(ear, eye or what not) as may be "tuned" to that effect. The apparent paradox of a distinctness like this surviving in the midst of compounding is a thing which, I fancy, the a.n.a.lyses made by physicists have by this time sufficiently cleared up.
But if, on the strength of these a.n.a.logies, one should ask: "Why, if two or more lines can run through one and the same geometrical point, or if two or more distinct processes of activity can run through one and the same physical thing so that it simultaneously plays a role in each and every process, might not two or more streams of personal consciousness include one and the same unit of experience so that it would simultaneously be a part of the experience of all the different minds?"
one would be checked by thinking of a certain peculiarity by which phenomena of consciousness differ from physical things.
While physical things, namely, are supposed to be permanent and to have their "states," a fact of consciousness exists but once and _is_ a state. Its _esse_ is _sentiri_; it is only so far as it is felt; and it is unambiguously and unequivocally exactly _what_ is felt. The hypothesis under consideration would, however, oblige it to be felt equivocally, felt now as part of my mind and again at the same time _not_ as a part of my mind, but of yours (for my mind is _not_ yours), and this would seem impossible without doubling it into two distinct things, or, in other words, without reverting to the ordinary dualistic philosophy of insulated minds each knowing its object representatively as a third thing,--and that would be to give up the pure-experience scheme altogether.
Can we see, then, any way in which a unit of pure experience might enter into and figure in two diverse streams of consciousness without turning itself into the two units which, on our hypothesis, it must not be?
II
There is a way; and the first step towards it is to see more precisely how the unit enters into either one of the streams of consciousness alone. Just what, from being "pure," does its becoming "conscious"
_once_ mean?
It means, first, that new experiences have supervened; and, second, that they have borne a certain a.s.signable relation to the unit supposed.
Continue, if you please, to speak of the pure unit as "the pen." So far as the pen"s successors do but repeat the pen or, being different from it, are "energetically"[70] related to it, it and they will form a group of stably existing physical things. So far, however, as its successors differ from it in another well-determined way, the pen will figure in their context, not as a physical, but as a mental fact. It will become a pa.s.sing "percept," _my_ percept of that pen. What now is that decisive well-determined way?
In the chapter on "The Self," in my _Principles of Psychology_, I explained the continuous ident.i.ty of each personal consciousness as a name for the practical fact that new experiences[71] come which look back on the old ones, find them "warm," and greet and appropriate them as "mine." These operations mean, when a.n.a.lyzed empirically, several tolerably definite things, viz.:
1. That the new experience has past time for its "content," and in that time a pen that "was";
2. That "warmth" was also about the pen, in the sense of a group of feelings ("interest" aroused, "attention" turned, "eyes" employed, etc.) that were closely connected with it and that now recur and evermore recur with unbroken vividness, though from the pen of now, which may be only an image, all such vividness may have gone;
3. That these feelings are the nucleus of "me";
4. That whatever once was a.s.sociated with them was, at least for that one moment, "mine"--my implement if a.s.sociated with hand-feelings, my "percept" only, if only eye-feelings and attention-feelings were involved.
The pen, realized in this retrospective way as my percept, thus figures as a fact of "conscious" life. But it does so only so far as "appropriation" has occurred; and appropriation is _part of the content of a later experience_ wholly additional to the originally "pure" pen.
_That_ pen, virtually both objective and subjective, is at its own moment actually and intrinsically neither. It has to be looked back upon and _used_, in order to be cla.s.sed in either distinctive way. But its use, so called, is in the hands of the other experience, while _it_ stands, throughout the operation, pa.s.sive and unchanged.
If this pa.s.s muster as an intelligible account of how an experience originally pure can enter into one consciousness, the next question is as to how it might conceivably enter into two.
III
Obviously no new kind of condition would have to be supplied. All that we should have to postulate would be a second subsequent experience, collateral and contemporary with the first subsequent one, in which a similar act of appropriation should occur. The two acts would interfere neither with one another nor with the originally pure pen. It would sleep undisturbed in its own past, no matter how many such successors went through their several appropriative acts. Each would know it as "my" percept, each would cla.s.s it as a "conscious" fact.
Nor need their so cla.s.sing it interfere in the least with their cla.s.sing it at the same time as a physical pen. Since the cla.s.sing in both cases depends upon the taking of it in one group or another of a.s.sociates, if the superseding experience were of wide enough "span" it could think the pen in both groups simultaneously, and yet distinguish the two groups.
It would then see the whole situation conformably to what we call "the representative theory of cognition," and that is what we all spontaneously do. As a man philosophizing "popularly," I believe that what I see myself writing with is double--I think it in its relations to physical nature, and also in its relations to my personal life; I see that it is in my mind, but that it also is a physical pen.
The paradox of the same experience figuring in two consciousnesses seems thus no paradox at all. To be "conscious" means not simply to be, but to be reported, known, to have awareness of one"s being added to that being; and this is just what happens when the appropriative experience supervenes. The pen-experience in its original immediacy is not aware of itself, it simply _is_, and the second experience is required for what we call awareness of it to occur.[72] The difficulty of understanding what happens here is, therefore, not a logical difficulty: there is no contradiction involved. It is an ontological difficulty rather.
Experiences come on an enormous scale, and if we take them all together, they come in a chaos of incommensurable relations that we can not straighten out. We have to abstract different groups of them, and handle these separately if we are to talk of them at all. But how the experiences ever _get themselves made_, or _why_ their characters and relations are just such as appear, we can not begin to understand.
Granting, however, that, by hook or crook, they _can_ get themselves made, and can appear in the successions that I have so schematically described, then we have to confess that even although (as I began by quoting from the adversary) "a feeling only is as it is felt," there is still nothing absurd in the notion of its being felt in two different ways at once, as yours, namely, and as mine. It is, indeed, "mine" only as it is felt as mine, and "yours" only as it is felt as yours. But it is felt as neither _by itself_, but only when "owned" by our two several remembering experiences, just as one undivided estate is owned by several heirs.
IV
One word, now, before I close, about the corollaries of the views set forth. Since the acquisition of conscious quality on the part of an experience depends upon a context coming to it, it follows that the sum total of all experiences, having no context, can not strictly be called conscious at all. It is a _that_, an Absolute, a "pure" experience on an enormous scale, undifferentiated and undifferentiable into thought and thing. This the post-Kantian idealists have always practically acknowledged by calling their doctrine an _Ident.i.tatsphilosophie_. The question of the _Beseelung_ of the All of things ought not, then, even to be asked. No more ought the question of its _truth_ to be asked, for truth is a relation inside of the sum total, obtaining between thoughts and something else, and thoughts, as we have seen, can only be contextual things. In these respects the pure experiences of our philosophy are, in themselves considered, so many little absolutes, the philosophy of pure experience being only a more comminuted _Ident.i.tatsphilosophie_.[73]
Meanwhile, a pure experience can be postulated with any amount whatever of span or field. If it exert the retrospective and appropriative function on any other piece of experience, the latter thereby enters into its own conscious stream. And in this operation time intervals make no essential difference. After sleeping, my retrospection is as perfect as it is between two successive waking moments of my time. Accordingly if, millions of years later, a similarly retrospective experience should anyhow come to birth, my present thought would form a genuine portion of its long-span conscious life. "Form a portion," I say, but not in the sense that the two things could be ent.i.tatively or substantively one--they cannot, for they are numerically discrete facts--but only in the sense that the _functions_ of my present thought, its knowledge, its purpose, its content and "consciousness," in short, being inherited, would be continued practically unchanged. Speculations like Fechner"s, of an Earth-soul, of wider spans of consciousness enveloping narrower ones throughout the cosmos, are, therefore, philosophically quite in order, provided they distinguish the functional from the ent.i.tative point of view, and do not treat the minor consciousness under discussion as a kind of standing material of which the wider ones _consist_.[74]
FOOTNOTES:
[68] [Reprinted from _The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, vol. II, No. 7, March 30, 1905.]
[69] "A World of Pure Experience," above, pp. 39-91.
[70] [For an explanation of this expression, see above, p. 32.]
[71] I call them "pa.s.sing thoughts" in the book--the pa.s.sage in point goes from pages 330 to 342 of vol. I.
[72] Shadworth Hodgson has laid great stress on the fact that the minimum of consciousness demands two subfeelings, of which the second retrospects the first. (Cf. the section "a.n.a.lysis of Minima" in his _Philosophy of Reflection_, vol. I, p. 248; also the chapter ent.i.tled "The Moment of Experience" in his _Metaphysic of Experience_, vol. I, p.
34.) "We live forward, but we understand backward" is a phrase of Kierkegaard"s which Hoffding quotes. [H. Hoffding: "A Philosophical Confession," _Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, vol. II, 1905, p. 86.]
[73] [Cf. below, pp. 197, 202.]
[74] [Cf. _A Pluralistic Universe_, Lect. IV, "Concerning Fechner," and Lect. V, "The Compounding of Consciousness."]
V
THE PLACE OF AFFECTIONAL FACTS IN A WORLD OF PURE EXPERIENCE[75]
Common sense and popular philosophy are as dualistic as it is possible to be. Thoughts, we all naturally think, are made of one kind of substance, and things of another. Consciousness, flowing inside of us in the forms of conception or judgment, or concentrating itself in the shape of pa.s.sion or emotion, can be directly felt as the spiritual activity which it is, and known in contrast with the s.p.a.ce-filling objective "content" which it envelopes and accompanies. In opposition to this dualistic philosophy, I tried, in [the first essay] to show that thoughts and things are absolutely h.o.m.ogeneous as to their material, and that their opposition is only one of relation and of function. There is no thought-stuff different from thing-stuff, I said; but the same identical piece of "pure experience" (which was the name I gave to the _materia prima_ of everything) can stand alternately for a "fact of consciousness" or for a physical reality, according as it is taken in one context or in another. For the right understanding of what follows, I shall have to presuppose that the reader will have read that [essay].[76]
The commonest objection which the doctrine there laid down runs up against is drawn from the existence of our "affections." In our pleasures and pains, our loves and fears and angers, in the beauty, comicality, importance or preciousness of certain objects and situations, we have, I am told by many critics, a great realm of experience intuitively recognized as spiritual, made, and felt to be made, of consciousness exclusively, and different in nature from the s.p.a.ce-filling kind of being which is enjoyed by physical objects. In Section VII. of [the first essay], I treated of this cla.s.s of experiences very inadequately, because I had to be so brief. I now return to the subject, because I believe that, so far from invalidating my general thesis, these phenomena, when properly a.n.a.lyzed, afford it powerful support.
The central point of the pure-experience theory is that "outer" and "inner" are names for two groups into which we sort experiences according to the way in which they act upon their neighbors. Any one "content," such as _hard_, let us say, can be a.s.signed to either group.
In the outer group it is "strong," it acts "energetically" and aggressively. Here whatever is hard interferes with the s.p.a.ce its neighbors occupy. It dents them; is impenetrable by them; and we call the hardness then a physical hardness. In the mind, on the contrary, the hard thing is nowhere in particular, it dents nothing, it suffuses through its mental neighbors, as it were, and interpenetrates them.
Taken in this group we call both it and them "ideas" or "sensations"; and the basis of the two groups respectively is the different type of interrelation, the mutual impenetrability, on the one hand, and the lack of physical interference and interaction, on the other.
That what in itself is one and the same ent.i.ty should be able to function thus differently in different contexts is a natural consequence of the extremely complex reticulations in which our experiences come. To her offspring a tigress is tender, but cruel to every other living thing--both cruel and tender, therefore, at once. A ma.s.s in movement resists every force that operates contrariwise to its own direction, but to forces that pursue the same direction, or come in at right angles, it is absolutely inert. It is thus both energetic and inert; and the same is true (if you vary the a.s.sociates properly) of every other piece of experience. It is only towards certain specific groups of a.s.sociates that the physical energies, as we call them, of a content are put forth.
In another group it may be quite inert.
It is possible to imagine a universe of experiences in which the only alternative between neighbors would be either physical interaction or complete inertness. In such a world the mental or the physical _status_ of any piece of experience would be unequivocal. When active, it would figure in the physical, and when inactive, in the mental group.
But the universe we live in is more chaotic than this, and there is room in it for the hybrid or ambiguous group of our affectional experiences, of our emotions and appreciative perceptions. In the paragraphs that follow I shall try to show:
(1) That the popular notion that these experiences are intuitively given as purely inner facts is hasty and erroneous; and
(2) That their ambiguity ill.u.s.trates beautifully my central thesis that subjectivity and objectivity are affairs not of what an experience is aboriginally made of, but of its cla.s.sification. Cla.s.sifications depend on our temporary purposes. For certain purposes it is convenient to take things in one set of relations, for other purposes in another set. In the two cases their contexts are apt to be different. In the case of our affectional experiences we have no permanent and steadfast purpose that obliges us to be consistent, so we find it easy to let them float ambiguously, sometimes cla.s.sing them with our feelings, sometimes with more physical realities, according to caprice or to the convenience of the moment. Thus would these experiences, so far from being an obstacle to the pure experience philosophy, serve as an excellent corroboration of its truth.
First of all, then, it is a mistake to say, with the objectors whom I began by citing, that anger, love and fear are affections purely of the mind. That, to a great extent at any rate, they are simultaneously affections of the body is proved by the whole literature of the James-Lange theory of emotion.[77] All our pains, moreover, are local, and we are always free to speak of them in objective as well as in subjective terms. We can say that we are aware of a painful place, filling a certain bigness in our organism, or we can say that we are inwardly in a "state" of pain. All our adjectives of worth are similarly ambiguous--I instanced some of the ambiguities [in the first essay].[78] Is the preciousness of a diamond a quality of the gem? or is it a feeling in our mind? Practically we treat it as both or as either, according to the temporary direction of our thought. "Beauty," says Professor Santayana, "is pleasure objectified"; and in Sections 10 and 11 of his work, _The Sense of Beauty_, he treats in a masterly way of this equivocal realm. The various pleasures we receive from an object may count as "feelings" when we take them singly, but when they combine in a total richness, we call the result the "beauty" of the object, and treat it as an outer attribute which our mind perceives. We discover beauty just as we discover the physical properties of things. Training is needed to make us expert in either line. Single sensations also may be ambiguous. Shall we say an "agreeable degree of heat," or an "agreeable feeling" occasioned by the degree of heat? Either will do; and language would lose most of its esthetic and rhetorical value were we forbidden to project words primarily connoting our affections upon the objects by which the affections are aroused. The man is really hateful; the action really mean; the situation really tragic--all in themselves and quite apart from our opinion. We even go so far as to talk of a weary road, a giddy height, a jocund morning or a sullen sky; and the term "indefinite" while usually applied only to our apprehensions, functions as a fundamental physical qualification of things in Spencer"s "law of evolution," and doubtless pa.s.ses with most readers for all right.
Psychologists, studying our perceptions of movement, have unearthed experiences in which movement is felt in general but not ascribed correctly to the body that really moves. Thus in optical vertigo, caused by unconscious movements of our eyes, both we and the external universe appear to be in a whirl. When clouds float by the moon, it is as if both clouds and moon and we ourselves shared in the motion. In the extraordinary case of amnesia of the Rev. Mr. Hanna, published by Sidis and Goodhart in their important work on _Multiple Personality_, we read that when the patient first recovered consciousness and "noticed an attendant walk across the room, he identified the movement with that of his own. He did not yet discriminate between his own movements and those outside himself."[79] Such experiences point to a primitive stage of perception in which discriminations afterwards needful have not yet been made. A piece of experience of a determinate sort is there, but there at first as a "pure" fact. Motion originally simply _is_; only later is it confined to this thing or to that. Something like this is true of every experience, however complex, at the moment of its actual presence. Let the reader arrest himself in the act of reading this article now. _Now_ this is a pure experience, a phenomenon, or datum, a mere _that_ or content of fact. _"Reading" simply is, is there_; and whether there for some one"s consciousness, or there for physical nature, is a question not yet put. At the moment, it is there for neither; later we shall probably judge it to have been there for both.