Jump to content

HPB-SB-10-116: Difference between revisions

HPB-SB-10-116 (view source)

Revision as of 07:46, 16 August 2024

6,181 bytes added ,  16 August
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
Line 8: Line 8:
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |The Progress of Psychology|10-115}}
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |The Progress of Psychology|10-115}}


...
Do we dispute the President's facts or his philosophy? Not one whit. Do we call his theory of protoplasm a dream? By no means. On the contrary, we accept it entirely as a proved reality. We greet with a hearty welcome that ''ultima Thule ''of the materialists.
 
You have traced man to his elements, and what do you find? The identical elements to which you trace the beast, the bird, the fish, the tree, the fungus. You can distinguish nothing in the jellies to indicate what they were or what' they will be.
 
But here you suddenly stand still. The world that has been admiring your ingenuity in experiment, your skill in marshalling your facts, the facility with which you draw conclusions from those facts, is looking with eager curiosity for the next step in your exploration. You have presented to science in a saucer your wonderful element of a man, or, to speak more correctly, that wonderful element of all organic life. The world, anxiously hanging upon your lips, implores you to carry your researches just one small step further, and tell it how that uniform protoplasm becomes a man, a mite, a mussel, or a moss-rose.
 
We pause for a reply.
 
What! is science silent? Are scientists dumb? Can it be that the hitherto omniscient confess to ignorance?
 
It is even so. “We'' ''can go no further,” they say, “than this protoplasmic jelly. Here our senses and our instruments fail us alike. We cannot even indulge in conjecture why this bit of protoplasm becomes a man, or that a mollusc, or that a moss-rose. We admit our ignorance. We do not seek to dissipate it. We know that it is unknowable. We will not, therefore, look an inch beyond this protoplasm. We cannot conceive of anything we do not see, and we will see nothing that is inconceivable. Human perception can penetrate no further. Protoplasm, the visible material of life, is the limit of research. Beyond it is a barrier science cannot pass, nor can it ever hope to pass.”
 
This is what the physicists said twelve months ago, and all who questioned their dogma were at once denounced, as fools or lunatics—the victims of delusion, of diluted insanity.
 
But humanity needs not therefore to despair. Physical science has indeed failed where most- the world desired enlightenment. At the point where it deemed itself strongest it proves to be weakest. At this point it is that another science—a science the physiologists have derided, and whose very title they have disputed, leaps the barrier that has baffled physical science, and waves its votaries onwards and upwards to a new world of knowledge. Psychology marches forward from the very point at which physiology has halted ignominiously.
 
So far we have travelled together. The psychologists dispute nothing of the teachings of the physiologists. We admit every detail of the mechanism of the body, as taught by the most advanced physiology; we accept, not reluctantly, but cheerfully and hopefully, the protoplasmic theory. It will be the future firm basis of our psychology.
 
There, then, is protoplasm, the material in which life is inherent. Physiologists do not profess to know, and we do not pretend to know, what life is, nor in what it inheres, nor how it is associated with the ultimate particles of matter. It is not a perceptible entity; we know it as a quality' or attribute of certain combinations of matter. It belongs, says the physiologists, to the atoms of protoplasm, and is propagated by the expansion and side growth of cells.
 
So far good—but beyond? No light—no voice.
 
Psychology steps upon the scene and claims a hearing. She takes up the wondrous tale at the point at which physiology was baffled and confessed its incompetency to advance.
 
Hear her!
 
“Thanks, a thousand thanks to you physiologists for your discovery of protoplasm. My difficulty has been to account for the presence of life. My chief mission has been to investigate the force that ''directs ''the motions of the mechanism of man. 1 deemed it to be something other than the force that moves the mechanism, because that force was present in all other organised beings. But it was difficult to sever experimentally these two forces, and almost impossible to divest the popular mind of the conception of their identity. This difficulty has been removed—physiology has found the elements in which life resides— and shown that life alone is not the force that directs and determines the. motions of the mechanism.
 
“Take, then, this protoplasm instinct with life— the protoplasm of Allman and Huxley—this uniform gelatinous mass, this embryo of animated being. I ask, What is it that moulds this mass into definite and different organic structures?
 
“What causes this bit of jelly to develop into a man, and that into a cabbage?”
 
Now that is precisely the subject-matter of our science of psychology. Surely a sufficiently real subject—a sufficiently rational subject—a sufficiently important subject, to invite investigation, claim labour and thought, and command the attention of the loftiest intellects.
 
For this much at least is certain—''something ''is at work with that protoplasm—''something ''moulds that uniform pulp into the infinite variety of living forms we see.
 
What is that ''something ''which seizes and shapes that homogeneous protoplasm and constructs out of it the marvellous mechanism of man, and the not less marvellous mechanism of beast, and bird, and flower?
 
That ''something, ''whatever it be, is what we psychologists intend when we speak of “Soul” or “Spirit.” Our reference is to the thing that takes to itself the protoplasmic elements of life, and builds about itself the complicated body that is perceptible to our senses.
 
That ''something ''indeed is invisible, impalpable, imperceptible by any of our five senses. But not the less is it because it is imperceptible. We know— Professor Allman admits—that it must be there, because we sec the shape it takes when it arises out of protoplasm. It is not a fancy—a conjecture—a craze—but a ''reality. ''Protoplasm would remain as a jelly for ever unless ''something ''moved among it and moulded it into the forms of individual being.


{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |10-117}}
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |10-117}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/21184"