individual experience, and does not, indeed could not, arise at this standpoint.

Answering to the individuality and unity of the subjective factor, there is a corresponding unity and individuality of the objective. Every Ego has its own correlative Non-Ego. The doctrine of Leibniz, that "each monad is a living mirror... representative of the universe according to its point of view," will, with obvious reservations, occur to many as illustrative here. In particular, Leibniz emphasized one point on which the psychologist will do well to insist. "Since the world is a plenum," he begins, "all things are connected together and every body acts upon every other, more or less, according to their distance, and is affected by their reaction; hence each monad is a living mirror1," &c.-continuing as above. Subject and Object, or (as it will be clearer in this connexion to say) Ego and Non-Ego, are then not merely logically a universe, but actually the universe, in so far as, as Leibniz put it," He who sees all could read in each what is happening everywhere." Though every individual experience is unique, yet the more Ego, is similar to Ego, the more their complementaries Non-Ego1, NonEgo, are likewise similar; much as two perspective projections are more similar the more adjacent their points of sight; and more similar as regards a given position the greater its distance from both points. And thus beyond a certain finite limit the universe will be indistinguishably the same for both. It was only by including this outer region of 'confused perception that Leibniz could call the universe the objective factor in each and every individual's experience. But we too shall have to allow that, besides the strictly limited 'field' within the bounds of 'clear perception,' there is an indefinite 'extension' of the presentational continuum beyond its. Again, the Leibnizian Monadology helps us also to clear up a certain confusion that besets terms such as 'field of consciousness,' or 'finite centre of experience'-a barbarous but intelligible phrase that has recently appeared-their confusion, that is, with a mosaic of mutually exclusive areas, or with a scheme of mutually exclusive logical compartments. Consciousnesses,

1 Principles of Nature and Grace, § 3.

2 Monadology, § 61.

3 Cf. below, ch. iv, § 6.

though in one respect mutually exclusive, do not limit each other in this fashion. For, though relatively different as to their point of view, it is the same absolute whole which is sundered into subjective and objective factors for each.

This way of looking at the facts of mind helps too to dispel the obscurity investing such terms as subjective, objective, intersubjective and transsubjective, as these occur in psychological or epistemological discussions. The psychologist must maintain that no experience is merely subjective. But epistemologists who nevertheless, as we have already seen, describe individual experience as subjective-because of its particularity which pertains, like an idiosyncrasy, to the individual aloneconfine the term 'objective' to universal experience—the objects in which are the same for every experient. And so has arisen the time-honoured opposition of Sense-knowledge and Thoughtknowledge so too has arisen the dualism of Empiricism and Rationalism, which Kant sought to surmount by logical analysis. It is in the endeavour to supplement this analysis by a psychological genesis that the terms 'intersubjective' and 'transsubjective' prove useful. The problem for psychology is to ascertain the successive stages in the advance from the one form of experience or knowledge to the other. "When ten men look at the sun or the moon," said Reid, "they all see the same individual object." But according to Hamilton this statement is not "philosophically correct...the truth is that each of these persons sees a different object....It is not by perception but by a process of reasoning that we connect the objects of sense with existences beyond the sphere of immediate knowledge1." Now it is to this 'beyond' that the term transsubjective is applied; and the question before us is: How do individual subjects thus get beyond the immanence or 'immediacy' with which all experience begins? By a 'process of reasoning,' says Hamilton. Yes, but psychologically there is a prior process; for it is at least true in fact, whether necessarily true or not, that such reasoning is the result of social intercourse, which obviously presupposes and rests upon individual experience. Further, it will be generally allowed that Kant's Analytik has made plain the insufficiency of merely formal reasoning to yield the categories of Substance, Cause and End, by which 1 Lectures on Metaphysics, ii. 153.

we pass from mere perceptual experience to that wider experience which transcends it. And psychology, again, may claim to have shewn that in fact these categories are the result of that reflective self-consciousness to which social intercourse first gives rise.

But such intercourse, it has been urged, presupposes the common ground between subject and subject which it is meant to explain. How, it is asked, if every subject is confined to his own unique experience, does this intersubjective intercourse ever arise? If no progress towards intellective synthesis were possible before intersubjective intercourse began, such intercourse, as presupposing something more than immediate sense-knowledge, obviously never could begin1. Let us illustrate by an analogy which Leibniz's comparison of experience to a 'point of view' at once suggests. If it were possible for the terrestrial astronomer to obtain observations of the heavens from astronomers in the neighbouring stars, he might be able to map in three dimensions constellations which now he can only represent in two. But unless he had ascertained unaided the heliocentric parallax of these neighbouring stars, he would have no means of distinguishing them as near from the distant myriads besides, or of understanding the data he might receive; and unless he had first of all determined the still humbler geocentric parallax of our sun, those heliocentric parallaxes would have been unattainable. So in like manner we may say: 'any more general parallax' presupposes what may be called 'special parallax,' and even this presupposes the primordial duality of object and subject. Again such special parallax or acquaintance with others of its own kind is the direct outcome of the extended range in time which the individual's progress in perception and memory secured; and when in this way its (bodily) self has become an object, the objects that resemble it become other selves or 'ejects,' to adopt with slight modification a term originated by the late W. K. Clifford. We may be quite sure that his faithful dog is as little of a solipsist as the noble savage whom it accompanies. Indeed, in rudimentary form the social factor, if we may judge

1 And it is precisely for want of this mediation that Kant's "two stems of human knowledge, which perhaps may spring from a common but to us unknown root," leave epistemology still more or less hampered with the old dualism of sense and understanding.

W. P.

3

by biological evidence, is to be found very early.

Sexual union

in the physiological sense occurs in all but the lowest Metazoa, pairing and courtship are frequent among insects, while "among the cold-blooded fishes the battle of the stickleback with his rivals, his captivating manœuvres to lead the female to the nest which he has built, his mad dance of passion around her, and his subsequent jealous guarding of the nest, have often been observed and admired1." Among birds and mammals we find not merely that these psychological aspects of sexual life are greatly extended, but we find also prolonged education of offspring by parents and imitation of the parents by offspring. Even language, or, at any rate 'the linguistic impulse,' is not wholly absent among brutes. Thus as the sensori-motor adjustments of the organism to its environment-generally-advance in complexity and range, there is a concomitant advance in the variety and intimacy of its relations-specially—with individuals of its own kind. It is therefore reasonable to assume no discontinuity between phases of experience that for the individual are merely objective and phases that are also ejective as well; and once the ejective level is attained, some interchange of experience is possible. So disappears the great gulf fixed betwixt subjective or individual and intersubjective or universal experience by rival systems in philosophy.

The Subject of Experience.

§ 2. From this preliminary epistemological discussion we may return to the psychological analysis of experience itself. As to this, there is in the main substantial agreement; the elementary facts of experience cannot be expressed in less than three propositions "I feel somehow," "I know something," "I do something." But here at once there arises an important question which claims consideration before we attempt to discuss the meaning or the merits of this analysis itself, the question: What after all are we to understand by the subject of these propositions? The proposition "I feel somehow" is not equivalent to "I know that I feel somehow." Though it

1 Evolution of Sex, by Geddes and Thomson, 1st ed. p. 265.

2 Cf. Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871, i. pp. 53 ff.

cannot actually be made without implying this knowledge, yet to identify the two would be to confound consciousness with self-consciousness. The point is that, whether seeking to analyse one's own consciousness or to infer that of a lobster, whether discussing the association of ideas or the expression of emotions, there is always an individual self or 'subject' in question. It is not enough to talk of feelings or volitions: what we mean is that some individual-man or worm-feels, strives, acts, thus or thus. Obvious as this may seem, it has been frequently either forgotten or gainsaid. It has been forgotten among details or through the assumption of a medley of faculties, each of them treated as an individual in turn, so that among them the real individual was lost. Or it has been gainsaid, because to assert that all psychological facts pertain to an experiencing subject or experient was supposed to imply that they pertained to a particular spiritual substance, which was simple, indestructible, and so forth; and it is manifestly desirable to exclude such assumptions from psychology as a science aiming only at a systematic exposition of what can be known and verified.

But, however much assailed or disowned, the concept of a 'self' or conscious subject is to be found implicitly or explicitly in all psychological writers whatever-not more in Berkeley, who accepts it as a fact, than in Hume, who treats it as a fiction. This being so, we are far more likely to reach the truth eventually if we openly acknowledge this inexpugnable assumption, if such it prove, instead of resorting to all sorts of devious periphrases to hide it. Now wherever the word Subject and its derivatives occur in psychology we might substitute the word Ego and analogous derivatives, did such exist. But Subject is almost always the preferable term; its impersonal form is an advantage, and it readily recalls its modern correlative Object. Moreover, Ego has two senses, distinguished by Kant as pure and empirical, the latter of which was, of course, an object, the Me known, while the former was subject always, the I knowing. By pure Ego or Subject it is proposed to denote here the simple fact that everything experienced is referred to a Self experiencing. This psychological concept of a self or subject, then, is after all by no means identical with the metaphysical concept of a soul: it may be kept as free from metaphysical implications as the concept of the biological