On the other hand, as we have already intimated, our 
 interest in motion is an interest in the changes of relation 
 of bodies to each other in space. The only directions 
 
128 THE WOELD-ENEEGY 
 
 that can come within the possible range of our knowing 
 are those determined hy the relations of bodies to each 
 other. 
 
 Such relations are fixed or absolute in the sense that 
 they are inseparable from the bodies. If the bodies exist 
 the relations also exist necessarily or " absolutely." Thus 
 in every case of the relation of body to body in space com- 
 ing under our observation we have an example of abso- 
 lute knowledge, though it is also a knowledge of rela- 
 tions. 
 
 But again, when the relations between the parts of 
 a physically constituted system are considered, such 
 relations will be found to undergo change. It is here, 
 indeed, that we find the appropriate realm of measure 
 and of relativity in estimate of values. A change of 
 distance, or of velocity, or of direction, is equal, or greater, 
 or less, in comparison with some other change of dis- 
 tance, or of velocity, or of direction. And these changes 
 are represented in empirical space ; that is, in a space 
 rendered significant by the presence of objects. 
 
 But also, with such changes of relation, there is 
 introduced the element of possible confusion. A given 
 body, A, considered with reference to a given other body, 
 B y will appear to be moving in one direction ; while, in 
 comparison with a third body, C, it will appear to be 
 moving in a contrary direction. Thus motion appears 
 to contain its own dialectic, through which it exhibits 
 its own absolute relativity. For example, suppose any 
 three bodies, a, b and c, to be moving in the same 
 direction along the same straight line, c being first 
 and a last. If c has the greatest velocity and b 
 the least, then b will appear to be moving away from c 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEBVATION. 129 
 
 toward a ; and a will appear to be moving away from c, 
 but also toward ~b. That is, b will have the appearance 
 of moving in the opposite direction from that of its 
 real velocity, while a will be moving in one direction 
 with reference to c, and at the same time in the oppo- 
 site direction with reference to Z>. 
 
 Again, both a and c may be revolving about ~b with 
 any velocity, and, so long as their directions from one 
 another remain unchanged, this revolution could never 
 be detected save with reference to some body outside 
 the system (as we saw before in case of a system of 
 two bodies). 
 
 Once more, suppose an ' ' infinite " sphere, of uniform 
 density, to occupy an otherwise empty space ; the sphere 
 might be revolving on its axis in any given direction 
 and with any velocity, while yet the fact of its revolu- 
 tion, and still more the velocity of its revolution, must 
 be absolutely undiscernible. And yet, at the same time, 
 its revolution must constantly involve motion in an 
 infinitude of opposite directions. That is, every point 
 not in the axis of motion must move in a direction 
 precisely opposite to that in which the corresponding 
 point on the other side of the axis moves. 
 
 Nay, the revolution of such sphere must also involve 
 all possible velocities, from the " infinitely small," 
 at the axis, to the " infinitely great/' at the infinitely 
 removed " circumference." 
 
 Finally, it is easy to see that this ' ' infinite sphere " 
 without differentiation of any kind, is but a material- 
 ized image of space itself, whose content is nothing 
 but the abstract and purely negative possibility of all 
 motion. 
 
130 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Evidently, then, all motion is relative, though our 
 knowledge of such motion is in many respects absolute. 
 Among other things, we know, with absolute certainty, 
 that the expression, " absolute motion," is a contradic- 
 tion in terms ; or, in other words, we know absolutely 
 that no motion of a body can be really conceived save 
 as relative to some other body. 
 
 What further is to be known of motion in its gen- 
 eral character has long since been formulated with at 
 least apparent " exactness," or, in other words, with 
 absolute precision. Our next task, then, will be to 
 examine these formulas. 
 
CHAPTEE XII. 
 
 THE LAWS OF MOTION.* 
 
 IT has been seen that a single, isolated body in space 
 could not be said to be either at rest or in motion. 
 Motion can only be of one body with reference to 
 another body. It is, to repeat, a change of relation 
 between bodies in space, and can no more be said to 
 belong to the one than to the other. It is simply an 
 approach or a recession an increase or a diminution 
 of the distance between them and is thus essentially 
 mutual. 
 
 But since motion can only take place on the part of 
 bodies with reference to each other, it must be occa- 
 sioned by some fundamental connection between the 
 bodies themselves ; and this connection, or concrete re- 
 lation, we have already seen developed in the discussion 
 of the fundamental nature of matter, or the extended, 
 of which " bodies" are but the local aggregations. 
 
 Force or energy being the substance of the extended 
 world, its modes of manifestation, or phases of dif- 
 ferentiation, give rise to infinitely multiple relations of 
 force, some of which, in turn, appear under the form 
 of " bodies" in space. And these bodies, thus consti- 
 tuted, must, in the nature of the case, be fundamentally 
 related, each to every other. 
 
 Each body is, in fact, itself a force-center, involv- 
 ing necessarily both phases of force attraction and 
 
 131 
 
132 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 repulsion. And this not merely within itself, but also with 
 reference to all other bodies. For, as has already been 
 shown, even an atom is a force-center, which is also a 
 force-sphere, extending infinitely and laying hold on each 
 and all other such spheres. 
 
 The relation of distance between any two bodies will 
 therefore depend upon the deeper relation expressed in 
 the algebraic sum of the centripetal and the centrifugal 
 forces constituting the complex relation of the bodies to 
 one another, and which must determine whether they 
 shall approach each other or become more widely sepa- 
 rated from one another. 
 
 Thus every actual change of relation in space between 
 any two bodies is seen to be necessarily nothing else than 
 a manifestation of force. And since the motion can only 
 be a change of relation in distance, or direction, or both, 
 as between two or more bodies, such change resulting 
 from, or rather being itself a manifestation of, the pre- 
 dominance, either of attraction or of repulsion, between 
 them, it is evident that motion cannot be conceived as 
 taking place save in a multiple world of objects. 
 
 It is further evident that no single body possesses 
 within itself alone the power to put itself in motion, as a 
 whole, in any direction whatever. And this implies also 
 that, once put in motion, it can never, of itself, change 
 either the direction or the rate of its motion. 
 
 It would seem, then, that impulse toward motion or 
 hindrance from motion must come from without. And 
 yet, not wholly from without, since the force-relation is 
 ever essentially a mutual one. 
 
 Here, indeed, we have an intimation of the primary 
 condition of all actual motion. We shall see, too, that 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 133 
 
 a careful consideration of the accepted "laws of motion" 
 will lead us toward the full development of that condition 
 and of its central significance. 
 
 FIRST LAW OF MOTION. 
 
 This law was formulated by Newton as follows: 
 " Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform 
 motion in a straight line, except in so far as it may be 
 compelled by impressed forces to change that state." * 
 
 We have, indeed, already developed the complete jus- 
 tification of this law which is absolutely universal since 
 it is implied in the very nature of the extended world. It 
 cannot, therefore, be classed under the category of * ' rela- 
 tive knowledge," though it affirms that without external 
 relations any and every single body is absolutely helpless 
 and inane. 
 
 But the law, in affirming the absolute incapacity of an 
 isolated body either to move itself, or in any way to 
 change the direction or quantity of motion which may 
 have been imparted to it, expresses a most significant 
 limitation of extended objects. The law does not affirm 
 a positive characteristic of the external world, but a 
 wholly negative one. It does not declare what material 
 objects possess. On the contrary it declares unquestion- 
 ably what they do not possess, and that is the power of 
 self-movement. Every body, every object in the material 
 universe, moves, or changes the direction or velocity of 
 its motion only from external causes. Such body can act 
 only in so far as it is acted upon. 
 
 This law is then very appropriately styled the law of 
 Inertia, which is in truth nothing else than the law of 
 
 * This, with the statement of the second and third laws, given below, is 
 the rendering of Newton's Latin given by Thompson and Tait. 
 
134 THE WORLD-ENEKGY 
 
 indifference. The extended is the indifferent, the uncon- 
 scious, and is therefore capable of action only by way of 
 reaction. And even thus its action, according to this 
 law, is still only of the most external character. It is 
 primarily nothing more than a change of space-relation 
 mere motion of translation. 
 
 But again, since the movement can take place only 
 from external impulse, it is evident that the direction and 
 quantity of the motion will depend upon that impulse. 
 In other words the motion must, both in direction and in 
 quantity, be directly and absolutely proportioned to the 
 impressed force. 
 
 Here, then, is a further fundamental condition of all 
 actual motion. And this condition is formulated in what 
 is known as the 
 
 SECOND LAW OF MOTION. 
 
 Newton's statement of this law is that: " Change of 
 motion is proportional to the impressed force, and takes 
 place in the direction of the straight line in which the 
 force acts." 
 
 This statement, it will be noticed, assumes that all 
 bodies are in motion, and that motion can therefore never 
 be produced, but can only undergo change. This change, 
 however, can only take place by transferrence by one 
 body giving up its motion to another. For thus only can 
 we conceive a force to be "impressed" upon a given 
 body. But this amounts to saying that on the whole 
 motion can neither be increased nor diminished, that the 
 total quantity of motion in the physical universe must 
 forever remain unchanged. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 135 
 
 Still further, in direct opposition to the Zenonian 
 opinion that motion is impossible, it assumes on the con- 
 trary that rest is impossible. And this again follows evi- 
 dently from the conception of the extended world as 
 constituted by and of force. For force, to be force at all, 
 must act, and the action of force must necessarily involve 
 motion. 
 
 But let us inquire what are the further implications of 
 this second law of motion. And first we have to notice 
 more explicitly that the second law is but the positive ex- 
 pression of what is negatively announced in the first. The 
 first law declares substantially that no body has the power 
 to move itself. If it moves it must be moved from with- 
 out; that is, by an "impressed force/' But if its change 
 of motion depends wholly on impressed forces, then it 
 will follow that the change of motion must be propor- 
 tioned to the impressed force, and take place in the direc- 
 tion in which the force acts. And this is precisely what 
 the second law positively affirms. Thus it appears that 
 the first and second laws of motion are merely the posi- 
 tive and negative aspects of the same fundamental prin- 
 ciple of the extended world. 
 
 But this fundamental principle is an all-pervasive one. 
 We have already seen that every force-center is necessa- 
 rily related to every other force-center; that, in fact, 
 each force-center is in its full significance an infinitely 
 extended sphere, which again but indicates the concrete 
 aspect of continuity in force manifested as "matter/' 
 
 This same conception indeed is otherwise expressed 
 in the universal law of gravitation which declares in effect 
 that every body is concretely related to every other body. 
 Every body or force-center, then, acts on every other body 
 
136 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 or force-center. So that no single body in all the uni- 
 verse is or can be free for a moment from the action of 
 an immeasurable complex of impressed forces. 
 
 And this shows that the first law of motion is not 
 only negative, but that, taken literally, it presupposes the 
 case of a body not acted upon by external forces. That 
 is, taken literally, the first law of motion presupposes a 
 case that can never, by any possibility, be verified, or even 
 realized. " Every body continues in its state of rest, etc., 
 unless compelled by impressed forces to change that 
 state." But every body is perpetually subjected to the 
 action of impressed forces. Hence a state of " rest "is 
 wholly impossible for any body whatever. So, too, a 
 state of "uniform motion in a straight line" is equally 
 impossible for any body whatever, for the reason that 
 the impressed forces must have the effect to constantly 
 produce changes in the motion of the body. Thus, at 
 the surface of the earth, a falling body may seem to the 
 observer to move in a straight line. But the observer 
 has only to reflect that the earth itself is revolving on 
 its own axis, to be convinced that the real movement 
 of the falling body has the direction of a curve. And 
 when he reflects further that the earth is moving in 
 its orbit at the rate of nine miles or more each second, 
 he can but see that the curve described by a falling 
 body is a very complex one, the complexity becoming 
 incalculable when the movement of the solar system 
 through space is taken into the account. 
 
 So, too, the velocity of the falling body, simply with 
 reference to the earth, is approximately calculable as a 
 rate at any given moment, the increment being virtu- 
 ally the same within narrow limits. Add to this the 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 137 
 
 constantly varying velocity of the falling body in its asso- 
 ciation with the orbital motion of the earth, and the 
 problem becomes highly complex, while, with the 
 inclusion of the unknown velocity of the solar system 
 through space, the problem of the velocity of the falling 
 body, of course, becomes altogether insoluble. 
 
 But more and more it comes to light that motion, 
 whether in respect of direction or of velocity, is a result 
 that can arise only from the mutual action of forces 
 upon each other. A force can really act, or become an 
 " impressed force/' on no other condition than that of 
 overcoming resistance. This we have seen to be involved 
 in the very nature of force. And when it is declared, 
 in the law of gravity, that every body attracts every 
 other body, it is declared, in effect, that between every 
 two bodies there is a mutual attraction. Or, since every 
 center of force lays hold on every other center of force, 
 it may be otherwise said that every force-center attracts 
 and is attracted by, repels and is repelled by, every 
 other force-center in the entire range of the extended 
 world. 
 
 Each force-center, then, to repeat once more, is a 
 veritable center of the physical universe, and as such 
 acts upon arid is in turn reacted upon by every other 
 force-center. So that, in the cases of falling bodies 
 just named, it is evident that there is one factor which we 
 have wholly overlooked, and that is the fact that while 
 any given body is falling toward the earth, the earth is 
 also falling toward that body. And if the variations 
 thus introduced into its movements are too minute for 
 even the most refined infinitesimal calculus to seize and 
 measure, that does not render them any the less real. 
 
138 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 The relation of attraction, with its manifestation of 
 mutual approach, is not less real, as between fhe merest 
 mote on the one hand, and the earth's mass on the 
 other, than between the earth and the moon, or between 
 the units composing a group known as a double star, 
 where such relation, as exhibited in the revolution of 
 the bodies round each other, is so immeasurably more 
 conspicuous. By a "scientific" fiction, we attribute all 
 the motion to one of the bodies and assume that the 
 other is wholly unaffected by the relation. 
 
 It is, indeed, true that in the case of "falling bodies" 
 this does not affect the accuracy of the results, so far 
 as external measurement is concerned. But it cannot 
 fail to vitiate the results more or less seriously, so far as 
 really scientific thinking is concerned. At the least, the 
 notes of caution in this respect ought to be unfailingly 
 given in text-books of physics, and ought to be far 
 more strongly emphasized than is the case where they 
 are given at all at least, if a text-book is to be an 
 instrumentality in mental discipline, and not merely a 
 means toward percentages in examination. 
 
 Finally, before leaving the consideration of the second 
 law of motion, let us note the ultimate implication of 
 the parallelogram of forces as illustrative of that law. 
 
 The case is sufficiently familiar. Any two forces 
 acting (let us here suppose) from different directions, and 
 not in the same straight line, upon one and the same 
 body or force-center, will each produce the same amount 
 of motion in the body, and in the same direction, as if 
 it alone acted upon the body. Thus, by compounding 
 the two motions, we may find at what point the body 
 will be at the end of any given time. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 139 
 
 If, again, the body be acted upon by any number of 
 forces, the resultant of any two may be found, then this 
 resultant may be compounded with a third, and this 
 resultant with a fourth, and so on until the resultant 
 of all the forces has been ascertained. 
 
 If, finally, the forces are infinitely multiple, as must 
 be the case in the total round of force-centers in the 
 physical universe, then the forces acting from all direc- 
 tions upon the body must balance each other. 
 
 And this will be the more readily admitted if we 
 remember what has been more than once repeated, that 
 force really acts or can act only in overcoming opposi- 
 tion it being now necessary to add the explanatory 
 clause "or in balancing opposite phases of force." 
 
 Such must be the conclusion from the second law 
 of motion. And it is really to this conclusion that 
 Newton gave utterance in his statement of the 
 
 THIED LAW OF MOTION. 
 
 In this law it is declared that "to every action there 
 is always an equal and contrary reaction ; or, the mutual 
 actions of any two bodies are always equal and oppositely 
 directed." 
 
 Of course, the most elementary case to which this law 
 would apply would be that of the action and reaction, or, 
 as the second part of the law significantly expresses it, 
 the mutual actions between two bodies. This second 
 part is, indeed, manifestly offered, not as an addition to, 
 but rather as an interpretation of, the first part. 
 
 But the full significance of this third law is to be 
 apprehended only when it is regarded in connection with 
 the second law in its widest range of meaning. We have 
 
140 THE' WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 just seen that the second law, rightly understood,, already 
 anticipates the mutual actions of force affirmed in the 
 third law, and that it points out, through the illustrative 
 parallelogram of forces, this further vitally important 
 point : that the whole truth of the motion of any body, 
 whether mote or star, is to be known only by compounding 
 into one all the forces impressed upon such body. 
 
 Let us now further recall the fact that in the very 
 nature of force, as the essence of matter, there can be no 
 such thing as an isolated body in all the universe, but, 
 rather, that every body, or force-center, is necessarily 
 related concretely with every other body or force-center 
 "bodies" being but the discrete phases of "force" or 
 ' ' energy," which again is the name given to the physically 
 continuous ; that is, to the reality which occupies space. 
 Then, holding these several points together in our minds, 
 it must become evident that the third law of motion is 
 applicable equally to any and every group of bodies, to 
 the most complex as well as to the simplest case of 
 physical relations manifested in the mutual actions of 
 bodies. That is, the third law of motion is applicable to 
 the total sum of actions and reactions, or of mutual 
 actions constituting the physical universe as a whole. 
 
 Here, indeed, we come upon that universal relation of 
 every body to every other body, to which Newton gave 
 definition in the law of gravity, and which we shall have 
 occasion to consider more fully in a succeeding chapter. 
 
 Glancing now once more at the three laws of motion, 
 their organic relation to each other becomes strikingly 
 manifest. The first law expresses negatively the funda- 
 mental characteristic of the external world, declaring it 
 to be a world of inertia a world in which there is no 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 141 
 
 spontaneous action, and, hence, a world in which motion 
 can only occur through external impulse; that is, through 
 "impressed forces/' 
 
 The second law expresses positively the externality of 
 the physical world by declaring that whatever motion a 
 body possesses it has received from without ; its motion is 
 always in the direction of, and is directly proportioned to, 
 the impressed forces. 
 
 But the union of these two phases shows also that, 
 after all, no body is moved wholly by external or im- 
 pressed forces. For the body can in reality be acted 
 upon only in so far as it itself presents to the action a 
 corresponding force of reaction. 
 
 Thus, finally, the third law declares in effect absolutely 
 that the externality of nature is, in truth, a completely 
 reflexive externality. The total round of nature presents 
 us with an externality which already bears within it the 
 factor of internality. It may be true that no body is 
 able, apart from other bodies, to change its own state. 
 But there is manifestly a vital, indestructible relationship 
 between body and body, such that change is ceaselessly 
 effected in every body. 
 
 Chemistry, indeed, knows nothing of actions but only 
 of reactions. It is as if one were to say: "The 'atom/ 
 the isolated body, can indeed change its state in no other 
 way than through impressed forces, but in the totality of 
 bodies there is a principle initiative of change. The 
 totality alone is truly active. Particular aspects of the 
 totality are manifested only as reactions, or as mutually 
 balancing phases of the total action/' 
 
 It turns out, then, that these three laws are but 
 the three successively deepening phases of a rational 
 
142 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 conception of the fundamental energy which constitutes 
 the physical world. Or, we may say: just as the three 
 fundamental laws of thought all coalesce into the one pri- 
 mordial law of self -harmony , so the three fundamental 
 laws of motion in the material world all coalesce into 
 the one primordial law of equilibrium. 
 
 What is ultimately implied in this equilibrium will 
 appear as we proceed. 
 
CHAPTEE XIII. 
 
 ENERGY AS ADEQUATE CAUSE OF MOTION. 
 
 HERE, then, we have a further development of the 
 world as a self-measured whole. Each particular 
 phase can only act as it is in turn acted upon, and the 
 reaction is always precisely equal to the action. Every 
 force-center, then, may be said to have its own action 
 reflected back to itself. 
 
 At the same time, the thorough-going externality of 
 the forces of nature is manifest in the fact that in every 
 phase of activity either side may be regarded indifferently 
 as action or as reaction ; though this, too, has its deep- 
 reaching suggestion that all action is equally reaction, and 
 that all reaction is itself a phase of the total initiative, or 
 spontaneous action. 
 
 In fact, as has already become evident, it is only 
 through a balancing of action and reaction that force can 
 be force at all. The centripetal and the centrifugal 
 modes of force cannot exist, save in complete interfusion. 
 And, let us repeat, force can be force at all only through 
 acting. A force that does not act is not a force. And 
 force can act only as a strain against an opposing phase of 
 force. 
 
 Evidently, then, the totality of " forces" in the uni- 
 verse must be completely self-balanced. Equilibrium is 
 the only possible condition in which the totality of 
 energy can be conceived as existing. 
 
 143 
 
144 THE WORLD-ENEKGY 
 
 At first view, indeed, this would seem to involve the 
 absolute impossibility of motion. And it is not to be 
 disguised, that even from the standpoint we have here 
 reached the existence of motion must once more seem to 
 be something fairly inexplicable; and this for the reason 
 that in itself matter is wholly destitute of the principle 
 of motion a reason quite different from and far more 
 valid than any of those given in the Zenonian dialectic. 
 Doubtless, however, we may shortly be able to advance 
 to a standpoint from which the contradiction will be seen 
 to be not without its reasonable solution. 
 
 Meanwhile we may tentatively insist upon the neces- 
 sary interrelation between attraction and repulsion, as 
 at least possibly variable locally. Indeed, as appeared 
 in our investigation concerning this interrelation, there 
 must be, as its necessary outcome, an infinitude of force- 
 centers throughout space. 
 
 So, also, each of these force-centers must still be 
 related to that is, must extend out so as to include and 
 thus lay hold upon every other force-center. But this 
 can only mean that the given force-center is in reality 
 nothing else than the focus of a force-sphere extending 
 indefinitely outward on all sides and hence becoming 
 more and more attenuated in proportion to the distance 
 from the center. 
 
 The degree of action and reaction between any two 
 force-spheres must then depend upon the distance be- 
 tween their centers. More precisely, such interaction, 
 in its direct and most important phase, can take place 
 only through a single direction, joining their centers. 
 And further, each sphere, so far as its action on the 
 other is concerned, may be considered to terminate in a 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 145 
 
 circumference whose radius is the distance between the 
 centers of the spheres. 
 
 Since, then, each of the bodies or force-centers occu- 
 pies only a small portion of the circumference of the 
 force-sphere into which the other center expands, it is 
 evident that the interaction between the spheres will 
 not only depend upon the distance between the centers, 
 but will conform to the law of the relation between the 
 surfaces of spheres; namely, the law that those sur- 
 faces are to each other as the squares of their radii. 
 
 Of course, then, so far as mere distance is con- 
 sidered as the determining condition, the attraction or 
 repulsion between two force-centers at any given dis- 
 tance will be four times as great, for example, as that 
 between two other equal centers separated from each other 
 by twice that distance. Each force-sphere must, besides, 
 act from its center or focus outward in all directions on 
 all other force-spheres, in accordance with this law. 
 
 Thus we arrive at one of the two fundamental phases 
 of what since Newton's time has been accepted in the 
 scientific world as the universal law of gravitation. 
 
 The other phase, involving mass, however, remains to 
 be accounted for. And here it is to be remembered that 
 force or energy is the substance of things. It has also 
 developed that the action of force must necessarily result 
 in the differentiation of force-spheres at all points 
 throughout space. 
 
 And yet this setting up or development of force- 
 spheres is but the stress of balanced phases of force, 
 which, so far as can be seen from our present stand- 
 point, must, as has been said, prevent instead of pro- 
 ducing motion. In short, upon the pre-supposition of 
 
146 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 mere "physical" force motion must forever remain inex- 
 plicable. According to that standpoint, all action is 
 and can be only from without. No single change in any 
 body in all the universe can take place save through 
 impressed forces; that is, forces acting upon the body 
 from without. And it only needs that this law be reso- 
 lutely followed round in all its applications to see that as 
 no portion of the -extended world contains within itself 
 as such any initial principle of motion, so it is absolutely 
 necessary to look beyond the merely physical phase of 
 the universe to find that principle. A system of merely 
 "impressed forces" could, as we have already seen, 
 only result in absolute equilibrium, excluding motion 
 absolutely. 
 
 This, it need hardly be added, Newton saw with per- 
 fect clearness, and accordingly assumed a non-physical 
 cause of motion. 
 
 And yet it is not to be overlooked that if the prin- 
 ciple of motion is not within, neither can it be beyond 
 the physical universe. For, were that principle wholly 
 beyond or outside the extended world, it could indeed 
 have no relation to that world. Or, if such relation be 
 allowed to be possible, it must at least leave the extended 
 world in a state of inertia, indifference, or passivity. 
 
 So much, indeed, Newton's third law of motion really 
 implies. And yet, as was pointed out on a former page, 
 the " passive " is that which is acted upon, is that which 
 receives action. But, in this very fact of receiving action, 
 the " passive " necessarily also proves to be active. For 
 it can receive action only through itself reacting. Nay, 
 as we have already seen, action and reaction are but 
 complementary phases of every possible action in which 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 147 
 
 either phase may equally be considered as action or as 
 reaction, and hence, as both action and reaction. 
 
 Or, otherwise stated, the active can exert its action 
 upon the passive only in so far as the passive reacts upon 
 the active. And in receiving the reaction of the passive 
 the active itself proves to be necessarily also passive. 
 
 This much, let us repeat, is already contained implic- 
 itly in the laws of motion. 
 
 The conception of a merely passive world, then, proves 
 to be self-contradictory, just as, on the other hand, a 
 purely active world, from which passivity is excluded, 
 is seen to be impossible. We can only conclude, there- 
 fore, that a real world must involve both these charac- 
 teristics as the necessary complementary phases of its 
 very existence. 
 
 And this amounts to the same as if we were to say: 
 The concrete totality of the world or universe is a 
 necessarily self-related totality. For, as a totality, and 
 the totality, it can indeed be related to nothing else 
 than just itself. All its relations of activity are rela- 
 tions of self-activity. As active, it can act only upon 
 itself, while as passive it can only receive its own 
 activity. 
 
 The totality of " forces " in the universe is, there- 
 fore, from its very nature, a self -active or spontaneous 
 energy, and as such, contains within itself the principle 
 and cause of all movement. 
 
 And yet, while this principle is involved in the 
 merely physical universe, the principle itself proves to 
 evolve, through its own activity, something more than a 
 merely physical universe ; and the something-more is pre- 
 cisely the explicit aspect of this principle of spontaneity 
 
148 THE WORLD-ENEKGY 
 
 itself. It is, in other words, a self-unfolding prin- 
 ciple, which presents phases reaching wholly beyond 
 (in the sense of being absolutely superior to) the realm 
 of the merely physical. 
 
 It becomes increasingly evident, then, that, while we 
 must indeed look within, we must also and equally 
 look beyond the extended world, if we would discover 
 the true principle of actual movement in that world. 
 And this is, in a manner, confirmed by the significant 
 change that has recently come over physical science in 
 its use of certain terms. 
 
 When Mr. Spencer wrote his ''First Principles," the 
 expression, "conservation of force," was in fashion. 
 Since then this expression has been modified, by common 
 consent, so as to put the word energy in place of the 
 word force. 
 
 In this substitution there is manifest a distinct 
 advance from a relatively more to a relatively less 
 mechanical view of nature. For not only is the ele- 
 ment of spontaneity and personality implied in the 
 popular use of the term "energy," as opposed to the 
 phase of mechanical necessity implied in the term 
 "force;" but the use of the term energy itself takes us 
 back inevitably to Aristotle's use of the same term 
 (ivspyeia) as the name for that ultimate unit of power to 
 the activity of which he traces all modes of reality, and 
 which he ultimately names the Absolute, Divine Spirit. 
 
 Another indication of the feeling among scientists that 
 the mechanical view is inadequate and that a term 
 expressive of spontaneity is required in describing the 
 ultimate unit of power is furnished in a suggestion by 
 Professor Huxley, which was followed by Mr. Spencer. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 149 
 
 The latter found the expression, "conservation of force/' 
 objectionable because it "implies a conserver and an act 
 of conservation ; " which would seem to mean that the 
 expression implies that force is conserved by an agency 
 apart from force. Accordingly, at Professor Huxley's 
 suggestion, Mr. Spencer * substituted the expression, 
 " persistence of force," for ' ' conservation of force. " 
 
 But the persistence of force (or energy, as we are now- 
 to say) surely implies that the ultimate unit is self -active ; 
 that its very persistence is a manifestation of spontaneity. 
 In other words, the expression, "persistence of energy/' 
 is preferable to the expression, "conservation of energy/' 
 only because it brings very near to the surface the concep- 
 tion that the process of the conservation of energy involves 
 the immeasurably significant characteristic of ^//'-con- 
 servation. It is thus, and thus alone, that it does or can 
 "persist." 
 
 It is this view of a self-active, self-conserved energy 
 that opens the way to an adequate explanation of motion. 
 And now, having obtained a first assured view of a prin- 
 ciple adequate to explain to the reason what to the senses 
 is the unquestionable fact of motion, let us return to the 
 question of the accepted law of universal gravitation. 
 
 * See note to heading of Chapter VI. of "First Principles.'' 1 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. 
 
 r~pHE spontaneous World-Energy, as necessarily related 
 -* to itself alone, cannot move as a whole. That is, 
 there can be no change of space-relation for the total 
 physical universe. For, as a unit, even if finite, it pre- 
 sents the conditions of a single, absolutely isolated 
 "body" in space, which, as we have seen, could not be 
 
 said to be either in motion or at rest. 
 
 
 
 On the other hand, as a totality limited only by itself, 
 it is essentially infinite. And if this be understood to 
 include space-relations (as it must so far as the totality is 
 extended), it is, in dimensions, co-extensive with space 
 itself to which, indeed, as we have already seen, there 
 is nothing reasonable to oppose. 
 
 But though the World-Energy as an infinite whole 
 cannot move or change place, yet as self -active energy it 
 cannot fail to produce, through its own self -activity, infi- 
 nite movement within itself. Not only must the stress 
 of the opposed modes of force result in the development 
 of an infinitude of mutually inclusive force-spheres; but 
 it must also result in the aggregation of the foci or 
 nuclei of such force-spheres. For the very first phase of 
 the movement of the force-centers must increase the 
 distances between some and diminish the distances be- 
 tween others, thus increasing the tension on one side and 
 diminishing it on the other. That is, with decrease in 
 
 150 
 
ITS SELF-COKSEEVATION". 151 
 
 distance the gravitative strain must become intensified 
 between centers approaching each other, just as, on the 
 other hand, with increase in distance the strain between 
 those receding from each other must undergo corre- 
 sponding diminution. 
 
 Thus there must arise aggregations of force-centers 
 within certain regions surrounded by relatively vacant 
 fields of space. And this conclusion will appear the more 
 substantial as in the further course of our argument we 
 find increasing reason for believing the World-Energy to 
 be guided in its activity by a consistent method; or, in 
 other words, in so far as we find reason to regard the 
 World-Energy as itself an infinite, self-conscious process. 
 But again these force-centers or nuclei of force are but 
 the more condensed portions of indefinitely extended 
 spheres. There is, therefore, a tension of force consti- 
 tuting each of these separately, and at the same time 
 relating each through its indefinitely diffused substance 
 to all other centers. 
 
 In every single force- center, then, we already have the 
 simplest relation of force constituting matter. And this 
 nucleus of an indefinitely extended, infinitely diffused 
 force-sphere is just that part which, through the very 
 fact of its being such nucleus or focus of force, presents 
 most resistance to the action of external force. 
 
 It is this nucleus, then, that constitutes the "atom" 
 which thus proves to be something very far different 
 from the once popular atom, consisting of a simple, iso- 
 lated, infinitely hard, infinitely small, absolutely bounded 
 piece of some incomprehensible something wholly apart 
 from force, and which thus had no possible office to per- 
 form in the economy of the universe. On the contrary, it 
 
152 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 is the primal element that is, the most elementary 
 phase of existence and from the aggregation of such 
 the whole extended world is constituted. It is to be 
 still more explicitly stated, too, that any given " atom " 
 is merely a more or less momentary unit arising through 
 the ceaseless process of the World-Energy, and that such 
 unit must inevitably be dissolved and rediffused through 
 the same perpetual Process. Thus not only is matter 
 infinitely divisible in the merely abstract metaphysical 
 sense. It is also forever undergoing infinite division in 
 the "concrete" physical sense. Here, too, it may be 
 remarked by the way, we get a glimpse of such truth as 
 there is in the doctrine of emanation and absorption; 
 though, doubtless, in a symbolical sense, that doctrine 
 has a much higher significance than this merely physical 
 one of the emanating atoms. 
 
 It may help to make clearer what is here meant by a 
 force-center, or nucleus of a force-sphere to say, by way 
 of rough illustration, that the earth itself, with its rela- 
 tively solid nucleus, and liquid (oceanic) exterior, 
 extended indefinitely into space by the envelope of 
 atmosphere, shading imperceptibly into the "ether," is 
 but a gigantic atom pursuing its complex motions in the 
 vast molecule of the solar system. In other words, the 
 atom is here conceived to be but the minute and relatively 
 dense core of a sphere of force, infinitely extended indeed, 
 but also attenuated more and more in proportion to the 
 distance from its center. 
 
 And here let us remark, by the way, that we have in 
 what precedes the rational explanation of . " action at a 
 distance/' The "explanation," indeed, explains it out of 
 existence. There is and can be no such thing as action 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 153 
 
 at a distance. A thing acts only "where it is;" and to 
 Carlyle's query: "Where is it?" the proper answer is: 
 Everywhere. 
 
 Of course it is not everywhere in the grosser forms 
 which directly aifect our senses. On the contrary, as 
 must be manifest in what has already been said, it is only 
 the infinitesimal nucleus of a force-sphere that enters 
 into intimate combination with other nuclei, resulting in 
 the building up of "bodies" sufficiently dense and 
 unyielding to definitely impress the senses. 
 
 Every one familiar with the action of a magnet must 
 see at once what is here meant. With the magnet there 
 is so-called "action at a distance," and this is rendered 
 visible by the visible eifect; for example, on iron filings, 
 the action taking place, even with a feeble magnet, 
 through thick plate glass. So also the effect of such 
 action becomes visible through magnetic induction and 
 all its peculiarities. 
 
 Instead, however, of "action at a distance" in such 
 cases, the explanation to be given on the theory here 
 developed must rather be: That the force-spheres of 
 whose nuclei the magnet is constituted are, in their very 
 nature, as themselves constituted by the interaction of 
 attraction and repulsion, elastic and therefore subject to 
 condensation and rarefaction in greater or less degree, 
 according as the more immediate conditions of the nuclei 
 change; and that the magnetization of a piece of iron or 
 steel consists in the special condensation temporarily in 
 the iron, "permanently" in the steel of the portions of 
 the force-spheres more immediately surrounding the 
 nuclei, and thus, while not adding to the body as visible 
 or ponderable, yet increases its force-tension sufficiently 
 
154 THE WOELD-ENEKGY 
 
 to visibly affect through short distances other portions of 
 matter of like characteristics. 
 
 And this seems the more reasonable as an explanation 
 as the force is found to be under the same law as gravi- 
 tation with regard to distance that is, the magnetic 
 attraction or repulsion is inversely as the square of the 
 distance. 
 
 But this, it may be repeated, is in the present place 
 merely incidental. What must be held firmly in mind 
 here is, first, the action of force producing aggregations 
 of force-centers, and, secondly, the significance of such 
 aggregations. 
 
 As each force-center is essentially an "atom," and as 
 " bodies" are built up from such "atoms," it is evident 
 that the quantity of matter within a given body will 
 depend precisely upon the number of force-centers con- 
 stituting the body. But the quantity of matter in a body 
 is called its mass. 
 
 Evidently, then, so far as the universal law of gravita- 
 tion declares that every body attracts every other body 
 with a force whose magnitude is directly as the product of 
 their masses, it is but formulating one of the necessary 
 relations between groups of force-centers. For each 
 force-center, independently of the others in the same 
 group, must attract every force-center in the group 
 constituting the distant body, and would do so pre- 
 cisely in the same way and in the same degree were 
 it widely separated from the other members of its own 
 group. Hence, with each additional force-center in 
 any given body, such body, as a whole, must exert 
 a still greater force of attraction upon every other 
 body. 
 
ITS SELF-CCWSEKVATION. 155 
 
 At the same time, it should not be forgotten that 
 the attractions are exerted, not between the masses as 
 such, but only between the ultimate force-centers con- 
 stituting the masses. And, finally, since the qualitative 
 diiferences in matter arise from the complexity of group- 
 ing of force-centers, it is evident that the different 
 " kinds " of matter could have no effect whatever upon 
 the intensity of the gravitative pull between any two 
 force-centers. 
 
 Here, again, then, our theory, in the free course of its 
 development, presents a simple, natural explanation of 
 what has long since been experimentally shown to be the 
 fact namely, that gravitation is invariably proportional 
 to the quantity of matter, and is not in the slightest 
 degree influenced by the kind of matter. 
 
 The experiments of Newton rendered this conclusion 
 highly probable, while the more elaborate and delicate 
 experiments of the German astronomer Bessel, in the 
 earlier part of the present century, gave it such complete 
 confirmation as to leave no further room for doubt. * 
 
 We have, then, arrived at a rational account of the 
 fact generalized in the first part of the universal law of 
 gravitation, as that law is usually stated, though it is now 
 evident that its more adequate explanation must be 
 sought through the second part of the law, as may be 
 seen from the law as stated in full. "Every particle of 
 matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a 
 force, whose direction is that of the line joining the two, 
 and whose magnitude is directly as the product of their 
 masses, and inversely as the square of their distance from 
 
 *See Whewell, "Hist, of Inductive Sciences," 3d (N. Y.) Ed., I., 549. 
 
156 THE WOKLD-ENEKGY 
 
 each other."* This brings us to the consideration of 
 momentum. 
 
 *See Thomson and Tait, "Elements of Natural Philosophy," 2d Ed., 
 I., 167. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 MOMENTUM. 
 
 WE have next to trace out the necessary implications 
 or corollaries of the law of gravity. And, first, 
 let it be remembered that the attraction is between the 
 ultimate force-centers severally, and not between aggre- 
 gated masses, as such. 
 
 At the same time, the mass itself is nothing else than 
 an aggregation of force-centers, and the attractive force 
 exerted by a given body must therefore be directly and 
 exactly proportional to its mass. 
 
 Between any two bodies, or aggregations of force- 
 centers, then, there will be a constant strain, tending 
 to bring the bodies nearer to each other with a force 
 proportional to the product of the masses of the two. 
 That is, there will be a constant pull between each 
 force-center in the one body, and every force-center in 
 the other. 
 
 It is to such strain, indeed, that we have already 
 traced the primary aggregation of force-centers into sin- 
 gle masses. And it is evident that the continuance of 
 the strain between the force-centers of any one of these 
 already formed groups, and the force-centers of any other 
 group, is but the continuation of the same tendency. 
 The motion due to the strain, therefore, can but result 
 in further aggregation through the meeting and coales- 
 cence of such groups into larger ones. 
 
 157 
 
158 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 But the motion produced in these cases, according to 
 the second law, must be proportional to the impressed 
 force, and must take place in the direction of the line 
 in which the force acts ; that is, in the direction of the 
 line joining the mutually attracting groups of force- 
 centers. And not only so, but in tracing the develop- 
 ment of the conditions of the action of force, we have 
 seen that, as indicated in the formulation of the universal 
 law of gravity, the force impressed upon each other by 
 the approaching groups must increase with the decrease 
 of the distance between them must ever be inversely 
 proportional to the square of that distance. 
 
 But, again, the motion is proportional to the im- 
 pressed force. And we have now to inquire whether 
 this impressed force, and consequent motion, is the same, 
 or different, for the two bodies. 
 
 To this the answer must be that either can act upon 
 the other only so far as it is acted upon by the other. 
 The action is necessarily mutual ; or, the action and reac- 
 tion between them must be equal, as well as in opposite 
 directions. Hence, the quantity of force impressed by 
 the greater mass upon the less is precisely the same as 
 that impressed by the less upon the greater. And when 
 we recall the fact that the distance separating them is at 
 any moment but one and the same distance, it is evident 
 that the force of gravity which the one body exerts or 
 "impresses" upon any other body must necessarily be 
 precisely the same as that exerted or impressed by the 
 second upon the first. Indeed, the gravitative strain 
 exerted by the two bodies upon each other consti- 
 tutes but one indivisible relation between the attracting 
 bodies. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 159 
 
 Since, then, the quantity of force impressed by and 
 upon each body, in the case of any gravitating pair, 
 is precisely the same whatever the relative mass, it 
 follows, necessarily, that the two bodies will each 
 acquire, through their mutual action, precisely the 
 same quantity of motion as the other. And yet, it is 
 not to be forgotten that the quantity of motion de- 
 pends directly and essentially upon the quantity of 
 matter. 
 
 It is here, indeed, that we find time entering in a 
 definite, quantitative way, into consideration as an essen- 
 tial element of motion. We saw at an earlier stage of 
 our inquiry, that motion is a change of space-relations. 
 But change necessarily implies succession. Hence, 
 motion can take place only as a continuous modification 
 of space-relation between bodies. 
 
 Fundamentally, however, the space-relations exist 
 between the ultimate force-centers. We have, indeed, 
 already traced the law of variation of that order of 
 space-relations directly constituted by the force of 
 gravity. It is required now, especially, to trace the 
 law of change of space-relations as relations of distance; 
 for this is conspicuously the class of space-relations whose 
 change constitutes motion. 
 
 Note now, again, that all space-relations, whether of 
 distance or of direction, are primarily relations between 
 ultimate force-centers; whence it follows that the quan- 
 tity of change in those relations will necessarily depend 
 directly upon the number of force-centers involved in 
 the change. The greater the number of force-centers 
 that is, the greater the quantity of " matter," the space- 
 relations of which undergo ^change the greater must 
 
160 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 be the quantity of that change. In other words, the 
 greater will be the quantity of motion. 
 
 It is evident,, then, that while in every respect the 
 actual force impressed upon each other by two gravi- 
 tating bodies, must be the same for the one as for the 
 other, the quantity of resultant motion of each must be 
 directly dependent upon, and precisely proportional to 
 the mass of the body. The greater the mass, the greater 
 the quantity of motion; the less the mass, the less the 
 quantity of motion. 
 
 Nevertheless, as we have but just seen, the second law 
 of motion declares, what proved on investigation to be 
 necessarily true, that change of motion is precisely pro- 
 portional to the impressed force. Evidently, then, the 
 mass of a body is not the sole factor of motion. 
 
 Indeed, it has just been shown that, since decrease of 
 distance between gravitating bodies intensifies the force 
 impressed by each upon the other, and since the motion 
 is always proportional to the impressed force, the quan- 
 tity of motion necessarily varies with the distance. But 
 the variation here is a variation in the rate of approach. 
 Each of the bodies must approach the other with a 
 regularly increasing velocity. And yet, it has been 
 shown that the force impressed by each body upon the 
 other is precisely the same in quantity as that impressed 
 upon it by the other. In short the "impressed force" is a 
 relation in which each acts and is acted upon in precisely 
 the same degree. 
 
 The same quantity of force, then, is, in the one case, 
 impressed upon a greater mass, in the other case upon 
 a less mass. But, where there is less mass, there is 
 also less resistance to change of motion. In this respect, 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 161 
 
 then, the less mass will yield more readily to the mutual 
 attraction than will the greater mass. The less mass 
 will, therefore, acquire the greater velocity. And its 
 velocity at any given moment must be precisely as much 
 greater than that of the greater body as its mass is less 
 than that of the greater. 
 
 It is now evident, that while the greater body has pre- 
 cisely as much greater quantity of motion than has the 
 less body, as its mass exceeds the mass of the less, when 
 we regard the quantity of motion from the side of the 
 number of force-centers moved; it has, when we con- 
 sider the quantity of motion from the side of velocity, 
 as much less motion than the smaller body, as its mass 
 exceeds the mass of the smaller body. 
 
 It is clear, then, that the total quantity of motion is 
 compounded of the quantity of motion dependent upon 
 the number of force-centers moved, on the one hand, with 
 the quantity of motion dependent upon velocity, on the 
 other hand. 
 
 We thus arrive at the definition of momentum, as 
 equal to the product of the mass into the velocity. In 
 other words, momentum is merely the technical term 
 expressive of quantity of motion in this compound 
 sense. And this the usual works on physics declare it 
 to be. 
 
 Having, then, traced the conditions determining the 
 quantity of motion in any body, we have next to follow 
 the actual motion and ascertain its essential phases. And 
 since, at the outset, any change in the motion of any 
 given body must take place in the direction of the line 
 in which the impressed force acts, the motion of any two 
 bodies attracting each other, must be in the direction 
 
162 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 of a straight line connecting them. Each body must,, 
 therefore, move or "fall" directly toward the other, 
 so far as the two bodies are considered merely with 
 reference to one another. 
 
 What we have next to do, then, is to watch the devel- 
 opment of the essential phases of this " fall." 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 LAWS OF FALLING BODIES. 
 
 IT has already been shown that the actual quantity of 
 motion of two bodies approaching each other in con- 
 sequence of their mutual gravitation must be the same in 
 the one body as in the other, no matter what the actual 
 difference in their masses may be. We have already, 
 therefore, ascertained the fundamental law of falling 
 bodies; so that what follows can be but the rendering 
 explicit of what is already implied in this primary law. 
 
 Indeed, there has already become explicit this much: 
 That mass and velocity are the necessary reciprocal fac- 
 tors of the total quantity of motion of any and every 
 body. If, therefore, in any pair of bodies gravitating 
 toward each other, the one has twice the mass of the other, 
 it will at any given moment in their approach toward 
 each other have acquired but half the velocity of that 
 other, and at the end of any given time will have passed 
 through but half the distance traversed by the other 
 body in the same time. In case they meet, it is evident 
 that the double mass will have traversed one-third the 
 original distance of separation, while the smaller mass will 
 have traversed the remaining two-thirds. If the masses 
 are' to each other as one to one thousand, the less will 
 approach the greater with a velocity a thousand fold that 
 with which the greater will approach the less, and in case 
 they continue their approach undisturbed until they 
 
164 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 meet the greater body will have traversed but one 
 thousandth of the originally intervening space, while 
 the remaining nine hundred and ninety-nine thou- 
 sandths will have been traversed by the smaller 
 body. 
 
 In short, the greater the difference between the masses 
 of the two bodies, the less significant relatively becomes 
 the velocity of the greater body, so far as the mere ques- 
 tion of quantity of space traversed in the approach be- 
 tween the two is concerned; though it is never to be 
 forgotten that the total quantity of motion of the one 
 body is precisely the same as that of the other, and that 
 in this sense the "fall" of the greater body toward the 
 less is exactly equal to the "fall" of the less toward the 
 greater. 
 
 But, let us repeat, the attractions are between the 
 ultimate force-centers and between them alone. Through 
 the same distance, therefore, the attraction between any 
 two such force-centers must ever be the same; and since 
 the total quantity of motion is proportional to the im- 
 pressed force, it is evident that any two force-centers 
 must, so far as their mutual attraction is not masked by 
 external forces, traverse any given space between them in 
 precisely the same time, whether they act singly or in 
 groups. For, suppose a group of ten particles or force- 
 centers on one side, and a group of five on the other. 
 Each of the ten particles in the one group will attract 
 and be attracted by each of the five particles in the other 
 group precisely in the same way and precisely with the 
 same result as if each particle on either side were com- 
 pletely dissociated from the other particles of its group. 
 In other words, the fall together of two bodies through 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 165 
 
 any given space will take place in precisely the same time, 
 whatever the masses of those bodies may be. 
 
 This may be regarded as the second universal law of 
 falling bodies. And it will be noticed that it develops 
 directly from the second law of motion. 
 
 It is evidently a necessary inference from this that 
 velocity, properly speaking, is the rate of approach of two 
 bodies toward each other, and that it is only when the 
 mass of the one body becomes infinitesimal, as compared 
 with the mass of the other, that it is even approximately 
 correct to refer the velocity solely to the smaller body. 
 
 But, again, as the distance between the approaching 
 bodies grows less, the force of attraction between them 
 becomes greater. It is evident, therefore, that, since the 
 force not only acts continuously, but also with continu- 
 ously increasing intensity, the increase in the rate of 
 approach of any two bodies, due to their own mutual 
 attraction, will be by a ratio whose value must constantly 
 increase, and must at any given moment be equal to that 
 which would have resulted from the action of a constant 
 force, through the given time, compounded with that pro- 
 duced by the increased action of the force for the same 
 time. 
 
 From the fundamental conditions of motion, it appears 
 then that, in the^zrs^ place, the mutual attraction of any 
 two bodies results in each acquiring in any given time 
 precisely the same quantity of motion as the other, 
 regardless of mass ; secondly, that the meeting of any 
 two bodies through any given distance, in consequence 
 of their mutual attraction, will take place in precisely 
 the same time, regardless of mass, though the portion of 
 the total distance at first separating them traversed by 
 
166 THE WOBLD-EHEKGY 
 
 either body will be inversely as its relative mass; and,, 
 thirdly, that the velocity or ratio of approach of the two 
 bodies toward each other is a compound, constantly 
 increasing ratio which is wholly independent of mass. 
 
 These are the fundamental phases of the motion of 
 bodies, so far as they are considered merely from the side 
 of their mutual attraction. And it is important to notice 
 that these three phases of motion are not merely three 
 different phases of relation between mass and velocity, 
 for that would be merely to substitute one term for 
 another, but also, and especially, it is important to 
 notice that they are three stages in the progressive suit- 
 ordination of mass as a factor of motion. 
 
 And this serves to remind us again that mass and 
 velocity are reciprocal factors in the quantity of motion. 
 It is the " inert " mass that draws to itself the detached 
 and lightly moving force-sphere, though the "inert 
 mass " is itself made up of precisely similar force-spheres. 
 That which is relatively without velocity appears to 
 impart velocity, and that which is relatively without 
 mass gains increase of power through its added velocity. 
 
 The latter statement may indeed seem, at first view, 
 to be a gratuitous one, so far as the course of our argu- 
 ment thus far can give justification. But we have only 
 to refer to the first law of motion as the law of inertia to 
 see that the justification is already implicit there. A body 
 can no more stop its own motion than it can put itself in 
 motion. And to overcome its motion requires precisely 
 the same amount of force as that expended in giving it 
 the motion it possesses. The quantity of motion a body 
 possesses is, therefore, an exact measure at once of the 
 force that has been impressed upon it in giving it motion, 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 167 
 
 and of the force that would be required to bring it to 
 rest. 
 
 The moving body itself, then, is a factor which, com- 
 bined with velocity,, constitutes a realized force ; and the 
 greater the velocity the greater the force, so long as the 
 mass of the body remains unchanged. 
 
 But, again, velocity is a product, the formal factors of 
 which are space and time. In other words, velocity is 
 the unity of time and space relations. Evidently also, as 
 a factor of force, velocity has greater value in proportion 
 as the time-element is diminished and the space-element 
 is increased. Thus the kinetic energy of a given body or 
 mass increases, not in the same degree as the velocity of 
 such mass increases, but in a ratio corresponding to the 
 square of the velocity. 
 
 Here, then, a new phase of force develops, the force of 
 motion itself. For momentum, or quantity of motion, is 
 the product of mass and velocity, and a moving body is 
 nothing else than a certain mass possessing a certain 
 velocity. Motion, therefore, is not something apart from 
 force. It is just force itself in realized form. 
 
 Let us next recall the fact, already developed, that the 
 abstract phases of attraction and repulsion are but mere 
 vague pull and push in the realm of " matter." And let 
 us also recall the further fact that has come to light in 
 the course of our inquiry: that it could be only through 
 the spontaneous element of self-activity necessarily im- 
 plied in the totality of the World-Energy, as self-meas- 
 ured, that aggregations of force-centers could take place 
 at all. 
 
 Putting these two facts together, it is evident that not 
 only is motion inevitable as a state of all bodies, but that 
 
168 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 all such motion must be unified into a perfectly consistent 
 system. 
 
 In the aggregations of force-centers into masses, then, 
 we see the same tendency as that which, at a more 
 advanced stage, cannot fail to produce still larger aggre- 
 gations. Masses attracting one another must move toward 
 one another, and this with increasing velocity, both from 
 the continuous action of the mutual attraction between 
 them, and also from the increasing intensity of the gravi- 
 tative pull, as the distance separating them diminishes. 
 
 Thus masses, which are but groups of force-centers, 
 come to have velocity as such. And this combination of 
 masses and velocities is the development of that phase of 
 force technically known as " molar motion," and which, 
 regarded simply as energy, is called kinetic energy. 
 
 It is true that, in popular language, motion is distin- 
 guished from bodies. Thus bodies are said to be "in 
 motion." And it must doubtless be something of a 
 shock to the ordinary consciousness to be assured that 
 bodies are "in motion" only in the sense that they are 
 themselves one of the necessary factors of motion. And 
 yet this is universally recognized, at least in words, in the 
 treatises dealing with this subject. 
 
 As to the decrease of molar motion, and the special 
 phase of energy which it embodies, this is effected either 
 gradually, in which case there is friction or compression ; 
 or suddenly, in which case there is .percussion. But 
 these may be better considered in connection with their 
 effects under the subject of heat. 
 
 It is to be observed that our consideration of the laws 
 of falling bodies has confined us to the simplest cases of 
 molar motion. We have abstracted or withdrawn our 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 169 
 
 thought from all action of force save that between two 
 bodies mutually attracting each other. 
 
 In such case, the resultant motion must, of course, 
 be literally in the direction of the straight line joining 
 the bodies ; and this could not but terminate in the 
 meeting and fusion of the two bodies unless their 
 inherent elasticity should be of such degree as to cause 
 their rebound from one another, to be once more drawn 
 together and again rebound, and so on ad infinitum. 
 
 On the other hand, however, the recognition of the 
 truth of the universality of the law of gravitation 
 recalls us to a consciousness of the very abstract, incom- 
 plete, and therefore, thus far, untrue representation 
 which we have as yet formed of the actual relation 
 of body to body in space. 
 
 Nevertheless, it can hardly be denied that we have 
 proceeded consistently with the second law of motion in 
 finding the resultant of two directions of the action of 
 force. So that the representation we have thus far 
 formed is doubtless " untrue" only in the sense of being 
 inadequate. 
 
 What remains to be done, then, in this respect is 
 that we shall proceed to the further step of finding 
 the resultant of a third direction of the action of force 
 with the resultant already obtained, and thus gain a 
 clue by which we may approach the conception of 
 something like a complete system of forces the system 
 itself being in perfect equilibrium, while the bodies 
 comprised in the system are in ceaseless motion. 
 
 It will be found, too, that actual motion can never 
 be in a straight line, but rather that it must ever be 
 in curved directions. It is to the consideration of such 
 motion, then, that the next chapter will be devoted. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 CURVILINEAR MOTION. 
 
 SUPPOSE three equal bodies at the vertices of an 
 equilateral triangle. Their mutual attraction upon 
 one another must result in their traveling each along 
 a straight line, to a point within the triangle equally 
 distant from the several vertices. Each, without moving 
 directly toward either of the others, yet moves in such 
 direction as to meet them both by the shortest line. 
 
 If, however, we take a more complex case, we shall 
 have a very different result. Even three unequal bodies, 
 and the more if not symmetrically grouped, must pre- 
 sent a wholly new set of relations. So intricate, 
 indeed, are the relations thus presented that " the prob- 
 lem of the three bodies " is one upon which, as Whewell 
 assures us, mathematicians have long exercised their 
 highest powers.* 
 
 The precise quantitative determinations of this and 
 other complex quantitative problems we must, indeed, 
 leave to the mathematicians. All that will be neces- 
 sary for our present purpose will be to trace the 
 quantitative characteristics of the motion arising in 
 such case as that which is actually presented in the 
 concrete world. And for the sake of simplicity, let 
 us assume the concrete case of the relations existing 
 between the earth, the sun and the moon, severally. 
 
 * "History of the Inductive Sciences," 3d (N. Y.) Ed., I., 367. 
 170 
 
AKD ITS SELF-COKSEEVATION". 171 
 
 These are three masses gravitating toward each 
 other. Assume the present distances of these bodies 
 severally from each other. Assume, also, that the 
 line joining the earth and the moon is approximately 
 at right angles with that joining the earth and the 
 sun assumptions which, on the nebular hypothesis, 
 are entirely justifiable. 
 
 Upon these assumptions we have to ask : What 
 will be the result of their mutual attractions? 
 
 We know, from what has already preceded, that 
 each will approach the other; that the earth and the 
 sun will move toward each other; that the earth and 
 the moon will move toward each other; and, finally, 
 that the moon and the sun will move toward each 
 other. In each couple, too, it is evident that the 
 quantity of motion of each body will be precisely 
 equal to that of the other body. But the body having 
 the less mass will, therefore, necessarily acquire the 
 greater velocity. Hence the sun, as vastly the greatest 
 mass, will acquire relatively very slight velocity as 
 toward either the earth or the moon. 
 
 Leaving out of account, then, the velocity of the 
 sun, as a quantity relatively so small that it may be 
 neglected without vitiating the result qualitatively 
 considered, we may trace the motion of earth and 
 moon toward the sun and toward each other. 
 
 And first, let us note that the distance between 
 the earth and the moon is so small, as compared with 
 their distance from the sun, that the intensity of 
 gravity, as between them, is necessarily correspondingly 
 greater than that between either of them and the 
 sun. Whence the velocity of approach between earth 
 
172 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 and moon must be far greater than the velocity of 
 their approach toward the sun. And the greatest 
 velocity of all, here as elsewhere, must belong to the 
 body having least mass. 
 
 The attractions will all necessarily be exerted along 
 straight lines. For gravitation, as we have seen, is 
 an essential property of the bodies themselves, and what- 
 ever their relative positions, it is necessarily a direct 
 connection of the one with the other. 
 
 We may remark, by the way, too, that this (taken 
 in connection with what has already been said con- 
 cerning the really indefinite extension of even the 
 smallest "bodies") is a simple and natural explanation 
 of the otherwise mysterious fact that gravity "acts" 
 instantaneously through immeasurable distances. Grav- 
 ity is not itself a special form or kind of matter; nor is 
 it, like light or heat or electricity, a special mode of 
 motion requiring time for its propagation through space. 
 On the contrary, it is there always and everywhere in space 
 as itself a necessary aspect or mode of "whatever can 
 occupy space." 
 
 The movements, nevertheless, must be along highly 
 complex curves. For both earth and moon approach the 
 sun at the same time they approach each other. The 
 earth will be drawn, by the moon's attraction, out of the 
 straight line joining its original position with the sun. 
 Meanwhile, the moon itself, as possessing relatively so 
 little mass, will acquire a much greater velocity. And 
 the direction of its movement will be toward the earth in 
 greater degree than toward the sun. At the same time, 
 the earth, as possessing so little mass relatively to the sun, 
 will acquire a velocity mainly in the direction of the sun. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 173 
 
 Thus earth and moon must acquire momentum each in 
 a curved direction. And the momentum of the moon, 
 consisting in so large a degree of velocity, will carry the 
 moon quite over so as, approximately, to reach the line 
 originally extending between earth and sun. 
 
 Meanwhile the earth must have moved toward the 
 sun, but must, also, have been drawn aside from a 
 straight line joining its original position with the sun 
 by the force impressed upon it by the moon's mass. 
 Whence it must result that the earth will speedily reach 
 a point exactly between sun and moon. 
 
 Just at this point, so far as the attraction between earth 
 and moon affects the earth, it will tend to draw the earth 
 away from the sun; or, in other words, it will tend to 
 diminish the earth's velocity toward the sun. On the 
 other hand, the moon will now be drawn in one direc- 
 tion by the combined attraction of both earth and sun. 
 Hence, its velocity must be increased at the same time 
 that it rapidly changes the direction of its motion. 
 
 Again, the acquired momentum of the earth must 
 carry it still further aside from the original line joining 
 it with the sun; so that by the time the moon has come 
 to follow the new direction of the impressed forces, the 
 attraction between itself and the earth will tend to carry 
 it again beyond the earth in the opposite direction. 
 
 But now, the powerful impulse it has received from 
 the combined action upon it of earth and sun, must 
 not only carry it past the earth, but must also direct its 
 movement along a path lying between earth and sun. 
 And yet, the increased intensity of gravitation between 
 earth and moon, from their nearer approach must result 
 in a rapid change of direction in the moon's motion, and 
 
174 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 with this result; that the moon must now again cross 
 the earth's path, but this time in advance of the earth 
 itself. 
 
 Thus the moon will once more reach a position, rela- 
 tively to the other bodies, similar to that in which we 
 first found it. 
 
 Evidently, it needs but to pursue this series of move- 
 ments which anyone can figure to himself on paper if 
 he finds it difficult to follow otherwise to see that in 
 their fall toward the sun the earth and moon must inev- 
 itably pursue a curved direction of great complexity, and 
 that they must in this complex movement inevitably fall 
 past the sun. 
 
 At the same time, it is to be remembered that the fall 
 is real. There is, up to a given point, constant decrease 
 in distance between these two bodies and the sun. And 
 that point will inevitably be determined by the rela- 
 tion between two phases of force the centripetal and 
 the centrifugal. So long as the former is greater than 
 the latter, the approach will continue. The moment 
 the latter comes to predominate over the former, that 
 moment the movement toward the center (sun) will be 
 transformed into a movement away from the center. 
 
 What constitutes centrifugal force? The answer has 
 in reality already been given. The mutual attractions 
 of three or more bodies must result in a complex move- 
 ment on the part of each body; the distances passed over 
 by the several bodies being inversely proportional to 
 their masses. And as the multiple attractions render 
 impossible the direct approach of any one body toward 
 any other, the total resultant is the curvilinear move- 
 ment of all. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 175 
 
 But, again, as we have seen, a mass in motion pre- 
 sents a case of actual energy energy of motion. And 
 since this energy of motion is directed, not in a straight 
 line toward the center, but in a curved line about the 
 center, it is evident that what began as a tendency 
 toward the center has developed into a tendency away 
 from the center. It is this latter tendency that is 
 properly termed centrifugal force. 
 
 And, now, let us note that the nearer the smaller 
 bodies approach the central one the greater becomes their 
 velocity, and, hence, the greater becomes their energy of 
 motion. But since this increasing energy of motion is 
 directed in a curve about the center, it must (the bodies 
 being of the given relative mass) attain at length a 
 degree of intensity that is not merely sufficient to bal- 
 ance the tendency toward the center, but which will 
 be even sufficient to overbalance the centripetal ten- 
 dency and thus actually carry the lesser masses away 
 from the center. 
 
 At the same time the gravitative strain or tendency 
 toward the center is a continuously impressed force. 
 And at the maximum point reached in its intensity 
 (which is, of course, at the moment of nearest approach 
 of the bodies to the center) the gravitative strain is ade- 
 quate to overcome the heightened degree of the energy 
 of motion (here developed as centrifugal force) acquired 
 by the revolving bodies so far as to cause a rapid change 
 in the direction of their motion. 
 
 Thus, while they do indeed pass the center, it is not 
 until, with their extreme velocity, they have passed so far 
 around it as to make a swift retrograde movement toward 
 the distant point from which their fall began. Their fall 
 
176 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 toward the sun was a process of accumulating energy 
 by which they were able to resist actually falling into 
 the central body, and by which also they are now seen 
 to actually "fall" away from that body. 
 
 Centripetal force is direct attraction. Centrifugal 
 force is energy of motion, due to attraction, but hav- 
 ing a tangential direction, this tangential direction 
 itself being due to the complexity of gravitative rela- 
 tion inherent in the group of the assumed three 
 bodies. 
 
 It ought to be remarked, finally, that the movement 
 away from the central body on the part of the smaller 
 masses necessarily takes place in opposition to the attraction 
 between them and the central body. Hence, their velocity 
 must now diminish until, their centrifugal force becoming 
 less than the force of attraction between them and the 
 central body, they gradually return upon their path of 
 approach toward the central body, to repeat the same 
 round. 
 
 It is easy to see, too, from the relations of force here 
 developed, that the path of a smaller body revolving 
 about a larger one must approximate an ellipse, and that, 
 as was discovered by Kepler, the radius vector must 
 describe equal areas in equal times. 
 
 Such, it seems perfectly safe to assume, is the nature 
 of all curvilinear motion, and hence of all motion what- 
 ever, throughout space. It may be rendered incalculably 
 complex by multiple attractions. But in every case the 
 perturbations in the movements of the heavenly bodies 
 are but the further illustration of the same law of rela- 
 tion necessarily applying as between all the force-centers 
 of the material universe, as has been repeatedly and 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 177 
 
 brilliantly shown in the course of the development of 
 astronomical science. 
 
 Not only are all those force-centers related one to 
 another, but a number of them,, grouped together with a 
 special degree of intimacy, constitute a complex system 
 through their own mutual relations. The many are 
 inevitably resolved into the one ; or, the many are neces- 
 sarily interrelated, and through their interrelation they 
 necessarily constitute one. 
 
 On the other hand, it is equally evident that the many 
 moving bodies in space, with all the phenomena of their 
 existence, constitute but the manifold outer modes of the 
 all-inclusive, perfectly self-balanced and self -active World- 
 Energy, the primal one, which is the source of all reality. 
 
 We have traced, in brief, the essential characteristics of 
 molar motion.' We have next to inquire what are the 
 fundamental phases of molecular motion. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 MOLECULAB MOTION. 
 
 OUR inquiry thus far leads manifestly to the conclu- 
 sion that all motion, whether molar or molecular, 
 must necessarily follow the same laws. Or, more pre- 
 cisely, all motion, whether molar or molecular, is ever 
 the manifestation of the same primal relations existing 
 between the force-centers of the real world in space, 
 whether those force-centers be considered as simple or 
 as aggregated into more or less extended groups. 
 
 On the other hand, we have already seen that, along 
 with increased complexity of grouping of force-centers, 
 there develops also increased intensity of strain, which 
 further results in the bringing into realization of new and 
 richer qualitative characteristics. 
 
 It is this development which takes place more especially 
 in the sphere of molecular motion. 
 
 The grouping itself, indeed, is due to the mutual 
 attractions between the simplest force-centers ; so that all 
 attraction may be regarded as ultimately atomic. But 
 the more closely these centers are gathered, the more 
 intense becomes the strain between them. That is, the 
 more strongly does the mutual attraction between any 
 two centers oppose the realization of the qualitative 
 result that would otherwise naturally follow from the 
 attraction between either of these two and any other 
 center. 
 
 178 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 179 
 
 Thus, the force-centers of a given group come to 
 acquire more and more rigid relations, one with an- 
 other, until they at length take on a definite form, 
 and offer greater or less resistance to any and all 
 forces tending to change that form. That is, what 
 primarily is but lax gravitative energy, becomes more 
 and more intense, until at length it develops into cohe- 
 sive force. 
 
 But now, when there comes to be applied to such rigid 
 aggregate of force-centers another group of force-rela- 
 tions sufficient to overcome its cohesion, then the molec- 
 ular strain is developed to a correspondingly high degree. 
 But whether the applied force bears the character of 
 compression, or of percussion, it is in either case due to, 
 or is a form of, gravitative energy or attraction. And if 
 the application takes place suddenly that is, if the quan- 
 tity of force in action be mainly intensive then the 
 motion imparted to the molecules of the given body will 
 be so great that their impact upon one another must have 
 the effect to widen the distances between them in greater 
 or less degree, and thus to correspondingly increase the 
 volume of the groups as a whole. 
 
 The result of the attraction, then, in such case, is, 
 first, percussion of one body against another, and through 
 this the sudden enhancement of the motion of the force- 
 centers constituting the bodies, so that the bodies them- 
 selves increase in volume through the energy thus 
 imparted to their molecules. That is, molar motion, 
 due to gravity, results in percussion of the moving 
 bodies, which in turn gives rise to molecular motion, and 
 this again results in increased intensity of percussion of 
 molecules, causing the expansion of the bodies. 
 
180 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 A phase of force drawing bodies together is thus seen 
 to develop into a phase of force driving the constituent 
 portions of those bodies asunder. Nay, the bodies them- 
 selves, so far as they are elastic, rebound; and the expan- 
 sion of the body as a whole is but the increased intensity 
 of rebound of the molecules of the body, estimated in 
 the increased extension or volume of the body as a whole. 
 
 But whether the impact and rebound be between large 
 bodies (moles), or between small bodies (molecules), in 
 either case precisely the same principle applies ; and the 
 thing to especially notice just at this point is that the 
 manifestation of force is perpetually dual. Concentra- 
 tion, we are accustomed to say, is due to attraction, while 
 expansion is due to repulsion. But we must repeat that, 
 as here shown in brief, and as proven more extendedly in 
 preceding chapters, the tendency toward concentration 
 itself involves the tendency toward expansion, just as the 
 tendency toward expansion involves the tendency toward 
 concentration. Attraction and repulsion are reciprocal 
 phases of every manifestation of force ; and their interre- 
 lation, as exhibited in the particles of any given mass, 
 great or small, is precisely what we are accustomed to call 
 the " elasticity" of that mass. That is, elasticity is a 
 molecular property of bodies ; and it should not be for- 
 gotten that this property is nothing else than an essential 
 relation or interplay between attraction and repulsion, as 
 the two necessary, and mutually inclusive, properties of 
 all matter. 
 
 Finally, since the same principles determine motion, 
 whether molar or molecular the difference between 
 these two classes of motion being, as just seen, arbi- 
 trarily assumed rather than actually existent and, since 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 181 
 
 motion may be imparted or transferred from one body 
 to another, the balance between attraction and repulsion 
 within any given quantity of matter must be constantly 
 undergoing change, and, as a consequence, the volume 
 of any and every body must as constantly undergo 
 variation. 
 
 Let us trace, briefly, some of the consequences of 
 this evident fact of the interrelation between attraction 
 and repulsion. And, first, let us note the special char- 
 acteristics of 
 
 a. HEAT. 
 
 That phase of molecular motion specially manifest in 
 the expansion of bodies, is now named Heat. It is 
 affirmed as a general law in physics that heat expands 
 all bodies. That is, heat is declared to be a mode of 
 repulsion. Thus, the degree of expansion which a given 
 volume of a selected substance undergoes, serves as the 
 measure of intensity of heat. 
 
 In reality the expansion is a measure of the increase 
 of one phase of force, as compared with another, in a 
 given quantity of matter. So that heat, as measured by 
 a thermometer, may be said to be the varying degrees 
 in the intensity of repulsion relatively to attraction; 
 just as weight, far from being identical with gravity, is 
 in reality the measure of the excess of centripetal over 
 centrifugal force. 
 
 It is also worthy of notice, that the "exceptions" 
 to the law that heat expands all bodies, are found to be 
 no exceptions. They are, in fact, due to crystallization. 
 We have already had occasion to notice that the com- 
 plexity of grouping of particles follows upon the com- 
 
182 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 plexity of relation between attraction and repulsion. 
 To this it is now to be added that the grouping 
 of particles known as crystallization, takes place for 
 each of the crystallizable substances at a single defi- 
 nitely fixed temperature of the substance, provided 
 always that the pressure is the same. That is, for every 
 crystallizable substance, the process of crystallization 
 can take place, only upon the establishment of a defi- 
 nite fixed relation between attraction and repulsion 
 within the substance. With any excess of repulsion 
 above that point, the crystals dissolve if already 
 formed, or refuse to form if the substance is in the 
 liquid state. 
 
 Crystallization, then, is a special phase of the solid- 
 ification of bodies, a process which takes place only upon 
 the reduction of the repulsion between their particles to 
 such degree as to leave the attraction predominant, and 
 thus allow the particles to cohere in fixed relations. 
 These fixed relations again constitute a tendency to 
 break up a larger mass into a multitude of smaller 
 masses. Within the larger mass certain groups of par- 
 ticles combine into relatively small masses of perfectly 
 definite shape; the shape being fixed for each particular 
 kind of crystallizable matter. Thus the larger mass is 
 differentiated into a multitude of smaller masses, which 
 yet cohere in irregular groupings, leaving unoccupied 
 spaces between them, and thus thrusting the boundaries 
 of the entire mass outward on all sides. Thus, while 
 the matter in cooling to or below the point of crystal- 
 lization becomes more dense, and really occupies less 
 space, yet the bulk of the entire mass is increased; or, 
 in crystallizing, the body " expands," but without really 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 183 
 
 contradicting the law that loss of heat is accompanied 
 by loss of actual volume. 
 
 Another point of interest to be noticed in this con- 
 nection, is found in the discussions of physicists con- 
 cerning the " absolute zero." Calculation once made of 
 the loss of volume for each degree of reduction of tem- 
 perature in a given mass of air, it is easy to determine 
 the absolute zero point, on the presumption that the 
 ratio of loss of volume to each degree of diminishing 
 temperature will continue unchanged. 
 
 Of course this ratio would not remain unchanged. 
 But the point of interest for us here is the fact that theo- 
 retically the absolute zero of temperature falls precisely 
 where the given quantity of matter has also reached the 
 zero of volume. That is, as was intimated on a former 
 page, where there is absolute zero of temperature, there 
 is absolute non-existence of matter. And, indeed, one 
 might naturally enough infer that since " heat" is a state 
 or phase of "matter," there can be complete absence of 
 heat only where there is complete absence of matter. 
 
 It may also be remarked, that so far as this specu- 
 lation of the scientists is of any real value, it serves to 
 confirm our previously attained conclusion, that repul- 
 sion of which heat is merely a mode is an absolutely 
 essential phase of matter. This, indeed, is the real 
 meaning of that other speculation to the effect that if 
 the action of gravity were wholly unchecked, it would 
 reduce the material universe to a mathematical point. 
 On the other hand, as we have already seen, gravitation 
 itself would be impossible apart from repulsion, as its 
 opposing or complementary mode of force. Or, as 
 previously shown, the very action of gravity must, of 
 
184 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 necessity, develop within itself the opposite mode of 
 force. Whence it may be said that, though we may in 
 a certain degree imagine the action of gravity apart 
 from repulsion, yet it is impossible to conceive such 
 action in the sense of thinking it. 
 
 There is, besides, no little significance for our present 
 purpose in the fact that, in modern science, heat is 
 treated throughout as exclusively a mode of repulsion. 
 The entire discussion of the subject proceeds upon, and 
 is but a development of, the proposition that "heat 
 expands all bodies." The chief topics regarding the 
 action of heat are: Expansion; change of state; rela- 
 tion between tension and density of vapors. 
 
 Finally, as regards the distribution of heat, it need 
 only be said that conduction of heat is simply the pro- 
 gressive transfer of the energy of motion from particle to 
 particle in a series; while convection begins in conduction, 
 which, in turn, brings about a difference in specific grav- 
 ity in the fluid medium, the result being currents con- 
 veying the energy of motion (whence convection currents) 
 and distributing that energy by contact that is, by 
 conduction again. So, also, radiation itself appears to 
 be but a modified form of conduction, and the more 
 when we recognize that all "bodies" are in reality 
 indefinitely extended, and, hence, mutually inclusive. 
 
 But let us now pass to the consideration of another 
 mode of molecular energy, which is also intimately 
 related to heat. 
 
 b. CHEMICAL ACTION. 
 
 We have already noticed that molecular combination 
 depends upon the varying degrees of relation between 
 
AND ITS SELF-COKSERVATION". 185 
 
 attraction and repulsion. We have just seen that crys- 
 tallization depends upon a definite fixed relation between 
 these two modes of energy for each particular substance; 
 and in former pages reasons were shown for concluding 
 that the chemical elements themselves must have had 
 their origin in the cumulative strain incident to the 
 gradual radiation of heat from a given diffuse, gaseous 
 mass, the mass gradually condensing into the solid state 
 through the constant action of gravity; this phase of 
 force itself, indeed, becoming more and more intense 
 the farther the condensation advanced. 
 
 Modern chemistry itself points definitely and em- 
 phatically in the same direction. All chemical com- 
 pounds are separable into their elements through the 
 action of heat. Chemical combination is the result 
 of attraction, here named "affinity/- while heat is 
 a mode of repulsion. Above a certain degree of in- 
 tensity, therefore, heat must serve as an absolute 
 bar to the formation of any known chemical com- 
 pound. 
 
 As far as observation goes, then, the qualitative differ- 
 ences of matter are -seen to be completely dependent 
 upon the relation between the intensive and the exten- 
 sive phases of energy in a given realm. Quality is, in 
 truth, the intensive phase of matter developed through a 
 preponderance of the intensive phase of energy. That 
 is, it is a perfectly logical inference from the principle 
 thus far developed that the so-called chemical elements 
 are themselves simply so many phases of matter that 
 have been differentiated from a practically homogeneous, 
 nebulous mass, through the gradual transition of the 
 total quantity of energy immediately constituting that 
 
186 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 mass from a predominantly extensive to a predominantly 
 intensive phase. 
 
 The same laws, then, must hold in chemistry as in 
 physics. And it is a noteworthy fact that the latest 
 researches in chemical science tend to verify this con- 
 clusion also. Nay, at least one work Berthelot's re- 
 markable and extended treatise, entitled, " Essai de 
 Mecanique Chimique" is devoted to the presentation 
 of the evidences tending to establish the identity of 
 chemical forces with the other natural forces.* 
 
 But the general action of these phases of energy 
 cannot fail to develop specialized, local strains within 
 the mass of matter thus undergoing reduction in spacial 
 extent, on the one hand, and differentiation of quali- 
 tative content on the other. And it is evident that 
 the investigation of these specialized local strains must 
 result in the development of a new branch or branches 
 of science. 
 
 Historically, indeed, such investigation has resulted 
 in the development of two distinct branches of purely 
 physical science; the one being chemistry itself, the 
 other being electricity. And it is especially worthy of 
 notice that both the phases of energy, whose special modes 
 are traced in these two sciences, are most intimately 
 related to the still more complex modes of energy mani- 
 fested in life. 
 
 It is to a brief consideration of the central charac- 
 teristics of electricity that we have now to turn. 
 
 *In his conclusion he says: "Ainsi, les Energies chimiques se trouvent 
 nettement caract6ris<5es et raises en opposition avec les autres Energies natu- 
 relles: les unes et les autres obt-issent 6galemeut aux lois de la me'canique 
 rationelle." II., 754. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 187 
 
 C. ELECTEICITY AND MAGNETISM. 
 
 In crystallization, the molecules of certain kinds of 
 matter are seen, under favoring conditions of relation 
 between attraction and repulsion, to undergo arrange- 
 ment, so as to constitute definite geometrical solids. 
 These solid forms possess, too, in most cases, a relatively 
 stable equilibrium. 
 
 Another class of strains, however, is induced by the 
 sudden cooling of a mass of molten matter for example, 
 glass or iron to the solid state. The Prince Eupert 
 drop is a well-known and striking example of extremely 
 unstable equilibrium, produced by the sudden chilling 
 of a small mass of molten glass, so that the surface 
 becomes solid, while the interior is still in a more or 
 less liquid or viscous state. When the whole has become 
 solid, the interior and exterior strains are imperfectly 
 balanced, the density of the central part being less than 
 that of the outer, since an outer rigid shell was formed 
 over an inner nucleus that was still molten, and which, 
 in its solidification, has tended to shrink away from the 
 outer rigid shell. Hence, the slightest break in the 
 exterior portion at once makes way for the complete 
 disruption of the entire mass. 
 
 It is well known, also, that cast car-wheels and edge- 
 tools, when chilled rapidly, possess the same peculiar 
 characteristic of "brittleness." And this, it can scarcely 
 be doubted, is due in reality to the unequally distributed 
 strain characterizing the Prince Rupert's drop, rather 
 than to the additional "hardness" produced by the 
 sudden cooling; for, in truth, the "hardness" must, by 
 the very conditions of rapid cooling, be confined mainly 
 to the superficial portions of the chilled mass. 
 
188 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 We have now to remark that electrification would 
 seem to be a similar case of unstable molecular equi- 
 librium in this far: that it is found to be a special 
 molecular condition, which very few kinds of matter 
 will retain during any at all extended portion of 
 time. The evanescent character of electric disturbance, 
 too, is, when considered in connection with the Prince 
 Rupert's drop, confirmatory of the usual statement of 
 physicists that such disturbance is confined to the 
 superficial portions of the electrified bodies. 
 
 It is only when the disturbance penetrates through 
 the entire mass that it assumes a relatively perma- 
 nent character ; and then the electrified body becomes 
 a "magnet." In confirmation of this, it is scarcely 
 necessary to do more than refer to the beautiful exper- 
 iments with the solenoid, by which a current of elec- 
 tricity is shown to possess all the essential properties 
 of a magnet. 
 
 It is interesting to note, too, that a bar of iron 
 resting within the solenoid while a current of elec- 
 tricity passes through it, becomes a temporary magnet, 
 while a steel bar, under like conditions, becomes a 
 "permanent" magnet. And this, too, has its impor- 
 tant suggestion. For steel is simply a more dense 
 state of iron. That is, relatively to steel, iron is 
 "soft," or fluid. The attraction between particle and 
 particle is less intense. The relation between parti- 
 cle and particle is less rigid. The relation between 
 particle and particle in steel, then, is less easily dis- 
 turbed. Hence, when a new relation is established, 
 it tends, in its turn, to persist. And this is especially 
 the case when the new relation' between particle and 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 189 
 
 particle becomes, in a measure, organic, or, as it is 
 usually expressed, " polarized." 
 
 Thus electricity (and, therefore, magnetism) consists 
 of a special, local molecular strain, opposing the ordi- 
 nary cohesion of particles. It may, too, become suf- 
 ficiently intense to quite overcome the cohesion, and 
 thus to fuse, or even vaporize, a solid mass. It 
 thus performs the same office as heat is, indeed, in 
 such case, said to be transmuted into heat. And 
 not only so, but, just as heat is a mode of molec- 
 ular motion, transferable from one portion of matter 
 to another, so electricity is also only a varied mode 
 of molecular motion, capable of transmission. 
 
 If, indeed, we take into account the relations involved 
 in its development, it becomes evident that, in reality, 
 electricity cannot but be in perpetual process of devel- 
 opment and transmission into other phases of force 
 wherever there is matter. True, it is not merely or 
 mainly a phase of molecular repulsion, like heat ; nor 
 of molecular attraction, like chemical affinity. On 
 the contrary it constantly exhibits both these phases 
 of energy in its activity, and is thus a specially com- 
 plex phase of molecular energy. 
 
 Electricity is, indeed, described as of two kinds 
 " statical " and "dynamical." The former is said to 
 be developed by friction, the latter by chemical action. 
 But friction involves adhesion, which is an approach 
 to molecular attraction ; while chemical action is a 
 separation and recombining of "atoms," in which 
 there is necessarily involved molecular friction. Here, 
 again, then, we find ourselves face to face with the 
 identity in kind of molecular and mechanical energy, 
 
190 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 while the two "kinds" of electricity are seen to be but 
 two phases or degrees of one and the same kind. 
 
 But we have further to note that all strains pro- 
 ducing flexure or compression in short, any change 
 whatever, whether "mechanical" or " chemical,," in 
 the configuration, or volume, or state, of any given 
 mass of matter must be attended with a greater or 
 less degree of molecular friction, resulting in "elec- 
 trification," as well as in change of temperature. In 
 short, electricity is evidently a phase of all matter, 
 and a phase no less essential than is heat or gravita- 
 tion. 
 
 At the same time, it must not be overlooked that 
 in still another way the complexity of electric energy 
 is evident. For in its manifestations there are ever 
 found to be two phases possessing opposite character- 
 istics, and to which are given the designations respect- 
 ively of "positive" and "negative." It is to be 
 observed, however, that the law which these mani- 
 festations are found to follow brings out a peculiar 
 result. The law is that "like electricities repel and 
 unlike electricities attract." But this can, in reality, 
 mean nothing else than that positive electricity is 
 negative toward positive, and positive toward negative 
 electricity ; while negative electricity is positive toward 
 positive, and negative toward negative. 
 
 And not only so, but the designation of the one 
 rather than the other as positive is found to be 
 purely arbitrary. Either is equally positive and equally 
 negative. Each is therefore both positive and negative. 
 
 This is a specially significant phase of relation in 
 force, to which we shall have occasion to return. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 191 
 
 Finally, we must not fail to note,, further, that 
 electricity not only exhibits this two-fold character as 
 electricity, but that its activity constantly develops 
 into both heat and chemical change, just as, on the 
 contrary, both heat and chemical change are accom- 
 panied by electrical excitation. 
 
 In an important sense, then, electricity may be 
 regarded as the higher unity in which heat and chem- 
 ical action molecular repulsion and molecular (or 
 "atomic") attraction combine, the result being, in- 
 deed, a state of very unstable equilibrium. And this 
 corresponds to the general law in nature that the 
 more complex the physical unit the more is it sus- 
 ceptible to dissolution. 
 
 It will be observed that, up to this point, in 
 dealing with "molecular motion," we have had to 
 do with facts that belong definitely to the external 
 or physical world. We come now to consider those 
 phases of molecular motion which are very closely 
 intermingled with factors pertaining to the inner 
 world of mind. This fact gives to the study of those 
 phases a special interest at the same time that it 
 adds greatly to the possibility of error in the re- 
 sults. 
 
 The special phases referred to are 
 
 d. LIGHT AND SOUND. 
 
 As a physical fact, strictly considered, light is insep- 
 arable from radiant heat. And radiant heat is predomi- 
 nantly repulsion a central throbbing that communicates 
 motion outward radially to and through the surrounding 
 medium. 
 
192 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Nevertheless, this transmission of motion from the 
 center outward by means of vibrations in a medium 
 involves something more than mere outward impulse. 
 Both center and medium must be highly elastic if any 
 movement is to be actually transmitted. For the out- 
 ward thrust of every single particle from the center of 
 radiation already, and necessarily, involves a tension 
 which can exist only through the inseparable union of 
 attraction and repulsion. 
 
 The vibration, besides, is not merely an outward 
 thrust, but is also and equally a rebound. In other 
 words, vibrations can take place only in an elastic 
 medium. And elasticity is nothing else than the inter- 
 fusion of molecular attraction and repulsion. Thus the 
 undulatory theory of heat, light and electricity, only 
 brings into greater clearness the extreme simplicity of 
 the physical world. 
 
 So, too, this simplicity of the physical world becomes 
 still more impressive when we further consider the 
 familiar fact, that like light, sound too, as an outer 
 physical fact, is nothing else than vibratory motion in an 
 elastic medium. It would indeed be only to repeat what 
 has been said of the former, were we to state the funda- 
 mental characteristics of the latter. 
 
 There are, of course, important qualitative differences 
 in the media, as well as quantitative differences in the 
 vibrations which take place in these media. No doubt, 
 too, that the complexity of grouping of the particles 
 incident to the vibrations, in the one case, is greater 
 than in the other. But, after all has been said, the fun- 
 damental fact remains that sound and light, considered 
 simply as physical facts apart from their effects in 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 193 
 
 sensation, are alike modes of vibratory motion and noth- 
 ing more. 
 
 In truth, what we commonly call "light" and 
 "sound" are subjective creations of our own, which we 
 spontaneously attribute to the physical world as if they 
 pertained to that world and were among its inherent 
 properties. 
 
 It is necessary to reflect quite deliberately upon the 
 subject before one is able to form to himself a clear and 
 even approximately adequate conception of the extent 
 to which he is himself the creator of the world in the 
 midst of which he lives. He must first become thor- 
 oughly conscious of the infinite variety that is given 
 to the "external" world by color and sound, taste and 
 smell. He must then dwell upon, until he realizes the 
 full force of, the proofs that these have absolutely no 
 existence save in sensation. Then, and only then, can 
 he adequately appreciate the barrenness and utter pov- 
 erty of the merely physical world. Then, and only 
 then, can he rightly appreciate the fact that the world 
 in space, apart from those "attributes" which in no 
 wise belong to it, but which are literally given it by the 
 contemplating mind, is in reality nothing more than the 
 balancing of complementary phases of energy developing 
 into "material," but constantly changing forms, char- 
 acterized chiefly by their mutual exclusion their pure 
 externality. 
 
 That, in truth, is all that is real of the " outer world." 
 Elasticity the interfusion of attraction and repulsion in 
 varying degrees, resulting in perpetual vibration, in per- 
 petually recurring condensations and rarefactions here, 
 indeed, is the essence of the external conditions of sensa- 
 
194 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 
 
 tioii; but this is far from constituting the internal fact of 
 sensation. This internal fact of sensation is an act of the 
 mind. The stimulus leading to this act is found in the 
 outer vibrations; but the act of sensation, together with 
 its product, known as an "image/' these are inner, sub- 
 jective facts. Even the " image," involving all there is 
 of color, or of sound, or of odor, or of flavor, is not a 
 possession of the mind, as something separate or separa- 
 ble from the mind. Rather, it is itself a state of the 
 mind, a factor inwoven with the very existence of the 
 mind. 
 
 That color, and sound, and odor, and flavor are 
 purely subjective is, indeed, a fact recognized and 
 acknowledged as a matter of course, even by the most 
 thorough-going empiricists. 
 
 And now, all this being the case, it serves to suggest 
 the possibility that even that portion of the outer world 
 which we must still regard as quite external to and 
 independent of us, is still itself nothing else than the 
 outer manifestation of the inner, spontaneous energy 
 of a higher, and, indeed, highest, consciousness. This 
 would doubtless prove to be the most adequate term of 
 the world, a term infinitely concrete, the vital principle 
 of all things. 
 
 But so far as the present argument extends, this 
 must as yet be regarded as conjectural. What has de- 
 veloped all along, what the most recent developments 
 of physical science point to with special clearness and 
 emphasis, is the conception that the world in space 
 is a sum-total of energy ; that everywhere there is 
 indestructible unity of relation ; that the total complex 
 of relations extends infinitely in all directions, and 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 195 
 
 thus that the sum-total of energy is an indivisible, 
 self-balanced whole. Even the modes of molecular 
 motion are seen to be nothing else than the various 
 phases of the manifestations whose essence is the 
 infinitely varied inter-play of attraction and repulsion 
 as the primary and necessarily complementary phases 
 of the one all-pervading and all-constituting energy. 
 And now that we have come to recognize the identity 
 in nature of all the. phenomena of the outer world, 
 and have found the theory to be entirely reasonable 
 that all these phenomena are due to the varying 
 degrees of complexity of the activity of the one primal 
 energy, we may next proceed to inquire more pre- 
 cisely what are the necessary implications as to the 
 essential, innermost property of this one primal energy. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 CORRELATION OF FORCES AND CONSERVATION 
 OF ENERGY. 
 
 doctrine of correlation of forces, now so gen- 
 erally known and accepted, will require but brief 
 reference in this place. And so much the less need it be 
 here dwelt upon, as the whole course of our argument 
 thus far has been chiefly a statement of that doctrine in 
 its more universal form. All possible phases of force 
 have been shown to be necessarily interrelated, and even 
 interfused, so that in reality the exclusive occupancy of 
 a given field by one single phase of force would be 
 wholly impossible. Force, to be force at all, must be 
 complex. At every point where force is, there it is as 
 active; and in its activity it must involve strains and 
 counter-strains productive of constant changes in the 
 intensity of molecular energy, which changes become 
 manifest as heat, or chemical action, or electric (or mag- 
 netic) polarization; or rather in all these it becomes 
 manifest simultaneously in varying degree. Not merely 
 percussion, but also compression both due to attrac- 
 tion give rise to heat, which is itself a mode of repul- 
 sion. And in general we find everywhere complete 
 confirmation of the third law of motion that ' ' to every 
 action there is always an equal and contrary reaction." 
 
 But this law, in thus presenting the two-fold nature 
 of force, also declares implicitly that either phase may 
 
 196 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 197 
 
 be regarded as either action or as reaction. And this is 
 in effect to regard each phase as both action and reac- 
 tion. So that the theory of the correlation of forces 
 seems already announced in germ in this law. Given cer- 
 tain conditions,, a definite quantity of heat will in its con- 
 sumption develop a corresponding definite quantity of 
 electricity. But just as well the case may be reversed and 
 a given definite quantity of electricity may be expended 
 and have for its product a corresponding definite quan- 
 tity of heat. And yet, in either case, the force expended 
 cannot even be conceived as existing otherwise than 
 as in action, and hence as meeting an equal quantity 
 of force in reaction. And in these cases the force in 
 reaction must evidently be molecular or atomic attrac- 
 tion. The percussion of world colliding with world must 
 develop sufficient heat to reduce both to the nebu- 
 lous state. And that compression is productive of heat 
 is sufficiently known from familiar facts, and is strikingly 
 illustrated from the estimated quantity of heat devel- 
 oped by the strain toward the center in case of all large 
 masses the heat of the sun being, as Helmholz suggests, 
 kept up by this means. 
 
 In short this interrelation, let us repeat, is manifest 
 everywhere in nature, and the whole physical universe is 
 but its perpetual realization and illustration. 
 
 But, allowing this to be the case, there appears 
 one grave difficulty, as we are assured by those who 
 insist that " science" must above all things be "exact." 
 And the grave difficulty is this: The energy of the 
 system may "run down" to a dead level, so that all 
 motion, all development, all change, all life, must for- 
 ever cease. 
 
198 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 " The principle of degradation/' says Balfour Stewart, 
 "would appear to hold throughout; and if we regard 
 not mere matter, but useful energy, we are driven to con- 
 template the death of the universe."* 
 
 Assuredly this would be a deplorable outcome 
 especially as it could scarcely be hoped that there would 
 be any survivors to mourn the loss of the "useful 
 energy." In any case we seem here to arrive from the 
 opposite direction, at the same difficulty as that which 
 presented itself at a previous stage of our inquiry. The 
 difficulty is that of discovering an adequate principle 
 of motion. 
 
 On its first presenting itself the difficulty was to find 
 a principle that could initiate motion. It now appears 
 under the form of an unavailing search for a principle 
 adequate to maintain motion. What if the really hope- 
 less search should prove to be for a principle or "force" 
 adequate to the putting an end to motion? seeing that 
 "rest" is altogether inconceivable as a state of matter. 
 
 It would seem that we might formulate our need 
 thus: "Wanted: a sufficient reason alike for the birth 
 and for the death of the universe." Meanwhile the 
 undeniable and assuring fact of the universe itself, as 
 here and now actually existent and throbbing with 
 vitality manifested in motion, offers itself pending the 
 settlement of such questions as whether in truth the 
 " universe' ever was really born, or whether it will 
 ever indeed die whether, if its birth can really be even 
 conjecturally dated, we can ever hope to estimate out 
 of what possible conditions of chaos or mere void it 
 
 * ''Elementary Lessons in Physics,' 1 ' 1 p. 375, and similarly at the close of his 
 work on the " Conservation of Energy." 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 199 
 
 came into being; or if its death be indeed a fore-doomed 
 fact, whether it may not after all be that it will undergo 
 self -cremation and, supreme Phoenix as it would then be, 
 evolve a new "universe" of at least equal splendor, from 
 its own infinite nebulosity, for "ashes" assuredly there 
 could then be none. 
 
 Fortunately a way cut of this grave difficulty seems 
 already provided. It may be that the inevitable and 
 seemingly final "dissipation of energy" is but a phase 
 of the wider process known as the conservation of energy. 
 
 This doctrine affirms in what is now accepted as an 
 axiom of science that the total quantity of energy in 
 the universe remains and must continue to remain 
 unchanged. Energy can neither be brought into exist- 
 ence nor put out of existence. To bring energy into 
 existence must pre-suppose the existence of energy. And, 
 as the energy previously existing could act only through 
 the reaction of that upon which it acts, the energy 
 brought into existence must have already been in 
 existence. 
 
 Energy, then, is not merely something existing, not 
 merely something indestructible, it is evidently also 
 something uncreated, something the creation of which 
 is inconceivable. But if energy cannot be created, then 
 all energy now existing must always have been in exist- 
 ence. So, too, on the other hand it must require energy 
 to destroy energy. And the destroying energy must be 
 greater than that destroyed. Nay, as we have already 
 seen, there are not many energies, but only one all-inclu- 
 sive energy. And evidently this total unit of energy 
 could not destroy itself in any degree. For in acting 
 upon itself it could only bring itself into equilibrium; 
 
200 THE WORLD-ENEMY 
 
 and, indeed, this appears to be what is really meant by 
 the theory of the dissipation of energy. 
 
 Is this equilibrium necessarily an equilibrium of death, 
 or could there possibly be for the universe just as well an 
 equilibrium of life? 
 
 Implicitly, at least, the answer to this question has 
 already been given. The totality of energy remains for- 
 ever unchanged. As energy, it is changelessly active. 
 ' ' To every action there is always an equal and opposite 
 reaction/' Hence, the totality of energy must always 
 have been in equilibrium. For its activity could only be 
 within and upon itself ; and, since the activity of the one 
 unchanging energy must be changelessly the same, includ- 
 ing the aspect of reaction, then the total product must 
 likewise be changelessly the same. 
 
 Evidently, unless energy persists in all its relations, 
 there is thus far, on the one hand, a failure of the per- 
 sistence of energy itself; while, on the other hand, a 
 failure of energy to persist in all its relations necessarily 
 implies that the correlation of the various phases of energy 
 is, after all, not complete. In which case there would be 
 absolute lines of separation in the total energy ; whence, 
 in reality, there must be many mutually exclusive forces. 
 And this is the same as saying that the doctrine of the 
 correlation of forces is no more than a fiction. 
 
 In short, the conclusion that the energy of the universe 
 is undergoing degradation, or that it is in any way in a 
 process of running down to a dead level of rigid equi- 
 librium, would seem to have been drawn from premises 
 which were no doubt perfectly "exact," but which, there 
 is reason to believe, were insufficient in their scope. In 
 the first place, the conclusion is based upon mathematical 
 
AKD ITS SELF-CONSERVATION". 201 
 
 calculation. That is, it is a (relatively) quantitatively 
 determined result. But the universe, as a whole, the 
 total (( quantity" of energy, is by no means quantifiable 
 in the sense of being expressible in terms of any human 
 calculus. It is, as has already been shown, measurable 
 only by itself. 
 
 Doubtless the quantitatively determined results which 
 scientists have attained may be approximately correct as 
 regards finite portions of the universe the solar system, 
 for example where the process of the "running down" 
 of energy may very well be considered as in actual pro- 
 gress. As already intimated, this running down of energy 
 in finite portions of the universe is manifestly a necessary 
 phase of the total process of the conservation of energy. 
 
 Nor can it reasonably be doubted that it is precisely 
 here that the depressing pessimistic (or is it really uplift- 
 ing-optimistic ?) conclusion is reached as to the approach- 
 ing "death" of the "universe." For, after all, it is 
 fairly evident that the estimates respecting the dissipation 
 of energy have reference only to "our" universe in 
 contrast with another universe, or even with innumerable 
 other universes to which it would seem that any specula- 
 tions of exact science can have no reference. 
 
 But any such local running down of energy necessarily 
 implies a previous process of running up. It is impossi- 
 ble that a body should fall unless it has been previously 
 raised to the height from which it falls. 
 
 Equally impossible is it, because really repeating the 
 same thing, that the solar system should have resulted 
 from the falling together of a nebula, unless the matter 
 composing it had been previously expanded or ' 'raised" 
 to the vastly distant spaces occupied by the nebula. 
 
202 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 And doubtless the energy that was capable of bringing 
 about these conditions of potential energy primarily will 
 be perennially equal to this and all other tasks which it 
 pertains to its nature to perform. For the total quantity 
 of energy must forever remain undiminished according 
 to any rational interpretation of the doctrine of the 
 conservation or persistence of energy. 
 
 And this doctrine, when reflected upon and fairly 
 understood, is seen to be, if not self-evident, at least 
 clear and consistent ; while the contrary of this doctrine 
 is plainly self -contradictory, and, hence, " unthinkable." 
 So forcibly, indeed, does the truth of this doctrine of the 
 persistence of energy appeal to Mr. Spencer, that he 
 declares it to be "the sole truth, which transcends expe- 
 rience by underlying it." * And so, too, it would seem, 
 it must appeal to all minds; though it is of the utmost 
 importance to bring into explicit statement the signifi- 
 cance that is only latent in the formulation usually given 
 to this truth. 
 
 And, first, it is essential to fully appreciate 
 
 a. THE ABSOLUTE UNITY OF ENERGY 
 
 We have already seen that force or energy is necessarily 
 complex or manifold ; that at every point in space there is 
 a focus of force, and that the force thus focused consists 
 necessarily of the interfusion of attractions and repul- 
 sions. It is in this far that force appears especially as 
 manifold. 
 
 On the other hand, the doctrine of the correlation of 
 forces points clearly to the conclusion that, after all, force 
 is, strictly speaking, a single totality having manifold 
 
 * "First Principles," (N. Y. Ed.), p. 192. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION'. 203 
 
 modes. So that now scientists no longer speak of forces, 
 but only of modes of force. 
 
 And this view follows necessarily from the very nature 
 of force. Precisely the same reasoning applies to the 
 total sum of force or energy as applied to a single focus. 
 To be force at all, it must present all the fundamental 
 characteristics of force throughout its whole extent. 
 Otherwise there would be, as already shown, not only 
 distinct phases or modes of force, but absolutely different, 
 and hence forever mutually exclusive forces. 
 
 This, however, could only be through the development 
 of each force as absolute repulsion, since, physically, abso- 
 lute exclusion can mean nothing else than absolute repul- 
 sion. But thus all would possess the same characteristic. 
 Whence they would hold themselves as absolutely differ- 
 ent, one from another, through an identical characteristic. 
 They are absolutely different through their absolute 
 identity. 
 
 And not only so, but each, as absolute repulsion or 
 differencing power, must exert its repulsion within itself, 
 as well as toward other forces. Otherwise it would be 
 unable to resist their pressure and must be reduced to 
 no-dimension. In other words, it would undergo anni- 
 hilation. And this process must go forward until but 
 one force remained. Hence, if many forces exist, it can 
 be only by and through the absolute self-repulsion of 
 each. 
 
 But in this case, each, by its own absolute self- 
 repulsion, must expand infinitely, and thus not merely 
 thrust itself against, but also thrust itself through the 
 contiguous forces. The very power by which one force 
 would be able to exclude from itself another force, and 
 
204 THE WORLD-EHERGY 
 
 thus give rise to many forces, is thus found to be equally 
 a power by which the one force must inevitably pene- 
 trate the other throughout its whole extent, and ulti- 
 mately mclude it as well. 
 
 That which excludes also includes. The external is 
 ultimately the internal. The conception that there 
 are mutually exclusive forces proves self-contradictory. 
 There is ultimately but one force or energy, which 
 includes all, and is, at the same time, the "all" which 
 is included. It is a self -including , self-contained total. 
 
 It thus turns out that energy is not merely an indivisi- 
 ble total, but that it is the very substance of all reality. 
 For, as energy, it is substance, and as active, it can find 
 its object only in substance. This substance, too, which 
 is the object of the activity of energy, must itself also be 
 a phase of energy, since it can be acted upon only by 
 reacting ; and, in reacting, it necessarily proves to be 
 energy. 
 
 There can, besides, be but one substance. For, were 
 there two, these could be distinguished or maintained as 
 separate only through the possession, by the one, of char- 
 acteristics which the other lacked, and through lacking 
 what the other has. But thus, again, these two "sub- 
 stances" would prove to be mutually dependent, and 
 hence, but complementary phases of one total substance.* 
 
 Thus, from whatever side we view it, energy is seen to 
 be an absolutely indivisible, all-inclusive unit. And yet, 
 as that which contains and also that which is contained, 
 the total energy, or substance, is different from itself, and 
 hence, self-exclusion, as well as self-mclusion. All the 
 relations that are possible to it, indeed, are relations of 
 
 * Compare Spinoza : " Ethics," Part I., Propositions I. to VIII., inch 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 205 
 
 itself to itself. For, beyond the self-contained total, there 
 is absolutely nothing with which that total could possibly 
 sustain any relation whatever. It is itself the sum of all 
 reality, the one positive fact, the all-inclusive deed. 
 
 But this one positive fact, or all-inclusive deed, is thus 
 an infinite, or perfectly self-inclusive process. And this 
 process is that of 
 
 1). THE DIFFERENTIATION OF ENERGY. 
 
 The totality of force or energy, then, is a self-identical 
 Unit, but a unit whose very self-identity necessarily 
 involves its own infinite self-difference or self-negation. 
 
 As self-identical it is in truth self-affirming. But self- 
 affirmation is in reality just the process of self -realization. 
 It is the unfolding into reality of its own essential charac- 
 teristics, qualitative and quantitative. Hence the self- 
 realization of the total energy is a genuine process or prac- 
 tical activity; which activity, it has been shown, and must 
 now be constantly borne in mind, is and can be nothing 
 else than an activity upon itself. It is at once actor, and 
 that which is acted upon. 
 
 Its self-realization, then, as the process of unfolding 
 into reality those characteristics, both qualitative and 
 quantitative, which essentially belong to it, is a process of 
 unfolding within itself distinctions or mutually exclu- 
 sive differences. That is, the self -identical World-Energy 
 in the very process of its self-realization becomes self- 
 different. 
 
 But differentiation is negation, and self -differentiation 
 is self -negation. At the same time, the process of self- 
 realization on the part of the World-Energy just consists 
 in its self-differentiation. Thus alone can it determine 
 
206 THE WORLD-ENEBGY 
 
 itself in the sense of rendering itself concrete, actual. 
 Hence, in affirming itself the World-Energy negates itself 
 in a twofold sense. First, it negates its own identity so 
 far as that may be regarded as a blank, abstract identity. 
 Secondly, it unfolds negation as a necessary factor of its 
 own concrete identity in so far as the phases of its own 
 self-differentiation or self-determination present the char- 
 acteristic of mutual exclusion. Here, indeed, there is 
 brought to light the true meaning of the dictum, omnis 
 determinatio est negatio; a meaning, however, which 
 Spinoza himself seems not to have fully apprehended as 
 belonging thereto. 
 
 A glance through what immediately precedes will make 
 it evident that in our discussion of the doctrine of the 
 conservation of energy, we are already approaching the 
 question of the nature of cause. It is to the direct 
 discussion of this that we have now to turn. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF CAUSE. 
 
 THE very conception of motion necessarily implies 
 initial impulse. This is the principle underlying the 
 laws of motion. And the impossibility of motion or 
 change of motion taking place otherwise than through an 
 initial impulse, is itself but a special case of that wider 
 law that no event can take place without a cause. 
 
 Considered as involved in time-relations, the event 
 must follow the cause. Such is the ordinary view. A 
 bullet is fired from a gun. At the end of a second it 
 strikes a bird in the air. The bird falls dead to the 
 ground. The elastic force of the explosive is the cause of 
 the velocity of the bullet. The velocity of the bullet, com- 
 bined with its mass, is the cause of the bird's death. The 
 action of gravity is the cause of the bird's fall. The 
 explosion seems to occur before the velocity of the ball; 
 the accumulation of velocity by the ball occurs before the 
 death of the bird. But a moment's reflection shows that 
 the action of gravity was not only prior to, but was also 
 simultaneous with, the bird's fall. A little further reflec- 
 tion will bring to light the fact that the expansive force of 
 the explosive is nothing else than the energy of molecular 
 motion, which, when transferred to the ball, becomes the 
 energy of molar motion. That is, the momentum of the 
 ball is really the same force as that of the explosive whose 
 
 207 
 
208 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 energy has been transformed into that of the moving mass 
 of the bail. 
 
 It is true the force acts through time. But it is equally 
 true that the effect produced by the progressively devel- 
 oped force is unfolded in precisely the same gradual way, 
 so that the force considered as cause is not precedent to, 
 but simultaneous with, the various phases of the complex 
 effect produced disturbance of the air, killing of the 
 bird, etc. 
 
 It is worth noticing, too, that the example chosen pre- 
 sents the two phases of force commonly called "constant" 
 and " impulsive " forces. Gravity is a ' ' constant " force. 
 The explosion of gun-powder is an " impulsive " force. 
 The doctrine of the correlation of forces, however, shows 
 that this distinction is in reality the same as that between 
 continuous and discrete quantity, which we have already 
 considered. Indeed, physicists themselves treat this dis- 
 tinction as a fiction, when, for the sake of convenience, 
 they consider a continuous force as made up of minute 
 impulsive forces; which seems a little like reducing every- 
 thing to infinitesimals preliminary to omitting the incon- 
 venient parts. Though, of course, it must be admitted 
 that in any of the "exact" sciences, quantity is scarcely 
 manageable, otherwise than in its discrete aspect. 
 
 With a moment's reflection, however, it is evident that 
 in all cases the exertion of force through time must be 
 constant, that is, continuous. At the same time it is 
 not less true that the known correlation of the various 
 phases of force shows with equal plainness that force is at 
 the same time impulsive. A constant force is not merely 
 made up of a series of independent impulses. It gives 
 impulse because it is constant. And the changes produced 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 209 
 
 depend upon the conditions both in the cause and in the 
 effect. 
 
 But thus 'it would seem that, after all, the "cause" is 
 not confined to one side merely. Not only doss the vapor 
 of the explosive press outward against the ball; the ball 
 presses back upon the vapor. Not only does the moving 
 ball cause* vibrations in the air; the friction between the 
 air and the ball has the effect to raise the temperature of 
 both the air and the ball. Not only does the ball rend 
 the tissues of the bird; the resisting tissues of the bird 
 diminish the velocity of the ball. There is ever action 
 and reaction. Each phase is cause and each phase is 
 effect. In other words, cause and effect are but the recip- 
 rocal aspects in every event which takes place, and hence 
 are simultaneous rather than successive. 
 
 The relation between cause and effect is, nevertheless, 
 commonly presented as one of succession. A as cause is 
 followed by 1) as effect; b by c\ c by d, etc. But here two 
 caiises at least alternate with effect as the characteristic 
 of the same term, though b as cause is related only to c, 
 while as effect it is related only to a. In this way caus- 
 ality is extended into an infinite series c is the cause of d, 
 d of e, * * * x of y, ad infinitum. In such infinite 
 series, however, the phase of cause utterly vanishes, a on 
 its part being likewise an effect of a cause which again is 
 effect, and so on forever. 
 
 Here again we have all reduced to the infinitesimal 
 degree and then spread out so that the limit is lost to 
 view, whence it is supposed we have reached a solution 
 of our difficulty. But far from any correlation of forces, 
 we have here really no force at all only the fleeting 
 shadows of mutually exclusive forces, all which vanish 
 into an infinite series of "effects" without cause. 
 
210 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 The only possible real cause is one which is not itself 
 the effect of something external to itself. It must be 
 sufficient to itself, capable of acting from its own impulse. 
 It must be self-moving, self-realizing, and in this sense 
 self-cause. 
 
 And yet care must still be taken to avoid narrowing 
 and distorting this view of cause. Cause thus conceived 
 evidently transcends time. Self -complete, it must be com- 
 pletely self-active. Kelated only to itself, it must receive 
 all its own activity. It is then completely self-receptive. 
 Infinitely active and infinitely passive or receptive of its 
 own act, it shows itself to be an eternal process, forever 
 realized in all its perfection. It is infinite cause and infi- 
 nite effect in absolute interfusion, and hence is the all- 
 inclusive, absolutely self-complete One. 
 
 This may be rendered still more evident by a consider- 
 ation of the four phases of cause known since Aristotle's 
 time as the "Four Causes." It is intended here to state 
 their rational significance and relation rather than to 
 restate historical views concerning them. 
 
 Material Cause is the matter, or substance, or essence 
 of which anything and all things are constituted. Noth- 
 ing can exist otherwise than as involving "matter" in the 
 sense of essence or substance. Hence in so far as the 
 existence of things is dependent on matter, matter must 
 be regarded as "cause." And yet matter as such is mere 
 blank, self-identical substance, characterless and formless. 
 It is mere passivity, bare potentiality. Nothing can arise 
 from it alone. Its potentiality can never be realized save 
 through some agency capable of differentiating it, 
 reducing it to form. 
 
 Thus material cause proves to be but one of several 
 necessary phases of cause. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 211 
 
 And first & formal cause is demanded. "Matter" is 
 impotent, a mere abstract identity. A complementary 
 formative principle is also necessary. In the first place, 
 too, this formative principle would seem to be something 
 quite external to the " matter;" in which case it applies 
 itself to the matter, gives it form, but still remains sepa- 
 rate from it. But form apart from matter is also a 
 substanceless abstraction. 
 
 Thus, taken in isolation, it is evident that just as 
 material cause is a mere abstract, possible matter, so 
 formal cause is a mere abstract possibility of form. On 
 the other hand, in its concrete significance matter neces- 
 sarily presupposes form just as form presupposes matter. 
 Matter or substance can exist only so far as it takes on 
 form, only so far as it has specific character. Form is 
 possible only so far as it is the system through which mat- 
 ter gives evidence of its reality. 
 
 But this is not all; for the very potentiality, alike of 
 matter or substance and of form or system, presupposes 
 also a potency through which that potentiality becomes 
 actuality. 
 
 Thus an efficient cause or working, realizing energy is 
 necessarily implied in the conception either of material or 
 of formal cause. And here again we might suppose the 
 efficient cause to be independent of the other two. Yet 
 to be really efficient it must possess substantial reality. 
 Nor must it merely possess such reality; it must be that 
 reality. The working energy or efficient cause, then, is 
 itself already the essence or substance of things. Sepa- 
 rated from that substance it would be unreal and non- 
 efficient. Or, allowing it to possess reality and potency 
 apart from the material cause its very reality would prove 
 
212 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 it to be already its own substance, and hence its own 
 material cause. So, also, allowing the material cause to 
 have reality apart from efficient cause, it must then be an 
 independent, self -realizing potency and therefore its own 
 efficient cause. 
 
 Clearly, also, efficient cause could really be such only 
 by being completely consistent with itself, only by 
 embodying a perfect method. But the self-consistency of 
 its activity is the development into reality of cause in its 
 character of formal cause. Hence, while matter and form 
 mutually presuppose one another, their realized unity is 
 found in efficient cause, which is at once its own matter 
 or substance and its own form or method, as well as the 
 concrete potency which fuses these phases into a vital 
 unity at the same time that it brings them into perfect 
 realization. 
 
 Evidently, then, these three "causes" are the abso- 
 lutely necessary, because complementary, phases of the 
 one true, vital cause. Each phase necessarily presupposes 
 or implies the others; and that not as external the one to 
 the other. On the contrary each is found to necessarily 
 involve the others within itself. Matter cannot be matter 
 without being also both form and efficient formative prin- 
 ciple. Form cannot even be form without being also the 
 vital energy constituting the matter which thus spontane- 
 ously unfolds into form, while the potency of efficient 
 cause, as just seen, cannot prove itself to be potency save 
 by unfolding as vital, self -forming (that is, self-differen- 
 tiating) matter. 
 
 Thus we reach the conception of cause as absolutely 
 self -complete. As efficient, self -forming matter, it is an 
 absolutely self-dependent unit. Nothing beyond it is 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 213 
 
 required for its perfection. That is, it is self -cause, and 
 as such is necessarily an eternal process, forever com- 
 plete in itself. Nothing can be conceived as existing 
 beyond it or apart from it. It is the vital sum of all 
 reality; the absolute, self -forming substance; the supreme 
 truth, or final cause. 
 
 But this vital, self-differentiating unity, while it is 
 seen to be the final cause in the. sense of ultimate per- 
 fection, is just as clearly the primal cause in the sense 
 that everything necessarily presupposes the existence of 
 the perfect cause. In, and through that, all things 
 necessarily have their being. Apart from it they are 
 not merely as nothing; rather, apart from it, they must 
 literally be nothing. 
 
 As final cause it is infinite act, and hence, abso- 
 lute actuality, it is the infinite, eternal Unit which as 
 such is "without variableness or shadow of turning." 
 In it potentiality and reality absolutely coincide. As a 
 whole it cannot change. It is, therefore, not subject to 
 time, which is nothing else than the abstract form of 
 change. Time is in this total, but the total itself cannot 
 be in time. It is the perfect World-Energy, and as such 
 all possible phases of change are produced within it, 
 while of it there can be no change. The changing 
 proves to be a phase of the changeless, and therefore time 
 proves to be a mode of the timeless, just as the meas- 
 urable in another way proved to be merely a phase of the 
 measureless. 
 
 The self-active, self-realizing World-Energy is, then, 
 the spontaneous, efficient and sufficient cause of all move- 
 ment. It is that for which we have from the first been 
 seeking. It is the final cause which is seen to be in itself 
 
214 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 its own infinite substance, the spontaneous, eternal pro- 
 cess of balanced evolution and involution. 
 
 It is the absolutely persistent force or self-conserved 
 Energy in which all modes of force are realiz'ed and per- 
 fectly correlated. Whence the " dissipation of energy/' 
 in the sense of an ultimately "dead universe" as the 
 outcome, is impossible. 
 
OHAPTEE XXL 
 
 CREATOR AND CREATION. 
 
 IT turns out, then, that the World-Energy is a self- 
 active, self-sufficing, self-differentiating Unit, which 
 is at once cause and effect. It is the Universe or Cosmos 
 itself, now seen to be an infinitely vital totality. It is 
 the concrete identity of the world and its Creator. That 
 is, Creator and creation are the complementary aspects 
 of the self -existent, self -unfolding World-Energy, in its 
 changeless perfection. 
 
 Let us now inquire, briefly, how this conception com- 
 ports with accepted views of the creation of the world. 
 
 It is usually objected to any form of the monistic 
 view that the Creator must necessarily be superior to 
 creation. The objection is based upon the assumption 
 that the created world is the realm of the finite and 
 imperfect, while the Creator must necessarily be regarded 
 as infinite and perfect in substance, Plato's view. 
 
 To this it may be, and has been, answered that if we 
 hold the finite and the infinite asunder we represent to 
 ourselves an infinite which is contrasted with the finite, 
 and which thus stands in opposition to the finite. But 
 in such case the infinite is itself limited by the finite; 
 whence it proves in reality to be itself finite. 
 
 So, also, when we contrast the Creator, as independent 
 and perfect, with creation, as the dependent and imperfect, 
 
 215 
 
216 THE WOELD-ENEEGY 
 
 we represent to ourselves a " Great Artificer" stand- 
 ing above, and thus apart from his work. He himself 
 is the efficient cause of the world. That upon which 
 He works is the material cause. 
 
 In this (usual) view, then, these two phases of cause, 
 which we have already seen to be inseparable, are held 
 asunder, thus reducing Creator and creation alike to mere 
 abstractions. And not only so, but in this view creation 
 is figured as taking place in time. In which case the 
 Creator is at times active, and again, at other times, 
 inactive. He is then not only separate from the world 
 of his own creation, for the substance of which he must 
 draw upon a pre-existent, and hence unaccounted for 
 "matter," but he is also not continuously the same with 
 himself, though the perfect must unquestionably be 
 regarded as "yesterday, to-day and forever the same." 
 
 Thus, it appears that the effort to exalt the Creator 
 by contrasting him with, as separate from, his creation, 
 proves really to involve the very opposite result from 
 that which was intended. For it makes him appear as 
 dependent upon something lying quite beyond himself 
 as the material without which he must be powerless to 
 unfold a world in space. 
 
 There remains the conception of what we may call 
 absolute creation. It is the conception that the world 
 has been created from nothing. And this, though often 
 looked upon as self-refuting, really contains in germ, 
 the one really adequate view. For if the world was, 
 or rather is created from nothing, then in reality the 
 Creator brings the world into being by and through and 
 from his own absolute perfection. That is, he requires 
 nothing beyond himself as infinite creative energy to 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 217 
 
 enable him to unfold the infinitely extended, infinitely 
 varied world of finitude and change. 
 
 " Creation from nothing," then really means: Crea- 
 tion through the pure self-activity of the absolute First 
 Cause. And the First Cause, let us repeat, is the one 
 absolute energy, the very nature of which consists in its 
 complete, perpetually self-equal activity. So, also, its 
 activity is exerted solely and necessarily upon itself. Its 
 activity is absolute self -activity and self -receiving activity. 
 
 Once more, then, the First Cause as absolute energy is 
 an eternal, self-realizing process, and Creation is but the 
 eternal self-realization of the Creator. The universe, or 
 cosmos, is nothing else than the self-externalization of 
 the great First Cause. Whence, that Cause is the truth 
 and substance of the world the one sole reality and 
 infinite actuality. 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 THE WORLD-ENERGY AS SPIRIT. 
 
 WE have seen that the World-Energy is identical 
 with the First Cause. And the various phases 
 of cause are, therefore, involved in it. We are now 
 to inquire what further is implied in this conception. 
 And, first, we are to remember that our investiga- 
 tion thus far has brought us to recognize the World- 
 Energy as the absolute, self-sufficing totality of existence. 
 All its relations are necessarily self-relations. For there 
 is absolutely nothing beyond or outside of it to which 
 it could possibly be related. Thus, what we have now 
 to do, is to investigate the fundamental phases of this 
 round of self -relation which is necessarily involved in the 
 total World-Energy as the absolute First Cause. And 
 once more we are to follow the course of development 
 in the logical order of the unfolding of these phases of 
 self-realization, remembering that, for the World-Energy, 
 those phases are necessarily and absolutely co-existent; 
 any appearance of succession in time for it being inci- 
 dent wholly to the fact that we ourselves are under time- 
 conditions, and must, therefore, view the phases of the 
 World-Energy one after another. This we must do, 
 indeed, even in our examination of a piece of mechan- 
 ism or of art, though the total work is there before us 
 as a whole from the beginning of our study of its 
 
 218 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 219 
 
 various phases. So, in our investigation of the World- 
 Energy itself the process is not the merely fanciful one 
 of evolving that object from our own inner conscious- 
 ness, as thoughtless wit, or witless thought, would have 
 it. On the contrary, it is the process of developing our 
 inner consciousness itself so that it shall be progressively 
 more and more in harmony with, by which process we 
 shall come to have a more and more adequate view of, 
 the World-Energy in its completeness as the one primal, 
 eternal FACT. It is the progressive "adjustment of 
 inner relations to outer relations " which constitutes life 
 in the highest sense. 
 
 With this as our object, then, we will set out again 
 from the simplest phase as the logical "first" in this 
 culminating stage of our investigation. That is, we are 
 not to set aside the results of our investigation thus 
 far. Eather, we are to take those results, henceforth, 
 as so much that is proven, and which may therefore be 
 assumed as assured data from which further conclusions 
 may be legitimately drawn. 
 
 And the central result we have thus far reached is, let 
 us repeat, the conception of the total universe as the 
 absolutely indivisible totality of existence, and yet, as 
 presenting two necessary and complementary aspects. 
 Regarded concretely, it is the World-Energy as self- 
 active 'that is, it is infinite activity, and at the same 
 time infinite receptivity. It is infinite Cause and at 
 the same time infinite Effect. It is at once Creator and 
 creation. 
 
 a . UNITY OF THE WORLD-ENERGY. 
 
 The phase which here presents itself with special 
 impressiveness, is that of the absolute unity of the 
 
THE WOKLD-ENERGY 
 
 World-Energy. This has,, indeed, already come into view 
 under the phase of the unity of substance. What now 
 devejops, however, is the fact that the World-Energy as 
 such presents the character of vital reality. It is essen- 
 tially a total of activity, and of self -activity; whereas 
 substance appears rather as inert, relatively passive. 
 
 As the vital sum of reality, then, the World-Energy 
 bears the aspect of absolute potentiality. All that is, 
 or is to be, alike with all that has been, could only be, 
 or have promise of being, or have actually been, through 
 the activity of the World-Energy. That is the absolute 
 presupposition of all things. All things are, or could 
 be, only as phases or modes of the World-Energy. 
 
 Viewed as potentiality, however, the World-Energy 
 appears especially as a self-equal, self-poised unit. It 
 is the vital One, forever equal to itself. It is the uni- 
 versal of infinite extent. Self-comprised, it comprises all. 
 Self -related, it involves all relation within itself. 
 
 But again, as self-related totality and, therefore, as 
 involving all relation within itself, it is the potentiality 
 of all distinction, differentiation, particularization. Thus 
 particularity is no less distinctively a mark of the total 
 World-Energy than is universality. 
 
 At the same time this self-multiplying unity remains 
 forever One; multiplicity being but the form or mode of 
 the potentiality of the One.* So, again, as self -particu- 
 larizing universal, it must forever remain indivisible; for 
 the very setting up of particularity within it, is solely 
 the result of its own act as One. Its indivisible unity 
 is emphasized precisely through its own self-particular- 
 
 *See the dialectic of the " One and the Many" in this abstract phase as 
 developed in Plato's Parmenides. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 221 
 
 ization, which is ever and absolutely its own process of 
 concretely relating itself to itself. 
 
 Thus as self -particularizing (that is, self -differentiat- 
 ing) universal the World-Energy is seen to be the one 
 absolutely self -poised Individual. 
 
 Universality, particularity and individuality prove, 
 then, to be the complementary, mutually inclusive, abso- 
 lutely interfused phases of the one total World-Energy. 
 Each necessarily implies and in its own unfolding is 
 found already to contain the others as vital elements 
 or phases of itself. 
 
 Special attention, indeed, should be given to this fact. 
 These three phases are the logical or rational, and hence 
 necessary, phases of the World-Energy; and they are 
 necessarily co-existent phases. To be World-Energy at all 
 it must be individual, and prove itself to be such through 
 its own sclf-particularization as the one absolutely active 
 universal. 
 
 But to regard the World-Energy as potentiality merely 
 is still to form a very abstract, inadequate conception 
 of it. Potentiality merely as such must itself be im- 
 possible. The potential cannot be even potential save 
 through a potency capable of bringing about the full 
 realization of what is potential. Hence the potentiality 
 could not possibly precede the potency in time; though 
 it is, of course, "first" in logical order, or in point of 
 simplicity, and thus may well be first in the chronological 
 order of our investigation. And in the multiform aspects 
 of the finite world, in the world of change, all particular 
 phases of existence undergo development and decay, and, 
 in so doing, undergo a series of logical transitions in 
 time; and the chronological order is here found to 
 
222 THE WORLD-ENEKGY 
 
 coincide with the logical. The world of finite things 
 presents in chronological order the logical relations which 
 must of necessity be co-existent in the absolute,, self -equal 
 process which the World-Energy itself forever is. 
 
 It is to be remarked now that the self -equality of the 
 World-Energy,, when considered specially with reference 
 to its potentiality that is, when considered abstractly 
 leads to the conception of a moveless equilibrium; * and 
 this easily passes into the anthropomorphic conception of 
 repose. Whence all early forms of religion present in one 
 or another way the conception of the Divine as " taking 
 rest." This appears in the familiar description of crea- 
 tion, as presented in the Hebrew scriptures. The Divine 
 is seen in council, deliberating; then as creatively active 
 for a period; following which comes a period of repose. 
 
 Here the deliberation or thought of the Divinity is 
 represented as passing in time. A plan is considered, 
 developed, matured, and then put into execution; this 
 latter phase of predominant activity also being one which 
 unfolds through a period of time. Finally, the Divinity, 
 having completed His work, .desists from labor and relapses 
 into a state of relaxation and repose the abstract self- 
 equality of potentiality, of passive equilibrium and self- 
 satisfaction. 
 
 Here, indeed, we find the three fundamental phases of 
 spirit imaged to us, but in such way as to represent those 
 phases to us as not merely each variable in degree, but 
 also as separable from one another. God here appears 
 first as predominantly a thinking agency; then as pre- 
 dominantly a creating agency, or as will; then as pre- 
 dominantly a self -poised, passive unity of self-satisfaction 
 
 * A further stage in the development of that equilibrium which we have 
 already seen to be the logical outcome of the Laws of Motion. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 223 
 
 or feeling. That is, God is here represented under the 
 image of a man, and as exhibiting the limitations of a 
 finite, changeable being. And such must inevitably be 
 the result whenever the Divinity is conceived under 
 imagery,, however lofty and dignified the imagery may be. 
 
 Another remarkable representation of the Supreme 
 Power appears in the Hindu conception of creation. 
 Here Brahm is indeed conceived as universal substance; 
 and yet so imaged as that passivity and activity are 
 assumed to be completely separable states of that sub- 
 stance. Thus, during immeasurable kalpas, or ages of 
 ages, Brahm may remain wholly quiescent, all being, all 
 reality absorbed and merged in his unity, which then 
 presents absolutely no distinctions. At length, however, 
 the repose of Brahm is brought to an end. Then begins 
 a new and likewise enormously extended period, charac- 
 terized by the activity of Brahm the self-unfolding of 
 his substance into a world of infinitely varied reality. 
 And yet this is destined to be at last reabsorbed into the 
 substance whence it emanated. Thus, as having no 
 true, abiding existence, the world of finite forms is 
 declared to be naught but may a, or illusion. 
 
 Thus to the Hindu, more literally perhaps than to the 
 average modern Christian, "the world is all a fleeting 
 show, for man's illusion given/' 
 
 Nevertheless, there is a profound difference also un- 
 derlying the outer similarity. In the Hindu view, the 
 external world appears at first as a world of reality and 
 permanence. It comes, however, to be recognized as in a 
 state of perpetual change and dissolution. Yet the fact 
 that change itself would be impossible otherwise than as 
 a phase of the permanent does not wholly escape them. 
 
224: THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Kather, the Permanent itself comes to impress them as 
 the one primordial fact. 
 
 At the same time, the habit of the Hindu mind has 
 ever been to "think" in the forms of the imagination; 
 and its sense of the infinite can find no expression save 
 in excessively exaggerated imagery, in which,, of neces- 
 sity, the infinite is ever represented as one among other 
 objects of thought. Whence the endless mystification 
 and straining after what. must, of course, forever remain 
 unattainable through the modes of the imagination. 
 Greatest of possible symbols it is, doubtless that of 
 Brahm, the one enduring reality, putting forth infinite 
 emanations from his own substance through measureless 
 aeons; and yet, again, when those aeons have passed, 
 reabsorbing all back into himself as substance, pure and 
 simple the OKE in which all multiplicity is absolutely 
 canceled, and which thus reposes in its absolutely dis- 
 tinctionless potentiality for again other measureless aeons. 
 Mightiest of symbols; but a symbol, a mere image it 
 remains. 
 
 On the other hand, the popular Christian concep- 
 tion which is mainly identical with the Hebrew is that 
 of God as complete and completely active as infinite 
 Spirit, apart from the outer physical world, which is 
 "as nothing" compared with Him, or even with the 
 spiritual interests of man himself. Thus, with the 
 Hindus, the physical world is illusory, because it appears 
 to have a real, abiding existence, and yet is in reality a 
 mere temporary, and, hence, illusory, manifestation of 
 the Divine essence. On the other hand, with the He- 
 brews and Christians generally the physical world is 
 illusory partly as appearing to possess greater importance 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 225 
 
 than it has in reality, but especially because, as the world 
 of change,, it is a wholly vanishing world; nay, even 
 illusory in the deadliest sense, as being the special 
 medium of the anti-divine; * a view which, in spte of the 
 advances in science, still lingers in its crudest form in 
 many an unexpected corner. 
 
 Such imperfect conceptions inevitably accompany the 
 unthinking representation of the Divine as a being lim- 
 ited in space and in time, and hence subject to change. 
 To the mere phantasy there is no contradiction in the 
 conception of limited space, nor in the vision of creation 
 as having a beginning in time. Similarly, the phantasy 
 finds no difficulty in picturing to itself a God who at one 
 time is engaged in reflection, at another is occupied with 
 the work of constructing a world, and at another is 
 simply taking His ease. 
 
 It is only with the maturing of reason that the contra- 
 dictions involved in such a view are brought to light; 
 just as it is only by being made to pass through the 
 dialectic of mutual cancellation that those contradictions 
 give place in the mind to the complete, self-consistent 
 view of the World-Energy as its own infinite, self-meas- 
 ured substance, one and unchanging, at once the all- 
 including potentiality and the all-producing potency; 
 hence the absolute, eternally self-equal PROCESS OF CRE- 
 ATION. 
 
 1). THE WORLD-ENERGY AS SELF-UNFOLDING SYSTEM. 
 
 Such process of creation, however, is possible only as 
 an absolutely fixed system. For, otherwise, it would be 
 
 * Wherein appears also an Eranian element familiar enough with those 
 acquainted with the Zend Aoesta. 
 
226 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 a self-contradictory process, which is as much as to say 
 that it would be no process. 
 
 In its very nature, too, as the sum and substance of 
 all reality, it is, necessarily, a completely self-active, 
 self-unfolding system. And, not only so, but a system 
 is in its very nature a method; that is, an expression of 
 thought. In other words, an absolutely self -unfolding 
 system must of necessity be an expression of absolutely 
 self-consistent thought. 
 
 Thus, the World-Energy, is seen to be a process, 
 unfolding as a perfect system, which system is but the 
 explicit development of absolute thought. But thought 
 thus unfolded in a perfect system is already the realiz- 
 ation of consciousness in its absolute form of ^//"-con- 
 sciousness. This is the very core of spontaniety; and 
 without spontaneity there could be no First Cause, no 
 World-Energy, no process at all. 
 
 Thus, it appears that the World-Energy is in truth 
 a self-knowing process, the perfect system, the spon- 
 taneous development of which is now to be the special 
 object of our inquiry. 
 
 And, in this connection, we have first to remark, that 
 the process of self-realization on the part of the World- 
 Energy is first of all a process of self-revelation. For the 
 World-Energy, as spontaneous process, is at once product 
 and producer, while as self-conscious process it is at once 
 knowing subject and known object. And, further, as 
 absolutely conscious process it must eternally recognize 
 and absolutely comprehend that process. It is absolutely 
 self-knowing and, hence, is an absolute process of self- 
 revelation. It would thus seem that Thought is the cen- 
 tral truth and essence of the world. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 227 
 
 But, secondly, it is to be noted that, as shown in the 
 introduction to the present essay, the test of the ade- 
 quacy of thought is that of self-consistency. This is 
 recognized everywhere. In natural science that is 
 accepted as the most reasonable hypothesis which brings 
 into harmony the greatest number and variety of facts 
 and relations not indeed by setting aside or abstracting 
 from the contradictions involved in those facts and rela- 
 tions, but rather by reconciling such contradictions and 
 showing them to be, in reality, nothing else than ele- 
 ments of the concrete harmony of the world of nature. 
 That is, the thought of man struggles perpetually to 
 bring itself into harmony with the system of the world. 
 And the specially conspicuous instances of success 
 attending this struggle, are announced and accepted as 
 "great discoveries." And the "discoveries" are nothing 
 else than stages in the growing consciousness of man that 
 the world of nature, the world which on first view seems 
 to be an external and alien world to man, is yet a world 
 whose very essence is to be traced in a faultless system, in 
 a concrete unfolding of absolutely complete, self-consist- 
 ent thought. 
 
 It appears, then, that the secret of man's ability to 
 "think out" the "laws" of nature is precisely this: 
 That the "laws" of nature are nothing else than special 
 aspects of the perfect method, the absolutely complete, 
 self-consistent thought of the World-Energy. So that, in 
 his successful efforts to comprehend nature, man is 
 simply adjusting his own thought to the thought which 
 unfolds itself in nature. It is, in truth, just the thought 
 or method of the World-Energy, and that alone, that man 
 can really think. 
 
228 THE WORLD-ENEEGY 
 
 And the boundless confidence which man has in the 
 absolute perfection of the system of thought unfolded 
 in the world or universe as a whole, is shown in the fact 
 that he unhesitatingly accepts that system as the ulti- 
 mate standard by which the validity of his own thought 
 is to be measured. One "fact" is declared to be worth 
 more than a thousand theories only in the sense, and in so 
 far as,the theories are proven to lack validity by failing 
 to harmonize themselves with the great system of facts 
 constituting the world or universe. Thus the "fact "is 
 taken (perhaps unconsciously) in its true sense of deed, 
 act, actuality, genuine thought unfolded in concrete 
 form, and hence as an essentially valid, indestructible 
 phase nay, as the very essence of the world-system. 
 
 Thus the great thinkers of the world are they who 
 have most adequately comprehended and most consist- 
 ently given expression to the thought which constitutes 
 the world-system. For this reason are they the typical 
 discoverers, though the whole human race has partici- 
 pated in the explorations, and aided by its whole cumu- 
 lative power in the effort to bring to light the indivisible 
 totality and perfect self-consistency of Thought. And 
 this entire struggle, let us remind ourselves again, is in 
 reality nothing else than the struggle for self-develop- 
 ment on the part of human thought itself. 
 
 We have now, thirdly, to remark that there is no dif- 
 ference in essence or type between the thought of man 
 and the thought unfolded in the activity of the World- 
 Energy. The one real difference consists in this: That 
 the latter is the absolutely actual and complete system of 
 thought forever self-realized in the universe or cosmos 
 as a whole, while the former is the same ideal system 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 229 
 
 of thought progressively undergoing realization in and 
 through and for each individual man in time. Hence in 
 proportion as man is successful in his efforts to discover 
 the essential characteristics of the Thought of the World 
 he discovers at the same time and in the same fact the 
 true nature of his own thought. And the discovery con- 
 sists in this : That his own thought is in its essential or 
 true nature identical with the great world-system as* the 
 perfection of Thought. Both are of one and the same 
 ideal type, of one and the same nature, and indeed it is 
 inconceivable that they should be different. For, as 
 already indicated, to conceive them as different must be 
 to conceive the modes of activity of each, in order to 
 know them as different. But thus, in conceiving the 
 modes of activity of each, one must think in the modes of 
 each; and this would be to include in one's own thought 
 the modes of a consciousness assumed as different from 
 one's own. And yet this must be a contradiction in 
 terms, since whatever modes of consciousness I can really 
 include in my own thought are by that very fact already 
 proved to be modes of my own consciousness as well. 
 
 Thus, then, the perpetual self-revelation of the world- 
 process is not merely a revelation of itself to itself, but 
 also a revelation of itself to all beings having power to 
 recognize that revelation. And the revelation in any 
 given case is real precisely in proportion to the degree 
 in which the power to comprehend the revelation is 
 unfolded on the part of the receiving mind. 
 
 The whole universe, physical and spiritual, is there- 
 fore the eternally accomplished fact of Revelation, while 
 on his part man is ever progressively unfolding his 
 own power to comprehend the revelation. For this 
 
230 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 reason, too, men have ever tended to look upon Reve- 
 lation itself as progressively unfolding. In other words, 
 the tendency has ever been to make the mistake of 
 attributing to the changelessly perfect Thought which is 
 forever unfolded in the world those changes in time which 
 in reality take place only in the unfolding consciousness 
 of man himself. 
 
 And now we are the better prepared to recognize that 
 in his efforts to construct a system of thought man is not 
 really engaged in the idle task of evolving from his own 
 inner consciousness a phantasmal creation, pleasing pos- 
 sibly to himself, but having no vital reality or relation to 
 the actual world. On the contrary, he is engaged in the 
 effort to discover the characteristics of thought which are 
 universal and necessary, regardless of his own special 
 phantasies. In other words, he is engaged in the effort to 
 trace out on the one hand the fundamental characteristics 
 of thought in its universal nature, as constituting the very 
 essence of the world as a whole, and on the other hand to 
 discover his own fundamental relation thereto. The out- 
 come of all which is the infinitely important discovery, as 
 we have seen, that thought as such is one in nature, real- 
 ized in changeless completeness and perfection in the 
 Cosmos, and also in perpetual process of realization in 
 man himself. 
 
 Nothing, then, is "unknowable" precisely nothing. 
 The "unknowable" is the non-existent. The universe, 
 or Cosmos, in its very nature is Intelligence in absolute 
 manifestation an open revelation to all beings capable 
 of asking questions and receiving answers. 
 
 The one true system of Thought is the actual System 
 of the World; and, conversely, the system of the world is 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 231 
 
 the one absolutely complete system of Thought. For, as 
 we have seen, thought is the truth of the world, and the 
 world but the concrete form of thought. Hence, while 
 pedants play with words and trifle with thought in the 
 name of that logic which is said to deal solely with the 
 forms of thought, and to have nothing to do with the 
 truth of things, people who deal with things as the 
 embodiment of truth clearly recognize the existence of 
 a "logic of events," and shape their lives in accordance 
 with the inexorable order of reason, which they designate 
 under that name. 
 
 Now the true "logic of events" is just the absolute 
 system of thought constituting the vitality of the total 
 world. And this system, explicitly stated, would exhibit 
 the true logic wherein the universal and necessary rela- 
 tions of thought as such are traced out. It is upon 
 precisely this task, indeed, that the greatest thinkers of 
 the world have exerted their best powers. Aristotle's 
 work in this direction, it is well known, was done with 
 such thoroughness as to remain unrivaled for two thou- 
 sand years. 
 
 And yet he emphasized the formal aspect so far as to 
 afford somewhat plausible excuse for the development 
 of this phase in a spirit wholly foreign to his own, and 
 with an excess of pedantic trifling that brought, as it 
 could not fail to bring, contempt upon the very name of 
 logic. 
 
 It was Kant who gave irresistible impulse toward the 
 restoration of vitality to this science, and Hegel who 
 organized it on a wholly new basis, so that, under his 
 hand, it appears as the outlines of the genuine, vital 
 system of thought as such both in its subjective and in 
 
232 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 its objective phases. The "Logic"* of Hegel, it is not too 
 much to say, is the most thorough-going, consistent and 
 adequate presentation of the fundamental categories of 
 thought in their vital, organic relations that has yet been 
 given to the world. Nor is it likely to be surpassed for, 
 it may be, centuries to come. In any case, it must prove 
 increasingly indispensable to thinkers from generation to 
 generation as a fundamental link in the historical devel- 
 opment of human reason. 
 
 Its method is already working into the thought of the 
 time, though it be silently or with but guarded acknowl- 
 edgment in perhaps the greater part as yet, and is 
 destined to exert a more and more profound influence as 
 time goes on. That it is a book exceedingly difficult to 
 really read there can be no question. For impatient, 
 flippant people, doubtless the only practicable way to 
 dispose of the work must ever remain the one usually 
 adopted by them in disposing of any and every really 
 serious book, namely, that of casting it aside with the 
 contemptuous air of one who has already grown too wise 
 to spend time over such vagaries. 
 
 For really serious students, however, the work must 
 become increasingly accessible through the gradual in- 
 crease in familiarity with its method that must follow 
 upon the multiplication of works imbued with its spirit. 
 Even works only superficially Hegelian must conduce 
 to this end. And the "evolution philosophy" itself, 
 with whatever of self-contradictory one-sidedness and 
 materialistic tendencies, giving it the appearance of irre- 
 concilable antagonism to the "absolute idealism" of 
 
 *The " LogM" of Hegel, as the reader may know, is in three volumes. 
 The Logic of the " Encyclopedia" is a compendium of the larger work, 
 and is now well known through Professor Wallace's excellent translation. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATIOH. 233 
 
 Hegel,, is, after all, a magnificent imaging of the self- 
 evolution of the world-energy; though for that "philos- 
 ophy," indeed, the process vanishes hopelessly in the 
 inane void of the "unknowable." On the other hand, 
 in the Hegelian philosophy, as also in that of Aristotle, 
 this self-evolution of the World-Energy is shown to be 
 the eternal process of the self-realization of the absolute, 
 divine Spirit. 
 
 It is toward this conclusion, too, as I attempt to show 
 in the present argument, that the central conceptions of 
 modern science also really point. Antagonism between 
 real science and real philosophy there is and can be none. 
 Philosophers need only to attentively consider the actual 
 results of science to discover in them practical illustra- 
 tions of the fundamental conceptions of philosophy; 
 while scientists need only to familiarize themselves with 
 the central principles of the much-decried " speculative 
 philosophy" to find in them the clue to the complete 
 harmonizing and unification of the results of science. 
 
 It is true that Hegel's " NaturpMlosophie " is a 
 most unfortunate "application" of his admirable dia- 
 lectic method. Its arbitrary fetches are such that no 
 scientist of the present day could read it with any 
 degree of patience. This, indeed, proves Hegel's defi- 
 ciency on the side of empirical science. But the Logic 
 of Hegel, nevertheless, remains as one of the completest 
 and most symmetrical of all the monuments constructed 
 by the energy of human reason. If it affords no clue 
 by which one may learn how to evolve the facts of nature 
 from his own inner consciousness, it at least affords a 
 clue by which those facts, once they have been brought 
 to light by actual observation, may be recognized as 
 
234 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 constituting necessary phases in one consistent, abiding 
 whole. 
 
 Surely genuine seekers after truth might well afford 
 to adopt as their motto: "With malice toward none; 
 with charity for all. " 
 
 But let us turn again to and pursue the main line of 
 our investigation. And we have now to notice that 
 thought simply as thought is necessarily abstract. But, 
 as already seen, the World-Energy is the one all- 
 inclusive, absolutely concrete fact. Hence the method of 
 the World-Energy as the complete system of thought can 
 be comprehended in its truth only as a completely self- 
 realizing method. But, again, such completely self -real- 
 izing method cannot but be completely conscious of itself. 
 That is, it cannot but be a spiritual unit, and the one 
 absolute Spirit. 
 
 It is to the central aspects of this .process of the 
 self-realization of thought that we have next to turn 
 our attention. 
 
 C. SELF-AFFIRMATION OF THOUGHT AS CONCRETE 
 EXISTENCE. 
 
 Thought affirms itself as real. It is the one imme- 
 diate, undeniable reality. To deny thought is to affirm 
 thought. For denial is itself an act of thinking. Thus 
 absolute negation is absolute affirmation. 
 
 At the same time, and equally, in its own self-affir- 
 mation thought also proves itself to contain negation 
 as one of its essential factors. Thought is the power 
 which makes affirmation; and yet, at the same time, it 
 is that which is affirmed. Its self-affirmation is then in 
 the first place a self-division, and since self-affirmation 
 
AKD ITS SELF-COKSERVATION. 235 
 
 belongs to the very nature of thought this self -division 
 which makes its appearance in the nature of spiritual 
 existence as such is seen to be a primal characteristic. 
 It inheres in the very form of self-affirmation, which again 
 is a fundamental, distinguishing characteristic of spirit. 
 
 Thus, in affirming or realizing itself, the World- 
 Energy as spirit must perpetually bring about its own 
 self-separation or self-differentiation. Otherwise it must 
 be, and remain a pure, abstract identity, which in truth 
 is nothing else than pure nonentity. To be real and 
 actual, the World-Energy must constantly unfold nega- 
 tion within itself in the sense of developing infinitely 
 manifold differences or specific qualities which again are 
 the positive characteristics through which its nature is 
 affirmed as concrete self-activity. 
 
 As actuality, then, and above all as the primal actu- 
 ality and truth of the world, spirit must, from its very 
 nature, unfold itself as just this process of absolute self- 
 negation or self -differentiation. Its process of self-deter- 
 mination or systematic self-realization is just the pro- 
 cess of its own self-negation. "All determination is 
 negation," as Spinoza has it. 
 
 But thus negation again proves to be equally affirma- 
 tion. It is the process by which the World-Energy as the 
 one absolute spirit unfolds itself into infinitely manifold 
 reality. As a concrete individual its reality is exhibited 
 through its own self-particularization. The One parts 
 itself into Many. 
 
 But also, as just indicated, the One realizes itself in 
 the many. Hence the many have their reality only in 
 the one. They are its modes, the phases of its realiza- 
 tion. And, more precisely, the One as the inherent, 
 
236 THE WORLD-ENEBGY 
 
 formative principle proves its truth, its concrete actuality, 
 through the multiplicity cf realized forms involved in its 
 own infinitely complex nature. 
 
 These particularized phases, again, in the very fact 
 that they are such, show themselves to possess, in and for 
 themselves, no real independence, nor even existence. 
 They are ever only modes, vanishing phases of the one 
 indivisible Spirit, which thus proves to be the one all- 
 inclusive Individual. But the individual which is all- 
 inclusive is by that very fact also universal; and as that 
 universal in which all particularity is contained in vital, 
 organic union it is precisely the one individual Spirit now 
 seen to be universal through its own spontaneous self- 
 differentiation or self -par ticularizat ion. 
 
 While, therefore, the World-Energy negates its own 
 abstract unity by self-separation into infinite manifold- 
 ness and particularity of existing and mutually exclusive 
 forms, it also negates this very negation in the fact of 
 showing itself to be the one sole substance of these infi- 
 nitely manifold forms, thus binding them forever into 
 one through what seem to be relations only of one to 
 another, but which are seen to be in reality the system 
 of the infinite self -relation of the all-creating One. All 
 possible phases of multiplicity forever in process of com- 
 ing forth from the one are equally in perpetual process 
 of returning into the one in the sense of vanishing into 
 the one universal substance. This is the central truth in 
 that magnificent symbol of emanation and absorption. 
 And it fairly represents the truth so far as the merely 
 physical forms of existence are concerned, save that true 
 science now recognizes that the vanishing of any given 
 form is not its merging into the one universal Substance 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 237 
 
 with the utter loss of all form or character. On the con- 
 trary, one form vanishes only as another arises. And the 
 dissolution of one structure goes hand in hand with the 
 integration of equally definite, though it may be more or 
 less complex,, forms. 
 
 It is thus alone, indeed, that change involving the 
 existence of finite things is possible. But it is also pre- 
 cisely through this absolute interfusion of the positive 
 and the negative phases of its activity that the World- 
 Energy as spirit proves itself to be the genuine, concrete 
 Infinite. By the positive exertion of itself as energy, it 
 negates absolutely the abstract phase of infinitude implied 
 in its mere self-identity, while through the fact of its 
 perpetually self-emphasizing individuality as the truth of 
 all multiplicity it negates the (logically) first negation, 
 and shows itself to be possessed of true infinitude in the 
 form of absolute, infinitely manifold self -reference or 
 self-relation. Its self-affirmation is its self-negation. 
 But its self-negation is its self-differentiation or self- 
 realization, the process of unfolding its absolute, self- 
 sufficing wholeness and self-dependence. 
 
 As self -particularized universality, and hence as abso- 
 lutely concrete individuality, the absolute Spirit (which 
 we have found the World-Energy to be) is, as we have 
 just seen, absolutely self-sufficing, and hence spontaneous. 
 It is a self -realizing system. It is thus in its very nature 
 absolutely self-consistent. Its self-negation is such only 
 in the sense of self -differentiation or self-realization. It 
 is absolute self-affirmation. 
 
 But this it can be only as involving consciousness; for 
 this is the very essence and truth of self -relation. As a 
 perfect, self-realizing system, whose fundamental charac- 
 
238 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 teristic of spontaneity is in truth consciousness, then, the 
 World-Energy as spirit is the absolute process of Reason 
 unfolding itself into an infinite self -ordered world. 
 
 But even so the absolute self -consistency of this pro- 
 cess seems to impose upon it a restraint. It must be so 
 and not otherwise. It is, then, in its very perfection and 
 self-consistency, the perfect expression of necessity. 
 Absolute Reason is absolute Necessity. Only as change- 
 less self -consistency, hence only as necessity, is it possible 
 that reason should realize itself. And unrealized reason 
 would of course not be reason, or be at all. 
 
 But thus Necessity as the fixed order and self-consist- 
 ency of Reason is the indispensable basis of the realiza- 
 tion of reason. And yet reason realized is without ob- 
 struction. For Reason is the essence and soul of all 
 Reality. Whence it can be opposed by nothing but itself. 
 But its own self-opposition is nothing else than the true 
 equilibrium of its own self -consistency. It is thus, there- 
 fore, spontaneous and absolutely free. For Necessity, as 
 we have seen, is nothing else than the changeless law of 
 the self-consistency of Reason. In other words necessity, 
 in so far as it has any positive meaning, is of the very 
 essence of freedom, just as, on the other hand, freedom 
 is the concrete truth of necessity. Necessity is the 
 unalterable method of which Freedom is the actual 
 fulfilment. * 
 
 d. THE WORLD-ENERGY AS SELF-REALIZING REASON OR 
 AS WILL. 
 
 On arriving at the conception of the World-Energy as 
 spirit, the simplest phase of that conception was the first 
 
 * Here we arrive at the highest conception of equilibrium as foreshadowed 
 in the Laws of Motion. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 239 
 
 to formulate itself in our minds. On first view spirit 
 seems a vague universality. It bears the contradictory 
 aspect of an abstract reality. It appears abstract in so 
 far as it is understood only in the vague sense of some- 
 thing exclusively supersensuous. It appears real so far 
 as it presents the characteristics of a spontaneous power. 
 
 Now this spontaneity is precisely the characteristic 
 which constitutes the internality of spirit. It is subjec- 
 tivity; and it is this in the first place as infinite concentra- 
 tion within itself. In this sense spirit seems wholly non- 
 material and to be merely a spontaneous power acting 
 from without upon matter. It is infinite impulse, a wish 
 or even mere vague presentiment. 
 
 And yet the internality of spirit is but one of its two 
 necessarily complementary aspects or phases. The inter- 
 nal cannot be simply and solely internal. The subjective 
 cannot be merely subjective. The internal in its very 
 nature already involves external reference. The "inter- 
 nal " must be meaningless unless it be the internal of an 
 "external." And this outward reference is precisely the 
 measure of the reality of the internal. 
 
 Spirit, then, as being spontaneous energy, is essen- 
 tially a self-externalizing internality. As subjective it 
 proves to be self-objectifying. It makes itself its own 
 object; or rather, as with each step of our inquiry it 
 becomes ever clearer, the World-Energy as Spirit is the 
 one infinite Subject for which there is and can be no other 
 object than just itself. 
 
 The first phase of this self-externalization or self- 
 objectifying of spirit which our developing consciousness 
 seizes is, nevertheless, still a relatively abstract one. It 
 is the phase in which spirit appears as unfolded in a sys- 
 
240 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 tern. It is merely formal objectivity. And this formal 
 objectivity first proves its completeness as the abstract 
 system of thought. In this system, too, we have seen 
 the fundamental characteristic to be that of absolute self- 
 consistency. It is the spontaneity of spirit that proves 
 to be in its highest term absolute Reason. 
 
 But this system of thought as merely formal is still 
 predominantly subjective. In it spirit is as yet seen only 
 as virtually or potentially objective. And, as we have 
 seen, the truth of spirit, even as subjective, is measured 
 absolutely by the degree in which it develops itself into 
 substantial objectivity. The internal, let us repeat, is 
 wholly without meaning save so far as there is a com- 
 pletely corresponding external. Nay, the internal, so 
 far as it is real, already bears within itself its own com- 
 plementary externality. 
 
 The World-Energy as spirit, then, proves once more 
 to be not merely infinite internality as impulse, not 
 merely infinite subjectivity as thought, but also absolutely 
 spontaneous energy as infinitely self -realizing reason, 
 or WILL. Through these three complementary phases 
 the World-Energy as spirit unfolds itself as the infinite, 
 unchanging, completely self -conscious' process which con- 
 stitutes the absolutely perfect personality of God. They 
 are the three fundamental and absolutely correlated 
 modes of the World-Energy now seen to be in its final 
 analysis an absolutely spiritual energy.* 
 
 It is in the spontaneity of this divine World-Energy, 
 then, that we discover at last the secret of all motion, 
 
 *A brief consideration of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is withheld 
 from this place and will appear in a succeeding volume under the title: "God 
 and Man." Of course the intimation given in the text is altogether inade- 
 quate in this respect. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 241 
 
 and along with this the perfect assurance of the absolute 
 and eternal conservation of energy in the full perfection 
 of its vitality. The absolute equilibrium of energy 
 looked to by physicists as in process of culmination is 
 in reality an eternally accomplished fact. And the 
 equilibrium, instead of being realized in a "dead uni- 
 verse," is seen to have its perpetual fulfilment in the 
 infinite vitality of the divinely constituted Cosmos? 
 
 For in its truth the one possible equilibrium for the 
 universe or cosmos is nothing else than the absolute self- 
 poise of the divine World-Energy itself. 
 
 The central conception at which we have arrived in 
 our investigation thus far, then, is this: That the truth 
 of matter is force or energy; that the truth of energy is 
 spirit, and that the truth of spirit is absolute Personality. 
 God, then, is not a mysterious being apart from the 
 world. On the contrary, He is the sole truth and self- 
 unfolding Reality of the world. Hence, it is to be con- 
 cluded that there is no "material" world apart from 
 the spiritual. The truth is that the so-called material 
 universe is but the out-putting, the utterance or outer- 
 ance, the external mode, of the divine, spontaneous 
 energy of Spirit. The world in space is nothing else 
 than the external aspect of the world as Thought. It is 
 the absolute Subject self -objectified. There is no reality 
 but God. What we habitually call the "universe" is 
 nothing else than the outer modes of his existence. 
 
 Thus, once more, does it appear that the laws of 
 Thought are equally the laws of things, for things are but 
 the objective forms or modes of Thought. 
 
CHAPTEE XXIII. 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL MODES OF MANIFESTATION OF THE 
 
 
 WORLD-ENERGY AS SPIRIT. 
 
 ~T"Y7^E have seen that the World-Energy is necessarily a 
 * * self -consistent, self -unfolding system. We have 
 now to indicate the chief fundamental phases involved in 
 the process of actualization of that system. We have, 
 indeed, already traced in outline the proofs that the 
 World-Energy is the ultimate potentiality; and, as such, 
 the primal potency. Nevertheless, it still hovers before 
 our view rather as an abstract system than as a concrete 
 totality. 
 
 And yet, that the World-Energy must be such con- 
 crete totality is evident from the fact (as previously indi- 
 cated) that potentiality itself necessarily implies or pre- 
 supposes the existence of a potency wholly equal to the 
 realization of such potentiality. And the potency itself 
 can be such only as active energy unfolding itself into 
 concrete realization. 
 
 That realization, too, must in the nature of the case be 
 complete so far as the potency is complete. The potency 
 is only so far as it is actively unfolded. Hence, the 
 realization of the totality of existence as totality must 
 forever be. It cannot possibly become or enter into 
 existence, out of non-existence, nor could it ever have 
 been in process of becoming. Though all becoming is 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATICW. 243 
 
 involved in it, it could never itself have been involved 
 in becoming. 
 
 To remind ourselves of this betimes is of the greater 
 moment, as neglect of the distinction is almost certain to 
 involve us in the confusion of assuming the identity of 
 two radically distinct orders of relation. The one is the 
 logical order, the other the chronological. It is one of 
 the conditions of human thought that it can only trace 
 out successively the various degrees in the logical order 
 of relations necessarily unfolded in the concrete totality 
 of the World-Energy. And we are led on almost inevit- 
 ably to assume that this chronological order in the 
 development of our own consciousness of the world or 
 universe as a whole coincides with a chronological order 
 in the development of the universe itself. In other 
 words, we mistake the becoming or process of develop- 
 ment in our own consciousness for the becoming of the 
 total sum of Reality. And this false impression is 
 strengthened by our observation of the chronological 
 order of development in which we see all finite things 
 to be involved. And yet this is to assume that, just as 
 our consciousness of the nature of creation unfolds in 
 time, so creation itself must have unfolded in time. 
 Whereas, to repeat once more, though change, and 
 time as the form of change, are involved in the total 
 creation, yet creation itself is not involved in time and 
 change. In the concrete, changeless Totality of things 
 all possible phases of change are forever present, and 
 thus time as merely the abstract form of change is com- 
 pletely subordinated and merged in, as nothing else than 
 one of the modes of, the eternal Whole. 
 
 Similarly, as shown in the introductory chapter, space 
 
244 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 is the mere abstract form of externality. So far as spirit 
 externalizes itself, so far it must adapt itself to or make 
 use of space-relations; or rather, the truth is, that in exter- 
 nalizing itself, spirit gives rise to space-relations. 
 
 On the other hand, spirit, as such, possesses modes of 
 activity wholly independent of space-relations. When 
 thought concentrates upon itself and investigates its own 
 more complex properties and powers, it is thus far engaged 
 in a process that has no reference to space at all. Whence 
 space, equally with time, proves to be but a subordinate 
 mode of the spirit's activity. Only the less adequate 
 phases of spirit present themselves in the externality of 
 the world in space; though these phases, of course, belong 
 none the less essentially to the complete realization of 
 Spirit as the 4ruth of the world. 
 
 To these phases we now turn with the purpose of indi- 
 cating the fundamental relations involved in them. And 
 first in regarding the World-Energy as simple potency, we 
 seize upon the characteristic of universality involved in 
 that energy, and hold fast to that characteristic as its 
 truth. 
 
 As potency, however, it must act. And as universal 
 potency, it must specialize, or differentiate, or determine 
 itself in particular forms of reality. But this particulari- 
 zation or differentiation is necessarily a self -separation a 
 self-repulsion. The universal Potency gives proof of itself 
 as such by externalizing itself. That is, the simplest 
 phase of its self-realization is that of externality, that of 
 space-filling forms. 
 
 But as universal, the potency is not a special, limited, 
 particular fact. On the contrary, as universal potency, it 
 is primarily, in its simplest relation to space, everywhere 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 245 
 
 present. Whence its self-externalization does not consist 
 in its expanding itself outward from, some special center 
 in space until it becomes indefinitely diffused through 
 space. It does not go out into space from some where 
 that is yet not in space. Eather its logically first (that 
 is, simplest) relation to space is its universal occupancy 
 of space. Its externalization consists in its unfolding 
 special forms of existence from its own internality; tliat 
 is, from its own subjectivity or spontaneity. And pri- 
 marily subjectivity or spontaneity is Spirit in that sphere 
 of relations which is wholly independent of space-rela- 
 tions, and hence, thus far cannot be rightly thought of 
 as located in, or in any way related to, space at all. 
 Thus internality is here a term equivalent to subjectivity 
 or spontaneity. And this is in strict truth its only 
 meaning. As ordinarily applied, it represents a vanish- 
 ing, wholly illusive element. For, as regards space- 
 related objects, it is only necessary to penetrate to the 
 internal in them in order to prove that "internal" to 
 be wholly external; and this to infinity. 
 
 The internal, then, is not the infinite energy of the 
 universe focused in some point in space (and hence non- 
 existent) but rather it is the 'essence or truth of things, 
 the spontaneity of spirit, the logically first phase of the 
 realization of which, as just indicated, is the universal 
 occupancy of space. The world of internality or of 
 thought unfolds itself, in its own less adequate phases, as 
 the world of externality or the world of things in space. 
 
 The self-externalization of the Absolute as Spirit, 
 then, presents the infinitely extended as its (logically) 
 first phase. The internal in its self-realization proves 
 to be also external. The absolute Subject in its own 
 
246 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 self-externalization makes itself absolute object. The 
 internal and the external, subject and object, are in 
 their ultimate and absolute significance complementary 
 and completely interfused phases of the one infinite fact, 
 the one eternal deed, the absolute actuality of the divine 
 Reason forever revealed to Intelligence, whether creating 
 or created, in the infinite process of the universe. 
 
 Thus, the universal Potency as self-objectifying 
 thought fills infinite space and everywhere meets only 
 with itself. Its self-externalization is thus at the same 
 time a return to and collision with itself. And the tre- 
 mor of this collision is the logically first (or simplest) 
 phase of the infinite heart-beat of the universe. It is 
 centrality infinitely diffused, and hence, everywhere 
 present. As has often been said, the circumference of 
 the universe is nowhere; its center is everywhere. 
 
 It is from this infinite diffusion of centrality that 
 infinitely manifold lines of differentiation result. Thus 
 the universal Potency specializes itself into endlessly 
 varied particular forms. That is, particular forms arise 
 only as the manifestation of the universal Potency; and 
 it is at once evident that each form is adequate only to 
 the partial manifestation of the universal Potency, which 
 must therefore continue itself and complete its own 
 manifestation through still other forms. 
 
 The Universal is thus far indifferent to the perpetua- 
 tion of this or that particular form. Rather, as the con- 
 tinuous Reality of which the particular forms are but the 
 discrete phases, its activity must result in the fusing of 
 form with form. In other words, the dissolution of one 
 series of forms is involved in the integration of others. 
 Each particular form as inadequate to the complete 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION". 247 
 
 expression or manifestation of the universal Potency is 
 riven within itself, dissolves and passes into other phases 
 of the manifestation of that Potency. 
 
 Thus the universal Potency, as the unchanging Total- 
 ity, gives rise through its own activity to ceaseless change. 
 Hence, it might be said that the one changeless fact is 
 the infinitely complex fact of change. And this is 
 doubtless what Aristotle meant by the phrase: "The 
 unmoved mover of the world." 
 
 The particularized form is, within its limits, a mani- 
 festation, an utterance or outerance of the inner univer- 
 sality of the World-Energy. It is an object. But with its 
 limitations it is an object among other objects. All 
 these objects are> however, but the discrete phases of the 
 universal or continuous totality. They are thus far in a 
 state of likeness and equilibrium or rest as toward each 
 other. They bear toward each other, therefore, a two- 
 fold relation, a relation at once positive and nega- 
 tive. As imperfect but mutually complementary phases 
 of the manifestation of the totality they attract and tend 
 towards fusion, the actual accomplishment of which 
 must involve the dissolution of each and every existing 
 form. But each is at the same time in some measure the 
 actual manifestation of the universal potency or World- 
 Energy. And this is the ground of its existence, more 
 or less prolonged, as a distinct and seemingly inde- 
 pendent unit. It is precisely as the manifestation or 
 present realization of the universal potency, indeed, that 
 these particularized forms possess the power of self- 
 preservation even momentarily. And this power is devel- 
 oped as cohesion within the given unit on the one hand, 
 and on the other as resistance to and hence exclusion 
 of other units. 
 
248 THE WOBLD-ENEEGY 
 
 In one respect then, this relation of mutual exclusion 
 is one of independence and individuality on the part of 
 the particularized phases of the universal potency. So 
 that even with the least adequate phase of its develop- 
 ment, individuality shows itself to be the vital fusion of 
 universality and particularity. 
 
 In another respect, however, it appears here as some- 
 thing determined or given explicit existence through 
 external agencies. So that, while in its character of an 
 explicit realization or manifestation of the universal 
 potency it possesses validity and independence , yet as 
 being only a partial, inadequate realization of that 
 potency, it proves to be wanting in validity and hence to 
 be quite dependent. 
 
 Such is the contradiction inherent at every stage in the 
 finite individual. The contradiction varies in degree and 
 yet never wholly disappears. 
 
 It is essential to note further, indeed, that with the 
 initial stage in which we are here considering it, individu- 
 ality is rather a premonition than a realization; though 
 as being the incipient stage of realization, it is especially 
 important that it should be observed and properly char- 
 acterized. Indeed, individuality can be properly under- 
 stood only by tracing the dialectic of its development 
 from that stage where it is indistinguishable from 
 mere particularity as a simple mode of universality to 
 that stage in which it is seen to be the concrete and abso- 
 lute fulfilment of universality in its total significance as 
 the divine individual, the "absolute, divine Spirit," as 
 Aristotle named it. 
 
 A particularized phase of the universal potency, then, 
 so far as it has attained to the semblance of individuality 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 249 
 
 and independence, already presents itself as a defi- 
 nite ' object. But such object is already concentrated 
 upon itself and presents tne semblance of internality 
 which here is centrality. The object gathers or collects 
 itself about its own center. At the same time, as being 
 but a partial manifestation of the total energizing prin- 
 ciple it is necessarily related through that principle to 
 other manifestations thereof that is, to other objects. 
 What the one object lacks the other possesses. They are 
 therefore complementary phases of the same totality. 
 Hence, each not only collects itself about its own center 
 but also, in its complementary reference to other objects, 
 finds its center also in each one of them and in turn 
 proves to be a center for each and all other objects. 
 
 Thus, centrality is seen to be the primary form 
 assumed by the phase of unity throughout the total 
 development of the universal potency or World-Energy. 
 It is thus, too, that sphericity presents itself as the 
 natural, necessary form in the primary aggregations of 
 matter. 
 
 But the World-Energy as Reason must in its self- 
 objectification take on all rational forms. Whence, in 
 the first place, the development of the other and more 
 complex regular solids through the process of crystal- 
 lization. 
 
 In all these phases of aggregation, -however, it is to 
 be observed that there is change of external form with- 
 out marked alteration of internal character. Hence, the 
 process is thus far apparently altogether external and 
 mechanical. 
 
 And yet, the characteristic of externality presents 
 a still further significant phase already incidentally 
 
250 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 noticed. It is this: Each particular object as being 
 but a partial, one-sided manifestation of the universal 
 potency exhibits a relation of dependence upon other 
 objects. Each lacks what another has, and has what the 
 other lacks. And precisely for this reason must their 
 fused union approximate toward an equilibrated total. 
 
 This is exhibited qualitatively in the tension toward 
 such fusion as that arising from what is usually known 
 under the name affinity. It is evident that the result- 
 ant or product of affinity must present characteristics 
 radically different from those exhibited in either of the 
 one-sided phases or "elements" between which the 
 affinity exists. 
 
 It is well worth noting, too, that the very fact of 
 affinity with all its complexity of development com- 
 pletely negates the assumption that the "elements" are 
 "simple." And, not only so, but in their manifold com- 
 binations these "elements" become wholly unrecogniz- 
 able. The truth is, indeed, that it is only in their com- 
 pounds that the elements attain their full realization. 
 Their "affinity" for each other, so long as they are held 
 asunder, is their potentiality. The compound formed 
 by their combination is that potentiality developed to 
 real potency. And to form some approximate concep- 
 tion of the marvelously complex potentiality of the so- 
 called elements, one need only trace out the multiple 
 and extremely varied oxides ; or glance through a vol- 
 ume giving the amazingly manifold series of known 
 carbon compounds, and then reflect that in no two 
 cases is the " affinity" the action and reaction of 
 precisely the same degree, and hence that in no two 
 cases are the resultants of precisely the same character. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 251 
 
 And here we have a premonition or even elementary 
 phase of spontaneity developing in the space-world. The 
 internal shows itself to be ever spontaneously developing 
 itself to externality. Similarly the external, as being 
 itself but the outer phase of the internal, proves to be 
 completely pervaded with or characterized by iiiternality. 
 Affinity shows itself to be primarily the tension toward 
 union between two oppositely characterized elements. 
 And the affinity of these for each other gives them the 
 appearance of exhibiting choice or preference. For 
 while they show tension for or toward one another, they 
 prove themselves to be, at least relatively, indifferent 
 toward other elements. 
 
 True, this is only formal and even mechanical choice. 
 And in this fact, indeed, is shown the fundamental iden- 
 tity (that is, identity in kind) of chemical action with 
 mechanical action. At the same time the preference 
 does here present itself; though it is also to be observed 
 that this is the most external phase of recognizable 
 internality beyond that of centrality in general. The 
 principle of "chemism" appears with far profounder 
 import in sexual tension, even as this is manifest in the 
 vegetable kingdom, and still more in the animal king- 
 dom; while its most elevated sphere of manifestation, 
 where it is revealed as genuine internality, is found in 
 the love and friendship existing between pure and noble 
 minds. At the same time, no really thoughtful mind 
 would for a moment allow the abstract identity here 
 apparent, under the form of continuity of principle, to 
 obscure the enormous difference in degree requiring in 
 the higher sphere quite other categories than that of 
 "chemism," or mere "affinity." 
 
252 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Indeed, this leads quite out of the sphere of externality 
 and dependence and brings us face to face with the 
 internal and spontaneous. And the question very pro- 
 perly arises whether we have not here the real solution of 
 the question of " final causes." 
 
 The answer to this question in its universal character 
 was reached, indeed, at an earlier stage of our inquiry, 
 when the general question of causality was under con- 
 sideration. Here, however, the question presents itself 
 as to the adaptation of means to ends, as exhibited in the 
 physical world. 
 
 First of all, it is evident that the results arrived at 
 in nature, show plan or method, and therefore, purpose. 
 This cannot be reasonably denied. But that plan and 
 purpose are imposed upon nature by some power external 
 to nature is a view which the whole course of the pre- 
 ceding argument tends absolutely to refute. Nature, or 
 the external world, is, as we have seen, nothing else than 
 the externalization or outerance of the internal world 
 which is otherwise to be named Spirit. The purpos- 
 ing, planning Intelligence, proofs of the activity of which 
 appear at every turn, is precisely the inner, vital prin- 
 ciple which, instead of applying itself upon a world of 
 externality already at hand, unfolds itself in a world of 
 externality which is thus nothing else than Spirit thus 
 far self -realized in the forms of the space-world. 
 
 The plan of the world, the "established order" 
 which Mr. Spencer recognizes as a necessary phase of 
 the totality of existence, is nothing else than the perfect 
 method of the divine Spirit, whose eternal activity 
 exhibits, necessarily, the two absolutely balanced and 
 complementary phases of involution and evolution of 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 253 
 
 an infinite internality which is forever completely 
 unfolded in the infinitely manifold world-in-space. 
 
 Whence, once more, the universe can never grow old 
 nor decay. The absolute, eternal process, of which 
 the "universe" itself is but the outer form and reve- 
 lation, preserves the whole in perennial vigor, trans- 
 forming death into life, and decay into renewed youth. 
 For the Process which preserves is itself the Whole which 
 is preserved. 
 
 Evidently, too, in this all-comprising process the 
 " plan " could not be first deliberated upon and then put 
 in execution the "world" being formed and then left 
 to fulfil the complex divine Purpose, running on by mere 
 "physical" energy until it fulfils the plan, runs down 
 and collapses into nonentity or mere wastes of equili- 
 brated but "useless" energy. On the contrary, if the 
 foregoing argument has led to any result, it is that 
 creation is the eternal vital fact or deed; that the divine 
 Spirit is the truth and sole substance of the world, and 
 that, apart from this, there is absolutely nothing. Were 
 the divine Energy for a moment to cease its activity, the 
 world must that instant vanish utterly. 
 
 On the other hand, the divine Spirit itself, as absolute 
 energy, bears in its own nature the absolute necessity of 
 activity. For energy is real only as active. The very 
 law of the conservation of energy presupposes this. 
 Thus God is everywhere revealed before our eyes. And 
 if we fail to behold Him it is because we are blind, and 
 not because He is hidden. The pantheism of antiquity, 
 in which all is God, is replaced by the pantheism of 
 Christianity, in which God is all and (therefore) in all. 
 
 Des Cartes was right in saying that the same power 
 
254 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 required to create a world is also necessary to its pres- 
 ervation. For " creation" and "preservation" are but 
 different names for one and the same eternal deed. 
 Thus, all "final causes" coalesce into the one eternal 
 purpose of the self-realization of the divine Reason. So 
 that once more the Final Cause is simply the absolute 
 method by which the Primal Cause forever works, and in 
 its consistent working preserves its own absolute equi- 
 librium at the same time that it creatively preserves its 
 own eternally complete self-realization. 
 
 All "causes" then, are but the partially understood 
 phases of the one absolute self-cause, or self-existent 
 Substance, as Spinoza defines it. This is the true teleo- 
 logical principal which has been coming into more 
 and more explicit utterance throughout the present 
 discussion. 
 
 There remains to be considered the process of the 
 development of life as one of the fundamental modes of 
 manifestation of the World-Energy as spirit. But to 
 this we must devote a separate chapter. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 EVOLUTION OF LIFE-FORMS. 
 
 TT has been shown that the sole sufficient cause of all 
 -* movement and of all reality is to be found in the 
 spontaneity of the absolute divine Spirit. We have also 
 seen that as spontaneity the divine Spirit is absolute 
 internality or subjectivity. 
 
 But subjectivity and internality are themselves one- 
 sided terms. Neither can have any meaning save in 
 connection with its correlative. The inner apart from 
 the outer, the subjective apart from the objective, could 
 be nothing else than a pure abstraction of our own finite 
 thought. At the present stage of our inquiry all this 
 has grown familiar. The subjective, in its ultimate 
 significance, is now understood to be the energizing 
 principle which is ever unfolding itself into all forms 
 of objective reality. 
 
 This principle, then, is itself absolute Vitality; and, as 
 such, it must from its very nature unfold into all phases 
 of reality belonging thereto. As already seen, it involves 
 within its own nature the necessity of self-externaliza- 
 tion in the mechanical and chemical relations of the 
 world in space. The first phase of recoil from this 
 merely outward tendency is seen in centrality, the second 
 in affinity, or chemism in its wider acceptation. We 
 now come to inquire what must be the next fundamental 
 stage. ^ 
 
256 THE WORLD-EKERGY 
 
 Centrality in the world of external forms, let us remem- 
 ber, is energy directed toward a given point. It is itself, 
 therefore, a tendency toward the annulment of the ex- 
 tended. For the strain toward the center manifest in 
 the external is in reality a tendency toward the annulment 
 of externality. And this is but to state in its dialectic 
 form the conception often repeated that, were attraction 
 to act without restraint,, it must concentrate all matter in 
 a point. In other words> it must reduce the extended to 
 the non-extended. 
 
 The abstractness of such view is thus rendered appar- 
 ent. In all genuine reality there is necessarily action 
 and reaction. Either phase without the other, as already 
 sufficiently shown, must be wholly impossible. 
 
 At the same time centrality, however abstract a char- 
 acteristic when taken simply by itself, is still an essential 
 phase of every specialized unit. In its simplest form it is 
 external internality. The parts of an extended unit are 
 grouped around the center. They are therefore side by 
 side with and thus external to the center; whence, con- 
 versely, the center, considered in relation to the parts 
 singly, is also external to them. 
 
 Thus the purely physical center has, after all, no true 
 internality of which, as already remarked, the world in 
 space, as such, affords absolutely no genuine instance. 
 And yet, at the same time, the center of an object in 
 space shows the first phase of tendency in the external 
 toward internality; though in the object, as physical 
 object merely, the tendency must of course remain 
 unrealized. 
 
 In affinity, on the other hand, the external already ex- 
 hibits a true phase of internality. The elements entering 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 257 
 
 into a compound have not merely served as centers for 
 one another while remaining external and qualitatively 
 indifferent to each other. On the contrary,, they have 
 become completely fused. Each thus becomes internal to 
 the other, while yet it remains external. Hence, their 
 fused unity presents the realized possibilities of both 
 within the range of their mutual relation, and the com- 
 pound thus appears as something wholly new in its quali- 
 tative character.* 
 
 And yet even here the new relation is no sooner estab- 
 lished than activity, as producing further change of rela- 
 tion between the elements thus combined, falls into abey- 
 ance; or rather, it remains only as preserving the balance 
 of relations, and so resisting further change. What 
 has been accomplished appears to be nothing else than 
 the production of a state of indifference or equilibrium 
 a mere dead result (typical, it would seem, of a prospect- 
 ively "dead universe"). And one begins once more to 
 inquire with not unnatural concern, whether, indeed, 
 such dead result is, after all, the ultimatum of the results 
 to be produced by the spontaneous energy of the primal 
 cause of things. 
 
 But here it is to be observed again that this spontane- 
 ous energy is, from its very nature, incessant in its activ- 
 ity; from which fact it could hardly be inferred that a 
 mere dead result is ever to follow. Besides, the perma- 
 nence of the chemical compound in any given case is 
 largely a question of relative affinity. Let another element 
 appear, having for either of those in the compound an 
 affinity stronger than that between those of which the 
 
 * As already intimated, we can really know an element only by tracing it 
 through all its relations, as actually exhibited in the compounds formed by 
 its union with other elements. 
 
258 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 compound is constituted, and at once the compound is 
 reduced, and another and different one is formed. 
 
 Thus the internality exhibited in affinity is still char- 
 acterized by externality. The two phases seem ever to be 
 held asunder whence internality is found to be thus far 
 external to externality. And we have seen that the truth 
 of internality is in its own continuous unfolding of itself 
 into externality. The internal is to become external, not 
 by being violently held in isolation from the external, but 
 through its own free, ceaseless self-evolution into external 
 forms. 
 
 But this fusion of the internal and the external in a 
 continuous process is life. The object possessing life 
 exhibits centrality and also affinity; but both these are 
 definitely subordinated in the life-process constituting 
 the living object itself. 
 
 More precisely, centrality, in the very process of its 
 subordination, undergoes development into higher form; 
 for it now appears not so much as an abstract " within " 
 respecting the mere space-relations of the "body" 
 through which life is manifested, but rather as the spon- 
 taneity or inner impulse which appears in each and every 
 part of every living body. And this impulse, as the 
 spontaneous effort toward self-preservation, is manifestly 
 also affinity., now appearing under the form of a contin- 
 uous process. Even here it is worth noticing that the 
 term " affinity " no longer suffices. The more complex 
 aspect of the process requires its own special category; 
 and the one here appropriate is the familiar name, 
 "assimilation." Whence centrality and affinity prove 
 not merely to belong to the dead externality of "mere 
 matter," but also to have their place in the realm of life 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 259 
 
 as phases of .one and the same process the process of 
 life itself. 
 
 It is evident, then, that the same activity of the one 
 all-comprising World-Energy, according to the degree of 
 complexity of that activity, gives rise alike to " atoms," 
 to "molecules," to crystalline forms, and to the "won," 
 or object possessing life. If "matter" means "sub- 
 stance," and if substance in turn means the divine World- 
 Energy, then matter does indeed contain the "promise 
 and potency " of all life, terrestrial or other. Similarly, 
 the question whether the true theory of the origin of life 
 is that of " Biogenesis," or that of " Abiogenesis," is evi- 
 dently based upon a complete misconception of the nature 
 of the case. Life can assuredly come only from the 
 living. But the " living " is primarily the World-Energy 
 itself as absolute Vitality. Thus following next upon 
 centrality and affinity, the elementary forms of life are 
 found to constitute but the next grade in advance of 
 the simplest developments of the characteristic of inter- 
 nality or spontaneity, as that characteristic is ever un- 
 folding in the forms of the world in space. Evidently, 
 therefore, they belong to the (logically) first stages of 
 the return movement from externality to internality in 
 the total process of creative activity, which the World- 
 Energy forever constitutes. For the external itself 
 the whole of space-filling reality as we must con- 
 stantly remind ourselves, is nothing else than the internal 
 self-externalized the spontaneous continually expanding 
 itself into the inert, only to gather itself once more 
 through endlessly varying degrees into spontaneity again. 
 
 Abiogenesis in the literal sense of the term is absurd, 
 seeing that aside from life and its manifestations there 
 
260 THE WOKLD-ENERGY 
 
 is absolutely nothing. Out of so-called inanimate nature 
 doubtless life does constantly arise. But this must ever 
 presuppose the World-Energy as the total divine Life- 
 Process which gives itself outer manifestation through all 
 the forms of nature. Doubtless spontaneous generation 
 does perpetually take place in the sense that everywhere 
 through all the universe the mechanical and chemical 
 relations of energy in the physical aspect of existence 
 grade insensibly into, and in their higher ranges of com- 
 plexity constitute, the relations of energy which are 
 known under the name of physical life. 
 
 But this conception of life coming from the not-living 
 must forever remain infinitely self-contradictory, unless 
 it is explicitly recognized that physical force, as such, is 
 absolutely unthinkable otherwise than as the external 
 mode of the internal, spontaneous World-Energy which 
 constitutes the truth of all reality, and which, in its 
 highest aspect, is the one absolute, divine Spirit.* We 
 cannot too often remind ourselves of the absolute unity 
 and continuity of the total world or universe in all its 
 modes. This is one fundamental aspect. The other and 
 complementary aspect is that of the infinite multiplicity 
 
 *The beginner in philosophy is apt to stumble over the word " thinkable 1 ' 
 because he confounds thinking with imagining. In reality one can think only 
 the consistent, the rational. He can imagine any monstrosity. One can really 
 think only relations, and truly think only rational relations. To think ade- 
 quately is to think groups of relations as constituting totalities, and ulti- 
 mately, to think the universe as the absolute totality of all relations. Though 
 I must hasten to add, for the comfort of readers likely to be sh6cked by such 
 expressions, that by the phrase: "to think the universe," I mean no more 
 than this: To so far pursue in thought the nature of relation as to recognize 
 the necessity of all relations being comprised in a Totality which is organic 
 in its very constitution a Totality which is active and whose activity is in 
 accordance with an " established order." This, I must also add, may be, and 
 is, done in degrees of adequacy widely different. Need it be still further 
 added that the genuine thinker will be constantly advancing to greater 
 degrees of adequacy in his estimate of this Totality? 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 261 
 
 and variety into which this absolute unity unfolds itself. 
 The continuous, let us repeat, does not exclude the dis- 
 crete. On the contrary, the discrete is a necessary mode 
 of the continuous. Hence, physical energy, chemical 
 energy, vital force or energy, and the energy of reason or 
 of will, are all only so many modes, so many degrees, in 
 and of one and the same total, divine World-Energy. 
 
 And now let us observe that in the physical aggrega- 
 tion about a center, in the chemical compound, and in 
 the living unit, we have in each case alike a limited unit. 
 But there is this difference, that in the first class of units, 
 so far as they are regarded as mere aggregations of the 
 extended, division may be carried to any degree without 
 change in the character of the unit; while in the second 
 class mechanical division with the same result may be 
 carried as far as the " molecule," but can be carried no 
 further without changing the character of the unit; and 
 finally, ifi the third class division means in general the 
 death of the living being, which is a result quite different 
 from the mere division itself. In the first case any given 
 quantity of matter is a totality wholly indifferent to 
 division (though even here a crystal proves an excep- 
 tion as, doubtless, ultimately does every "particle "of 
 matter). In the second case a given quantity of matter, 
 so far from being an indifferent totality, is known to have 
 a perfectly definite limit, beyond which, if division is car- 
 ried, the character of the unit is radically changed. In 
 the third case any division threatens the existence of the 
 unit. 
 
 And yet here a most significant exception presents 
 itself. The living being, as we have seen, is itself a 
 process. Here, indeed, is found the radical distinction 
 
262 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 between the organic and the inorganic unit. The latter 
 is also constituted by a process. But in order that the 
 unit may be preserved, the process through which it came 
 into existence must cease. This is conspicuously true in 
 case either of a crystal or of a chemical compound. On 
 the other hand, the organic unit, instead of being pre- 
 served, is at once destroyed by the cessation of the pro- 
 cess by which it came into existence as an organic unit. 
 The functions which constitute it as a living unit must 
 continue without interruption in order to preserve its 
 existence as a living unit. Thus its parts are in more or 
 less pronounced degree members or organs, each of which 
 has a necessary function- in the total complex process 
 which the animal itself may alike be said to constitute 
 and to be constituted by. Hence the removal of any of 
 its members so far deranges the process, or stops the pro- 
 cess altogether. And in any case the severed member, in 
 the very fact of its severance, at once loses the char- 
 acteristic process of life and speedily dissolves into merely 
 mechanical and chemical units. Thus the division of the 
 living unit results necessarily in death, partial or total. 
 Death is, indeed, an aspect necessarily involved in life. 
 And it is so in this way: The functional efficiency of this 
 or that portion of matter included in the organism ceases. 
 By that fact such portion becomes separated from the 
 organism, and in its separation loses its organic character. 
 That is, it "dies." And this "dying" of parts within 
 the organism must continue so long as the organism con- 
 tinues to live; that is, so long as it continues to be an 
 organism. 
 
 The apparent exceptions which the cases of gemma- 
 tion, and especially of fission, offer to the rule that divi- 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 263 
 
 sion of the organism means death in whole or in part, 
 occur only in the less complex forms of life, where the 
 life-principle itself is still diffuse, and hence presents the 
 characteristic of externality in so marked a degree that 
 division of the form does not of necessity result in the 
 destruction of vitality in either of the separated parts. 
 Different from this in degree, rather than in kind, is the 
 separation of the germ, as well as of the offspring, from 
 the parent in the higher forms of life. 
 
 Again, the internality of life is, as we have indicated, 
 in the first place mere impulse. The specialized living 
 being is a limited unit. It is therefore dependent, and 
 stands in necessary relations with the specialized objects 
 of the external world, in the midst of which it exists. 
 But as itself a process, and as at the same time dependent 
 upon the world-process surrounding and including it, 
 the living unit must constantly adjust itself to its envi- 
 ronment. And its impulse toward such adjustment is 
 the phase of spontaneity or subjectivity which it has 
 unfolded. 
 
 At the same time, this characteristic of spontaneity 
 presents also a passive phase. It is the relatively auto- 
 matic response which the living being makes to the 
 exertion upon it, in any way, of force from without. 
 This is the quality of "sensitiveness" or "irritability," 
 which is exhibited in self-preservation the struggle for 
 immediate existence on the part of the individual and 
 in reproduction, whereby the existence of the species is 
 secured. The degree in which the life of even the 
 higher orders of animals is limited to these relatively 
 mechanical aspects, is far beyond what seems commonly 
 supposed. It can hardly be doubted, by one who carefully 
 
264 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 considers the subject, that the "intelligence" of the 
 lower animals is enormously overestimated, as is also 
 their sensibility. The facts brought to light in biologi- 
 cal investigations appear to justify, in great measure, 
 the Cartesian view that the animal organism is an 
 automaton. 
 
 It is to be noted further, indeed, that the living unit 
 as thus far considered is merely one example of a particu- 
 lar type or species. As such it is essentially limited in its 
 possibilities of development. And this implies that all 
 the various phases of growth involved in its nature must 
 be completed within a limited period. Whence it appears 
 that the destiny of such living unit is to fulfil the total 
 round of functions of which it is capable, and, even in so 
 doing, to bring to an end its own separate existence. 
 
 And yet, though from its very nature, the individual 
 living (animal) unit must undergo dissolution, it is 
 evident, on the other hand, that the very process con- 
 stituting such unit also involves its own perpetuation as 
 type or species. Though the individual dies, the species 
 survives. 
 
 Such is the general conclusion respecting the physic- 
 ally constituted living unit. We have next to inquire 
 a little more in detail as to the process of development of 
 such living units,, 
 
CHAPTEK XXV. 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS TO THE EVOLUTION OF 
 LIFE-FORMS. 
 
 FROM what has developed thus far, it would seem 
 that " origin" is a word which can have meaning 
 only locally. The total World-Energy is a process which 
 is perfect,, eternal, unchanging. As such, all possible 
 change, including the complementary aspects of begin- 
 ning and ceasing, is perpetually involved in the World- 
 Energy. Creation, in its totality, is the one eternal Fact. 
 It is in the manifold aspects of Creation that change 
 appears. And since time is the form of change, it is 
 only in the manifold aspects of Creation that time has 
 any reality. 
 
 Evidently, too, it is the aspect of change that must 
 be the first to appeal to finite minds.* Hence it is that 
 in all cosmogonies Creation has been figured as taking 
 place in time, and, therefore, as having a beginning. 
 Even Mr. Spencer represents Evolution as a time-process, 
 and only guardedly indicates that were it possible to 
 really conceive the ( ' Unknowable " in its totality, it 
 could be conceived only as eternal. 
 
 Of course, if one has made an open profession of the 
 religion of agnosticism, he must, if he would be at all 
 
 *"Mind," as such, is infinite in its very nature. Each individual created 
 mind is finite in respect of the degree in which it has realized this infinite 
 ideal nature common to all minds. 
 
266 THE WORLD-ESTERGY 
 
 consistent, make at least occasional confession that 
 there really are limits to his present actual knowledge; 
 though it is not so easy to see why he should feel 
 bound to assert as something already certainly known 
 that there are absolute barriers beyond which knowl- 
 edge can never go. It may be further remarked that 
 if agnosticism means simply that no human being is 
 at any given moment omniscient, doubtless all except 
 the insane are, have always been, and must ever be 
 agnostics. 
 
 It is a curious fact, too, that agnosticism itself does 
 not prevent some of its votaries from taking up and 
 attempting to solve certain problems sometimes declared 
 to be insoluble. Among these is the problem of the 
 origin of life. And attempts in this direction have been 
 made in quite characteristic fashion; that 'is, by obser- 
 vation and ^ experiment. Serious, ingeniously planned, 
 and prolonged work has been performed in the labora- 
 tory with the hope of artificially producing, if not a 
 homunculus, at least a protogenes. 
 
 Thus far, however, from all experimenters (except, 
 perhaps, one or two suspected of being more eager than 
 painstaking) there comes the somewhat disheartening 
 report that no really positive results have been attained. 
 And the reports are the more disheartening since organic 
 matter has been presupposed (that is, it has been actu- 
 ally present) in these very experiments. 
 
 Not, indeed, that there have been no encouraging 
 signs. On the contrary, more and more complex com- 
 pounds have been built up, and these approach more 
 and more nearly to, not merely organic, but even to 
 really organized matter. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEBVATION. 267 
 
 It is important to observe, too, that the very nature 
 of the experiments seems to suggest a doubt as to 
 whether it is at all likely that there should ever be 
 perfectly reproduced in a test-tube the entire complex 
 of conditions precedent to the transition of inorganic 
 into organic matter, even though such conditions actu- 
 ally exist in nature as a whole. It is also worthy of note 
 that even apparent success on the part of the experi- 
 menter must evidently be, if not neutralized, at least 
 greatly discredited, by the fact that he has made use of 
 organic matter in his very attempt to demonstrate the 
 development of the organic from the inorganic. On the 
 other hand, it is equally evident that failure on the part 
 of the experimenter can never prove that the actual 
 transition of inorganic into organic matter is impossible 
 in nature. Until man can manipulate nature as a whole 
 in his experiments, he can never be justified in making 
 empirically grounded assertions as to what is impossible 
 in nature as a whole. 
 
 At the same time, as the whole argument of the 
 present volume has tended to show, all nature is noth- 
 ing else than the manifold expression of the World- 
 Energy as Spirit. That is, Nature as a whole is but 
 the outer, organic aspect of the perfect Thought. Only 
 as such can it be rightly understood; that is, understood 
 at all. 
 
 But, now, what follows? Nothing less, it seems to 
 me, than the complete reconciliation (already pointed 
 out) of the two opposing views as to the origin of life. 
 Biogenesis, the theory that life can come only from the 
 living, finds its full justification in the fact that all 
 nature is instinct with the Life of the World-Energy 
 
268 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 is, in fact, as we have seen, nothing else than the outer, 
 organic aspect of that Life. From which it is evident 
 that the difference between organic and inorganic mat- 
 ter is merely one of degree. Thus the theory of Abio- 
 genesis, the theory that life may come from the not-liv- 
 ing, is itself but a special aspect of Biogenesis in the 
 wider sense of the latter term. 
 
 There is, then, nothing contradictory in the thought 
 that organisms not only arose, but are forever arising, out 
 of "inorganic" matter. For inorganic matter itself, 
 when seen in its vital relation within the Universe as 
 a whole, consists of nothing else than the more element- 
 ary of the infinitely manifold thought-forms constituting 
 the Universe. Looked at in this way, it is evident that 
 nature tends inevitably to unfold into the more adequate 
 thought-forms which we know as organisms. Thus we 
 arrive at what may be called an organic view of nature 
 as constituting the elementary phase of the vital, and, 
 in its total range, forever self-equal process of creation. 
 Whence it would seem that the transition of inorganic 
 into organic matter is itself a ceaseless aspect of the eternal 
 process -of Creation. Doubtless in the evolution of each 
 planet, where the conditions rendering life possible are 
 reached at all, there is a definite moment * of transition 
 from not-living matter to living matter; while at the same 
 time, in the creative process as a whole, that " moment " 
 is eternalized in the ceaseless evolution of worlds. 
 
 Instead, therefore, of resenting the work of such men 
 as Spencer, and Darwin and Haeckel, and angrily declar- 
 ing them to be undermining all grounds of faith while 
 
 * The " moment " being continuous so long as the conditions favorable 
 to such transition continue to be the same anywhere on the given planet. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 269 
 
 engaged in the mad effort to run down an ignis fatuus, 
 it would seem wiser to note what there is of truth in 
 their work, and to gladly accept it as opening up to us 
 a wider view of creation as the infinitely complex,, but' 
 absolutely organic Process of the self-revelation of the 
 divine World-Energy. If these men have themselves 
 stopped short of seeing the full significance of their own 
 discoveries, that surely is no ground for withholding our 
 glad and grateful acceptance of the aspects of truth 
 which those discoveries unfold. So far, indeed, from 
 proving that the conception of creation is a false con- 
 ception, their work really turns out to be on the contrary 
 an improved calculus, enabling us to attain a clearer and 
 more adequate estimate of the infinite range and fault- 
 less method of creation. 
 
 Crude in many ways, doubtless, this improved calculus 
 still is. The discoverer is such precisely through his 
 attainment to a new attitude as toward the Truth. He 
 is in part, but not wholly, prepared to receive the 
 stronger and more varied light with which this new atti- 
 tude of his brings him face to face. Hence is it that 
 while his vision is extended and clarified to a degree more 
 or less marvelous to his contemporaries, it is afterward 
 seen that with this sudden access of light he was also 
 partly or wholly blinded to certain aspects of the general 
 truth which he was the first to clearly recognize in its 
 larger characteristics. 
 
 The discoverers in the special field of Evolution could 
 not be expected to prove exceptions to this general rule. 
 Intent mainly upon the empirical evidences of the actual 
 evolution of the earth and of the organic forms inhabit- 
 ing the earth, it is hardly surprising that for a time at 
 
270 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 least the question of the ultimate Cause involved in the 
 process of evolution should seem to them too remote and 
 shadowy to* have in it the promise of any positive solu- 
 tion; though, as we have seen, Mr. Spencer is too much 
 a philosopher to stop short of at least an intimation of 
 the fact that there lies in the human mind the necessity 
 of considering and attempting to solve that ultimate 
 problem. 
 
 Darwin, on the other hand, deliberately held aloof 
 from this problem; and it can hardly be doubted that 
 in this he did wisely. He had attempted a special task 
 which must tax to the utmost even his exceptional powers 
 for a lifetime. And this task could be performed while 
 yet the larger problem was relatively in abeyance. Never- 
 theless, so long as the larger problem of Evolution in its 
 universal aspects remained but partly resolved, or was 
 left out of account in the consideration of the special 
 problem of organic evolution, this latter problem itself 
 could not but prove insoluble in its most elementary as 
 well as in its most complex phases. Variation in typical 
 forms might be accounted for while yet the beginnings 
 of life, as well as the culminating aspects of life, still 
 remained to all appearance inexplicable. 
 
 And yet it is this fact, as it seems to me, which more 
 than any other has caused the Darwinian theory to be 
 persistently regarded by many as something purely hypo- 
 thetical and even fanciful, in spite of the overwhelming 
 accummulation of empirical evidence showing that specific 
 types have always been unstable, and that there has 
 been actual transition of inferior types into superior 
 types through continued variations, these variations 
 being due in ever-increasing degree to the spontaneity 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 271 
 
 of function in the organism, though primarily such 
 function must have received its definiteness of direction 
 from the " environment." 
 
 What is of special significance here is, that so long as 
 the environment was regarded as merely an aggregate of 
 physical forces, it was impossible to avoid a feeling that 
 somehow the difficulty which presented itself in face of 
 the new view respecting the origin of Life, and even of 
 the variations of structure and of function in organisms, 
 had received little more than a mythical treatment. It 
 is, in fact, only when we come to regard the physical 
 world as itself but the outer mode of the spiritual, only 
 when we come to regard "things" as nothing more nor 
 less than the expression of thought (aspects, that is, of 
 the perfect Thought which constitutes the Method of 
 Creation), that the "environment" assumes a really 
 intelligible character. * For then in any given case the 
 "environment" itself must appear to us as nothing else 
 and nothing less than a more or less complex phase in 
 the concrete unfolding of the divine creative Energy, 
 conformity to the Method of which means increased ade- 
 quacy of life; antagonism with which means and can 
 only mean degradation of life; continued antagonism with 
 which can mean nothing less than final extinction ; that 
 is, the utter dissolution of the organism as organism. 
 
 It is in and through the World-Energy, then, that 
 whatever of Life we know or can ever hope to know 
 must have its origin. In other words, Life comes from 
 the living and, from this point of view, it can come 
 from nothing else. 
 
 * In fact, we can really think nothing else than thought. And when we 
 think out the "laws of nature," those laws are by that very fact proven to 
 be nothing else than modes of thought. 
 
272 THE WORLD-ENEBGY 
 
 But doubtless also any living unit can originate only 
 in conformity with the Method of the World-Energy, a 
 Method which has already been shown in the present vol- 
 ume to be the Method of Reason. It is, in fact, no other 
 than that Method of which scientists have for a long 
 time been so industriously and successfully tracing out 
 the rudimentary aspects under the name of the "Laws 
 of Nature." . It is that Method the logical order of 
 which is vaguely intimated in the now hackneyed phrase, 
 "from the simple to the complex." In other words, the 
 Method of the World-Energy presents itself to us as the 
 absolute Method of Evolution, in which creation takes 
 place with unfailing logical sequence. Everywhere there 
 is absolute order, unbending law. Any degree of complex- 
 ity in a given unit, whether organic or inorganic, necessa- 
 rily presupposes that such unit has come to be what it is 
 only by a progressive development, the stages of which 
 have a fixed order. And such unit can attain to any 
 further degree of complexity only by passing through a 
 further series of stages equally unalterable in their serial 
 relation. Nature leaps no chasms, only because " Nature" 
 is but the outer manifestation of Reason. And just as 
 Nature is the outer form of Reason, so Reason is the 
 inner substance, the vital principle of Nature. It is to 
 the Totality of which these are the complementary aspects 
 that I have applied the term World-Energy, and by 
 which I mean : the one Substance, the primal Cause, the 
 Logos, "without which was not anything made that hath 
 been made." 
 
 But if Nature is to be regarded as but the more ele- 
 mentary aspect of the Word', that is, the outer form or 
 expression, of the Logos or divine Reason, then there is 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 273 
 
 nothing to forbid, rather there is everything to encour- 
 age, the view that each more complex species of organism 
 arose by development from a less complex species, 
 and this in turn from a species still less complex, and 
 so on until we reach the limit of simplicity in the 
 organic world and discover it to be a primal type of 
 units without specialized organs, and distinguished 
 from inorganic matter only in possessing the charac- 
 teristics of "irritability" and "contractility." And by 
 "irritability" we can scarcely understand anything 
 else to be meant than the most rudimentary phase of 
 the inner quality of self -movement; while "contrac- 
 tility" can hardly mean anything else than the most 
 rudimentary phase of the outer expression of self -move- 
 ment, or life. 
 
 Nor can we, as it seems to me, without ceasing to 
 really think, resist the further logical conclusion that 
 just as all more complex organisms on each inhabited 
 sphere must have descended from a primal type of units 
 that, though organic, were yet not organized; so these 
 latter units themselves arose out of the most complex 
 phase of inorganic matter; which in turn must have 
 developed from the commingling of still simpler ele- 
 ments in the laboratory of nature however impossible it 
 may be to verify all this in a test-tube. 
 
 Thus it appears that we may, with equal truth, de- 
 clare both that Life comes from the living, and that it 
 comes from the not-living. For, while on the one hand, 
 the particular units of the inorganic world which come 
 to be aggregated into an organism are not themselves 
 living units, yet, on the other hand, it is never to be 
 forgotten that they have no existence save as modes of 
 
274 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 manifestation of the Life of the total World-Energy. 
 Looked at in its merely physical aspects, this is doubtless 
 a purely mechanical view of nature;* while, on the other 
 hand, we are equally justified in saying that "in our 
 study of natural objects we are approaching the thoughts 
 of the Creator, reading his conceptions, interpreting a 
 system that is his and not ours."t 
 
 The following further suggestions are added as possible 
 clews to the more precise interpretation of organic evolu- 
 tion. The first suggestion is: That wherever the environ- 
 ment or complex of natural conditions is the same it could 
 hardly be but that the same organic type should be 
 developed. And this not merely on one planet, but on 
 any planet, whatever its location in space. So also, on 
 the other hand, wherever the conditions vary, the organic 
 type developed must vary in corresponding degree. And 
 since the World-Energy can be conceived only as in- 
 finitely rich in its Method, it is evident that Creation 
 must be inexhaustible in the variety of forms through 
 which that Method is forever unfolded into its infinitely 
 rich actuality. But, again, for any particular sphere, as 
 'our own world, the conditions that is, the special 
 aspects of the World-Energy constituting the environ- 
 ment cannot but present a limited range in so far as 
 they are productive of- special physical forms which are 
 organic to Life. In other words, the types of organisms 
 cannot but be limited in number and in variability. At 
 the same time, with the increasing specialization of the 
 
 * " Die Erkenntniss 1st beendigt, wenn es als die nothwendige Folge be- 
 stimmter Ursacheii sich nachweisen lasst. Dieses ursachliche Erkenuen 
 uennenwirim Gebiete des Stofflichen auch ein mechanistisches, etc." Nae- 
 geli: " Mechardsch-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre." S. 8. 
 
 t Agassiz. " Methods of Study in Natural History.'' 1 llth ed. p. 14. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 275 
 
 earth itself, through its own condensation and conse- 
 quent increasing tension of energy throughout its mass, 
 the differences in the conditions of life on its surface 
 must have continuously become, and cannot for an indefi- 
 nitely extended future cease to become, more and more 
 pronounced. And, as already suggested, and as elabor- 
 ately shown in Darwin's writings, the continuance of life 
 for any type of organisms is possible only through the 
 continuous adaptation of the organisms constituting the 
 type to their environment. Or, as Mr. Spencer puts it: 
 " Life is the continuous adjustment of internal relations 
 to external relations."* And this adaptation must keep 
 pace with whatever changes the environment itself under- 
 goes. Similarly, those that fail of such adaptation can 
 not but become extinct. Fitness to survive consists in 
 fullest correspondence on the part of the living unit to 
 the aspects of Reason constituting the environment of 
 such unit. Since such environment is itself a process, 
 and since it is a constantly varying complex of condi- 
 tions, it is evident that the types of organisms existing 
 in the midst of and dependent upon that constantly 
 varying complex of conditions, must undergo equally 
 constant and corresponding variations as a condition 
 precedent to their survival. The variation of the type 
 that survives can be measured by no less a standard 
 than that of the variation in the environment itself. The 
 longer the period the greater must be the variation in 
 the environment, and hence the greater the variation 
 in the organic types involved. The environment is, 
 indeed, not merely something else than the given unit 
 determined by the environment. It is also, and far more, 
 
 * "Principles of Biology," (N. Y. Ed.) I., 80. 
 
276 THE WORLD-ENEBGY 
 
 a complex of conditions focusing itself into, and unfold- 
 ing as, that given unit; just as an image on a screen is 
 not something else than the light, but just the light itself 
 developed in one particular mode. 
 
 The conception, then, of the variation of organic 
 species in nature even to the development of more 
 from less complex species so far from being in conflict 
 with the highest conception of a divine order of the 
 world, would seem to be itself a necessary aspect of any 
 really consistent view we can form of a divine or rational 
 World-Order. It is demanded by the very principle of 
 Continuity itself, and cannot be got rid of, as it seems 
 to me, in any other way than by renouncing all claim 
 that the world is a world of established order, rather 
 than a world of chance ; that is, by admitting that the 
 world whose order is one we are persistently endeavoring 
 to think out is really a world in which thought is not 
 only superfluous, but impossible. 
 
 At the same time, it is to be carefully noted that the 
 " variation " is something which takes place on the part 
 of individuals within a given type, while tjie type in 
 its largest significance is itself invariable. Nor can the 
 variation of any individual or series of individuals within 
 a type ever carry such individual or individuals beyond 
 the type. The truth discovered by von Baer, that all 
 animals originate from eggs which at first are identical 
 in substance and structure, is of utmost importance; for 
 it points distinctly to a genuine simplest grade of organic 
 matter, a proto-plasm, out of which all types of animals 
 primarily arose. So also, as Agassiz insists, it is of the 
 utmost significance that " each egg has such tenacity of 
 its individual principle of life that no egg was ever 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION". 277 
 
 known to swerve from the pattern of the parent animal 
 that gave it birth"* only, the "pattern" is nothing 
 more nor less than that general, unchangeable type 
 within which the individual nay, countless genera- 
 tions of individuals may and must vary in their ceaseless 
 struggle for that degree of existence in which the type 
 is most fully realized. Doubtless no egg that owes 
 its parentage to a vertebrate can ever develop into any 
 other than a vertebrate animal. But this does not in the 
 least invalidate the conception that while in one locality 
 of the primitive world the eggs of the primal vertebrate 
 were developing in the direction of the fish, in another 
 locality where the conditions were different the eggs of 
 the primal vertebrate were developing in the direction of 
 the mammal. Thus proceeded, as it would seem, the 
 differentiation of the primal "generalized" (that is, as 
 yet for the earth unspecialized) type of vertebrate animals; 
 and always it proceeded in accordance with, as. the pro- 
 gressive realization of, the perfect plan, the unalterable 
 method, by which the divine World-Energy is forever 
 unfolding itself in Creation as a whole. 
 
 It may very well be that there are "sundry traits in 
 common," as between certain molluscoid animals and the 
 lowest vertebrate animal, f *But this is only to say that 
 the nearer we approach the beginning point in the 
 development of animal forms on the earth, the more 
 manifest is the homogeneity characterizing those forms. 
 In other words, it simply indicates their common origin 
 in an undifferentiated animal unit already developing in 
 myriad duplications in the primal sea. 
 
 * "Methods of Study in Natural History,'' 1 p. 29. 
 
 t Herbert Spencer: "Principles of Biology," II., 567. 
 
278 THE WOKLD-EtfERGY 
 
 On the other hand, none could protest more vigorously 
 than would the evolutionist himself against the supposi- 
 tion that the vertebrate type as such is an off shoot of the 
 molluscan type as such. That would be substantially to 
 deny the existence of that " established order " of the 
 world upon which Mr. Spencer insists, and which I 
 should prefer to call the rational Method of Creation, 
 without which science itself must be wholly impossible. 
 
 And now, not to extend this statement beyond what 
 is necessary to indicate clearly the contrast between the 
 real significance of organic evolution and the mythical 
 significance popularly attached to it, I will only add a 
 word in reference to the tender point of man's own 
 origin. So far as I am aware, no evolutionist really 
 supposes that the initial primate was any more an ape 
 than it was a man.* In fact, it was not sufficiently 
 advanced (differentiated) to be either ape or man. What 
 the theory of evolution really claims is: that apes and 
 men have alike descended from an animal with general 
 characteristics at once manlike and apelike; but not so 
 far developed as to be specifically and in fact either the 
 one or the other. It was potentially both; actually, 
 neither. Developed in the one direction, it gave rise 
 to apes; developed in the other direction, it gave rise 
 to men. And it is not to be forgotten that the primitive 
 apes were far from being the same as the apes of to-day, 
 and that primitive men were still farther from being 
 the same as the men of to-day. Let us note further that 
 these two "directions" of development are radii from 
 
 * Some color is given to the popular illusion that " Darwinism " means 
 mainly " the descent of man from apes" by an occasional unguarded state- 
 ment in works by pronounced evolutionists as, for example, in Romanes' 
 important contribution to the subject under the title: " Mental Evolution in 
 Man." ' 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 279 
 
 the same (logical) point. Whence it is evident that from 
 the very outset the ape type and the human type 
 were necessarily divergent, and that, therefore, neither 
 could by any possibility have descended from the other. 
 However complex the "pattern/' the threads in the 
 great loom of Creation never become tangled. Or, to 
 change the figure, Nature is the perfect " logical ma- 
 chine." But it is so only because it is nothing else 
 than the outer form, the infinitely extended self-mani- 
 festation of the Logos, or divine Reason. 
 
 Many professed evolutionists, indeed, would stop short 
 of this latter statement, though they would concur 
 heartily in the affirmation of a fixed order as the very 
 core of any rational theory of evolution. It is the more 
 amazing, therefore, that Agassiz should have antagonized 
 the doctrine of organic evolution on the ground that it 
 implies the descent of vertebrate animals from the special- 
 ized types of invertebrate animals in other words, that 
 it assumes the arbitrary intermingling of types. And this 
 missing of the central thread of the doctrine of evolution 
 by such a man is no less unfortunate than amazing, since 
 his " Methods of Study in Natural History," embodying 
 as it does his (mis-) interpretation of the only doctrine of 
 organic evolution that Darwin or any other real scientist 
 ever advanced, has been, in America at least, the one 
 authoritative text-book seemingly justifying those who 
 hate Darwinism because they have never understood it, 
 and who refuse to make any effort to understand it 
 because they hate it. 
 
 We come now to a further suggestion. It is: That 
 primarily the conditions of life on any sphere that comes 
 to be inhabited at all must be practically uniform over 
 
280 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 a large extent of the surface of that sphere. From which 
 we cannot but conclude that the transition of inorganic 
 into organic matter on the earth must have taken place 
 simultaneously over wide areas. In other words, the 
 center of the creation of organisms is not a geometrical 
 center, but a rational or logical center. It is not one 
 exclusive locality in space, but only a center in kind. 
 Physical identity is necessarily local and particular. 
 Logical or rational identity is universal, and, as such, is 
 without relation to space. That is, centrality in kind 
 is wholly indifferent to space as such, and consists only 
 of the grouping of such conditions as tend to the develop- 
 ment of units bearing certain generic or typical marks. 
 The unit is a particular case of the more or less adequate 
 realization of the universal or typical "plan;" whether 
 the " plan" be that of a star, or a crystal, or a plant, or 
 an animal, or a soul. Thus in this higher, concrete 
 sense, centrality is seen to be co-extensive with space from 
 the very fact that it is indifferent to space. No doubt 
 each particular instance must be localized in space. But 
 it is equally evident that wherever in space the conditions 
 are favorable to the development of units of any given 
 type, there is the center of creation for that type. And 
 no matter at how many or at what remote points in space 
 this grouping of conditions may occur, each point is 
 equally the center of creation for the given type. 
 
 Again, one must be on his guard with reference to 
 another point also. It is this : The arising of a given 
 type is no more a matter of time, than it is a matter of 
 space. Time, as was seen at the outset, is nothing 
 else than the abstract form of change. Hence it is by 
 no means necessary to suppose that the "origin" or 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 281 
 
 process of coming into existence of any given type 
 should be something which has occurred but once in 
 an infinitely extended duration. On the contrary, 
 such origination must occur whenever as well as wher- 
 ever the conditions favorable to such process become 
 focused into reality. In fact, as already intimated, just 
 this focusing of "favorable conditions" is itself the 
 process of the origination of the units constituting the 
 type. And, as the argument of the present volume 
 goes to show, the order here, though necessarily chrono- 
 logical locally, is and can be only logical for the Universe 
 as a whole, seeing that in the Universe as a whole every 
 phase of existence possible to a rational world must be 
 perpetual. That is, in the Universe as a whole the 
 "moment" of creation for each type must be eternal, 
 just as the "center" of creation for each type must be 
 co-extensive with space. 
 
 Such is the second suggestion jn its universal and 
 more abstract form. The special application it is in- 
 tended to lead up (or down) to is: That the same phase 
 of organic differentiation must have occurred simultan- 
 eously over more or less widely extended areas, as also 
 (and especially in case of land animals) over more or 
 less widely separated areas of the earth the type in 
 any given case remaining essentially the same throughout 
 the given area or areas so long as the environment 
 remained substantially the same over such area or 
 areas. 
 
 Whether in the history of the earth such coincidence 
 of environment actually existed over areas widely separ- 
 ated from each other, is of course a question to be decided 
 upon geological evidence. And such evidence is not 
 
282 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 absolutely wanting. Besides the a priori consideration 
 that all beginnings are in the very nature of the case 
 characterized by homogeneity,, there are the familiar facts 
 of the abundant remains of subtropical flora and fauna, 
 even those of high orders and therefore of a relatively 
 late period,, in regions where now their development 
 would be impossible. It would seem,, then, that we have 
 here a clue to the simplest possible explanation of the 
 coincident existence of the same species of organisms in 
 regions so widely separated as to make the hypothesis 
 of migration from either area to the other very difficult 
 to accept, especially in those cases where oceanic barriers 
 intervene ingenious and plausible as is Darwin's argu- 
 ment in support of such possibility.* 
 
 In this connection, too, it would seem that we have 
 here a possible clue to the primary cause of the extreme 
 differences as between one and another of the races of 
 man. On the hypothesis here suggested these differ- 
 ences would be due, not merely to differences of climatic 
 conditions working through indefinite periods upon 
 descendants from the same ancestors. On the contrary, 
 they would be due primarily to inherited peculiarities 
 running back through lines of ancestry that were distinct 
 possibly from the very beginnings of life on the earth. 
 And this, it may be remarked by the way, seems to pre- 
 sent a possible ground of reconciliation as between the 
 views of Darwin and those of Agassiz respecting the 
 mode of origination of the human race, since it would 
 show that instead of their hypotheses respecting the 
 
 * Darwin was certainly mistaken when he assumed that the hypothesis 
 of the simultaneous arising of the same species at many points of the earth's 
 surface is equivalent to calling in the " agency of a miracle." See " Origin of 
 Species," (N. Y. Ed.) p. 330. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION". 283 
 
 "descent of man" being mutually exclusive, those 
 hypotheses are in reality but different threads of the 
 same fabric of truth. 
 
 Evidently, too, in case the several races of men orig- 
 inated separately in the manner above indicated, it would 
 seem extremely probable that the human type was realized 
 within some one more or less extended area long ages 
 before the actual development of that type in any other 
 area; the earlier development in the one region being 
 due, primarily, to gradual changes through which the 
 environment there became relatively more . stimulating 
 in the direction of mental activity. And it is not 
 wholly without significance in this connection that the 
 region in which the Aryan race has been found as far 
 back in time as it can be traced, is a region in which 
 such change in the environment actually took place. 
 If, indeed, we were to follow up the clew here pre- 
 sented, and to suppose that the Aryan race arose 
 through a Darwinian autochthon over the greater part 
 of the area which they have inhabited from the earliest 
 known period, we would also have in this hypothesis 
 the simple natural settlement of the controversy as to 
 whether this race was of Asiatic or of European origin. 
 And thus, as in so many other cases, the "either or" 
 would here prove to be but a restless, if not profitless, 
 oscillation between the two complementary aspects of 
 the one real truth. In such case, too, the "race" thus 
 originating would really develop as a race from the 
 gradual fusion of a multitude of tribes originally in 
 isolation, and of more or less contrasted characteristics, 
 the language of the most intellectual tribe gradually 
 becoming (with dialectic differences) the language of 
 
284 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 the entire race. And this would be quite in keeping 
 with the remark of Prof. Sayce* that "For anything we 
 know, the parent- Aryan may have been the language of 
 a race essentially different from that to which we belong; 
 indeed, it is highly probable that it was spoken by more 
 than one race/' 
 
 And now, allowing that the hypothesis presented in 
 this second suggestion should be found to be justified 
 by the facts, when once (if ever) the facts come to be 
 adequately known, it would seem to contain an intima- 
 tion of the .primary reason why at the present day the 
 various races of man present such striking contrasts in 
 the degrees of civilization wliicli they have severally at- 
 tained. I do not forget, or lightly esteem, the fact that 
 the existing differences are far greater than those separat- 
 ing race from race three or four thousand years ago; nor 
 do I forget, or lightly esteem, the fact that the increased 
 superiority of the more advanced races is due, mainly, 
 to their own superior self-activity. But the real ques- 
 tion would seem 'to be this: How came the superior 
 races to be superior primarily? To what could this be 
 due, if not to an earlier start in the human degree of 
 life ? And what could be the cause of this earlier start 
 unless it be the greater stimulus of a more favorable 
 environment ? 
 
 '"Modern "man has reduced nature to the grade of 
 mere instrumentality. "Ancient" man bowed in fear 
 before the various aspects of nature, worshiping them 
 as gods. But by " ancient " man we who use the term 
 commonly mean the "primitive " men who were our own 
 forefathers. On the other hand, the " ancient " men of 
 
 *" Science of Language," II., 122. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSEKVATION. 285 
 
 other races seem to have scarcely emerged even yet from 
 their "primitive" condition. From which it would seem 
 to be easy to account for the otherwise startling simian 
 marks which some of the races still exhibit. It may also 
 be remarked, finally, that upon the hypothesis here indi- 
 cated it would seem that Malthus failed to seize the true, 
 perspective of history. The multiplicity of ancestry, 
 the fact that the higher the type of organism the less 
 prolific its members, the further fact that Nature's pro- 
 ductivity in vegetation is largely in direct ratio of the 
 degree of man's intelligence in cultivating the soil all 
 this seems to indicate that the " Malthusian law " is a 
 vanishing aspect of history and not a permanent phase.* 
 
 * Compare Mr. Spencer's "Principles of Biology," concluding chapter. 
 
CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 CULMINATION OF THE LIFE-PROCESS IN A LIVING UNIT 
 WHICH IS CHARACTERIZED BY REFLECTIVE CON- 
 SCIOUSNESS. 
 
 N the last chapter we considered some of the leading 
 aspects of the doctrine of Evolution with reference 
 to continuity of development in life-forms, and found 
 that this doctrine in its larger outlines presents nothing 
 to which reasonable objection can be urged, even when 
 it includes the doctrine of the descent of man from 
 lower orders of organisms. We have now finally to con- 
 sider briefly what may reasonably be regarded as the 
 culminating aspect of the life of Man, in whom the life- 
 forms of the world culminate. 
 
 We have seen that in the physically constituted living 
 unit externality predominates, and that thus its dissolu- 
 tion sooner or later is inevitable. While, therefore, the 
 life-process exhibits or is characterized by universality, 
 yet that universality is by no means ultimate. In itself 
 it has no genuine vitality. It is only when considered 
 as a phase of the absolute universality of the World- 
 Energy itself, that the universality involved in any 
 special process presents its truth as an actual, concrete, 
 working principle. 
 
 And to thus consider each specialized phase of uni- 
 versality is but to follow the obvious demand of reason. 
 
 286 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 287 
 
 For any special fact or phase of the world can be truly 
 comprehended only when viewed in its relations. And 
 the wider the range of relations included in the view, the 
 more adequate the judgment formed of the fact or phase 
 of existence upon which the view is directed. And thus 
 again do we reach a conclusion already indicated in the 
 progress of this inquiry: That each special fact or phase 
 of existence is itself, thus far, the manifestation of the 
 universality involved in the World-Energy. So that each 
 and every fact or phase of existence thus presents the 
 characteristic of universality in its very nature. It is, 
 indeed, only through its possessing such degree of uni- 
 versality that it can so much as exist at all. 
 
 But the point of supreme significance here is that at 
 the stage we have now reached the phase of universality 
 everywhere appears as characterized by explicit sub- 
 jectivity. The Universal is the Soul of things. But it is 
 to be observed further that, as already proven, the ulti- 
 mate truth of subjectivity is shown in its unfolding itself 
 as an absolute process of self -objectifi cation ; that is, once 
 more, in a process of self-particularization. Whence its 
 infinitely varied discrete forms are characterized by 
 measureless elasticity and that aspect of concrete con- 
 tinuity by which such forms undergo transmutation, the 
 one into the other. There is no absolute line of separa- 
 tion between individual fact and individual fact, between 
 species and species, nor even between the physical and 
 the spiritual aspects of existence. The physical would 
 have no meaning, or rather it could have no existence, 
 apart from the spiritual; just as, on the other hand, the 
 spiritual, in its character of spontaneity as concrete 
 process of self-realization, necessarily develops, along 
 
288 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 with its other phases, the less adequate ones constituting 
 the external, physical world. 
 
 All possible forms and modes of existence, then, are 
 but so many phases of the self-objectification of the one 
 absolutely self-complete Subject. 
 
 But the complete self-objectification of the World- 
 Energy as subject necessarily involves precisely this: 
 That the highest or most adequate phase of self-objec- 
 tification, shall itself as object still bear the character of 
 a subject. The objective itself must develop to subjec- 
 tivity and become reflective consciousness and contem- 
 plative knowing. The created must itself take on the 
 character of the creative. The external must become 
 once more explicitly internal. 
 
 Now it is toward this very end that the successive 
 phases of the unfolding of the objective world thus far 
 considered have been seen to tend. Even centrality 
 implies some slight degree of vague subjectivity. In 
 affinity the phase of internality is more definitely devel- 
 oped; while in the life-process there are presented all the 
 phases of spontaneity from the automatic process of 
 selection and assimilation in the protozoan to the complex 
 preferences and voluntary movements of the most highly 
 developed organisms. Here as elsewhere the principle 
 of continuity remains unbroken. The widely extended 
 variations in degree constitute no exception to the law. 
 
 The striking fact is that throughout the series there is 
 more and more complete blending of the inner and the 
 outer in the given object the object itself being " given" 
 as we have seen, through the entering of the inner. 
 
 And now, more precisely, the "inner" is the uni- 
 versal, the pervasive, the spontaneous. As universal and 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 289 
 
 pervasive, it possesses absolute,, indestructible self -con- 
 tinuity. As spontaneous, it is self-realizing process. 
 
 But, as already so often repeated, its self-realization 
 is nothing more nor less than its self -specialization, its 
 self -differentiation. It is thus precisely that the uni- 
 versal assumes particularity and exhibits this as the 
 necessary mode of its own self-realization. 
 
 At the same time, this blending of the universal with 
 the particular, or rather, this unfolding of the universal 
 in the particular, gives rise to definite realized existences 
 which, as such, present the characteristic of individ- 
 uality. Such individuality, however, is a self -contradic- 
 tory one so long as the universal and the particular are 
 imperfectly fused therein. For just so long is the indi- 
 vidual pervaded by externality; or more precisely, it 
 thus far fails to attain to genuine, self-sufficing, domi- 
 nating subjectivity or spontaneity. It is, therefore des- 
 tined to undergo dissolution and thus proves to be a 
 divisible individual. 
 
 The individuality thus far examined, then, proves to 
 be an illusory one. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is evident that the elements of genuine 
 individuality have already presented themselves, even 
 though they have not yet been shown in such relation 
 as to remove all doubt of the actual realization of such 
 genuine individuality as a phase of the created world. 
 
 It is this which constitutes the one remaining point 
 of our inquiry. 
 
 What conditions, if any, are there tending toward and 
 rendering certain and necessary the actual realization of 
 genuine individuals indivisible, spontaneous units 
 in that aspect of the world known as creation? The 
 
290 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 simplest (and complementary) factors in the process of 
 creation, as we have seen, are universality and partic- 
 ularity. 
 
 We have now to note and emphasize the fact that it is 
 the complete fusion of these factors in a self-renewing 
 process that must constitute genuine,, concrete individ- 
 uality. This, too, we have already seen to be the vital 
 characteristic of the World-Energy itself, considered as 
 Spirit. That is, genuine individuality is an essentially 
 spiritual characteristic. The genuine, adequate concep- 
 tion of an individual is that of a spiritual, self-conscious, 
 self-active unit. An individual is a subject which un- 
 folds itself as object. It is, then, legitimate, as well as 
 of utmost interest to ourselves to inquire whether there 
 is, as many have actually believed, but one genuine, 
 abiding individual? whether all "other" individualities, 
 including the human, are in fact only relative, vanish- 
 ing, illusory forms or modes of the One ? 
 
 We have seen that the World-Energy, as Spirit, is its 
 own end its own final purpose. Consistently with this, 
 too, we have seen that its total activity is a process in 
 which the subjective forever unfolds into the object- 
 ive. Nor is this the whole truth. Rather it so develops 
 the objective aspect of its own existence that through 
 and in this objective aspect the subjective comes ever 
 into greater and greater prominence so that the par- 
 ticularized object, as such, proves to be dominated 
 by, and with increasing degree to express, a specialized 
 phase of subjectivity. The specialized object, let us 
 repeat, is, in its specific character of specialized object, 
 itself but an outerance or manifestation of the absolute 
 Subject. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 291 
 
 But the more complex and adequate this particular 
 manifestation of the absolute Subject, only so much the 
 more must such manifestation itself bear the character 
 of subjectivity and ultimately suffice as a distinct, 
 independent subject. 
 
 It would seem,, then, that the World-Energy as Spirit 
 not only objectifies itself in the forms of existence per- 
 taining to the space-world, but that it also differentiates 
 itself as spiritual essence. In the first place, indeed, the 
 latter underlies the former. But also, in its more ade- 
 quate phase of self-objectification, it must approximate 
 ever toward the development of actual, independent 
 spiritual units, or true individuals. 
 
 Nor can the subjectivity or spirituality of the World- 
 Energy itself completely realize itself save through per- 
 fectly fusing the inner and the outer in the units arising 
 through the highest phases of its activity. Not merely 
 must it blend these phases in general in its own single 
 Individuality. It must also develop itself in its own 
 differentiated phases up to the point of the fusion of 
 universality and particularity in the highest type of these 
 differentiated phases. Not otherwise, indeed, could 
 creation be really conceived as complete. Thus the 
 highest type of existence in the created world is seen to 
 be at once the culmination of the whole process through 
 which particular forms of existence arise, and also the 
 development through that process of actually realized 
 genuine individuals, as the fused unities of universality 
 and particularity necessarily arising through the eternal 
 seli-differentiation of the World-Energy as Spirit. 
 
 Thus the universal, absolute Subjectivity or sponta- 
 neous creative Power, self-specialized in the forms of 
 
292 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 individual subjects, proves to be also in that very fact a 
 definitely constituted object of the most complex type; 
 while at the same time the special object thus developed 
 to subjectivity is able as subject to regard the World-Pro- 
 cess itself as object. In other words, the self-objectifying 
 of the World-Energy, or absolute, self-realizing Subject, 
 attains actual completeness only in the development in 
 the objective world of a specialized unit, in which uni- 
 versality and particularity are completely blended, in 
 which the objective and the subjective are completely 
 interfused. 
 
 Thus constituted the unit not only exhibits subject- 
 ivity as its dominant characteristic, but also exhibits it 
 developed to genuine spontaneity. Whence the unit 
 shows itself to be already an actually unfolded individual, 
 possessing in more or less highly developed form all 
 the fundamental characteristics of the absolute divine 
 Individual. 
 
 In its fundamental nature this finite individual is, 
 then, a genuine subject or concrete thinking agency; and 
 as such it proves to be in its type the absolute culmination 
 of the created world. For it is true subject; and yet in 
 that very fact it is already the highest possible form of 
 object which the absolute, divine Subject can put forth 
 from itself. For it is, in its true or ideal nature, one with 
 the divine Subject. 
 
 And this it further proves itself to be in the fact that 
 it makes itself its own object; while, at the same time, as 
 subject or thinking agency, it also opposes itself to 
 (that is, contrasts itself with) the absolute divine Subject 
 which, as such, now bears the character of absolute 
 Object to the created subject. 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 293 
 
 Thus the absolute spontaneity of the divine Spirit is 
 seen to return to itself in the culmination of its own 
 creative process of self-objectification. And this re- 
 turn again is but one aspect of the total process. For 
 the created subject must again, as spontaneous energy, 
 unfold itself into realized objectivity which it does in 
 all its creations, economic, social, civil, religious, artistic, 
 scientific. 
 
 It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that man, as an 
 individual and also as a type in creation, is a manifes- 
 tation of Thought, which is primarily not his own indi- 
 vidual thought. Nor is he alone or unique in this 
 respect. Every other animal nay, every crystal and 
 every atom is also in its own degree a manifestation of 
 the same Thought that is, of the creative Thought 
 constituting the very Substance of the Universe. Every 
 man, animal, crystal, atom, is a particular form of 
 existence. And yet each is universal in the fact that it is 
 an embodiment or realization of a type, and as such pre- 
 sents the essential or universal characteristics of that 
 type. But these essential or universal characteristics 
 can exist as such only in and as thought. Each is, in 
 short, just one specialized phase of the perfect Thought 
 constituting the Method of the World-Energy. On the 
 other hand, the well-nigh immeasurable superiority of 
 man to these other manifestations of the perfect Thought 
 consists in the fact that man is something more than a 
 mere "manifestation" or outer form of Thought. He 
 is, besides this, nothing less than the progressive repro- 
 duction of the very Thought-Process whose one perfect 
 expression is the whole, eternal Creation. That is, man 
 is able progressively to make that universal, perfect 
 
294 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Thought his own individual thought. Or, in other 
 words, the "environment" of Man the thinker is pre- 
 cisely the Process of Creation seen as the actualized 
 world of Reason or Thought. So that the real or true 
 life of Man is the continuous adjustment of the internal 
 relations consisting of his own individual thought-process 
 to that total round of "external" relations consisting of 
 the perfect Thought-Process unfolded in the divine 
 World-Energy. And this is "external" to man only in 
 so far as it remains unrealized in man. 
 
 Thus the descent of man must be considered from two 
 points of view which at first sight seem to exclude each 
 other. He is an animal and he is also a thinker, by 
 which latter fact he is not only contrasted with, but, it 
 would seem, separated by an impassable gulf from, all 
 other animals, and even from himself as an animal. And 
 yet, as we have seen, all animals, along with all other 
 realities in the Universe, are also manifestations of 
 Thought and owe their very existence to this fact. Nor 
 is this all. On the contrary, the classification of animals, 
 which, not so long since, was based largely upon the 
 external characteristics of form and color, has gradually 
 come to be based upon the internal characteristics of 
 structure and function. It is not a little significant, too, 
 that in this new method of classification the nervous 
 system, as the more immediate external measure of the 
 inmost function of consciousness, has come to be re- 
 garded as the final test of superiority in the comparison 
 of animal types. Measured by this test, Man simply 
 stands at the head of the whole series of forms of the 
 animal kingdom. For this series of forms presents a 
 scale of consciousness grading upward by scarcely per- 
 
AND ITS SELF- CONSERVATION. 295 
 
 ceptible differences, from the amoeba to that unit of the 
 organic world which is marked off from all the rest by 
 his power of comparing, of judging, of thinking, of 
 measuring all things by himself as the standard by his 
 power of ^//"-consciousness, which may be described as 
 consciousness raised, if not to the actual power whose 
 exponent is infinity, at least to infinite potentiality. In 
 short, Mind in its infinite nature, is the ultimate function 
 of whatever can be called Matter. Or, more precisely, 
 Mind unfolds itself into Matter as its own spontaneously 
 produced organic expression. The continuity of Matter 
 has its truth in the continuity of Mind as the original, 
 creative Fact, Deed, Activity, or Actuality. 
 
 Evidently, then, the descent of man from successively 
 lower and lower orders of animals, which themselves con- 
 stitute a minutely graded series of thought-forms, and 
 even of thought-functions, is, after all, nothing else than 
 his ascent or evolution in the scale of godhood. And 
 always it is to be remembered that the descent of man 
 cannot possibly have been from animals, merely as ani- 
 mals, merely as physical, or material, or brute natures 
 (allowing that such " natures " were thinkable). On the 
 contrary, every step, every factor in this ascending scale 
 of his evolution is possible for man only because each step 
 and each factor is expressive simply of the method by 
 which Man, the Son, is born of God, the Father. Just 
 as Life can come only from the living, though it may be 
 through units which are in themselves not-living; so Man 
 the thinker can come only from God the Thinker, though 
 it may be through a marvelous series of complex, more 
 or less conscious forms, which in and of themselves can- 
 not be said to think. 
 
296 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 Doubtless Man was made of the dust of the earth, 
 and, still more remotely, of cosmic dust. But the process 
 of his development is nothing less than the process of 
 Reason by which the concurrence of elements has tended 
 unfalteringly toward ever greater complexity of relation, 
 until at length there arose a unit which, though it could 
 not be said to think, yet was itself a marvelous embodi- 
 ment of Thought, and which, by further advance, grew 
 into that degree of complexity of relations which may be 
 termed self-relation a characteristic better known under 
 the name of self-consciousness, which is, in fact, the 
 highest term of centrality, and without which the word 
 centrality itself would be altogether meaningless; nay, 
 without which all words and all things were impossible. 
 
 It would seem, then, that Darwin and his associates 
 have only indicated to us in rough outline the more con- 
 spicuous physical aspects of the mode or method by which 
 Man, the progressively unfolding thinker, has descended 
 from the eternally perfect, creative Thinker. The inter- 
 mediate links may very likety be: savage, primate, worm, 
 protoplasmic pulp, nebula; but these are in reality only 
 roots that still have their origin in and draw their sole 
 nutriment from the primal World-Energy. This is the 
 real secret of their incessantly struggling upward through 
 darkness and time into more and more complex forms of 
 Reason, to emerge at length into the light of Eternity, 
 which for every man is but the ever increasingly clear 
 consciousness of his own identity in nature with the 
 primal Thinker, of whose Thought the whole Universe 
 is but the outer, organic form. 
 
 And yet this ideal identity in nature of the created 
 thinker with the divine Thinker can be realized only 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 297 
 
 through progressive stages in time. Only thus can the 
 created thinker or subject unfold into realized, objective 
 existence, through a spontaneous process which, as 
 essentially the self-objectification of ideally true sub- 
 jectivity, is in its nature one with the eternal Process 
 which constitutes the concrete truth and vitality of the 
 divine Subject. 
 
 Following any other way the finite subject must fail of 
 self-realization. Following this and no other way, the 
 finite subject learns that in so doing it is but obeying the 
 law of its own nature; for this law is the law of absolute 
 Reason the absolute, unchangeable law inherent in the 
 true nature of every thinking agency. 
 
 But thus it realizes its own freedom. For freedom 
 consists in conscious obedience to the law - of Reason, 
 whereby alone self-realization is attainable.* It is evident 
 at the same time that freedom can belong only to a think- 
 ing unit, to a genuine individual, to whom, and to none 
 other, is conscious obedience possible. 
 
 But not only does the finite subject prove to be in its 
 nature capable of attaining to genuine, concrete freedom; 
 but another infinitely significant inference is warranted 
 from the fact of its identity in nature with the divine 
 Subject. In that fact lies the assurance that the finite 
 subject possesses an infinite destiny. 
 
 It bears within itself, indeed, the most extraordinary 
 contradiction. It is created, and therefore finite. At 
 the same time it is a subject of identical nature with the 
 absolute, divine Subject, and is therefore infinite. Its 
 
 * Here, indeed, in this conscious, glad obedience to the law of Reason, we 
 have the clue to the highest significance of that ultimate equilibration of 
 which Mr. Spencer (" First Principles,' 1 ' 1 ch. xxii,) writes so suggestively, and 
 yet, in the outcome, as it seems to me, so unsatisfactorily. 
 
298 THE WORLD-ENERGY 
 
 finitude, however, is on the side of its present realization, 
 while its infinitude is on the side of its ideal that is, its 
 typical nature. 
 
 It has, therefore, an infinite ideal to fulfil; and yet 
 must fulfil that ideal through a process the steps of which 
 are involved in succession. Whence it appears that it 
 can never absolutely, exhaustively fulfil its destiny; 
 though at every stage in its approximation toward the 
 fulfilment of that destiny, its vigor as a self-identical, 
 vital unit must be by so much enhanced. 
 
 We may fairly conclude, therefore, that there can be 
 no period in the self -consistent existence of the subject or 
 spiritual unit in which the tendency toward dissolution 
 can so much as balance, much less predominate over, the 
 tendency toward increase of vigor involving its assured 
 permanence as precisely the . self-same, self-identical 
 spiritual unit whose free, self-consistent activity neces- 
 sarily tends ever toward its own perfection. 
 
 Thus the created subject proves to be in its very nature 
 a genuine individual, an indivisible, immortal, self-com- 
 pleting ideal totality. It is characterized by substantial 
 universality, and hence possesses genuine continuity. Its 
 perpetuated existence, then, is one in which its self- 
 identity could not be lost. 
 
 On the other hand, as a vital, concrete universal, it 
 must persistently prove itself an active unit, a unit which, 
 through its own spontaneous activity, unfolds itself into 
 continuously multiplied complexity of specialization. 
 
 As universal it particularizes itself. As possessing 
 genuine continuity it spontaneously develops itself into 
 ever more manifold discrete modes. As self-special- 
 izing universal it is, once more, a divinely constituted 
 
AND ITS SELF-CONSERVATION. 299 
 
 individual possessing an infinite destiny. It is lord of 
 time and heir of Eternity. 
 
 The World-Energy is God. Its self -conservation is the 
 eternal process of Creation. "Evolution" is the temporal 
 aspect of this process. The self-unfolding of God culmi- 
 nates in man. For man is the Son of God. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Action, at a distance, explanation 
 of, 152; chemical, 184; and re- 
 action, 108, 196. 
 
 Actual, the, the total round of 
 possibilities is, 118. 
 
 Affinity, chemical and its devel- 
 opment, 250; higher aspects of, 
 251, 257. 
 
 Affirmation involves negation, 
 *. e., differentiation, 237. 
 
 Agassiz, 276 ; misinterpretation of 
 Darwinism, 279. 
 
 Agnosticism, 266. 
 
 Aristotle, 210 ; on law of contra- 
 diction, 25, 116; categories of, 
 ' 105; doctrine of substance, 117. 
 
 Aryan race, 283. 
 
 Atom, 58, 151 ; definition of, giv- 
 en by science, 59 ; as force-cen- 
 ter, 66, 144; as a phase of the 
 physical universe, 67. 
 
 Atomic theory, 58, 92. 
 
 Attraction, 49. 
 
 Attraction and repulsion, as com- 
 plementary modes of energy, 
 52; the initial qualitative dif- 
 ferences constituting the reality 
 of matter, 89; unity of, under 
 the form of electricity, 191. 
 
 Attributes, of substance, 107; 
 Spinoza's definition of, 105. 
 
 B. 
 
 Baer, von, 276. 
 
 Becoming, 116. 
 
 Being and non-being, 115. 
 
 Biogenesis, 259. 
 
 "Bodies," discrete phases of 
 
 force, 140. 
 Brahm, 223. 
 
 c. 
 
 Categories of Aristotle, 105. 
 Cause, doctrine of, 207; final, as 
 
 method, 254; four phases of, 
 210. 
 
 Cause and effect, reciprocal as- 
 pects in every event, 209. 
 
 Centrality, 246, 249, 256; in kind, 
 contrasted with c. in space, 280; 
 highest term of, 296. 
 
 Certitude, absolute test of, 29; 
 Descartes on, 20. 
 
 Change, possible only through 
 impressed force, 146; meaning 
 of, 28, 213. 
 
 Chemistry, a form of applied 
 mathematics, 91; an aspect of 
 physics, 186. 
 
 Conception, how inducive of 
 thought, 19, note; implies per- 
 ception, 18; a seizure of rela- 
 tions, 16. 
 
 Consciousness, function of, 3 ; in- 
 dividual, 5, 19; power of, not 
 creative, but transforming, 3, 
 5; ultimate range of, 5-7; de- 
 gree of, measured in nervous 
 system, 294. 
 
 Conservation of Energy, 199, 202. 
 
 Continuity, principle of, 276, 288; 
 and discreteness of quantity in 
 matter, 83. 
 
 Contradiction, law of, an ad- 
 vanced phase of law of consist- 
 ency, 25; as stated by Aris- 
 totle, 25; true significance of, 
 27. 
 
 Creation, the one eternal fact, 253. 
 
 Creator and creation, 215. 
 
 Crystallization, 181. 
 
 . 
 
 Dalton, 92. 
 
 Darwin, Charles, 268, 270. 
 
 Definite proportions, Dalton'slaw 
 
 of, 92. 
 Death, 262. 
 
 300 
 
INDEX. 
 
 301 
 
 Democritus, theory of, 58, 60. 
 
 Descartes, on the ultimate ground 
 of certitude, 20; on creation 
 and preservation, 253. 
 
 Descent, doctrine of, what it real- 
 ly is, 278. 
 
 Discoverers, typical, 228. 
 
 Discoveries, definition of, 227. 
 
 Discrete, the, implies the con- 
 tinuous, 83, 261. 
 
 Divine, early form of conception 
 of the, as Unity, 222. 
 
 JE. 
 
 Elasticity, defined as interfusion 
 of attraction and repulsion, 193. 
 
 Electricity, 95, 191; and mag- 
 netism, 187. 
 
 Elements, chemical, 75; special- 
 ized conditions of homogeneous 
 "matter," 77, 185. 
 
 Ellipse, 176. 
 
 Emanation and absorption, 152, 
 236. 
 
 Energy, absolute unity of, 202; 
 Aristotle's definition of as abso- 
 lute Divine Spirit, 148; as ade- 
 quate cause of motion, 143; as 
 an all-inclusive process, 108; 
 conservation of, 196; conserva- 
 tion of, doctrine of, 199; Her- 
 bert Spencer on conservation 
 of, 202; first law of thought 
 implies the conservation of, 24 ; 
 differentiation of, 205; dissipa- 
 tion of, a phase in a wider pro- 
 cess, 198-9; self-conserved, 214; 
 kinetic, 168: the substance of 
 all reality, 204; totality of, al- 
 ways in equilibrium, 200; sig- 
 nificant change in use of term, 
 148. 
 
 " Environment," 271, 275, 294. 
 
 Equilibrium, of the total, 143 ; of 
 energy, an eternally accom- 
 plished fact, 241; various as- 
 pects of, 104, 143, 199, 222, 
 238, 297, note. 
 
 Ether, 73, 91. 
 
 Evolution, doctrine of, first pre- 
 sented in metaphysical form, 
 
 120; and involution, 252; Her- 
 bert Spencer on, 265; method 
 of, 272; of life forms, 255; phi- 
 losophy, 232. 
 
 Excluded middle, law of, 28. 
 
 Experience, limit of, 5 ; is realiza- 
 tion of knowledge, 23. 
 
 Experiment, must begin in 
 thought, 119. 
 
 F. 
 
 Fact, the one changeless, is 
 the infinitely complex fact of 
 change, 247; true significance 
 of, 228; creation, the one eter- 
 nal, 253. 
 
 " Fact," in part the creation of 
 consciousness, 4. 
 
 Fac,ts, dependent upon theory for 
 their value, 2 ; intelligible only 
 on interpretation, 2. 
 
 Falling bodies, laws of, 163. 
 
 Finite, the, phase of the infinite, 
 100. 
 
 Force, centrifugal, 174; exerted 
 only in opposing force, 62; 
 manifestation of dual, 180; is 
 force only through action, 143; 
 persistence of, Herbert Spencer 
 on, 149; motion as a realized 
 form of, 167; the "active" 
 phase of the world, 62; sole 
 reality of matter, 64. 
 
 Forces, 'chemical, identity of with 
 other natural forces, 186; cor- 
 relation of, 196. 
 
 Force-centre (atom), focus of 
 an indefinitely extended force- 
 sphere, 144. 
 
 Freedom and necessity, 238. 
 
 o. 
 
 Generation, spontaneous, 260. 
 
 God, the only reality, 241 ; Chris- 
 tian conception of, 224. 
 
 Gravitation, dependent upon 
 quantity, not quality, of mat- 
 ter, 155; law of, 145, 150. 
 
 Gravity, center of, 50 ; a necessa- 
 ry aspect or mode of things, 
 158, 172. 
 
302 
 
 I^DEX. 
 
 H. 
 
 Haeckel, Ernest, 268. 
 
 Heat, 181; a mode of matter, 183. 
 
 Hegel, as an organizer of science, 
 29, 118, 231; " NaturpWoso- 
 phie," 233. 
 
 Heraclitus, doctrine of, 109, 115, 
 118. 
 
 Hindu conception of creation, 223. 
 
 Human race, origin of, theories 
 of Agassiz and Darwin, recon- 
 ciliation of, 282. 
 
 Hypotheses, what are acceptable, 
 227. 
 
 I. 
 
 Idealism, various aspects of, 31. 
 
 Identity, absolute, includes all 
 differences, 28 ; law of, 24 ; ex- 
 cludes change from existence as 
 a whole, 27. 
 
 Individual, the World-Energy as 
 an all-inclusive, 236; the cre- 
 ated, 298. 
 
 Individuality, 248, 289. 
 
 Inertia, law of, 133. 
 
 Infinite, the, in relation to finite, 
 100; as an object of thought, 
 224; true, 237. 
 
 Intelligence, individual, limit of 
 possible development of, 7; uni- 
 versal type of, 6, 252. 
 
 Internal and external, 108, 239, 
 245, 251, 256, 259, 288. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kant, on space, empirical and 
 absolute, 11, 111; on concep- 
 tions and perceptions, 18; on 
 value of universal logic, 120. 
 
 Knowledge, coincident with ex- 
 perience, 23 ; objective and sub- 
 jective in its nature, 30 ; of rela- 
 tions and " relative " k., 98, 126. 
 
 Known and unknown, funda- 
 mentally related through the 
 transforming power of mind, 6. 
 
 Law of multiple proportions, 93. 
 Laws of thought, 24; as laws of 
 things, 241 ; necessary, 29. 
 
 Life, attempts to artificially pro- 
 duce, 266; origin of, in and 
 through the World -Energy, 
 259, 271; H. Spencer's defini- 
 tion of, 275. 
 
 Life-forms, evolution of, 255. 
 
 Life-process, the fusion of the 
 internal and the external, 258 ; 
 culmination of, in man, 286. 
 
 Light, 191 ; as a subjective crea- 
 tion, 193. 
 
 Living unit and its environment, 
 271, 275, 294. 
 
 Lockyer, J. Norman, 77. 
 
 Logic, formal, 231; universal, 
 Kant on, 120; of Hegel, 232; 
 of events, 231. 
 
 Logos, the, 272. 
 
 M. 
 
 Magnet, action of, 153. 
 
 Magnetism, 187. 
 
 Malthus, 285. 
 
 Man, descent of, 278, 295; devel- 
 opment of, as a process of 
 reason, 296; modern and an- 
 cient, 284; the Son of God, 299. 
 
 Many, the, as aspect of the "to- 
 tal," complementary to the 
 1 'one," 17, 82, 220, 235. 
 
 Matter, 40; continuous, but also 
 discrete, 83; extensive and in- 
 tensive phases of quantity in, 
 86; G. H. Lewes' definition of, 
 63; infinite divisibility of, 84; 
 actual infinite division of, 152; 
 organic and inorganic, 268; 
 penetrability of, 68; properties 
 of, 55 ; quantitative relations in, 
 80; total volume of unlimited, 
 47 ; consists primarily of attrac- 
 tion and repulsion, 73. 
 
 Maxims, abridged statement of 
 theories, 1. 
 
 Maxwell, Clerk, on matter and 
 motion, 125. 
 
 Measure, a comparison with a 
 fixed standard, 97. 
 
 Measurable, a phase of the meas- 
 ureless, 100. 
 
 Mind, active, as well as passive, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 303 
 
 3; a function of matter, 295; 
 
 identity of with the world, 7. 
 Molecular and mechanical energy, 
 
 identity in kind of, 189. 
 Momentum, 157, 161. 
 Motion, curvilinear, 170; energy 
 
 as adequate cause of, 143 ; laws 
 
 of, 131; molecular, 178; nature 
 
 of, 122; possibility of, 109; 
 
 relativity of, 123. 
 
 BF 
 
 Nature, the organic aspect of 
 thought, 267; the "outer," as 
 distinguished from thought the 
 "inner," 37. 
 
 Necessity and freedom, 238. 
 
 Negative, equivalent to affirma- 
 tive, 235, 237. 
 
 Noumenon and phenomenon, 53. 
 
 Number, infinite, has no mean- 
 ing, 114. 
 
 Numbers, powers of, 101. 
 
 o. 
 
 Object and subject, as phases of 
 the universe, 38, 239, 288. 
 
 Object (matter), presented to con- 
 sciousness as resistance, 40. 
 
 "One," the, an aspect of the 
 "total," complementary to 
 "the many," 17, 82, 220, 235. 
 
 Order, logical and chronological, 
 221, 243, 281. 
 
 Origin, 265 ; of species, 273 ; con- 
 tinuous aspect of, 280. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pantheism, 253. 
 
 Parallelogram of forces, 138. 
 
 Parmenides, 109. 
 
 Perception, 8; implies concep- 
 tion, 17; the simplest, a com- 
 plex fact, 15. 
 
 Phenomenon and noumenon, 53. 
 
 Philosophy and science, no antag- 
 onism between, 233. 
 
 Physical, the, the initial phase of 
 the spiritual, 23. 
 
 Plato, 53, 215. 
 
 Potentiality, in relation to poten- 
 cy, 221, 242, 250. 
 
 Process, the, of the world, 253. 
 
 Qualitative difference, 88; deter- 
 mined by variations of intensive 
 quantity, 88, 94. 
 
 Quality and quantity, different 
 aspects of the same sum of facts 
 in the universe, 89; real only as 
 attributes of substance, 105, 
 106; the intensive phase of 
 matter, 185. 
 
 Quantity, extensive and intensive 
 in matter, 86, 97; varying rela- 
 tions between, determine quali- 
 tative differences in matter, 94; 
 continuity and discreteness of, 
 in matter, 83, 120. 
 
 R. 
 
 Reality, ultimate, 54. 
 
 Reason, absolute, 240. 
 
 Receptivity, another name for re- 
 action, 107. 
 
 Relations, logical and chronolog- 
 ical order of , 221, 243,281. 
 
 Relativity of knowledge, 21, 98, 
 126. 
 
 Repulsion, 40; attraction and, 52; 
 a relation of reciprocal action, 
 43; a form of attraction, 48. 
 
 Revelation, an eternally accom- 
 plished fact, 229; in what sense 
 progressive, 230. 
 
 s. 
 
 Sensation as primary phase of 
 consciousness, 7. 
 
 Science, exact, must keep within 
 the limits of measure, 99; and 
 philosophy, no antagonism be- 
 tween, 233; mathematical, pur- 
 pose of, 99. 
 
 Self -consistency, law of, 22. 
 
 Self -consciousness, primary unity 
 of, 19; unity of, the condition 
 of all knowledge, 20 ; of World- 
 Energy, 226, 234, 240. 
 
 Sound, 191; as subjective crea- 
 tion, 193. 
 
 Space, 8; a condition of sensa- 
 tion, 9; fourth dimension of, 
 
304 
 
 I^DEX. 
 
 102; movable, 111; infinite, 
 125; its unreality, 122, 127; 
 negation of, 13, note. 
 
 Species, origin of, 273; variable, 
 275. 
 
 Spectrum analysis, 75. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, 268; on abso- 
 lute being, 54; definition of 
 life, 275. 
 
 Sphericity, 249. 
 
 Spinoza, 105, 120. 
 
 Spirit, as self -realizing method 
 equal to the World-Energy, 234 ; 
 as self-externalizing internali- 
 ty, 239; modes of activity of, 
 independent of space relations, 
 244. 
 
 Spontaneity of World-Energy, 
 143, 149, 226, 229, 251, 292. 
 
 Stewart, Balfour, 198. 
 
 Subject and object, as phases of 
 the universe, 38, 245, 288. 
 
 Subject, finite, identity of, in its 
 true nature, with divine sub- 
 ject, 292, 297. 
 
 Substance, as defined by Spinoza, 
 105; by Aristotle, 106. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tension, electric, analogy of, to 
 that of Prince Rupert's drop, 
 188 ; varying degrees of, result- 
 ing in qualities, 102. 
 
 Theory, 2, 228. 
 
 Thinking, distinguished from im- 
 agining, 260, note. 
 
 " Things" in relation to thought, 
 29, 271. 
 
 Thought, as the substance of the 
 universe, 293; central truth 
 and essence of the world, 226 ; 
 human, struggle for self-devel- 
 opment of, 228; "inner,"' as 
 distinguished from nature, 
 which is the "outer," 37; laws 
 of, .24; formulated as the laws 
 of things, 29; and justly so, 
 241 ; as such necessarily ab- 
 stract, but also necessarily self- 
 affirming, 234; system of, is the 
 system of the world, 230. 
 
 Time, a condition of sensation, 
 13; essential element of motion, 
 159 ; real only as form of 
 change, 265. 
 
 Totality of world a self -related 
 totality, 147. 
 
 Truth, how attained, 39 ; the cor- 
 rect interpretation of fact, 2. 
 
 Types, organic, invariable, 276. 
 
 U. 
 
 Unity, abstract and concrete, 
 phases of, 101. 
 
 Universality, particularity and in- 
 dividuality, 221, 236, 248, 287. 
 
 Unknowable, 6, 100, 230. 
 
 w. 
 
 Weight, an accident of matter, 72. 
 
 World, the, as a self-related total- 
 ity, 147; identity of, with 
 mind, 7; sum total of Energy, 
 194; the only possible, to be 
 known, 6, 7; no "material" 
 apart from the spiritual, 241. 
 
 World-Energy, and the process 
 of its unfolding, 205; as abso- 
 lute spirit, 237, 260; -as abso- 
 lute vitality, 259; as absolute 
 process of Reason, 238; as know- 
 ing subject and known object, 
 226; as method, 272; as self- 
 objectifying subject, 239, 288; 
 as self-realizing Reason or as 
 will, 238, 240; as spirit, 218; 
 as system, 226; as the expres- 
 sion of necessity, 238 ; bears the 
 aspect of absolute potentiality, 
 220; characterized by univer- 
 sality, particularity and indi- 
 viduality, 221; manifestations 
 of, as spirit, 242; unity of, 219; 
 self-differentiation of, 104, 205, 
 220, 235, 244, 289. 
 z. 
 
 Zeno, 109; paradox of, 112. 
 
 Zero, absolute, 183; absolute of 
 temperature, 103; a point of 
 transition or of equilibrium, 
 104; in number, purely sub- 
 jective, 103. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 FEB 9 1935 
 W 
 
 IAY 2 2 '65 -1 PW 
 
 LD 21-100m-8,'34 
 
4- 4 tf/6 
 
 Q / 7 iT. 
 577 
 
 m 
 
 f 
 
 
 ." - - . 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY