The Project Gutenberg eBook of Psychology for beginners
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Psychology for beginners
Author: Hereward Carrington
Editor: E. Haldeman-Julius
Release date: July 2, 2026 [eBook #78996]
Language: English
Original publication: Girard: Haldeman-Julius Company, 1924
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78996
Credits: Tim Miller, Hcx2012 and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PSYCHOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS ***
LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. 491
Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
Psychology for Beginners
Hereward Carrington, Ph. D.
Author of “The Problems of Psychical Research,” “Modern Psychical
Phenomena,” “The Coming Science,” etc.
HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY GIRARD, KANSAS
Copyright, 1924,
Haldeman-Julius Company
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PSYCHOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS
The word “Psychology” originally meant the study of the _soul_. The
human soul was thought to be a sort of entity, exhibiting qualities
or “faculties,” which became manifest to us as various psychological
manifestations. The last century saw the gradual development of a
“psychology without a soul”--a psychology based upon the study of
_mind_, as manifested in human beings; it therefore became the study of
consciousness.
Until relatively recently, the word psychology meant only this.
Within the past few years, however, the scope of this science has
been enormously increased. When we speak of Psychology, we no longer
mean, merely, the adult, human, normal consciousness. We must
define now our terms more accurately and in greater detail. We have
psycholog_ies_--just as we no longer have “insanity,” but insanit_ies_.
The science has been enlarged. We know _animal psychology_--which deals
with the mind of lower animals--extending all the way down the scale to
the simplest organisms. We have _Educational psychology_, which deals
with the psychology of childhood, and the best methods of training
the young mind and developing it. We have _individual psychology_,
dealing with the relationship of the individual to his environment,
and going into the details of his own mental make-up. We have _social
psychology_, which deals with the instincts and desires of man,
as related to the society in which he dwells. We have _abnormal
psychology_, dealing with the varied derangements, abnormalities and
defects of the human mind. We have _dream psychology_, especially
studied by psycho-analysis. We also have the _psychology of the crowd_,
so different from the individual in the crowd. We have the _psychology
of the subconscious mind_--that vast realm which was practically a
closed book to the psychologists of the last century. We have _Oriental
psychology_, which is entirely different from our own, in many
respects. We have _supernormal psychology_, which deals with certain
alleged “psychical” phenomena, and endeavors to explain them along
psychological lines. We have psychology of religion, history, politics,
etc.
It will be necessary to devote a brief space to all these sections,
in order that a bird’s-eye view of the whole subject may be obtained.
First of all, however, a few words as to the general methods and scope
of psychology.
The older psychology was based almost entirely upon
“Introspection”--that is to say, subjective analysis of the mind
and its activities. A great deal of valuable material was secured
in this manner. Later on, came “experimental psychology”--the “new
psychology,” as it was called for some time--based upon accurate
laboratory measurements, by means of suitable instruments of precision.
This dealt very largely with the various reactions of the subject
experimented upon. Still more recently, the so-called “Behavioristic”
psychology,--which studies the behavior of the subject, and contends
that the inner, mental activities can be interpreted in this manner. A
brief summary of the behavioristic psychology will be given later on.
Whatever theory we may hold as to the relation of brain and mind, it is
certain that the two are in some intimate way related to one another.
Whether the activities of the brain actually _cause_ or _produce_
consciousness; or _vice versa_; or whether these two are but opposite
sides of the same shield--but differing aspects of reality, (just as a
decayed tooth and the pain caused by it are differing aspects of the
same thing) cannot be decided; it is a metaphysical problem, which
need not be discussed now, since it falls more properly under the
province of philosophy than of psychology. For all practical purposes,
we may take it for granted that brain and mind are in some unknown
and intimate way connected, and that thought and the operations of
consciousness are coincidental with the activities of the brain.
The human brain is a delicate and beautiful structure, of great
complexity. The older “physiological psychology” really amounted to
little more than physiology, since it dealt with mind largely in terms
of brain. Nowadays, psychology is recognized as a separate science, and
we can discuss its problems in purely mental terms or language, without
referring to the brain.
In discussing cases of multiple personality, for example, we can now
do so without using physiological terms, which was not the case until
a few years ago. In other words, we now recognize that the psychic
sphere is a legitimate one of its own; and, although it is in some
manner related to the brain-changes, this fact is not taken into
account; the two worlds are regarded as distinct and separate, for all
practical purposes,--although perhaps united in some metaphysical sense
ultimately. Details as to the general anatomy of the brain can be found
in any physiology, wherein the various motor and sensory centers are
located, the higher association centers, etc. Dr. Bastian’s work, “The
Brain as an Organ of Mind,” is a good book,--although several years
old. But there is a wealth of material upon this subject,--to which we
have no space to do more than refer in the present booklet.
The human mind is just as complex as the human brain. It reasons,
wills, feels, associates, remembers, perceives time and space, forms
concepts, forms habits, imagines, gives its attention, concentrates,
discriminates, compares, induces, deduces, thinks abstractly, is
subject to illusions, hallucinations, insanities, as well as flights
of genius, directs the flow of thought, experiences emotions, feels
sensations, experiences the constant feeling of “self” as a background,
etc., etc. And every mind in the whole world is different, both in
its structure and its mode of action! No two people think and feel
_exactly_ alike. Each person is a world unto himself. He himself
represents an invisible entity, somehow tucked away in that little dark
chamber which we call the skull, and within _that_ his whole individual
universe is contained.
Let us now endeavor to dissect this complex mental organism, and see
how it “works.” We shall try to discover the nature and structure of
the human mind, and ascertain how it operates. We shall devote a brief
chapter to each of its varied activities, and then endeavor to weld
together our findings, so as to enable us to understand the real nature
of the Self.
First, however, a few words as to the various “Psychologies.”
ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY.
This is occupying a prominent place in modern psychological literature.
There is a “Journal of Abnormal Psychology,” devoted especially to its
problems. A variety of fascinating questions fall under this heading,
a few of which I have briefly touched upon in the section dealing with
“The Structure of the Mind.” Space prevents further treatment here.
The reader may consult such a book as Dr. Isador H. Coriat’s “Abnormal
Psychology” for further particulars.
ANIMAL PSYCHOLOGY.
A vast literature exists upon this subject also. Darwin’s “Expression
of the Emotions” is, of course, classical. Lindsay’s “Mind in the Lower
Animals” (2 vols.), and Mills’s “Animal Intelligence” are useful books.
Some original and ingenious speculations are contained in Ouspensky’s
“Tertium Organum.” A most interesting work, from a practical point
of view (that of a trapper and hunter) is “How Animals Talk,” by
William J. Long. A study of the so-called “talking animals” is “Lola:
a Contribution to the Thought and Speech of Animals.” Chapters on the
marvellous horses of Elberfeld are contained in Maeterlinck’s “Our
Unknown Guest,” and in my own “Modern Psychical Phenomena.”
The question of _Instinct_ in animals has also received extensive
treatment. C. Lloyd Morgan’s works are classical in this respect:
“Habit and Instinct,” “Instinct and Experience,” etc. See also
Chadbourne’s “Instinct in Animals and Men,” and McDougall’s treatment
of the subject in his “Social Psychology,” in his “Psychology,” and
a number of articles on this subject in the “Journal of Abnormal
Psychology,” and similar periodicals.
PSYCHOLOGY OF POLITICS, HISTORY, ETC.
This branch of our subject deals with such questions as the mental life
of nations, religion and the state, national psychology, etc. A useful
book in this connection is J. A. Dewe’s “Psychology of Politics and
History.”
RELIGIOUS PSYCHOLOGY.
A voluminous literature also exists upon this subject. Attacks upon
religion are to be found in such books as Leuba’s “Belief in God and
Immortality,” and Theodore Schroeder’s writings, which endeavor to
trace all religion to sex. On the other hand, are to be found such
books as Barrow’s “The Validity of the Religious Experience,” and
William James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience.” An extensive
study of Mysticism is Poulain’s “The Graces of Interior Prayer.”
The literature on this subject is so vast, however, that it would be
impossible even to indicate the sources of reference.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY.
The mind of the pupil, the aims of the teacher, methods of instruction,
school work, etc., form the subject-matter of this branch of knowledge.
A useful book in this connection is Hugo Munsterberg’s “Psychology and
the Teacher.”
BUSINESS PSYCHOLOGY.
Of late years, much has been written concerning this topic. Many
works upon it have been issued, among which one might mention Link’s
“Employment Psychology,” and Atkinson’s “Psychology of Salesmanship.”
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.
The most noteworthy book dealing with this question is undoubtedly
William McDougall’s “Social Psychology.” Since the publication of this
book, a number of others have been issued, but the student would do
well to begin with this one. Much useful material is also to be found
in H. G. Wells’ “Outline of History.”
INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY.
This is covered by any popular book, such as the present one.
CROWD PSYCHOLOGY.
An individual in a crowd is usually lost, more or less--mentally no
less than physically. If the crowd is carried away by some emotion or
intense excitement, so is the individual in it. Crowd psychology is
generally primitive; emotions overrule intellect. An interesting work
upon this subject is G. LeBon’s “Psychology of the Crowd.” See also
McDougall’s “The Group Mind,” and Trotter’s “Instincts of the Herd in
Peace and War.”
DREAM PSYCHOLOGY.
This is covered by such books as Freud’s “Dream Psychology,” Walsh’s
“Psychology of Dreams,” Coriat’s “The Meaning of Dreams,” etc. See also
the little book upon “Dreams” in the present series, and the references
therein given.
ORIENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.
This is extensive, in one sense, sparse in another. Orientals have
written much about themselves, but largely concerning their mystical
states. Rhys Davids’s “Buddhist Psychology” is perhaps a good summary
of the Hindu Teachings (a section of them). The various Sacred Books of
the East give, perhaps, as good a clue to their inner life as any.
SUPERNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY.
This, naturally, falls within the province of Psychical Research (See
the volumes upon this topic in the present series). F. W. H. Myers’
“Human Personality” is a classic; an excellent and sane book is Prof.
Th. Flournoy’s “Spiritism and Psychology,” translated by the present
writer.
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS.
Here, again, a voluminous literature exists, dealing with the various
problems presented. Morton Prince’s “The Unconscious,” and Joseph
Jastrow’s “The Subconscious,” are valuable books. A. T. Schofield’s
book, “The Unconscious Mind,” may also be consulted. How new this
idea of the subconscious mind is may be seen from the fact that it
was hardly mentioned in James’ “Psychology.” The difference between
unconscious and subconscious consists in this: that whereas the
former is thought to represent a sort of “unconscious cerebration”
(Carpenter), without definite thought, the subconscious mind is
believed to carry-on a lively mentation of its own; there is an
unconscious consciousness, so to say. This idea has been disputed by
some authorities, but there is a mass of evidence in its favor. Indeed,
investigations of the subconscious mind have taken precedence over
those into the conscious mental processes, of late years. The mass of
published material dealing with the psychology of the subconscious is
now enormous.
BEHAVIORISM.
This is a relatively new school in psychology, and has been the subject
for much controversy. Its main contention is that behavior is the key
to a man’s real, inner being, and that, from this, his total self can
be gauged. His instinctive and emotional equipment, his habits, his
activities, his social adaptability, his recreation and sports, his
sexual life, his reactions to conventional standards, his personal bias
and peculiarities, etc.--these are all factors in the determination
of his inner mental life. In other words; as a man behaves--so is he!
Behavioristic psychology, however, totally fails to disclose to us
the essence of self and personality--what it _is_. Those who may be
interested in pursuing this line of reading further may consult Dr.
John B. Watson’s “Psychology: from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist.”
THE SENSES.
The five generally recognized senses are: sight, hearing, taste, touch
and smell. These depend upon certain sense-organs, (the eye, ear,
etc.), and also upon specific sense-centers in the brain. The structure
and physiology of these organs can be found in any good text book
on the subject. Suffice it to say that, in the case of the eye, for
example, certain incoming ether vibrations are converted, by the rods
and cones in the retina of the eye (by a wholly mysterious process)
into nerve-currents, which are transmitted to the sight-centers in the
brain, wherein the sensation of sight occurs. The ear converts sound
waves into nerve-currents, which we then perceive as sound, etc. Touch
depends upon nerve-currents from the periphery of the body. Smell and
taste are closely related; in fact, there are only four primary tastes
which are directly conveyed by the nerves of the tongue. These are
sweet, salt, sour and bitter. All our other “tastes” are dependent
upon the sense of smell. That is why, when we have a “cold,” and cannot
smell anything, food seems to have no taste. The primary tastes are
obtained through the “taste buds” in the tongue. Smell is a sense about
which relatively little is known.
In addition of these sensations, arising from the sense organs, there
are also other senses, such as the muscular sense, the temperature
sense, etc. To what extent these may be properly classed as separate
senses has been disputed. The so-called “sixth sense” is theoretically
a sort of “second sight,” of supernormal origin, which orthodox
psychology does not at present recognize.
The sensation of motion should perhaps be mentioned in this place. Such
sensations are of two kinds: (1) sensations of objects moving over our
sensory surfaces; and (2) sensations of our whole person’s translation
through space.
The former of these has been much studied, though little definite can
be said regarding it here. Curiously, while the sensation of a moving
object can be accurately determined, it is most difficult to locate
a number of stationary objects on the skin (if the eyes are closed).
Thus, if one places the finger-tips against the chest, one cannot tell
how many fingers are touching (after the first three). Certain areas
of the skin are also quite insensitive; anaesthetic zones of patches
sometimes existing,--especially in hysterical subjects, and these can
be pricked without involving any reaction. These figure largely in the
“witchcraft trials,” of the middle ages, for it was held that the
witch was insensible to pain wherever the Devil had touched her. Such
spots were, therefore, searched for with long needles!
As to the sensation of movement through space, we often experience
this at night, in our so-called “flying dreams.” (See my little book
in this series on “Dreams.”) The Hindus contend, however, that this
is an actual possibility; that the physical body can really be lifted
or “levitated,” by means of proper breathing exercises, etc. I have
discussed this question, briefly, in my volume in this series devoted
to “Yoga Philosophy.”
SENSATION.
Sensation depends upon certain nerve-currents, which affect the brain,
but are usually localized or “felt” in a particular spot or area of
the body. If a finger is burnt, for example, the pain is apparently
felt _in_ the _finger_; nevertheless the actual sensation takes place
_in_ the _brain_, and if the sensory (or afferent) nerves were cut, no
pain would be experienced. Normally, we react to a stimulus of this
kind by immediately withdrawing the hand; this is due to the motor (or
efferent) nerve-currents, which are sent out, commanding the muscles
to move the hand and arm in question. A definite “reaction” has then
taken place. Reactions of this sort are constantly going on, but most
of them never rise into consciousness. Only when the sensation is
powerful enough to rise above the so-called “threshold” does it rise
into consciousness, and the reaction to the given stimulus is then
consciously directed.
The outer world acts upon the periphery (surface) of the body, giving
rise to all sorts of sensations. Again, various internal organs,
if they are not functioning normally, will give rise to internal
sensations. All such sensations are conveyed by sensory nerves; and,
when these flow from any specific sense-organ, only the characteristic
sense impression is thereby conveyed. Thus, the duty of the optic nerve
is to convey sensations of sight; if the eye be struck violently, the
optic nerve, in such case, does not transmit pain--only sight--and we
“see stars” instead. This phenomenon is due to the sudden and violent
transmission of a nerve current flowing along these nerve-tracts.
Similarly with all the other senses.
This fact has given rise to the theory of “specific nervous
energies,”--to the theory, that is, that each sensory nerve conveys the
particular sort of current appropriate to it, and no other. Certain
internal organs, however, appear to have no sensation. For example, the
brain can be cut up, without any sensation on the part of the subject.
(Of course, before reaching the brain, pain would be experienced on the
surface of the head, in the skull, etc.)
Sensations are our most primitive mental constituents. They are
distinguished from Perceptions by the fact that the latter are more
complex; they are sensations, _plus_ ideas about the sensation; hence
“pure sensations” are impossible to us after the first few days of life.
Sensations differ greatly in the degree of their intensity; a
feeble sensation, however, if continued, will ultimately rise into
consciousness. On the other hand, sensations which intruded into
consciousness at first may sink below its threshold after a time, and
are no longer noticed. Thus, a workman may sleep in a boiler-factory;
soldiers have learned to sleep amidst the constant booming of cannon,
etc. Certain sensations also give rise to a sort of reverse of
themselves. Thus, if one gazes at a red spot for a time, and then looks
at the white ceiling, a _green_ spot will be seen to form there. This
is a so-called “after image,” and is due to fatigue. This can readily
be demonstrated in the case of vision.
INSTINCT.
William James defines Instinct as “the faculty of acting in such a way
as to produce certain ends, without foresight of the ends, and without
previous education in the performance.” Of late years, much controversy
has arisen as to instinct--some authorities contending that it does
not exist, (in the old-fashioned sense of the term) while others have
postulated a number of different instincts--all more or less primitive
and innate. (McDougall).
Instincts are certainly impulses--to perform some action. They vary
greatly in complexity, and are by no means always blind or invariable.
They often resemble thought--and yet it is certain that no actual
thought is concerned in them. Instincts may be inhibited by habits;
they are also transitory. They are well adapted to certain ends, and
an animal or an insect will perform quite complicated actions, under
entirely novel circumstances. Most of the work done upon instincts,
until lately, was done upon animals of the lower order; but, more
recently, much attention has been paid to human instincts, and some
authorities have contended that human beings have more instincts than
the lower animals.
Instinct will usually cause the creature in question to perform actions
compatible with its own safety and self-preservation. Instinct thus
grades naturally into Emotion, which will next be considered.
EMOTION.
We know that practically all emotions give rise to bodily expression.
Darwin wrote an extensive monograph upon “The Expression of the
Emotions in Men and Animals.” Fear, anger, hatred, etc., find visible
expression in the face, and in the actions of the body. Common-sense
seems to tell us that these bodily expressions are the _results_ of the
emotion; the James-Lange theory of the emotions says that the bodily
expressions are the primary factors, the internal emotions following
after. Thus, we feel sorry because we cry, etc. This theory was for
long popular among psychologists, but is today questioned in many
quarters.
Emotions of all sorts are certainly connected in a very intimate
manner with the body and its internal mechanism. Healthful emotions
stimulate, while destructive emotions inhibit and destroy. It has been
claimed that emotions actually cause the secretion of definite chemical
substances, which can be partially expelled in the breath; varied
emotions cause different colored precipitates in a given solution, etc.
(Elmer Gates.) However this may be, there can be no question of the
beneficial effects of healthful emotions, and the detrimental effects
of the reverse. It is not so much the effects of the _thought_ upon the
body, as the _emotion_ aroused by and associated with that thought.
Feeling is the fundamental sensation of all life. Strong feelings have
been called emotions; these are dependent largely upon the sympathetic
nervous system, although the glands of internal secretion are also
important factors. These are stimulated by the emotion, and also give
expression to it.
Emotions have, of late years, been the subject of much study. It is now
believed that the various complex emotions are built-up, or compounded
of simpler ones. An analysis of these complex emotions has resulted in
their being resolved into their component factors. On the other hand,
organized systems of emotional tendencies (centered about some object)
exist in all of us, and these have been called “sentiments.” This idea
has played a large part in contemporary psychological literature.
Dr. William McDougall, in his “Social Psychology,” has made a very
ingenious analysis of the various emotions. He shows at considerable
length how the complex emotions are built-up from the simpler
ones. Thus:--_gratitude_ is a compound of tender emotion and
negative self-feeling; _scorn_ is a compound of disgust and anger;
_fascination_, of horror and wonder; _envy_, of negative self-feeling
and anger; _reproach_, of anger and tender emotion; _anxiety_, of
anticipatory pain, tender emotion and anger--against the source of the
threatened harm; _pity_, of tender emotion and sympathetically-induced
pain, etc. Goddard (“Psychology of the Normal and Subnormal”) says that
low orders of intelligence (morons, etc.) experience only relatively
simple emotions; many of the higher forms are lacking in them, and that
“only higher intelligences have the highest emotions.” The primary
emotions thus seem to belong to animals and undeveloped humans; our
emotions have evolved in their intensity and complexity like everything
else. That is why refined and “sensitive” people experience the deepest
and keenest emotions.
CONCEPTION.
“The function by which we mark-off, discriminate, draw a line round,
and identify as a numerically distinct subject of discourse is called
_conception_.” We may therefore have conceptions of objects, people,
qualities, abstract ideas, etc. Each conception is unique, separate,
and distinct for the subject thinking it. No two conceptions can ever
be quite alike; for no two individuals conceive things in a similar
manner, and the same individual, conceiving the same thing twice,
conceives it in a different way. The original conception _plus_, is
always conceived the second time. For, from the purely physiological
point of view, the brain has been already modified somewhat by the
first impression, and the second one reacts upon a modified, and not
an unmodified, substratum. “History never repeats itself;” and no two
thoughts, and no two conceptions, can thus ever be _precisely_ alike.
PERCEPTION.
These two terms are often confused in the public mind. Psychologically,
however, they are quite distinct. The consciousness of material objects
through the senses is called “perception.” We _perceive_ them. On the
other hand, we _conceive_ an idea. Perceptions depend upon our senses
and brain-processes; conceptions may be independent of the former. It
is true, however, that perceptions depend upon the inner workings of
the mind, as well as upon sense-impressions.
When we perceive a thing, we recognize or “know” that thing. But we
do not yet think _about_ it, associate it with other things, etc.
This higher process of the mind has been termed “apperception.” It is
applied to the process by which the mind goes out to meet the incoming
perception, and elaborates it by higher processes of association, etc.
Thus, through the sensation of sight, you perceive an orange. But you
do not yet say to yourself: “This is a nice, juicy orange; I like
oranges; it will taste sweet; it will quench my thirst,” etc. These
associative processes of the mind may be classed, roughly, under the
process of “apperception.” They represent syntheses and associations.
We are all subject to fallacies of perception. Our senses may deceive
us; or we may draw wrong deductions from genuine sense impressions.
There are thus illusions and hallucinations, which resemble one
another, but which may be distinguished thus: _Illusions_ are caused
by wrong inferences from actual, objective sense impressions--as, for
instance when a hat and coat hanging on the wall are mistaken for a man
standing at the foot of the bed, etc. In the case of a _hallucination_,
however, there is no physical substratum of reality in the outer
world; the whole thing is created from within, whence it is projected
outward,--into space. Some hallucinations of this type seem as “real”
as a solid object would be.
Hallucinations often result from diseased or irritated sense-organs,
the sense-centers in the brain, etc. The condition of the blood
may have much to do with this. Delirium tremens is a good example
of hallucination of this type. But not all hallucinations are
abnormal; we all have them at night when we fall asleep and dream.
We then experience hallucinatory pictures of all sorts of things
which are not really “there.” There seem to be, also, odd cases of
“telepathically induced hallucinations,” as I have described in my
booklet on “Psychical Research,” in this series. In such cases, the
subject appears to be perfectly normal at the time. There can be no
doubt, however, that most hallucinations denote some form of mental or
physical disease--as the hallucinations of the insane, of drug fiends,
etc., amply testify.
THE PERCEPTION OF SPACE.
When a baby first begins to notice objects about it, everything is
doubtless more or less vague and confused. Gradually, order appears out
of chaos. Normal adults have a fairly clear idea of the sizes, shapes
and distances of objects--within certain limits. How are we enabled to
do this?
An enormous literature exists upon this subject. Only a few essentials
can be given here. First of all, it is probably true that the general
feeling of size exists as a definite quality in sensation--of intensity
of voluminousness. Varied sensations are inwardly compared with one
another, and, so to say, checked-off. Smaller objects are discriminated
within the object looked at; the object is usually seen in relation
to other objects, etc. James holds that “extensity, discernible in
each and every sensation ... is the original sensation of space,
out of which all the exact knowledge about space that we afterwards
come to have is woven by processes of discrimination, association
and selection.” These later powers are developed as the mind itself
develops; on the other hand, sensations with a certain degree of innate
extensity in them are postulated--and are denied by others!
Ouspensky (“Tertium Organum”) asserts that man is the only
three-dimensional animal; the lower animals are naturally
two-dimensional, and that what we perceive as the third dimension they
perceive as movement. They see only flat surfaces. This is, however, a
much-disputed point, into which we have not time to enter now; it also
takes us into the realm of animal psychology.
PERCEPTION OF TIME.
Our perception (or sense) of time differs considerably at different
ages, and under different circumstances. When we are bored, tired,
etc., time seems to move slowly; when we are interested or excited, it
flits by rapidly, etc. A certain span of time always seems shorter to
old people than to young ones. A year is an enormous period to a child;
whereas an old man will often exclaim: “How the years have flown!” Time
which is busily occupied seems short, but it seems a long period, when
looked back upon. A waiting period, on the other hand, in which nothing
is accomplished, seems interminable during its passage; but it seems
extremely brief, when viewed in retrospect. This is probably due to the
fact that many actions _seem_ to occupy a long period of time, whereas
a span in which nothing of importance happens _seems_ to have taken-up
no time at all.
The shortest period of time which we can appreciate is about 1/500 of
a second. Exner recognized two electric sparks to be successive when
the second followed the first at that interval. On the other hand, the
longest period of time which we can accurately distinguish from longer
or shorter bits of time, according to Wundt, is 12 seconds. We probably
have no sense of “empty” time; but of the flow of events _in_ time.
It has been suggested that the pulse may be a sort of natural clock,
enabling us to appreciate time as it flows (for instance in sleep),
but this hardly serves to explain many such cases. The same may be
said of the idea that some unknown, but constant, feature in the brain
activities is the source of our perceiving time at all.
When we become unconscious, time is obliterated altogether; the sense
of time is also seriously impaired under the influence of certain
drugs (_e. g._, hasheesh), so that a second may appear to consume
hours, and _vice versa_. It has been proved by experiment that subjects
under hypnosis, and some natural somnambules, have a remarkable sense
of time, and can reckon it with uncanny accuracy. Our conscious mind
is notoriously bad at this sort of thing. The subconscious mind is
the “ready reckoner,” therefore, which must be added to its other
accomplishments!
ATTENTION.
When we “pay attention” to a thing, the consciousness is narrowed
down to a point, as it were, and concentrated like the beam of a
searchlight. The greater the degree of attention, the more this
narrowing process takes place, until the subject may be lost to all
save the immediate object of his inward study. Attention may be either
voluntary or involuntary; we may read a book with deep interest, or
stand fascinated by some horrible spectacle, from which we are unable
to avert our eyes. We may pay attention to objects of sense, or to
ideal or represented objects (intellectual attention). Attention may
also be connected with some sense (sight, hearing, etc.); or may
be purely psychical, as in cases of meditation, etc. Attention may
be stimulated by associating the subject-matter with something of
interest, or by drawing analogies. A person will always pay attention
to something that interests him. The practical importance of this law
should be utilized by all teachers, for the child’s education would
proceed by leaps and bounds were due advantage taken of these facts.
DISCRIMINATION.
The word “discrimination” is popularly used in two senses (1) we speak
of a man having “good discrimination,” meaning by that a sort of good
judgment. (2) Discrimination, in the psychological sense, however,
means the noticing of any part of an object, as distinct from the whole.
All sensations tend to fuse and become a single compound;
discrimination singles these out, and separates them. Such differences
may be felt, if they are _really_ different, and different _enough_;
further, they must fall more or less in succession upon the same organ,
and not simultaneously. If they do, they are apt to blend hopelessly.
Especially is this the case if the elements of the impression have
never been experienced singly before. If we are familiar with a thing,
we can begin to discriminate the elements going to compose it. It is,
however, true that only such elements as we are acquainted with, and
can imagine separately, can be discriminated, within a total sense
impression. If a thing be associated at one time with one thing and
at another time with another, this may become a separate “thing” for
the mind, which singles it out, by an act of discrimination, and places
it in a position by itself. Such acts of discrimination may be greatly
improved by practice.
ASSOCIATION.
This is the peculiar quality of the mind, by means of which two or
more ideas or memories are coupled together. Association is thought
to take place largely in the higher centers in the brain--the frontal
lobes. Nearly all our higher education consists in association, and our
mental lives are largely dependent upon it. Genius is said to consist,
largely, in making associations, and seeing resemblances, which other
people do not. Upon association memory largely depends.
Association is a very complicated process, which depends largely upon
the brain. Various anatomical schemes have been devised to explain and
illustrate association,--which may be found in text books upon the
subject. Association may be partial or complete. Similarity is one
of its distinguishing characteristics (and causes). Usually, objects
which appeal to the same sense are associated one with another; but
sometimes quite different sense-impressions are associated, in a very
odd manner. The subject may, e. g., associate a sense of smell with
a visual impression; or a sense of taste with a definite sound, etc.
These are the so-called “synæsthesias.” Thus: “_salt_, for instance, is
described by one observer as dull red, _bitter_ as brownish, _sweet_
as clear bright red, and _sour_ as green or greenish-blue. To another
observer the taste of meat seems red or brown, the taste of graham
bread is rich red in color, while all ice-creams, (except chocolate and
coffee) taste blue. To still another reporter, the sound of the word
‘intelligence’ tastes like fresh sliced tomatoes, while the sound of
the word ‘interest’ tastes like stewed tomatoes....”
These are unusual associations, however, which depend either upon
some odd nervous connections between the various sense-centers in the
brain, or upon some purely psychical associations. Most of our normal
associations deal either with objects or with memories.
IMAGINATION.
Nearly all our imaginations are visual in character; great composers
may imagine the orchestration of the masterpiece they are composing--so
vividly, at times, that this amounts to an auditory hallucination.
But most of us are more or less limited to _visual_ imaginings; we
“build air-castles in Spain,” or imagine ourselves in various scenes or
situations, which are seen by the “mind’s eye.” The explanation usually
put forward to explain this is that “sensations, once experienced,
modify the nervous organism, so that copies of them arise again in the
mind after the original outward stimulus is gone.” No such mental copy,
of course, can arise in the mind, of any sensation which has never been
directly excited from without, on this theory.
This power of “visualization” differs greatly in different individuals;
some men are good, others bad visualizers. Images of sounds, muscular
sensations, touch, etc., may also be reconstructed. These again may be
so vivid as to amount to actual hallucinations.
Imagination consists in the power of the mind to build-up mental
pictures, and project them into the _future_, just as memory-images are
projected into the _past_--into our life-experience. Imagination is
that power of the mind which seems, in one sense, to pierce the veil.
While such imaginings are, as a rule, merely day-dreams, never coming
true, it is also a fact that all great works must be thought of or
imagined, in some sense, before they are executed, or come into being
on the material plane. Someone must have “imagined” the Pyramids before
they were built. Rightly used, then, imagination is a very valuable
asset, which should be cherished and utilized--just as it can become
destructive, if abused. It had indeed been said that a sense of humor
and imagination are the two things which distinguish us more than
anything else from the brutes.
Use your imagination, therefore, only keep it well in leash--like the
thoroughbred horse which it is!
WILL.
The Will is that which seems more intimately a part of our inner Self
than almost any other portion of our mental being. We feel when we
actually _will_ a thing that we thereby set some hidden energy in
motion, which flows outwards, and sets our muscles into action. Or
we may will to accomplish a certain thing, or to feel or think in a
certain way. The will seems to be centered in the forehead, just above
the eyes and nose, and to form a part of the central Self or Ego.
Hence the doctrine of the “freedom of the will.” We _feel_ that we
are free to will, to perform any given action, or to refrain from
performing it. “The human will is free.” The contrary doctrine, on
the other hand, “Determinism,” contends that this is an illusion; we
are _not_ free; our every action is determined by our previous trains
of thought,--our education, environment, heredity, etc.,--and that we
must _necessarily_ choose and will as we do. This is the much-debated
philosophical question of “Free Will Vs. Determinism,”--which is really
a metaphysical question, and not a psychological one, and hence cannot
be discussed at greater length in this place.
We may really will to perform a certain action; or we may merely _wish_
to do so. This is little more than desire. A wish may exist without
giving rise to the will to carry it out; the _fiat_ of the will has not
gone forth. Action only follows this fiat of the will. Wish and desire
remain in the world of inaction. Hence the truth of the old adage,--“If
wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” The reason they do not ride is
that the wish is never translated into action.
Ideas of action may be expressed in action, or they may be
inhibited--prevented from being actively expressed. There is always
a tendency on the part of the body thus to carry out any given
volitional impulse. This is often checked, for our judgment tells
us that we should not perform the action in question. On the other
hand, we may force ourselves to perform a given action, from which we
instinctively shrink.
We may have an impulse to perform a specific action, but we “let
it go.” Again, we may hold steadily before the mind the idea of
performing that action, until we actually do so. Now, according to
many psychologists, this act of voluntary attention is all that the
will _is_; it is nothing else. “The essential achievement of the will
... when it is most voluntary, is to attend to the direct object and
hold it fast before the mind. The doing so _is_ the fiat; and it is a
mere physiological incident that when the object is thus attended to,
immediate motor consequences should ensue. Effort of attention is thus
the essential phenomenon of will....”
There are many of us, however, who cannot accept or believe this. We
see in the human will something more than this. There is something more
in will than mere effort of attention. Recent experiments, conducted
by means of delicate recording instruments, seem to show us that the
human will is indeed an energy, capable of registering itself, or being
registered, by suitable apparatus; while the experiments of Dr. Charles
Russ also appear to prove that the human eye, under the dynamic action
of the will, can be made to emit a living force, capable of affecting
delicate instruments. We feel that, when we love, some vital energy
radiates from the eyes; that the glance of hate is more than a mere
metaphor. The will and the outward vision (if I may use the term) seem
to be subtly connected, and experiments such as these seem to prove
it. And if so, they cast a new and vitally important light upon the
doctrine of free-will. For our immediate practical purposes, however,
it may be said that the will seems to send forth a fiat, of a nature
wholly unknown, following upon which definite actions are performed in
accordance with that volitional effort.
MEMORY.
A sensation, an emotion, an idea, etc., may leave a more or less
permanent memory which can, perhaps, be recalled years later. Where was
this memory in the meanwhile? The usual explanation is that a sort of
groove or trace is cut into certain brain cells,--just as the recording
needle cuts a groove in the phonograph record, recording at the same
time the _music_; and that the act of recalling a memory is analogous
to reproducing the music, by means of a suitable device upon the
phonograph. The brain is, on this view, “the physical basis of memory.”
One difficulty which at once arises, however, is that, inasmuch as all
parts of the body are constantly being made-over, and replaced by new
parts, these brain-cells must also be replaced (within a few weeks,
months or years) and the record would vanish with them. The usual reply
to this is that the newly laid-down brain-cell in some way “inherits”
the memory from the old one, and hence somehow continues to store its
psycho-physical memories, which are again passed-on when this cell is
replaced, and so on forever.
Needless to say, such an interpretation of the facts strains our
credulity. None other, however, has ever been forthcoming. But the
inherent difficulty of the case has led some philosophers--notably
Bergson--to defend the idea that the brain is merely a mechanism for
_reproducing_ memories, and that memory itself resides within some
spiritual storehouse, where it remains until recalled. The legitimacy
of such a view, of course, rests upon the possible proof of such a
super-physical world as that postulated.
Memory depends upon a variety of factors. A healthy brain is essential
to a good memory; good blood, bathing healthy nerve-cells being here
essential. Memory also depends upon (1) interest, and (2) association.
We remember a thing which interests us; it makes an “impression” upon
us. Also, if we associate a thing with other things, it helps us
to remember it. An isolated fact is hard to remember; but if it is
associated with a number of other things which we know, or which also
interest us, it is more liable to be recalled. Any one of these things
may then recall the other event, by association, and hence the given
memory is more readily accessible.
Memory is first of all recorded, then stored, then recalled, and
finally recognized or “placed,” after it is recalled. Some authors
say that memory consists in three stages, others in as many as five
(Hyslop). This is merely a question of the sub-division of the process
involved.
It has been contended that there is no such thing as a “good” or a
“bad” memory; it all depends upon the factors above mentioned. Various
artificial schemes have been devised to improve and perfect the memory;
and there is no doubt that it is a faculty which can be greatly
improved by constant practice. In a sense, everything is remembered,
but it is not vivid enough to be recalled. Such hidden memories can
often be revived by means of hypnotism, etc. In certain abnormal
conditions, the memory seems to be keenly stimulated, and events, long
forgotten, are recalled, which had long before been forgotten by the
conscious mind. Many apparently “super-normal” phenomena have been
explained in this manner.
REASONING.
One thing which is held to elevate us above the brutes, more than all
else, is our _reason_. “Man is a rational animal.” Yet how few of us
reason,--at any rate systematically! When in a crowd, we are carried
away by the psychology of the crowd; and we are swayed more by our
feelings and emotions than we are by our reason, as a rule. Yet there
can be no doubt that pure reason is the highest type of thinking
possible for the normal man.
Reasoning consists in carrying on a logical and connected train of
thought, each step of which follows logically from the one preceding
it. It is dependent upon learning, sagacity and common-sense. The
essence of reasoning is, of course, _logic_, which is supposed
to portray the highest type of reason. We think about a thing
intellectually, when we reason. We arrive at a conclusion by a
logical train of thought. Each thought is like the link in a chain.
We may arrive at the conclusion in some other way, by some process
of “intuition,” or what not, but reasoning constitutes the basis of
our thinking, and represents the solid rock, upon which most men are
content to build their intellectual houses. And in order to reason
well, systematically clear thinking is required.
SPEECH.
Normally, we communicate with one another in three ways; by means of
marks upon paper (writing), by movements (sign language), and by means
of air vibrations issuing from the vocal chords (speech). The question
of the origin of speech is a much disputed one, some authorities
contending that we gradually attached meanings to certain primitive
sounds; others that we learned to express ourselves in speech in order
to express our thoughts.
There are certain definite areas in the brain which send out the
necessary motor currents, rendering speech possible. We have two such
centers, one in each hemisphere, but we ordinarily use but one of
them. Right-handed people use the one in the left hemisphere, while
left-handed persons utilize the one in the right hemisphere. Should
this active area be injured, the subject becomes _dumb_--though the
corresponding area in the other hemisphere may be quite intact. Hence
the importance of teaching children to become “ambidextrous”; _both_
centers are thereby cultivated, and, if one is injured, the patient can
still talk. An extended discussion of this entire subject may be found
in Dr. N. C. MacNamara’s “Human Speech; its Physical Basis.”
HABIT.
We all know what is meant by forming habits--either “good” or “bad.”
It is always easier to do a thing a second time than at first. If
any specific action is performed a great number of times, it becomes
practically automatic, so that we do not have to think about it at
all. Every step in walking is conscious at first; every action in
buttoning a button or tying a tie; in time these actions become more
or less unconscious. A habit, once formed, is hard to break, but it is
relatively easy to break in the early stages of its formation.
Man has been defined as “a bundle of habits.” We hardly realize,
perhaps, the extent to which habit governs us--not only in our physical
actions, but also in our trends and attitudes of thought. “Habit second
Nature?” exclaimed the Duke of Wellington; “habit is ten times nature!”
There is much truth in this assertion. When we form a new habit, we
cut a new groove in the brain, so to speak, and nervous currents find
it much easier to travel over this beaten path, rather than to cut a
new one. Every time that path is used, it becomes relatively easier
and easier for the nervous current to pass over it; and the result is
that, whenever a nervous current passes in its immediate vicinity, it
tends to shoot along that path, before it can be prevented from doing
so. The action in question is then performed. Of course, this is only
a rough simile, but something of the sort takes place, and it enables
us to visualize how habits are formed, from the psycho-physiological
point-of-view.
Prof. William James, in his “Psychology,” has laid down certain maxims,
which are very helpful, and may be applied in daily life to our own
advantage. These maxims, in brief, are:
(1) _Make your nervous system your ally instead of your enemy._ This
is to fund and capitalize our acquisitions, and live at ease upon the
interest of the fund. For this we must make automatic and habitual, as
early as possible, as many useful actions as we can, and guard against
the growing into ways that are likely to be disadvantageous to us,
as we should guard against the plague. We should, then, take care to
launch ourselves with as strong and decided an initiative as possible
upon any new venture. This will tend to cut a deep initial groove, so
to say.
(2) _Never suffer an exception to occur till the new habit is securely
rooted in your life._ Each lapse is like the letting fall of a ball of
string which one is carefully winding-up; a single slip will undo more
than a great many turns will wind up again. _Continuity_ of training is
the great means of making the nervous system act infallibly right.
(3) _Seize the very first possible opportunity to act on every
resolution you make_, and on every emotional prompting you may
experience in the direction of the habits you aspire to gain. It is not
in the moment of their forming, but in the moment of their producing
_motor effects_, that resolves and aspirations communicate the new
“set” to the brain.
Much dispute has arisen as to the best way to break a bad
habit--whether to abolish it at once, or to taper it off by
degrees--thus avoiding “shock.” The consensus of opinion seems to be
that it is far better to break off at once, _providing one can stand
it_. Similarly, the abrupt acquisition of a new habit is best, _if_
there is a real possibility of carrying it out. If you set yourself an
impossible task, and fail to carry it out, this will leave you weaker
than before. But this is not necessary; slight tasks will serve just as
useful purposes as more difficult ones in the formation of new habits.
And the ability to perform unpleasant tasks is the test of character!
“The faculty must be kept alive by a little gratuitous exercise every
day.”
According to the habits we form--lazy or industrious, bad or good--our
life, success, happiness, destiny depend. An object-lesson of some
sort--a book, a play, a living example--will perhaps modify and color
our whole lives. I cannot do better than to conclude this chapter by
a quotation from William James, which I personally read when about
nineteen years of age, and which served to influence the whole course
of my life. It may, perhaps, have the same effect upon others, and it
is with the hope that it will, that I call attention to it here. James
says:
“Let no youth have any anxiety about the upshot of his education,
whatever the line of it may be. If he keep faithfully busy each hour
of the working day, he may safely leave the final result to itself. He
can with perfect certainty count on waking up, some fine morning, to
find himself one of the competent ones of his generation, in whatever
pursuit he may have singled out. Silently, between all the details of
his business, the _power of judging_ in that class of matter will have
built itself up within him as a possession that will never pass away.
Young people should know this truth in advance. The ignorance of it has
probably engendered more discouragement and faint-heartedness in youths
embarking on arduous careers than all other causes put together.”
THE STRUCTURE OF THE MIND.
Great changes in our views as to the nature or structure of the mind
have taken place within the past few years. The older psychology held
that the mind was a _unit_; that it was a separate thing or entity,
a sort of “sphere”--which, if it could ever be caught, would reveal
all the secrets of True Being! Accordingly, they tried to catch this
sphere-of-being, by inward reflection or “introspection.” But it
was never caught! There are many reasons why this should be so, the
chief reason being that a subject cannot be an object also; it is as
impossible for a thought to catch itself as it would be to turn a
hollow rubber ball inside out, without tearing the cover.[1] But the
newer psychology studies the mind objectively, from the outside--by
means of recording instruments, and does not depend upon introspection
for its results. Further, the very conception of the nature of the
“self,” is different; it is not now considered an entity, as of old;
but rather a compound thing, a complex, composed of a variety of
elements. Instead of being considered a single gossamer thread, it is
now thought to be rather a rope, composed of innumerable, interwoven
elements--and these, in turn, of still finer threads, until the
sub-division seems endless. The mind, in other words, is thought to
be compounded of innumerable separate elements; but held together, or
compounded into one, by the normal action of the will, of attention,
and the grip upon the personality of the true Self. When this will is
weakened, when the attention is constantly slackened, when the mind
wanders, this strand of rope separates and unravels. The “threads”
branch out in various directions, no longer in control of the central
governing will; the Self has become _dissociated_ or split-up into
various minor Selves--all but parts of the real total Self; yet
separate and distinct, nevertheless. And if _enough_ of these threads
become joined together, or interwoven, one with another, it can easily
be imagined that this second strand of rope might become a formidable
opponent to the original strand; it might become so large and strong,
in fact, by the constant addition of new threads, and the dissociation
of these from the first, true strand, that it would assume a _more_
important role, and become stronger, and finally even control the
whole. What was originally but a single, fine, divergent thread has
become, in course of time, a successful rival to the original strand of
rope.
Now let us apply this analogy--which is, of course, _only_ a rough
analogy--which seeks to portray briefly, in visual terms, something
that seems to happen invisibly and internally in the mental life. The
mind as a whole represents the rope; its elements or component parts
are the threads; and, under certain abnormal conditions, these can be
torn away from the original Self--like little rivulets, branching off
from the main stream of consciousness, forming independent selves.
This is an abnormal condition; a splitting of the mind, a dissociation
of consciousness. We here enter, therefore, the domain of _Abnormal
Psychology_. In such cases, we have instances of so-called “double
consciousness,” of “alternating personality;” or, if there are three or
more splits or cleavages, of “multiple personality.”[2]
So long as this split-off portion remains a mass of sporadic thoughts,
not much damage has been done; but when they become abnormally linked
or associated together, forming groups, then the abnormal conditions
have begun in earnest. These masses of subconscious experiences are
called “complexes,” and give rise to all sorts of trouble. It must
not be thought that this complex formation is always harmful; on the
contrary, this very process, when normally conducted, is the basis of
our educational processes. But when they are thus conglomerated and
consolidated outside the conscious mind, and function automatically, by
themselves, then they have become dangerous to the mental stability.
Their pressure and influence may be felt in the conscious life--in
fantastic imaginations, in fears, phobias and obsessions, in morbid
dreams, in morbid emotional and moral reactions throughout the entire
psycho-physical life. It is these automatic, self-acting complexes
which originate many of the disorders of the mind.
This theory of the dissociation of consciousness has enabled us to
explain many puzzling facts, hitherto inexplicable. Thus _hysteria_,
with its multiform symptoms, and its internal contradictions, has long
been the stumbling-block of medicine. Now it is no longer thought to be
a morbid physical state (dependent usually upon sexual disturbances),
but it is regarded rather as an indication of the splitting of the
mind, a dissociation which embraces all the motor, physical and
psychical activities. On this theory, hysteria is readily explained,
and all its multiplex symptoms understood. In treating it, the self is
unified, abnormal suggestibility is removed, and the patient is cured!
_Psychaesthenia_, again, with its obsessions and fears, may be
explained in the same manner, and its cure rests upon the same
principles. The “attacks” cease so soon as the psychical synthesis is
effected and the morbid self-consciousness removed.
_Neurasthenia_, long regarded as a pathological state, due to
auto-intoxication and similar causes, is now thought to be due
chiefly to dissociation, caused by excessive fatigue--one of the
known contributory causes of this condition. _Psycho-epilepsy_--a
sort of fictitious imitation of the real disease--is due to precisely
similar causes, and may be cured in a similar manner. Hypnotism,
Psycho-analysis and general psychotherapy may be employed in such cases.
ABSTRACT THOUGHT.
Two schools of philosophers--the “nominalists” and the
“conceptualists”--for long waged a wordy war as to whether or not the
mind could frame abstract or universal ideas. As a matter of fact, it
was ideas of universal or abstract objects that was meant. These ideas
dealt largely with the sense of _meaning_, the inner significance
of the thing contemplated. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of
mind--how such a thing as abstract meaning can exist at all, and how
brain-changes can in any way account for it. McDougall, as we know, is
inclined to question that they do so at all. Meaning is a thing most
difficult to account for on a purely materialistic basis. Abstract
thinking is supposed to be one of the highest types of thinking
possible for us; it is the most impersonal form of thought, and hence,
in a sense, the highest. Much has been written upon this topic in
Oriental literature. This question comes up for discussion, naturally,
in the Section devoted to the stream of thought, and the consciousness
of self; and further discussion of it will be found in that place.
THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF.
We now approach the heart of our Problem; the central core of Being!
The consciousness of self is ingrained in every one of us; we feel
our own inner being, our true self, our personal identity, our
individuality, as something unique and exclusive. What is this Self?
What are thoughts, and who is the Thinker that thinks them? Are
the two identical, or are the thoughts expressions of the flow of
consciousness? What is the true Self--of what is it composed--and what
relation has it to the other functions and processes of the mind which
go on, and which are in some mysterious way related to it? Only a brief
answer to these questions can be attempted in this Chapter; for many
lengthy volumes have been written upon this question alone.
Our stream of consciousness is _continuous_ (except during sleep);
states of mind tend to succeed each other. Let us grant this to begin
with. The mind seems to be _selective_ in its action, it is changing
within itself, as time passes; no two states of consciousness are ever
precisely alike. Further, “all consciousness tends to personal form”--a
very important fact indeed. A flow of more or less continuous thought
goes on; these thoughts follow one another logically in sequence. (In
insane patients, of course, they are not logical. I speak here merely
of the normal mind. Also, it must be emphasized that nothing in this
Chapter touches upon the subconscious mind, unless special mention is
made of that fact.) Each thought seems to be personal to the thinker;
it is not merely thought in itself. It is _my_ thought. This flow of
thought is in constant change; it flows as life itself flows; on the
other hand, thought is sensibly continuous! The mental life might here
be compared to a river, which eddies and swirls, as it flows, but is
the same water, nevertheless.
One of the objects of thinking is to reach certain conclusions. We
might compare thought to a bird in flight; its object is to perch
upon yon branch; its flight is a necessary transitive stage _to_
the branch. The chain of intermediate thought corresponds, on our
analogy, to the bird’s flight. This flight is very different, in the
case of different people; with some, it is straight and rapid; with
others, it is tortuous and lengthy. That is why different people think
differently. About each thought is a sort of halo of relations, dimming
off, as it recedes, into other things. This is the so-called “fringe of
consciousness.” All thought is related to other thought, more or less
directly. Knowledge _about_ a thing is knowledge of its _relations_.
When I am thinking, I am aware of my _personal existence_; at the same
time _I_ am aware. There thus seems to be a double self within the
Self--the Self as known, and the Self as knower. James calls the former
the “ME” and the latter the “I.” Let us consider each of these in turn.
_The Me._--This comprises all that a man can call _his_; the most
important of these spiritual possessions are (1) the material me; (2)
the social me; and (3) the spiritual me.
The _Material Me_ consists in (a) his body, and (b) his possessions.
_The Social Me_ is the side he shows to his friends and acquaintances;
this varies greatly in differing environments, so that it has been said
that “a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who
recognize him.” His name, fame, reputation, success, etc., are classed
as parts of this Me. _The Spiritual Me_ includes passing states of
consciousness; it is that part of us which “goes out” to meet other
thoughts. Feelings and emotions affect this Me; self-appreciation,
self-satisfaction (or the reverse), self-complacency, etc., vitally
affect this Me. Self-seeking and self-preservation are a part of it.
These various Selves clash and conflict, to a certain extent, among
themselves; they do not all want the same thing. “Happiness” probably
consists largely in having all these Selves working together in
harmony, to the same end.
_The I._--This was called the “pure ego” by the older psychologists. It
seems to be the background of the personality--the string upon which
the pearls of thought are strung. Is there a real “string,” or are the
pearls merely separate, succeeding one another, as if they were thus
strung?
That is a difficult question. Passing thought appears to be a unity;
yet it consists of a number of different elements; there is no “fusing”
of thought. Ideas, thoughts, in this unlike material threads, cannot be
woven together upon nothing; there must be some background other than
themselves. The human _Soul_ has been postulated as this “permanent
background,” uniting the whole, and withstanding the shock of death.
If true, this would serve to explain the facts, and at the same time
give us hope for survival. But whether or not such a soul exists at all
is a matter of controversy! In the absence of its proof, we must, says
Science--reject it. Consequently, we have today a “psychology without a
soul.” Attempts have been made to explain the facts without resorting
to it.
The usual argument is somewhat as follows: There seem to be single,
successive pulses in the stream of thought, constituting the Ego. These
vary and change; they succeed one another. May not consciousness, then,
consist merely _in_ such successive states of consciousness; may it not
in truth be composed of them--just as a succession of pearls may exist
without a unifying string? Each thought, on this hypothesis, in some
way gives birth to the next, which also inherits its content; in other
words, _the thoughts themselves are the thinkers_. Were this true,
we should have no “abiding entity,” but merely a successive series of
thoughts, constituting the stream of consciousness; this stream in turn
composing the true Self. Which of these views is the correct one can
only be proved by showing that survival in some form exists; and this
can only be accomplished by Psychical Research! (See my little book
upon that subject, in the present series.)
* * * * *
(Mutations, multiplications, etc., of the Self, have been touched upon
in the Section devoted to Abnormal Psychology; Insanity in its own
section; mediumships, possessions, etc., in the book just mentioned.)
THE DUCTLESS GLANDS, AND PERSONALITY.
Within the past few years, a new school has arisen, which contends that
the ductless glands in the body (or rather their secretions) affect
personality to a very great extent, and that, in fact, personality is
largely dependent upon them for its peculiarities and general make-up.
A good example of such teaching is to be found in Dr. Louis Berman’s
book, “The Glands Regulating Personality.” Here, _e. g._, we read:
“Acuteness of perception, memory, logical thought, imagination,
conception, emotional expression or inhibition, and the entire content
of consciousness are influenced by the internal secretions.... All
the different _nuances_ of personality are expressions of a peculiar
relationship, transitory or permanent, between the endocrines and
the viscera and muscles. Conversely, behavior shows what a person
actually _is_ chemically; that is, what endocrine and vegetative
factors predominate in his make-up. The constructive imagination, one
of the few truly precious gifts of a personality, is probably the
expression of a certain balanced activity of the ante-pituitary and the
post-pituitary (glands).... It is possible to speak of thyroid moods,
adrenal moods, ante-pituitary or post-pituitary moods, gonadal moods.
Each of these is the echo in the mind of cells stimulated or depressed,
by concentration or dilution in the blood of particular internal
secretions....”
Whether or not such arguments will “hold water” must be proved by
further investigation. The _pros_ and _cons_ cannot be argued in this
place. It may be said, however, that such extreme views as those
outlined above are not yet generally accepted, either by the medical
profession or by psychologists, and it seems an extreme statement of a
partial truth. The mental life is certainly influenced by the secretion
of the internal glands, but to what extent it is fundamentally altered
by them is still _sub judice_.
MOTIVES.
Why do we act as we do, under certain circumstances? There is usually
some “motive” at work, prompting our action. Human motives find their
source in the subconscious mind of man; here they take root, and their
products alone are seen by us--mostly in varied actions. Dr. James J.
Jackson has written an interesting volume on “Human Motives,” in which
he distinguishes two sorts of motives--motives of constructiveness
and motives of adaptation. These are, of course, biological in
origin. Usually, we speak of “good” and “bad” motives. They all arise
from a complex of sentiments, which shape the form and tenor of the
subconscious thought--which, in turn, is symbolically expressed in
thought and action. Without discussing this question at greater length,
it may be said that all our motives originate within the subconscious
mind--which thus constitutes the spring of our thoughts and actions.
CONSCIENCE.
Conscience was for long thought to be the “voice of God” speaking to
the spiritual ear of man. Nowadays, a more matter-of-fact solution has
been sought, and, to a certain extent, found. Modern psychological
investigations have deprived conscience of its supernatural origin.
Until these newer researches were undertaken, however, any clear
understanding as to the nature of conscience was impossible. (See,
_e. g._ George W. Reid’s “Conscience,” and Hastings Rashdall’s
“Is Conscience an Emotion?”) With a clearer understanding of the
subconscious mind, came greater light. We now believe that conscience
is, very largely, the inhibitory action of a portion of the
subconscious mind, which inhibition is exercised whenever the thoughts
or the actions of the individual run counter to those generally
accepted by the community in which he dwells, or by his own individual
up-bringing, or both. It is a sort of Censor; but it is an acquired
thing, which has come into being, and evolved, like everything else.
What the conscience of one man would prevent him from doing, another
will do without the slightest qualms. Conscience is not, therefore,
a universal principle, judging good and bad, alike in all men. It
is a type of repression, exercised upon us from within. Early moral
precepts, etc., have much to do with its formation. Here, then, we find
the psychological basis for the existence of conscience, which is more
or less active in all of us, according to our heredity, environment,
education, etc. It is a normal attribute of the inner man.
INTUITION.
This is the term loosely applied to certain inner feelings, giving rise
to a form of conviction as to the truth and reality (or the reverse)
of something then present in the mind. Intuitions are popularly
supposed to be right, and women are said to experience them far more
often than men! No statistical evidence is available, so far as I
know, upon either of these questions; indeed, it may be said that
the whole subject has been grossly neglected, from the psychological
point-of-view.
Intuitions probably present themselves to the mind as the result of
subconscious mentation. A hidden and unknown process has been going
on within the mind, the result or product of which finally emerges in
vague form into consciousness. Usually it takes the form of a more or
less vague feeling. Miss Goodrich-Freer, who had experienced many such
intuitions, attempted to analyze some of them, from introspection, and
contributed a valuable Chapter entitled “How it Came into my Head; the
Machinery of Intuitions,” in her book, “Essays in Psychical Research.”
Her conclusion is approximately that mentioned above. Mr. Walter N.
Weston has also written a book entitled “Intuition,” in which, however,
little of value can be found.
INSPIRATION.
This term is generally employed to signify “divine” inspiration--ideas
which are implanted directly into the human mind by some external
Divinity. Such a conception, needless to say, is not in accord with
modern thought. Throughout the ages, inspirational addresses have been
heralded as evidence of the supernatural. The Pythoness at Delphi
inhaled the mystic vapor, rising from a cleft in the rock, and gave
forth her Oracular utterances. (See Dempsey: “The Delphic Oracle”; H.
N. Bate, “The Sibylline Oracles.”) Even in our own day, “mediums” give
similar inspirational addresses, at various spiritualistic centers.
It is not necessary, however, to consider such utterances divine, or
supernatural, for the vast majority of them may be interpreted in
terms of psychology, with relative ease. They are the products of the
subconscious mind of man. George N. Raymond has written an interesting
book, entitled “The Psychology of Inspiration,” to which the reader
may be referred to further _data_ upon this subject. While it is
somewhat religious in tone, it has some good material in it. Like
Intuition, this subject has been much neglected by academic psychology,
and there is much need for a careful study of its various problems.
GENIUS.
Genius is a term hard to define, though we all have a more or less
clear idea as to what is meant by a genius. He is a man who stands
apart from his fellows, head-and-shoulders above them, mentally or
artistically. But what is it that thus causes him to rise above
others? Is it vision? Is it originality? clever anticipation? breadth?
constructiveness? concentration? patience? common-sense? Doubtless
genius is all this, but it is also more! A genius can perform feats
which another man can not, try as he will; and more than that, he
performs them without effort or without training, very often! A certain
type of genius amounts to what we term a “prodigy,” and then we have
cases of musical, mathematical or artistic genius. These gifts are
often exhibited very early in life, for no apparent reason; they last
for a few years, and then disappear. Few youthful prodigies retain
their gifts into adult life. Often, their possessor is not even
normally gifted with reason and common-sense in other directions. Such
cases as these are unusually difficult to account for. Theosophists are
apt to turn to the doctrine of “reincarnation” for an explanation; but
we must endeavor to seek its explanation upon more naturalistic lines.
Ostwald has contended that there are two main types of genius; the
one which is emotional, erratic, temperamental, artistic, etc. This
type acquires its genius without “elbow grease.” The other is the
intellectual type, and hard work is essential for the creation of
genius of this type.
Nordau, Lombroso, and others, have endeavored to prove that genius
is closely allied to insanity. In a sense, this is true; but so are
dreams, and yet perfectly normal and healthy people dream. Because
certain marks of _resemblance_ may be found, this does not prove
_identity_, by any means! A yellow ball may resemble an orange; but it
is not identical with it--certainly not in its most essential part--its
interior, and its utility.
Genius is probably hereditary, to a certain extent. Ribot has gathered
together a mass of data, in this connection, which he has published
in his work on “Heredity.” An interesting study of this and allied
questions may also be found in N. K. Royse’s book on “Genius.”
Frederic Myers has advanced the idea that genius represents an “uprush
from the subliminal consciousness” (subconsciousness) of ideas matured
below the threshold. These ideas burst upon the surface, much as
bubbles might be said to break upon the surface of water. When the
stratum of the mind from which these ideas originate is _diseased_, we
have insanity; when, on the other hand, it is _healthy_, we find the
products of genius. Some such theory as this is doubtless true; but
the study of genius, from the scientific point-of-view, is yet in its
infancy, and the final solution of its mystery has yet to be found.
INSANITY.
Until the present generation, the word Insanity was popularly thought
to mean either imbecility on the one hand, or a raving maniac on
the other. We now know that this idea is quite untrue; insanity is
a disease of the mind, just as small-pox is a disease of the body.
Moreover, we speak of insanities, and not insanity; for there are many
varieties--all shading-off one into another. A physician who deals
with such cases is called an “alienist”; and the terms psychiatry,
psycho-pathology, abnormal psychology, etc., are employed to designate
various branches of the study of the diseased mind.
Certain types of insanity are, of course, due to actual brain disease.
A degeneration of the physical substance of the brain may have taken
place. In other cases, however, no such gross degeneration can be
traced, and we must assume microscopic alterations, or blood changes,
or nerves improperly functioning, or purely physical changes and
dissociations, as explained above. There has grown-up an extensive
literature on insanity, within the past few years. A good primary book
of this character is Dr. Bernard Hart’s “Psychology of Insanity.” See
also Dr. Charles Mercier’s “Sanity and Insanity.”
INTELLIGENCE-LEVELS.
The tests conducted upon the male adult population of the United
States, during the Great War, revealed the astonishing fact that the
average mental “age” was approximately twelve years; that is to say,
the average adult possesses an intelligence of a boy at that age.
The body may have grown, but the mind has not! Of course, many were
above that level; but many fell below, and the above represented the
_average_. In many other countries, the average would certainly have
been far lower.
The majority, therefore, do not possess normal adult minds; there
has been an arrested development. A scale of mental development was
accordingly constructed, and individuals were placed somewhere in that
scale. The human mind may be anything, from a genius to an idiot.
In this scale, there were many “defectives.” Those individuals who
possessed a mentality of from eight to twelve years, were classed as
“morons”; those who ranged from three to seven years, “imbeciles”; and
those of two, and under, “idiots.”
The mental-age or intelligence-level of any person may be ascertained
by special tests, devised for the purpose. These tests were originated
by the psychologist Binet, but Terman and others have greatly extended
and amplified the original methods. Such tests have now been conducted
extensively, and the results show us that surprisingly low levels of
intelligence are the rule, and not the rare exception. The importance
of an extensive educational campaign is therefore manifest; and the
Editor of this series, Mr. Haldeman-Julius, is carrying on one of the
most important campaigns in the world today--by spreading general
culture and education. For, by this means alone, and by suitable
eugenic measures, can the human race be elevated and improved, with
each succeeding generation.
THE PRACTICAL USE OF THE MIND.
There is an old saying that a man may be worth only five dollars a day
from his eyes down, but he may be worth a million dollars a year from
his eyes up. That is to say, man’s value, both to himself and to the
community, lies in his _brain_, and the use he makes of it. Manual
labor is not well paid, proportionately, to creative brain work, so
that it is to our advantage to develop and utilize our brains to the
best possible advantage.
Cultivation of the mind will give us greater powers of concentration;
improved memory; stronger will; more poise; soul judgment; greater
wisdom; increased value. But mere book learning will not do this. We
must learn how to apply the mind in a practical way, to the problems of
daily life, and utilize the powers within ourselves. Curiously enough,
there is no text-book of this character in use in any school or college
in the world; but the necessity of such a practical work is obvious.
Boys and girls emerge from College without the slightest idea as to
how to apply their minds in any practical manner; their theoretical
knowledge is of but slight advantage to them. A few practical hints of
this character should, therefore, prove useful. I select the following
passages from Christian D. Larson’s excellent little book, “Your
Forces: and How to Use Them.” He says:
“To make thinking scientific, there are three leading essentials to be
observed. The _first_ is to cultivate constructive mental attitudes,
and all mental attitudes are constructive when mind, thought, feeling,
desire and will constantly face the greater and the better. A positive
and determined optimism has the same effect, and the same is true of
the practice of keeping the mental eye single on the highest goal in
view. To make every mental attitude constructive, the mind must never
look down, and mental depression must be avoided completely....
“The _second_ essential is constructive mental imagery. Use the
imagination to picture only what is good, what is beautiful, what is
beneficial, what is ideal, and what you wish to realize. Mentally see
yourself receiving what you deeply desire to receive. What you imagine,
you will think, and what you think, you will become....
“The _third_ essential is constructive mental action. Every action of
the mind should have something desirable in view and should have a
definite, positive aim.... When the average man thinks of the future,
he usually pictures a variety of conflicting events and conditions. He
has nothing definite in mind. There is no actual leadership therefore
in the mind, and nothing of great worth can be accomplished....
“Those people who fail, and who continue to fail all along the line,
fail because the power of their minds is either in a habitual negative
state, or is always misdirected. If the power of mind is not working
positively and constructively, for a certain goal, you are not going
to succeed. If your mind is not positive, it is negative, and negative
minds float with the stream. We must remember that we are in the midst
of all kinds of circumstances, some of which are for us and some of
which are against us, and we will either have to make our own way or
drift, and if we drift we go wherever the stream goes. But most of the
streams of human life are found to flow in the world of the ordinary
and the inferior. Therefore, if you drift, you will drift with the
inferior, and your goal will be failure.”
In this connection, it is well to remember that negative people and
non-constructive minds never attract that which is helpful in their
circumstances. The reason why so many people fail is due to the fact
that they do not fully and constructively apply the forces and powers
they possess, and the reason so many succeed only to a slight degree is
found in the fact that only a small fraction of their power is applied
properly. The positive and constructive use of the power of mind,
with a definite goal in view, will invariably result in advancement,
attainment and achievement; but if we wish to use that power in its
full capacity, the action of the mind must be _deep_. We must not
merely think from the surface of the mind; ideas and aspirations
must come from the deep within. Such ideals and thoughts only come,
as a rule, after a certain period of quiet and meditation. Hence
the necessity of being quite alone for a certain time each day--and
utilizing that time in actual reflection, and not merely in idling the
time away!
We have now learned something of the general functions and powers of
the mind; how it works, its mechanisms and “faculties.” Having this
ground-work, the next thing to do is to apply this knowledge in our
daily life, and this can be done by following out suggestions such as
those given above--provided the aspiration and the will be present,
to drive us onward to achievement and success. The mind of man is
assuredly his greatest possession; we must first understand it; then
use it! Theoretical and applied Psychology enable us to do this.
MIND AND BRAIN.
The relationship between brain and mind is one of the most puzzling
questions in the whole field of scientific and philosophic thought. For
every thought we think, there is a corresponding brain-change; that we
know. The problem is: What is the nature of this connection, and how
can a thought (an immaterial thing, apparently) be connected in any
actual sense with a brain change (which is certainly a material thing?)
I have discussed this point at considerable length in my little book
on “Life,” in the present series, and have therein stated the various
theories so far propounded. The interested reader may refer to such
books as McDougall’s “Body and Mind,” Binet’s “The Mind and the Brain,”
Bain’s “Mind and Body,” Calderwood’s “The Relation of Mind and Brain,”
and C. A. Strong’s “Why the Mind has a Body,” for further and detailed
discussion upon this subject.
PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY.
Inasmuch as psychology deals with the mind, the spirit, the soul,
(provided there be such a thing), and with purely imponderable and
immaterial things generally, it is only natural that psychology
and philosophy should be closely related. Many of the problems of
metaphysics, as a matter of fact, deal with semi-psychological
problems; among which may be mentioned the relation of brain and mind,
free-will, the science of perceiving the reality of the outer world
(epistemology), etc. How an external object and the “idea” of that
object can ever be in any way “related” to one another, and how the
mind can see a definite “sameness” or similarity between the two is,
in fact, an extraordinary phenomenon. The idea of a beefsteak and the
beefsteak itself are, indeed, as dissimilar as possible; and yet the
two somehow correspond! This relationship is a remarkable fact, and
awaits a full solution.
Again, every night when we fall asleep, we lose our individuality,
in a sense; yet we are sure of waking up the next morning the same
“person” who went to sleep--with its memories, thoughts, ideas,
emotions, etc., practically unchanged. How do we know that we shall
do so? What guarantee have we that we shall wake up the same person
that went to sleep and not some one else? As a matter of fact, this
_does_ sometimes happen, in cases of alternating personality; but such
cases are exceptional, and the rule holds good. Yet consciousness is
constantly changing. We are not the same person that we were five, ten,
twenty years ago; we do not consider ourselves morally responsible, as
it were, for acts committed by ourselves, when children, any more than
if they had been committed by some one else. Nevertheless, underneath
all these changes and modifications, there seems to flow a stream of
“selfness,” or uniformity, binding the whole together, and we recognize
that Self as Ourself--behind and beyond all. What is the innermost
nature of that Self? What is its origin, its destiny? These are
questions which only the Science of the future can decide!
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It can be shown, theoretically, that this is possible in the
“fourth dimension,” but not in the third. This illustrates the
difference between theory and practice--a point it might be well for
Christian Scientists to keep in mind!
[2] Although this theory of the “composite” nature of mind is now
generally held, Mr. Myers has contended that the Self must have
some _fundamental_ unity--to enable it to withstand the shock of
death--provided it does so.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Perceived typographical errors have been silently corrected.
Footnotes have been moved to the end of the text.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PSYCHOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
