Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3), Samuel Butler [the best motivational books .txt] 📗
- Author: Samuel Butler
Book online «Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3), Samuel Butler [the best motivational books .txt] 📗». Author Samuel Butler
In The Latest Edition This Passage Remains Unaltered, Except In One
Unimportant Respect. What Could More Completely Throw Us Off The
Scent Of The Earlier Writers? If They Had Written Anything Worthy Of
Our Attention, Or Indeed If There Had Been Any Earlier Writers At
All, Mr. Darwin Would Have Been The First To Tell Us About Them, And
To Award Them Their Due Meed Of Recognition. But, No; The Whole
Thing Was An Original Growth In Mr. Darwin's Mind, And He Had Never
So Much As Heard Of His Grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin.
Dr. Krause, Indeed, Thought Otherwise. In The Number Of Kosmos For
February 1879 He Represented Mr. Darwin As In His Youth Approaching
The Works Of His Grandfather With All The Devotion Which People
Usually Feel For The Writings Of A Renowned Poet. {8b} This Should
Perhaps Be A Delicately Ironical Way Of Hinting That Mr. Darwin Did
Not Read His Grandfather's Books Closely; But I Hardly Think That Dr.
Krause Looked At The Matter In This Light, For He Goes On To Say That
"Almost Every Single Work Of The Younger Darwin May Be Paralleled By
At Least A Chapter In The Works Of His Ancestor: The Mystery Of
Heredity, Adaptation, The Protective Arrangements Of Animals And
Plants, Sexual Selection, Insectivorous Plants, And The Analysis Of
The Emotions And Sociological Impulses; Nay, Even The Studies On
Infants Are To Be Found Already Discussed In The Pages Of The Elder
Darwin." {8c}
Nevertheless, Innocent As Mr. Darwin's Opening Sentence Appeared, It
Contained Enough To Have Put Us Upon Our Guard. When He Informed Us
That, On His Return From A Long Voyage, "It Occurred To" Him That The
Way To Make Anything Out About His Subject Was To Collect And Reflect
Upon The Facts That Bore Upon It, It Should Have Occurred To Us In
Our Turn, That When People Betray A Return Of Consciousness Upon Such
Matters As This, They Are On The Confines Of That State In Which
Other And Not Less Elementary Matters Will Not "Occur To" Them. The
Introduction Of The Word "Patiently" Should Have Been Conclusive. I
Will Not Analyse More Of The Sentence, But Will Repeat The Next Two
Lines:- "After Five Years Of Work, I Allowed Myself To Speculate Upon
The Subject, And Drew Up Some Short Notes." We Read This, Thousands
Of Us, And Were Blind.
If Dr. Erasmus Darwin's Name Was Not Mentioned In The First Edition
Of The "Origin Of Species," We Should Not Be Surprised At There Being
No Notice Taken Of Buffon, Or At Lamarck's Being Referred To Only
Twice--On The First Occasion To Be Serenely Waved Aside, He And All
His Works; {9a} On The Second, {9b} To Be Commended On A Point Of
Detail. The Author Of The "Vestiges Of Creation" Was More Widely
Known To English Readers, Having Written More Recently And Nearer
Home. He Was Dealt With Summarily, On An Early And Prominent Page,
By A Misrepresentation, Which Was Silently Expunged In Later Editions
Of The "Origin Of Species." In His Later Editions (I Believe First
In His Third, When 6000 Copies Had Been Already Sold), Mr. Darwin Did
Indeed Introduce A Few Pages In Which He Gave What He Designated As A
"Brief But Imperfect Sketch" Of The Progress Of Opinion On The Origin
Of Species Prior To The Appearance Of His Own Work; But The General
Chapter 1 Pg 30Impression Which A Book Conveys To, And Leaves Upon, The Public Is
Conveyed By The First Edition--The One Which Is Alone, With Rare
Exceptions, Reviewed; And In The First Edition Of The "Origin Of
Species" Mr. Darwin's Great Precursors Were All Either Ignored Or
Misrepresented. Moreover, The "Brief But Imperfect Sketch," When It
Did Come, Was So Very Brief, But, In Spite Of This (For This Is What
I Suppose Mr. Darwin Must Mean), So Very Imperfect, That It Might As
Well Have Been Left Unwritten For All The Help It Gave The Reader To
See The True Question At Issue Between The Original Propounders Of
The Theory Of Evolution And Mr. Charles Darwin Himself.
That Question Is This: Whether Variation Is In The Main Attributable
To A Known General Principle, Or Whether It Is Not?--Whether The
Minute Variations Whose Accumulation Results In Specific And Generic
Differences Are Referable To Something Which Will Ensure Their
Appearing In A Certain Definite Direction, Or In Certain Definite
Directions, For Long Periods Together, And In Many Individuals, Or
Whether They Are Not?--Whether, In A Word, These Variations Are In
The Main Definite Or Indefinite?
It Is Observable That The Leading Men Of Science Seem Rarely To
Understand This Even Now. I Am Told That Professor Huxley, In His
Recent Lecture On The Coming Of Age Of The "Origin Of Species," Never
So Much As Alluded To The Existence Of Any Such Division Of Opinion
As This. He Did Not Even, I Am Assured, Mention "Natural Selection,"
But Appeared To Believe, With Professor Tyndall, {10a} That
"Evolution" Is "Mr. Darwin's Theory." In His Article On Evolution In
The Latest Edition Of The "Encyclopaedia Britannica," I Find Only A
Veiled Perception Of The Point Wherein Mr. Darwin Is At Variance With
His Precursors. Professor Huxley Evidently Knows Little Of These
Writers Beyond Their Names; If He Had Known More, It Is Impossible He
Should Have Written That "Buffon Contributed Nothing To The General
Doctrine Of Evolution," {10b} And That Erasmus Darwin, "Though A
Zealous Evolutionist, Can Hardly Be Said To Have Made Any Real
Advance On His Predecessors." {11} The Article Is In A High Degree
Unsatisfactory, And Betrays At Once An Amount Of Ignorance And Of
Perception Which Leaves An Uncomfortable Impression.
If This Is The State Of Things That Prevails Even Now, It Is Not
Surprising That In 1860 The General Public Should, With Few
Exceptions, Have Known Of Only One Evolution, Namely, That Propounded
By Mr. Darwin. As A Member Of The General Public, At That Time
Residing Eighteen Miles From The Nearest Human Habitation, And Three
Days' Journey On Horseback From A Bookseller's Shop, I Became One Of
Mr. Darwin's Many Enthusiastic Admirers, And Wrote A Philosophical
Dialogue (The Most Offensive Form, Except Poetry And Books Of Travel
Into Supposed Unknown Countries, That Even Literature Can Assume)
Upon The "Origin Of Species." This Production Appeared In The Press,
Canterbury, New Zealand, In 1861 Or 1862, But I Have Long Lost The
Only Copy I Had.
Chapter 2 Pg 31
How I Came To Write "Life And Habit," And The Circumstances Of Its
Completion.
It Was Impossible, However, For Mr. Darwin's Readers To Leave The
Matter As Mr. Darwin Had Left It. We Wanted To Know Whence Came That
Germ Or Those Germs Of Life Which, If Mr. Darwin Was Right, Were Once
The World's Only Inhabitants. They Could Hardly Have Come Hither
From Some Other World; They Could Not In Their Wet, Cold, Slimy State
Have Travelled Through The Dry Ethereal Medium Which We Call Space,
And Yet Remained Alive. If They Travelled Slowly, They Would Die; If
Fast, They Would Catch Fire, As Meteors Do On Entering The Earth's
Atmosphere. The Idea, Again, Of Their Having Been Created By A
Quasi-Anthropomorphic Being Out Of The Matter Upon The Earth Was At
Variance With The Whole Spirit Of Evolution, Which Indicated That No
Such Being Could Exist Except As Himself The Result, And Not The
Cause, Of Evolution. Having Got Back From Ourselves To The Monad, We
Were Suddenly To Begin Again With Something Which Was Either
Unthinkable, Or Was Only Ourselves Again Upon A Larger Scale--To
Return To The Same Point As That From Which We Had Started, Only Made
Harder For Us To Stand Upon.
There Was Only One Other Conception Possible, Namely, That The Germs
Had Been Developed In The Course Of Time From Some Thing Or Things
That Were Not What We Called Living At All; That They Had Grown Up,
In Fact, Out Of The Material Substances And Forces Of The World In
Some Manner More Or Less Analogous To That In Which Man Had Been
Developed From Themselves.
I First Asked Myself Whether Life Might Not, After All, Resolve
Itself Into The Complexity Of Arrangement Of An Inconceivably
Intricate Mechanism. Kittens Think Our Shoe-Strings Are Alive When
They See Us Lacing Them, Because They See The Tag At The End Jump
About Without Understanding All The Ins And Outs Of How It Comes To
Do So. "Of Course," They Argue, "If We Cannot Understand How A Thing
Comes To Move, It Must Move Of Itself, For There Can Be No Motion
Beyond Our Comprehension But What Is Spontaneous; If The Motion Is
Spontaneous, The Thing Moving Must He Alive, For Nothing Can Move Of
Itself Or Without Our Understanding Why Unless It Is Alive.
Everything That Is Alive And Not Too Large Can Be Tortured, And
Perhaps Eaten; Let Us Therefore Spring Upon The Tag" And They Spring
Upon It. Cats Are Above This; Yet Give The Cat Something Which
Chapter 2 Pg 32Presents A Few More Of Those Appearances Which She Is Accustomed To
See Whenever She Sees Life, And She Will Fall As Easy A Prey To The
Power Which Association Exercises Over All That Lives As The Kitten
Itself. Show Her A Toy-Mouse That Can Run A Few Yards After Being
Wound Up; The Form, Colour, And Action Of A Mouse Being Here, There
Is No Good Cat Which Will Not Conclude That So Many Of The
Appearances Of Mousehood Could Not Be Present At The Same Time
Without The Presence Also Of The Remainder. She Will, Therefore,
Spring Upon The Toy As Eagerly As The Kitten Upon The Tag.
Suppose The Toy More Complex Still, So That It Might Run A Few Yards,
Stop, And Run On Again Without An Additional Winding Up; And Suppose
It So Constructed That It Could Imitate Eating And Drinking, And
Could Make As Though The Mouse Were Cleaning Its Face With Its Paws.
Should We Not At First Be Taken In Ourselves, And Assume The Presence
Of The Remaining Facts Of Life, Though In Reality They Were Not
There? Query, Therefore, Whether A Machine So Complex As To Be
Prepared With A Corresponding Manner Of Action For Each One Of The
Successive Emergencies Of Life As It Arose, Would Not
Comments (0)