■ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.* Chap Copyright No ShelBIkA I (q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from The Library of Congress http://www.archive.org/details/hypothesisforcepOOtaft HYPOTHESIS FOR A CEPTACLE THEORY HYPOTHESIS FOR A CEPTACLE THEORY BY OREN B. TAFT CHICAGO PRINTED AT THE LAKESIDE PRESS 1900 TWO COPIES RECEIVED, Library of Cengraf^ Office o f t||| APR 1 81900 Keglsttr of Copyrlgfcffc 61184 Copyrighted, iqoo BY OREN B. TAFT 6EG0N0 COPY, If the hypothesis here advanced is sustained, and a ceptacle, so named, be a nature-fact, then it must follow that no more of this hypothesis, or theory, as human knowledge, can be new than is the measure of the latest development of such ceptacle. For if Antecedent is having its Being in its own expression, where atom, proto- plasm and ceptacle follow each other, in one evolution, in, what may be, one scientific-philo- sophical classification, then knowledge itself, which appears with human life in that evolu- tion, is correlative of this ceptacle development, and any individual person has little relative importance in so large a movement. It is believed the propositions, together with the definitions, are stated with sufficient clear- ness to indicate the principle involved. There- fore, the brief argument added must be taken only as the method of their application in the thoughts of the writer, and not as supposedly conclusive evidence either for or against their validity. O. B. T. Chicago, February, /goo. DEFINITIONS. CEPTACLE. Ceptacle — differs from either con- ceptacle, re-ceptacle or concept in that it has no relative, or relatives, or conceivable relation outside of itself. The Infinite and Absolute inhere in its Nature. Its essence is a state of ceaseless change. Its phenomenon is a realization of itself as motion. Its parts are a sequence of this realization as a movement of its related self within itself. Its substance is a coherence measurable by time and space. BEING. Being — is the immediacy of ceaseless change, which objectifies itself in a con- scious phenomenon, whereby it reveals itself to itself as the relationing subject and object accounting for its own activity. 9 Definitions. RELATIONING. Relationing — implies activity in a plu- rality, where the ratio of relatives being greater or less than any assignable differ- ence makes it an activity occurring within a separate or separable thing, I NTELLIGENCE-MATTER. Intelligence-Matter — is substance hav- ing coherence, measurable by terms of dimension in Space, possessing motion occurring in an order which, describable in terms of Time, will account for the coher- ence. NATURE. "Nature — means the sum of all phe- nomena, together with the causes which produce them, including not only all that happens, but all that is capable of hap- pening; the unused capabilities of causes being as much a part of this idea of nature as those which take effect." — J. S. Mill. 10 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. PRINCIPLE. Any separate or separable thing, when a Ceptacle, is being the consciously insep- arable likeness and difference of itself to itself within itself. PROPOSITIONS. I. Whatever exists, whether of intension or extension, animate or inanimate, as a separate being or thing, or any separable or distinguishable object or subject that is conceived to exist, is a Relationing of itself to itself within itself. II. This Relationing at a given point is a cohesive, individual, recognizable, de- scribable, conscious Ceptacle, in being its own Identity of itself within itself. Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. III. In any separate or separable thought, conception or perception, the subject and object thought are in the same Ceptacle, and the Relationing therein is a realiza- tion of their one identity as itself to itself within itself. In any Ceptacle the ratio of the relatives to each other is greater or less than any assignable difference. IV. When in any Ceptacle the nature of the ratio of its relatives in its unassignable difference becomes Conscious Identity, then its Antecedent Unused Capabilities are an inseparable present in such Cep- tacle, thereby furnishing to Identity the proof that the Infinite and Absolute is Itself. 12 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. ARGUMENT. Proposition I. is based upon the assump- tion that in all effort, without exception, both philosophy and science have failed to abstract or eliminate from any ultimate or unit, whether an idea, a thing or an ideal-thing, so much that the remainder does not contain or cannot be conceived to contain, does not consist of or cannot be conceived to consist of, is not of the nature of or cannot be conceived to be of the nature of a plurality. Mathematics, resorted to for the demonstration of truths, fortifies this proposition of the Universality of the Law of Relativity, when its Ultimate in geometrical symbolism — a point, though defined as without length, breadth, or thickness by a limping terminology, proves itself a plurality in its failure to square a circle. The mathematical unit, also, like the geometrical point, proved an inexhaustible plurality, in which Kep- T 3 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, ler found it necessary to indicate any ultimate unknown, not by the X sign alone, but by X +. In describing il whatever exists as a separate being or thing," in Proposition L, it is intended to be all comprehensive in its application, whether the " being or thing" is ideal, real or an ideal-realism, as these actually are or are defined to be, in the usage of words. If mind and matter can be differentiated in creative expression, neither precedes the other in that expression, but is co-existent in the same being or thing. If the difference of their ratio in such expression is such that either would fail to appear, the ex- pression itself disappears. In its essence, "whatever exists" is a plurality from which science and philos- ophy do and must utterly fail to abstract or eliminate its relatives, so that at least two do not always remain as the content of such being or thing. With these, a Relationing (Def.) of themselves to them- i 4 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. selves within itself evidences the fact that the fundamental principle in any human consideration of it is that of a plurality. This "Universal flux," found to be the essence of whatever exists in the lower order of creative expression, is likewise the essence of its Being (Def.) when the human appears. From this conclusion there can be no escape if Proposition I. is to hold true. It is the law, not only of any sep- arate or separable inanimate atom, or animate cell, but also of any separate or separable idea. If atom is at the bottom, Ego is only further along in a movement of one evolution, in which Soul is the Identity at the top of that which has preceded. This may be but a re-state- ment of the known Law of Relativity, but it must be with the difference of this inex- orable insistence; that if this Law is found sufficient to hold together the inseparable relatives Intelligence and Matter, as atom or protoplasm, and out of these to build a Universe, this same Law is sufficient to 15 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, compel human Identity in its Ego to asso- ciate itself with its objective in an insep- arable Oneness which forbids the possibil- ity of subject and object ever being other than inseparable relatives. So long as the opinion was held that the earth was exempt from the law of the universal movement of the planets, chiefly for the reason that it was necessary for it to be so in order that the solar system might revolve about it, astronomy was an inex- tricable tangle. So the "point of view" taken by Ego in all its considerations of objectivity, whether of the Antecedent of its being or of the least of things, has placed that objectivity always in the sec- ond or third person. This is not a mere incident in the immature growth of lan- guage; it is the immature expression of a Principle, which has as yet evolved from itself, from out its own domain, an Ego that is a realization of a small portion only of itself. When Ego shall under all circumstances conceive the law of its 16 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. Being (Def.) to include it also within, and to be a part of, Universal creative expres- sion, so that ?w point of view can remove this Ego outside the pale of such creative expression, much of the tangle in our lives will disappear, as did the tangle in astronomy. To do this, Ego cannot ignore a Oneness with the least of things in an inseparable relationing, if it would find a Oneness with the Infinite and Abso- lute in what it conceives a sublime relation. Relationing (Def.) in the order of its Being (Def.) in its unfolding must be true with unrelenting persistence throughout the evolution of that Being, from its low- est to its highest. This law of relativity must be followed through Propositions II., III. and IV., with a courage which, if ad- hered to, will in the minds of many rank the statement as born of presumptuous foolishness. Thus, in Proposition I., it is said that "whatever exists is a Relation- 17 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. ing of itself to itself within itself." Proposition II. adds that this Relationing is its own Being as this "whatever exists"; and further, that at a given point in cre- ative expression, Relationing, as its own Being, is a "cohesive, individual, recogniz- able, describable, and conscious Ceptacle (Def.), the content of which is its own Identity of itself within itself." At this point, the purpose must be to define this Ceptacle and make it stand out for dis- cernment as atom or protoplasm may supposably be discerned and defined. Ceptacle, in a classification with atom and protoplasm, is but a creative expression, and must be prepared for like treatment. It is not necessary for this purpose that we should give to the definition of Intel- ligence and Matter more or less than is granted by common acceptation. What- ever definition will describe such Intelli- gence-Matter (Def.) will, when applied to atom or protoplasm, describe that atom or protoplasm itself; for without a descrip- 18 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. tion of such Intelligence-Matter, such atom or protoplasm cannot be known. This is their substance as each exists or is conceived to exist. Now a description of this Activity, as the Relationing of this Intelligence-Matter with itself within itself, will describe its Ceptacle; for Cep- tacle is the Self-Realized Identity of that Intelligence-Matter (Def.) as its definite, coherent, and creative expression, the product of Evolution. Therefore, to de- scribe the Being of this Intelligence-Mat- ter as Itself conscious of itself, will be to describe its Ceptacle. A drop of water, its expansion by heat, its energy as steam, in a world which has not yet evolved humanity, is an atom-fact, but a conscious one unevolved. This same drop of water, its expansion and energy when the human does come, has not changed one iota; the human fact has not added or taken from that inani- mate its slightest particle, or changed its character. But what has been and is 19 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. now, through and with this human, con- sciously knows that it has been and is. Any description of this human phenome- non in its knowing, at the given point of knowing this particular drop of expand- ing water, will be a description of the substance of that drop as Intelligence- Matter, in a relationing activity of these as its relatives; and, also, a description of the contents of a Ceptacle, which is their evolution in a higher phenomenon. At all times and in all places the Law of the Being of this drop of water has not been changed. For as out of the inani- mate evolves the animate, so that that which before has expressed no life be- comes alive, in or through this human, this drop of water, in the order of its Being, has become conscious Intelligence- Matter itself, whose humanity appears in a Ceptacle of conscious existence. A description of this is made possible, in consciousness, by the fact that its con- tents will be a description of that cohe- Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. sive, individual, recognizable and describ- able Intelligence-Matter, as its own activity, in a relationing of itself, when it evolves this Ceptacle. Professor Huxley, in his essay on "Sensations and the Sensiferous Organs," says: "In ultimate analysis, then, it ap- pears that the sensation is the equivalent in terms of consciousness for a mode of motion of the matter of the sensorium. But if inquiry is pushed a stage further, and the question is asked, What do we know about matter and motion? there is but one reply possible. All we know about motion is that it is a name for cer- tain changes in the relations of our visual, tactile, and muscular sensations; and all that we know about matter is that it is the hypothetical substance of physical phenomena — the assumption of the exist- ence of which is as pure a piece of meta- physical speculation as is that of the existence of the substance of mind." All of which is an inevitable conclusion Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. from these assumed premises. Are we sure, however, that "in the ultimate analysis a sensation is the equivalent in terms of consciousness for a mode of mo- tion of the matter of the sensorium" only, as limited by Mr. Huxley? Change the premise; assume this Hypothetical Ceptacle in the ultimate analysis. Then it will appear that a sensation is the equivalent, in terms of consciousness, of whatever is the mode of motion of the substance, as physical phenomenon, that pervades the entire Ceptacle, including not only this subjective sensorium of Mr. Huxley's, but that exterior substance. Is there any fundamental reason in science that shall make it less possible for that objective substance in this relation to evolve a sensorium than for the physical subjective? If not, will it not, then, be a proper field for science at least to inquire into the possibility that that which occurs in mind, conventionally so called in this instance, occurs also in a sen- Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, sorium in its relative objective matter as well, and pervades the entire Ceptacle? That if sensation, feeling, perception, knowledge, understanding, consciousness are of the mind, they are not segregated as abstractions by the mind from either the subject or object matter in that Cep- tacle, though in the evolution of Ceptacle this may appear to be the case, because the proportions vary in greater or less degree, as acute faculties, at which these several phases of sensate phenomena of Intelligence-Matter have arrived. It is possible, therefore, that after all, these phe- nomena may not have their limitations to what "we know about motion, as a name for certain changes in the relation of our visual, tactile, and muscular sensations" alone. But rather, they are what Intel- ligence-Matter, as both subject and object, realizes as certain Changes in rela- tives, which are itself, that pervade the entire domain to which such knowledge may reach. That the phenomena appear 2 3 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. by virtue of substance, sufficient at every part for the development of a sensorium that shall account for sensation, feeling, perception, understanding or conscious- ness, throughout the whole, as they shall unfold themselves through evolution. It is no longer difficult for the under- standing to comprehend the existence of inorganic matter, or to follow it as molec- ular activity even to the limits of the Solar system, though vast changes have come to this understanding since Grecian philosophy held in its mind a proper cognition of such elementary facts as air and earth. The study of protoplasmic life has not yet graduated even its first class in what must be known before the organic can be positively differentiated — as, for instance, vegetable from animal life. If there is a third fundamental cre- ative expression following these atomic and protoplasmic ones — itself a nature- growth in the same sense that they are — it is a development to be followed in the 24 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. manner of an unfolding, and not by any outreach of miraculous conception. Fur- ther, these three are not to be lost sight of in any demonstration in one evolution; all have been equally co-existent in fact, varying only in the time of their expres- sion as phenomena. In such demonstra- tion, protoplasmic life, when it appears, explains itself as the inorganic atom organized, while this third expression, conscious Being as Ceptacle, explains all three where it knows itself as inorganic, organic, and its own Antecedent, in one classification. Heterogeneity, as it precedes the homogeneous in the development of the inorganic and organic, holds true in the evolution of Ceptacle, apparently un- folding itself as Individuality from out of an impersonality which appears through a gradually dawning consciousness of per- sonality. From where this Appearance becomes conscious Individual, it acquires a development by extending this con- 25 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. sciousness back upon itself, first to its per- sonality, then to its impersonality, but at all times in its growth these constitute this Appearance. It must be for this reason that human Identity knows itself first as that individual body that holds what Mr. Huxley finds to be its only Sen- sorium, where human Being reaches its first consciousness. A study of Being, in its human stage as Ceptacle, must be that of the change from the heterogeneity of impersonality and personality not a material part of the human body, through that body, to where it is a homogeneous individuality which shall be a conscious Identity, including impersonality, per- sonality, and individuality that are with- out and within that body, in one Ego. Such a growth, in its very nature, would begin with a consciousness that excluded that objective impersonal and personal from its individuality. While a later development would bring this Ego and Non-Ego into the same Ceptacle as Ego 26 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. and Alter Ego, from no change of a fun- damental principle, but from a higher expression of that Principle in a later phenomenon. Upon this basis the study of Man can proceed with a scientific phi- losophy which has broken down his limi- tations of Individual Egoism, making him Co-existent with his every possible Con- sciousness without limitation, save in his own Being. The progress, however, of this human Ceptacle and its multiple, as Man, must be as varied as are the indi- viduals who make up humanity, with instinct, reason, and faith marking the growth; but an instinct, reason, faith all founded upon what is and always has been Intelligence-Matter. Ceptacle, as a nature-fact, does not controvert the statement that "Knowl- edge is the knowing man or his view of things," but demonstrates that this "view" has held but half the truth. In Ceptacle the Content knows itself as a plurality. The "view" is a conjunction 27 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. of Intelligence and Matter in and through man and his objective. That which proves to be a scientific nature-fact comes through a cohesive, describable conscious- ness by that Fact itself, as Itself. Thought-Phenomenon appears through consciousness, but this Thought-Phenom- enon comes through a Ceptacle whose contents are the Subjective and Objective in an inseparable relation. "In any sep- arate or separable thought, conception or perception, the subject and object are being thought of in the one Ceptacle (Prop. III.). There must be no evasion of the conclusion of or compromise with this statement, radical as it may seem. The words, subject and object, may be accepted as commonly defined; but when it is said, "the subject and object in any separate or separable thought are one Identity," it is meant that the Identity is that Ego whose subject and object, in their Relationing, are a realization of an 28 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, Ego that is the Being of their Identity as itself to itself within itself. What is said of any Ceptacle is as if we were treating of atom or protoplasm, in this, that whether we can trace either scientifically to one single entity separate and distinct from every other or not, is not known. Cepta- cles combine to form an aggregate, as atoms and protoplasms to form bodies. The law of the aggregate must, however, in a given way be the law of its atom, protoplasm, or Ceptacle. Therefore, where a Ceptacle is described that must, self-evidently, be a multiple of such, it is describing that which at the time has for its immediate consideration, the relatives which make it a separate being or thing in that particular Identity; while at the same time, were the relationing to change, the content might be made the subject and object of innumerable Identities. And whether it be a Relationing of the distance between the earth and a fixed star, or the microscopic difference in the 29 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. length and breadth of a point, or not, in either case subject and object, regardless of the magnitude of the Ceptacle, are in an Identity which is their Ego-Identity. Ego-Identity is ''Thing-Thinking" and "Thought - Thinging" in itself, when thing-thought and thought-thing have become conscious Self through an evolu- tion, whereby that which before was not Self-conscious, has become so in its con- tact with human anatomy. Through this contact it has been broken or severed, as it were, into relatives of itself, in such a manner that quantity, quality, relation and modality appear in a conscious spectrum. These in turn become de- scribable and recognizable to such con- sciousness as either sight, sound, feeling, taste or smell. These, the contents of Ceptacle, Ego- Identity assimilates as relatives in Time and Space, in the same Universal Law of Relativity. Ego-Identity thus becomes a Nature-Fact through an evolution which 30 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. includes the human anatomy, called man, and his objectivity, not as two distinct entities, but in an inseparable Identity. To describe Ego will be to describe Ego and alter Ego in one relation, not an impossible Ego and non-Ego. A true philosophy as a "Thinking view of Things'' will be a true Science, because this same philosophy as a Nature-Fact will be Things conscious of their own thinking. The demonstration of this Ceptacle Theory that is here outlined, must proceed with philosophy and sci- ence, relatives in one relationing, with something of the following method in its concrete application: First, let the ex- ample which is to serve at the time as the conscious consideration, include both the sensorium conventionally assumed in the subject, Man, and also the object, Thing. Let consciousness have ample time to bring into the consideration all possible Intelligence-Matter pertaining to this sub- ject and object. Second, eliminate every 31 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. irrelevant, leaving only the subject and object in the analysis that bear a relation to each other. Then it will probably be found, as in the case of atom and proto- plasm, exceedingly doubtful whether the contents can be reduced to a single Cep- tacle, or not; but when, by elimination, there remains what, in this conscious con- sideration, appears to be a " separate being or thing," then this remainder should be subjected to the test of the Propositions as laid down in this theory. The fundamental idea in these propo- sitions is, that beginning with the lowest orders of creative expression a stage is reached in their development where In- telligence-Matter is phenomenon, having its expression in a Nature-Fact as Cep- tacle. This phenomenon in any single expression includes both the objective and subjective within itself — that is, it cannot be confined or limited to either relative. The interlacing of these com- bined relatives of Intelligence-Matter, as 32 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. their activity, is their "Being" and the measure of the development. We use another illustration as an aid toward enabling us to discern a Cep- tacle. Let an outlined tree be the Object of a perception. Confined to its simple outlines, apart from its environments, these outlines and such of their contents as are perceived or seen, may be said to be crude matter relative to an evolving Ceptacle. The human subject, perceiv- ing this tree and separated from it by intervening space, we will say, has on his part evolved no more, in a relation to this object, than merely enables him to include the tree within his function of vision. Thus it is a crude matter relative to the evolution of this same Ceptacle. These relative conceptions, vision and tree, are at one and the same time in a co-relating, active relationing, which, as activity, will be the product of the natural law accounting for that phenomenon as it shall be discerned to be, which is neces- 33 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. sarily the order of their Being, or what they are in that particular relation as sci- entific facts. Subject and Object in this hypothesis (Prop. III.) are in the same Ceptacle, however large or small. So in this case are Tree, Man, and intervening relative Space in one Ceptacle. We do not need to say that intervening Space in any Ceptacle is a filled space, not a vacuum. In this example it will aid us, in a way, to consider this spatial fact as we do the visible one, as a tangible thing, if we note that it is occupied by that which, when exposed to the sensitized plate of a camera at any point in this Ceptacle space where the vision fails, will reveal either the Man-Subject or Tree- Object as an actual existent relation in this space; thus indicating that there is a relationing of Intelligence-Matter at all points within the domain of this Ceptacle, which consists of a tangible medium amply sufficient to form its contents. The evolution of this particular Man- 34 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. Tree-Relationing from its assumed crude beginning will be the gradual Realization of its own Being as its own Identity, through the quantity, quality, relation and modality of this content as it becomes a " cohesive, recognizable and describ- able" consciousness. While this is only another way of describing that which is conventionally called a "knowledge" of these same facts, it is, nevertheless, with a vital and fundamental difference in the "point of view" of related Subject and Object, whereby such facts become Knowledge. The conventional accepta- tion of such Knowledge, of this Man-Tree fact, places conscious knowledge onty at the point of the man or subject; yet a common but unexplained acceptance of an equally well-known fact is that the Man is positive in his consciousness of the tree as at its place in that objectivity. May it not be a fact that Consciousness is possible development in Ceptacle at the point of its Tree-Relative, as it is con- 35 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. scious at the point of its Man-Relative? The Tree-Relative not being as highly evolved a phenomenon in the Ceptacle as the Man-Relative, the latter apparently takes all consciousness to itself. That which makes consciousness a phenome- non at all in this particular case, is prob- ably due largely to molecular activity in the Tree, the Atmosphere, and the Man, by which all are in one and the same natural law of active relationing. In this contact with the Man as a rela- tive of a higher order, the phenomenon Consciousness, is making its appearance through the Man-relative, and from this point of the contact it proceeds to per- vade the whole Ceptacle, according to its measure of development. There was no evolved Consciousness in the intervening Space until the phenomenon of molecular movement of light and air had become an evolved Knowledge as part of the Cep- tacle. Then it was that Identity, through this Consciousness, Knew itself "in this 36 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. intervening space," as well as at Man and Tree, and began to Realize that Self under certain conditions, which it discov- ered through a sensitized Camera plate, as well as in other ways, as a relative brought into the Ceptacle. The fullness of the Being, not of man or tree or inter- vening space, but of their Ego-Identity, in this Ceptacle, will be the measure of the development of the Contents until this Being will, by contact, thrill with a Consciousness of all its relatives in every part. In the evolution of this particular Cep- tacle, we will assume, what is generally accepted to be true, that the Tree as Species preceded Man in the order of creative expression; that is, before man the tree was. It may be asked, How was this Tree-Identity preserved? The reply is, That Oak-Identity was always retained in the Acorn. The quantity, quality, relation, and modality of the Oak, as a tree in its full growth, was 37 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. always preserved in the Acorn as an un- evolved Conscious-Oak-Identity, having Time and Space for its relatives. The ratio of these Time and Space relatives, as will be found true when Ceptacle ap- pears, is greater or less than any assign- able difference (Prop. III.), and therefore in the Acorn, the Oak continues in its Time relative its future extension or growth constrained and intensioned in its Space relative while waiting for that extension. The conditions being in accord, the ratio of relatives being greater or less than any assignable difference, no Time can be so extended or Space so intensioned as to destroy this Oak-Identity. How much of this Identity other relatives outside .this Acorn held, in what had been or should be the quantity, quality, relation and modality of its expression as Oak, must be for the present speculative. If, however, we thus see where the Oak is, when the Acorn is its only residuum, it may help us to trace Ceptacle, where, in 38 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. our example, Tree and Intervening Space have ceased in their objective reality, and man or some part of man, through which Ceptacle evolves, is the only residuum. This Man-Tree-Ceptacle from the full- ness of its realism in its extension, where it included the Subjective and Objective, recedes as that objective relative experi- ence recedes, to where it becomes an ideal-realism in an intension, which idea as Identity, is still Intelligence-Matter (Def.), an impression now of what it was in that experience as expression. The Oak, from the fullness of its growth as a tree, in its recession, became in the Acorn the impression as intension of what had been Oak-Expression. So this Man-Tree-Cep- tacle preserves for renewed expression its Ego-Identity as impression in some part of the Intelligence-Matter of its human Anatomy-Relative, with at least this difference between Oak-Identity pre- served in the Acorn, and Man-Tree-Iden- tity preserved in or through the human 39 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. body, that the Ego-Identity of the latter, in Ceptacle, is evolved consciousness of itself within Itself, which it retains or can energize in its extension; whereas Oak-Identity is at a stage in the evolu- tion of an unevolved consciousness, either in its intension or extension. Subconsciousness, Memory, Experi- ence, Idea, and such terms must find their scientific explanation as the Ego- Identity of a Ceptacle which is being pre- served in some part of the Intelligence- Matter constituting the human anatomy. There is a wide realm for speculation regarding possible Intelligence-Matter outside of that anatomy, through, in or by which this Ego-Identity may also be preserving itself as its past experience for a future expression. At present, how- ever, it is only possible to trace this Cep- tacle through what has already evolved. Mind and Matter, when this Ceptacle has receded to an impression, confined, so far as we can discern it, to the human anat- 4 o Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. omy, is as inseparable as Subconscious- ness, Memory, Experience, or Idea as when it included its original material ob- jective Tree; the difference being, as we now discern it, that the material part of the Ceptacle containing the Identity is now in the human body, as the Oak was in the Acorn. We need hardly say that any Ceptacle which had for its original sub- jective and objective expression no more than the human body itself — as for instance, a Man thinking of the pain in his own foot — is to be treated by the same method as this Man-Tree example. But there is something more to be said in following this Man-Tree Ceptacle from where we have traced it to an Ego-Iden- tity preserved in the human anatomy. In this same anatomy is being preserved every other Ego-Identity of its past ex- perience, which experience is not neces- sarily confined to this particular anatomy, for the Natural Law of Heredity will find in the ovum that transmits itself as its pos- 4 1 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. terity, Time and Space relatives sufficient as Intelligence-Matter to contain the sum of all its line of Ego-Identities in all its own or its transmitted experiences. This fact is, we believe, now accepted without question. While what is called hereditary character thus requires the law of an inexhaustible ratio of relatives to account for its transmission as the residuum of innumerable past experiences in the space allotted to the formative cell of the human body, it demands quite as much the law for the formative structure of a Ceptacle accounting for Ego-Identity which is that transmitted character itself. The "Man-Tree" is Intelligence-Matter furnishing structure, as it were, for its Ceptacle, in a like manner with this Ana- tomical cell furnishing structure for its Ego-Identity, which, as character, is being retained preparatory to a new expression. Whether any Individual or Personal Ego- Identity, as the Being of Thought and Thing — that is, of Intelligence-Matter — 42 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. is limited in its transmission to a direct line of descent through an anatomical ovum from human body to human body, or not, is exceedingly doubtful. Why this Being of Identity should be confined to the human body-relative in the Cep- tacle for its preservation is not clear, yet the evidence is not at hand which enables us to follow it at this time save through that relative; probably for the reason be- fore remarked, that in the evolution of Ceptacle at its present stage the human relative dominates the development in consciousness. The contention here outlined (Prop. III.) is, that in any separate or separable thought the subject and object thought are in the same Ceptacle. If this be true, what we call Thought as a phenomenon of Mind, with Mind something entirely apart and capable of being differentiated from Matter, is an impossibility, and never was and never can be. Thought- Ceptacle has its relatives in a material 43 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. objective outside, together with some part of the human body, or in a material ob- jective confined in that body, as the case may be. If the Ceptacle, as in the case of the Man-Tree, has not one of its rela- tives in an objective material tree, then it has that relative in an equally material objective within the human body, which is Intelligence-Matter sufficient for such Ceptacle. Thus we may have a Man- Tree-Ceptacle where there is no material tree, save as it is in the Imagination; but Imagination is not pure Mind, but Mind and Matter, for it is Ego-Identity, know- ing itself in and through a Ceptacle formed from Intelligence-Matter solely in the human anatomy. The Being of that Man-Tree experience which occurred in that original Ceptacle, where Man and Tree were both material relatives and where its Man-Tree-Identity was Realized, preserves that Identity in the Intelligence- Matter which the human body furnishes, just as the Oak-Identity preserved itself 44 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. in the Intelligence-Matter which the Acorn furnished. There are innumerable ways in which this Identity stored in this human body may be aroused to a Con- sciousness of Itself; and the cell structure of this human body may be made to fur- nish its material for a re-Realization of that Ceptacle in this form of Conscious- ness. For this is only another way of describing a thought of a past experience, but with this difference, that Thought- Phenomenon is a Ceptacle with a structure of Intelligence - Matter, and not pure Mind. Auto-Suggestion forms its Ceptacle out of Intelligence-Matter. In an experi- ment which I have just seen quoted, a professor tells his audience that he is going to open the bottle which he is hold- ing, and that he wishes them to note care- fully the exceedingly volatile and pungent odor as it escapes from the bottle and goes out through the room, and asks them to tell him how quickly they smell 45 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. it. Slowly he removes the cork, and at the same time dwells, in words as well as actions, upon its odoriferous nature. Im- mediately upon its supposed escape, the spectators begin to lift their hands, those nearest the stage being the first to indi- cate that they had noticed the odor. As a fact, there was no odor to escape, and it had been a case of imagination from auto-suggestion. The explanation is, that the first Ceptacle is the one in which the dominating relative is the subject, Man with bottle; the other relative, objective spectators. This Ceptacle includes a quantity, quality, relation and modality that, at a point in that Ceptacle, is either seeing or hearing, or both, as a function, on the part of the spectators. This has aroused or put into activity an Ego- Identity of some one or more past odor experiences preserved in the minds of the spectators, and this Identity forms an entirely separate smell Ceptacle out of Intelligence-Matter in those minds, which 4 6 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. is a re-Realization of some past smell experience not in any way a part of that first material subjective, Man with bottle. Fecundation of Ceptacle, and the development of growth therefrom, is in the same classification with atom and protoplasm, proceeding along similar lines. Auto-Suggestion is probably but a term expressing this fact. This is also the explanation of the statement that *' Beauty is constituted by the objectifica- tion of pleasure." But the thing objecti- fied in this succeeding Beauty-Ceptacle is in the human mind which is having this sense of pleasure, though it comes as Fecundation or Auto-Suggestion from or through a contact which has one of its relatives outside of that body. Ceptacle not only lives on its past, but grows or develops on its present in an objectifica- tion of this past and present, but only where Intelligence-Matter is present, and not, according to so much philososphical teaching, where there is Mind to the ex- 47 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. elusion of Matter or Matter to the exclu- sion of Mind, or where, in this sense, there is such a condition as Mind over Matter or Matter over Mind. This teaching and these expressions grow out of the fact that Realization of their joint Being, as their Identity, does indicate in the devel- opment, the varying stages of that devel- opment, in a dominance of one over the other, which is the measure of their evo- lution. In this instance consciousness is more largely realized in a particular Cep- tacle, but in no case can that dominance reach a point where either relative alto- gether disappears in the ratio, except with the simultaneous disappearance of the Ceptacle itself from all possible conscious- ness. The order of the development which is outlined in Propositions I. and II. reaches Conscious-Thought-Phenomenon only at Proposition III., where, for the first, it has produced itself in a measure by which it can describe itself to itself as indicated in Proposition II. it must do. 4 8 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. This Ego-Identity, which becomes Thought-Phenomenon, in its conscious expression to or of Itself, has that ex- pression to or of itself in words which would seem to have their roots in the law of its being as natural law. The Prin- ciple of " Being" puts forth the verb, ex- pressive of existence, as in English, for instance, the words, "To be" or "I am"; and just as this Being is, in all its varia- tions, but some phase of its one Being, so every Verb-Word is but some phase of the verb expressing existence. In a sim- ilar manner, Relationing puts forth the qualifying words of language, which are in fact only descriptive of the quantity, quality, relation and modality of Intelli- gence-Matter. These have been broken into this category by a contact with the human relative, acting as a spectrum, where in the Ceptacle they become sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. The structure of Language is not a mere convenience, adopted by mankind, 49 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. as if it might or might not have been, but is the product of profound principles, having their foundation in natural laws that will account for such product, as the laws of vegetation account for plant growth, or any other law for its species. Out of these laws, not through the mere volition or whim of man, does Thought Phenomenon clothe itself for its own ex- pression. It is no poetic fancy to call " Language the brightest flower in life." It is a natural phenomenon, and its ex- pression as its ''brightest flower" is con- fined to man because in its evolution the phenomenon apparently gives birth to the "verb" only through the human anat- omy. Without the verb it is not improb- able that language would reach a cer- tain limited development in the animals below man. In man alone does the verb obtain growth, the reason being that in man alone does "Being" reach a relation- ing that Knows itself in the expressions "I am, To be" or their equivalent. 50 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. Subject and Object have their relation in the lower orders, but they are at a stage where the Ceptacle has not evolved suffi- ciently to start that Tap-Root of language, the verb " To Be," which is to be the ex- pression of the Being of that subject and object relationing, where they thus realize their Identity, and can express that Iden- tity, just as that subject and object have been expressing themselves in their Intel- ligence-Matter in their preceding stages. It is by no chance of grammatical rules that subject and object have their process in this verb. It is not the result of scholasticism that adjectives and qualify- ing words cannot be Thought except in an inseparable relation of comparison, in one word expressive of one relationing idea. It is so because the word and its behavior are effects of natural law, and not the arbitrary result of scholastic con- struction of language. There is yet to be evolved a verb-word describing the activity of plurality in a conscious ulti- 5i Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. mate, the need of which is shown in the construction of this hypothesis. Wipe out all language, and it will construct itself as trees obtain their growth, all effort of man to the contrary, and along the same lines as now, where one set of words will be the expression for the "Being" of its Iden- tity, as the process going on within it, and all other words will be the expression of the relationing of the ratio of the rela- tives occurring in the Ceptacle-phenome- non. Take the verb out of language, and subject and object, as Ceptacle, will revert in the same manner and for the same reason that if we take life out of the plant it will revert to a lower order of expression. Upon the principle of Evolution and mathematical demonstration may depend the verification for the Fourth Proposi- tion, " That when in any Ceptacle the Nature of the ratio of its relatives, in its unassignable difference, becomes con- 52 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■-!- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. scious Identity, then its unused capabilities become an inseparable present in such Ceptacle." The contents of Ceptacle as a creative expression in their substance as coherence, measurable by Time and Space, may have for that expression Con- stants that are fixed quantities expressed in terms, as 1,2, 3, 4; pound, yard, hour, etc., finite measures as given definites. But these are not subjects that have their consideration in Proposition IV.; instead here are considered Ceptacles whose definite quantity is the given value of a quantity essentially variable, or an indefi- nite quantity which is a quantity essen- tially variable, through all degrees of diminution or augmentation short of ab- solute Nothingness or Infinitude. In a Ceptacle, expressed in the word "line," defined as a succession of points, the value is of a quantity essentially variable, which may also be an Indefinite quantity capable of every degree of augmentation or diminution. In such Ceptacle is realized, 53 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. first, a Ratio of Quantity, then the Nature of the ratio itself. But Substance, Ratio, and Nature are, alike, an Evolution. Ultimate Ratio, Ultimate Quantity and the Absolute or Infinite Nature appear and disappear with the Ceptacle in a law of one evolution, and the appearance is neither a phantom nor the disappearance an evanescence. The Infinite, together with the Unconditioned, appear and dis- appear in and with the phenomenon itself. For if Proposition I. be true, any separate or separable quantity is a thing of rela- tives, a plurality. Once this is proven, then quantity, as a separate or separable thing, the content of a Ceptacle, is sub- ject logically and mathematically to a consideration heretofore applied only to quantities, and not to qua?itity. If we will refer to the known method relating to "Quantities and the Ratio of Quantities," the method will be equally true in its application to Quantity and to the Ratio of its Relatives. For the pur- 54 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ITTTfTTTT m 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 ■ 1 I I 1 1 1 , Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. pose of proving the Nature of the Ratio set forth in Proposition IV., let us follow the method taken by Professor Wright, in his "Commentary on Newton's Principia,"* substituting, as we assume our Hypothesis warrants, Quantity and the Ratio of its Relatives, for "Quantities and the Ratio of Quantities." LEMMA I. "Quantities and the Ratios of Quanti- ties." Hereby Newton would infer the truth of the Lemma, not only for quanti- ties measurable by Integers, but also for such as may be denoted by Vulgar Frac- tions. The necessity or use of the dis- tinction is none, there being just as much reason for specifying all other sorts of quantities. The truth of the Lemma does not depend upon the Species of quantities, but upon their conformity with the following conditions, viz: "That they (Relatives in Quantity, our *Wright, A. B., Commentary on Newton's Principia, Sec. i, Book I. 55 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. hypothesis assumed) tend continually to equality, and approach nearer to each other than by a?iy give?i difference. They must tend co?iti?iually to equality — that is, every Ratio of their successive corresponding values must be nearer and nearer a Ratio of Equality, the number of these converg- ences being without end. By given dif- ference is merely meant any that can be assigned or proposed. ■ ' Finite Time. — Newton obviously intro- duces the idea of time in this enunciation to show illustratively that he supposes the quantities to converge continually to equality, without ever actually reach- ing or passing that state; and since to fix such an idea, he says, 'Before the end of that time.' It was, moreover, necessary to consider the time Finite. Hence, our author would avoid the charge of 'Fallacia Suppositions, ' or of 'Shift- ing the Hypothesis' For it is contended that if you frame certain relations be- tween actual quantities, and afterwards 56 ffrmm 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 nTniiiiiiiiiiiiiirmrmiiiiiiiiiimiiiin Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. deduce conclusions from such relations on the supposition of the quantities hav- ing vanished, such conclusions are illogic- ally deduced, and ought no more to sub- sist than the quantities themselves. 1 ' In the Scholium, at the end of the sec- tion, he is more explicit. He says: The Ultimate Ratios, in zvhich quantities vanish , are not in reality the Ratios of Ultimate quantities ; but the Limits to which the Ratios of quantities, continually decreasing, always approach; which they never can pass beyond or arrive at, unless the quantities are continually and indefi?utely diminished. After all, how- ever, neither our author himself nor any of his commentators, though much has been advanced upon the subject, has obviated this objection. Bishop Berke- ley's ingenious criticisms in the Analyst remain to this day unanswered. He therein facetiously denominates the result obtained from the supposition that the quantities before considered finite and real have vanished, the ' Ghosts 57 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. of Departed Quantities? And it must be admitted there is reason as well as wit in the appellation. The fact is, Newton himself, if we may judge from his own words in the above cited Scholium, where he says, 'If two quantities whose Differ- ence Is Given are augmented continually, their Ultimate Ratio will be a Ratio of Equality,' had no knowledge of the true nature of his Method of Prime and Ulti- mate Ratios. If there be meaning in words, he plainly supposes in this pas- sage a mere approximation to be the same with an Ultimate Ratio. He loses sight of the condition expressed in Lemma I. — namely, that the quantities tend to equal- ity nearer than by any assignable difference by supposing the difference of the quan- tities continually augmented to be given, or always the same. In this sense the whole Earth, compared with the whole Earth minus a grain of sand, would con- stitute an Ultimate Ratio of equality; whereas so long as any, the minutest dif- 53 friTTM 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■TrTfTTTlTTTfTlTITmillllllllllllllirillllllllllllllUJLU^ Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. ference, exists between two quantities, they cannot be said to be more than nearly equal. But it is now to be shown, that if two quaiitities tend continually to equality, and approach to one another nearer than by any assignable difference, their Ratio is Ultimately a Ratio of Absolute equality. This may be demonstrated as follows, even without supposing the quantities ultimately evanescent: ''It is acknowledged by all writers on Algebra, and, indeed, self-evident, that if in any equation put =0, there be quantities absolutely different in kind, the aggre- gate of each species is separately equal to o. For example, if A + a+B v /2 + bv / 2 + CV-i=o, since A + a is rational, (B + b) V 2 surd and CV — i imaginary, they cannot in any way destroy one another by the op- position of signs, and therefore A + a = o, B -+- b = o, C — o. " In the same manner, if logarithms, 59 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. exponentials, or any other quantities dif- fering essentially from one another con- stitute an equation like the above, they must separately be equal to o. This being premised, let L, \J denote the Limits, whatever they are, towards which the quantities L + 1, L' + V continually converge, and suppose their difference, in any state of the convergence, to be D. Then L + 1-L'-1'=D, or L-L' +l-l'-D=o, and since L, L' are fixed and definite, and 1, V and D always variable, the former are independent of the latter, and we have L L — L' = o, or L' = 1, accurately. "This way of considering the question, it is presumed, will be deemed free from every objection. The principle upon which it rests depending upon the Nature of the variable quantities, and not upon their evanescence, as it is equally true 6o iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmiix^ Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. even for constant quantities, provided they be of different natures, it is hoped we have at length hit upon the true and logical method of expounding the doc- trine of Prime and Ultimate Ratios, or of Fluxions, or of the Differential Calcu- lus, etc." It may be here remarked, in passing, that the method of Indeterminate Coefficients, which is at bottom the same as that of Prime and Ultimate Ratios, is treated illogically in most books of Algebra. Instead of "Shifting the hypothesis," as is done in Wood, Bonnycastle, and others, by making x = o, in the equation, a + bx + ex 2 + dx 3 + = o, it is sufficient to know that each term x being indefinitely variable, is heterogene- ous compared with the rest, and conse- quently that each term must equal o." The Logical test of this Theory is reached when it is to be shown, that, whatever may be their given definition, 61 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. in human consciousness the Infinite and Absolute have their Identity within a finite Ceptacle by virtue of its Nature as a variable quantity. The unfolding of the propositions in this hypothesis, if sus- tained in truth, leads to the inevitable conclusion that any conscious Ego and what has been termed Non-Ego, as sepa- rable entities in that consciousness, is neither philosophic nor scientific. That this so termed Non-Ego is in fact some degree of Ego itself as its relative Alter Ego. Should this latter position prove tenable, then the conclusion continues that that " Primitive dualism of consciousness from which the explanations of philos- ophy must take their start, and which includes the fundamental condition to all consciousness the antithesis of subject and object" will find its consistent explana- tion in the Nature of Ego, as set forth in this Ceptacle Theory. It is the "dualism" of the phenomenon that is conscious, without which dualism 62 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ • >^> • • • • -^ Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. the phenomenon is not. It is expressing itself, in its own Identity, as or with this dualism. The immediacy of this dualism is change, while the immediacy of this change is the phenomenon as its own Being. When the phenomenon is an evolved conscious one, it is the consciousness of Being. When it has reached a stage in its evolution where it is Being in conscious- ness, the Identity of that phenomenon, it is its Ego-Identity, the identity of that dual- ism as relationing, of relatives without which the phenomenon is not. Ego, and Being that reaches Ego-Identity as phe- nomenon in consciousness, are equivalents. While the terms descriptive of the rela- tives, in their variety as evolving phe- nomena from the lowest to the highest order of expression, vary as the varieties vary, the principle remains unchanged. So that when Ego-Identity appears, the terms, subject and object, are in one clas- sification with all others as descriptive of 63 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. the relatives in this Ego-Identity, as inseparable likeness and difference, the Being of one Identity. The law of one evolution, accounting for the various successive changes occur- ring in phenomena, holds in the case of the human Ego. As now being consid- ered, this Ego has reached the stage indi- cated in Proposition IV. It is held that the activity of this dualism is continuous, ceaseless; that when this activity, or motion, appears in its immediacy as Being conscious of itself, it is a consciousness of its ceaselessness, its continuity, in a ratio of its relatives, the Nature of which ratio is greater or less than any differ- ence assignable in that consciousness. The antithesis of the relatives constituting the phenomenon thus finds its synthesis in the same phenomenon, when the Nature of its cause appears. " Nature," denned by J. S. Mill, "means the sum of all phenomena, to- gether with the causes which produce 6 4 IHtllltlllliniininiiiiiniiiiinnnn.. ...... Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. them, including not only all that happens, but all that is capable of happening, the unused capabilities of causes being as much a part of this idea of nature as those which take effect." Should the continuous activity of this dualism cease for an instant, this Being itself, which is its immediacy, would cease. It is, therefore, the Nature of the activity that is the Cause of that Being. But here it is to be shown that when this Being, which is the being of the phe- nomenon, has ceased in consciousness, as it does, it is not the annihilation of the phenomenon, but the limitation of that phenomenon in its Ultimate at the point of an unassignable difference in conscious- ness where the ratio with its relatives dis- appears in that Nature. If the cause of this phenomenon has been realized in the phenomenon itself, as appears to be true when the Nature of that phenomenon in its continuity as motion is a conscious Identity as its own Being, then this Cause 65 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. is an inseparable present at every point in the phenomenon. Therefore, it is present at the point where, in conscious- ness, it has reached its Limiting- Ratio as such continuity. But at this point it cannot be an annihilation of those rela- tives where consciousness disappears, for that would be the annihilation of the Cause itself, which is in the phenomenon, a conclusion that would be a logical ab- surdity. It is this fact which Ego-Iden- tity realizes as its Absolute and Infinite Nature, when it realizes its Being as Self- Existent and Self-Sufficient, and inde- pendent in nature and action as the Cause of existent phenomenon. No definition of the Absolute or Infinite can be in the sense of completion or finality. For the end or completion of this ceaseless change would be the annihilation of the very Being itself as the Self- Existent, again a logical absurdity. The Absolute and Infinite are a realized completeness and finality. But only in the sense that they are all inclusive 66 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n i tti nil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinimiiiui^^^^ Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. of Cause and Effect, as each appears in the dualism of consciousness. The sum of the phenomena in Ego-Identity, including not only the phenomenon, but its Antecedent unused capabilities as Cause, in the highest development of a Ceptacle, reaches a consciousness of itself in its evolution when one of its relatives is the Antecedent of its Being, the other is the phenomenon itself, the expressed of that Antecedent, as Subject and Object in an inseparable Present. Proof that in this Ceptacle the Absolute and Infinite is Itself. DEDUCTIONS. Should this Theory attain an accepted place in a scientific philosophy, or be suggestive of one that will, it will be because Ceptacle is a thing of life. As such it unfolds in a natural development, indicating a correlation between inorganic and organic nature facts and forces upon one side, and human development upon 67 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. the other, where the latter becomes what is known as physics, metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics, and theology. If it lives, it lives the Identity of each one of these scientifically. In Physics, instinct, which controls as intelligence the behavior of the undevel- oped physical, is Metaphysics when that physical has evolved man and his con- scious reason in Ceptacle. It should fol- low, therefore, that in their correlation the physical instinctively directs that metaphysical, though the opposite is held generally, for metaphysics can be but instinctive-physics become conscious of its method. If this be true, the welfare of the higher development will come with a more comprehensive knowledge of the lower. The study of micro-organism in the human body will be an education of the metaphysical for a proper cultivation of the growth of that body, not as a physical organism only, but in its meta- physical development as well, which in 68 liimiimmilljminTm m Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. their correlation is the individualism through which each is evolving as Cep- tacle. The psychology of nutrition and elimination, recognized by scientists, pre- serving the micro-organism of the physical body, is forming the psychology recog- nized by metaphysicists, preserving the mentality of that body. For the truth of this, will physicists note the in- separable correlation of physics and metaphysics in the failure to sever in micro-organism its intelligence from its matter-side, following this with the further effort to separate this same intelligence in this lower order of expression from the behavior which governs as law that larger human intelligence in man, and which Propositions II. and III. hold to be the law of its Ceptacle-Expression. The psychol- ogy which physicists accord to micro- organism in connection with the sense of touch, sight, nutrition, and fecundation in cell life, is a life of relationing, though it be called instinctive. It is this psychic- 69 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. relationing that these propositions hold that becomes Ceptacle, and to do this they must also hold that it is the same micro- organic sense of touch, sight, nutrition, and fecundation that becomes human touch, sight, nutrition, and fecundation. Which also accounts for human activity where that activity becomes art, science, society, and government. Atom, microbe and idea are in one classification as intelligence-matter, the habits of the first being the intelligent activity of the last in the human body. They live as physical expressions, as the various functions of this body, as the totality accounting for this body's Ego- Identity. Following this view, it is at once seen what a field is opened, for every micro-organism entering into that body is accountable to its individu- ality under the guidance of self-conscious idea. Every sensibility, every passion, every ambition has its roots embedded in the habits of a tissue or a cell. Yet 70 llllllinillllllllllllllllllllliiiiiMMiiiininiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiun^^^^— ^ Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. its sacredness has been in no whit de- stroyed; it is more than ever the temple of the ever-living Antecedent of its Being, now made manifest by this meta- physical. Metaphysics, so closely allied to physics, we have already outlined in con- nection with this hypothesis. The Iden- tity of the idea, which has revealed itself to itself in Ceptacle, the argument has already endeavored to show, reveals itself to itself as its own Antecedent, where the embedded roots of this metaphysical, beyond the physical expression, is con- nected with and expressed in that phys- ical in its very Nature. In Esthetics, Ceptacle-Identity becomes the sole measure of its own pleasure and pain. It is not meant by this that it may be exempt from either at will, but that there is no responsibility within limita- tions, beyond itself for the measure of 71 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory, either as a part of itself. In yEsthetic- Ceptacle-Identity should be disclosed the reason of pleasure and pain. Esthetics is the conscious relationing of Ceptacle to itself in being its Identity as its own quality. The Identity is the consciousness of its varying quality as its relatives. The positive and negative of anv attrac- tion, affinity or passion, are not a com- parison of two differing things, but the varying degree of the same thing in a relation with itself. An aesthetic Cep- tacle is an expression where the relatives are desires or aversions, as the qualitative phases of whatever intelligence-matter is having conscious knowledge of itself, in the varying degrees of Identity possible to the range of such desire or aversion to the point where either changes to the other. This Identity extends and con- trasts in consciouness, as itself, over the field of this varying ratio, in a limited volition, as its will of what shall constitute that conscious Identity. If it extends this 72 rillllllHIHllllllllllllllllllimmmm Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. as desire or pleasure to where the ratio would be an excess of that conscious desire or pleasure, and where it would become in any degree an aversion, it is itself the creator of that aversion in a new Ceptacle. Desire and pleasure, aversion and pain, are synonymous in this sense. ^Esthetics is the being of the psychic-relations in Intel- ligence-Matter, animate or inanimate, when these reach the human develop- ment. Gravitation, Affinity, and Affection are in one classification. A strained, over- tensioned gravitation, or chemical affinity, changes its characteristic, and an Identity of overstrained or oversustained affection will produce a similar result, and for the same fundamental reason. As /Esthetics, Ceptacle absorbs and retains, as its Identity, in the intelligence-matter of the human anatomy its qualitative experiences, which are the gravitations and affinities of its en- vironment, in their positive and negative phases. The beautiful and repulsive of nature furnish the materials of this Iden- 73 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. tity thus held. These are its pleasures and its pains, and this Identity is what it objectifies again in subsequent combina- tions of itself, in future relations with environment. Identity obtains these as that original molecular activity which comes into its larger development where it knows itself in Ceptacle in a relation with itself. The Artist is more of Art as he is more of a nature Ceptacle, as, for instance, in sound as more tones come into that Identity, or in sight more color. In either, it is but more molecular activ- ity coming into that Identity's spectrum, where the musical scale of eight notes, or the seven colors of the rainbow, are the conventional beginning common to almost all sound and sight Ceptacles. Discord, severed relation, begins where the rela- tive tones or colors constituting a single Ceptacle end. Thus will one Ceptacle continue true to itself, in the blending of a desirable tone with its finer subdivisions, after a less developed one will have lost 74 liiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiHiiiiiiiniiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiimiuinmijiiiiiuiignii" Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. that tone in an undeveloped Identity of it. As evidence that the human voice must look to some law more profound than any written one supposedly conceived by the musical profession for the basis of its development, it would only seem neces- sary to note this fact. That any given tone is produced, through the vocal organs, by an exact number of vibrating undula- tions, reaching into the thousands, and that the instantaneous change from this tone, as a desire of Identity, to another and different, but equally exact, number of vibrations constituting another tone, could only be accomplished by an Identity that has its relationing of such infinite activity by virtue of being a nature-fact, in the same sense that whatever as instinct is guiding accurately that incalculable mo- lecular activity, is the same intelligence guiding any human artist as his art in his conscious desires and aversions produced as human chords and discords. 75 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. Ethics, in the order of the development of Ceptacle, should follow ^Esthetics, as later and more exact in accounting to its conscious self for the method of its activ- ity. Con-science should, therefore, be what the word indicates, more exact, possibly scientific, to the extent of a mathematical demonstration, more than mere aesthetic consciousness. It is not, therefore, unreasonable at least to attempt to subject it to mathematical formulae, especially where, as already noted, any mathematical symbol can be but an ap- proximate exactitude of a unit, where the ratio of the relatives can only be re- duced to a minimum, not to the elimina- tion of either. If, therefore, ethics can be mathematically applied, it does not follow that it must thereby furnish a solu- tion for a perfect morality, but an approx- imating one. In /Esthetics, desires or aversions have already been noted in their relation in Ceptacle. Language names these to consciousness, whereby the Cep- 76 I M m 1 1 m i 1 m n 1 1 1 1 n 1 m 1 1 1 1 lliiti jjxij-Ixlijllajlli 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ^u-.^ »-» ^ » ■ ' » « »^ j ^_ lj _ ! ^m Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. tacle knows its desires or aversions as such. These it also knows with more or less certainty in a positive or negative sense, in a greater or less degree, accord- ing to the development of the sensibility or keenness of its con-science. That is, the word expressive of desire is also, at one and the same time, as expressive of affirmation, or, on the contrary, aversion that of negation. In a Ceptacle, where the ratio of its qualitatives is greater or less than any assignable difference, per- fect symbolism, either mathematically or ethically, is not possible, and for precisely the same reason. But if it be true that there is found in the same Ceptacle, quality that can be expressed both ethically and mathematically, then is opened an inter- esting field for investigation. Ceptacle is a thing of inseparable relatives. It knows these in their qualitative signifi- cance by words indicating to its conscious Identity a ratio of desire or aversion, hav- ing the further significance at the same 77 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. time, of indicating, in such Identity, these as the attractions and affinities or their negatives, that are the natural laws gov- erning the activity of intelligence-matter. May not ethical desire, then, be mathe- matically expressed by the -f- sign, and aversion with the — sign, in a formula that is logically correct, leading to a valid demonstration? It must not be over- looked that Ceptacle is the conscious Identity of what is occurring within itself in a relationing of its own relatives, the mathematical formula being: + added to + = + — added to — = + — added to + = — In this formula, if desire in Con-Science be as well represented by the -f sign, and aversion by the — sign, it will be ethically as well as mathematically true, that in any conscious Ceptacle, if desire adds desire to its Identity in that Ceptacle, in an expression of its consciousness as fur- ther desire (which is adding like quality 78 iiuuiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiilHlllUTiuiJiULTLiimLiiiiiUTninnngg Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. to like quality) the result is -J-, and like- wise moral good; or, so long as aversion in like manner increases as conscious Identity its aversion-quality in the rela- tion, by adding aversion to aversion as its conscious self, the result is +, or like- wise good. But the instant either desire or aversion in that conscious Identity passes over to where it would be the opposite, or unlike what it would be if it could be included in this Identity, it is its own disintegration, which to this Ceptacle is a negative product. Ethical conscious- ness evolved as Con-Science thus indi- cates how Identity with more exactitude may realize the equilibrium of forces in their relationing. This, in the law of Evolution, accounts for the Integration and Disintegration going on in intelli- gence-matter, by which it may direct the Identity of its being as this same intelli- gence-matter, in the morale of this evolu- tion. Observe further this mathematical formula applied to ethics. Either affini- 79 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. ties and desires, or negatives and aver- sions, work for integration physically, and for good morally. And it must not be forgotten that while desires and aver- sions are expressed to consciousness in diversely opposite ideas, as moral and immoral, where desires are good and aversions bad, either, working with itself in its relation with itself, is for good, or +• And either, in its excess in that relationing, eventually throws off an Identity, which, related to itself, is bad, or — . But note this important fact: that this product, which in that relation would be disintegration or moral wrong, is in this new Ceptacle at once in itself good. Once taken up by this same mathematical and ethical formula, it will be found work- ing together with itself as its own rela- tives, an integration and a moral good. Thus would it appear that in atom, protoplasm and idea the Antithesis evolves its own avoidable, where, in the Synthesis, it becomes its own attainable. 80 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiuiij iimimiHmmimimiti Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. Theology must also account to and for itself in this Ceptacle theory. If the theory be scientific, and all that is known makes its appearance through this Nature-Fact, then any consciousness as or of a divine idea is in a classification with conscious- ness of material facts, in that both appear in such consciousnesss through Ceptacle only. Relationing, that plurality shown to be an inexhaustible in the ultimate of Science, must likewise be an inexhaust- ible in the ultimate of Theology. It must and does contain, as the Divine idea and as an inseparable Relationing, Deity in man, man in Deity. Furthermore, when this idea is that of Faith, it must not loose its hold upon the scientific fact that it is the expression of an intelligence-matter that is in the same classification and in an unbroken evolution with atom and proto- plasm. In this evolution, in its turn, the heterogeneous becomes homogeneous in an order that is from the impersonality of intelligence-matter through its personality Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. to its individuality, at which latter point this homogeneous reveals itself according" to its development as the three in one conscious Ego-Identity. At any stage in human history, its divine idea will be its Ceptacle or Ceptacles, having the capacity of largest expression within it's conscious- ness, before its disappearance or disinte- gration of, in and with itself. There appears to be no valid reason against that idea being an expansion, as desire plus desire, or aversion plus aversion, for the God of peace and the God of war appear alike at all human stages. In the brief application which is here made of this theory to Christian theology, it is not because it does not apply equally to any other, but because that theology is the one we best know; and in this connection it must also hold that whatever Christian theology derives as its knowledge of God from Revelation, it will require that it. trace this revelation through this same Nature-Fact-Ceptacle. 82 1 1 H H HI M 1 H H I M ' ' ' ' ' ' " ■ " ■ " ■ ' ' ■ ' ' |T| ' ' ' BT ■ ' i^i i iiTTTTnrTTTTriTiTirizijijjjmg mm Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. The Divine Idea of this theology in any Ceptacle of Ego-Identity must be sufficient to comprehend Deity as that which is Everlasting to Everlasting. As Ceptacle, this idea must be as capable of expansion upon its objective or material side as upon its subjective or spiritual side, and in this expansion, in either direction, this spiritual and material as Intelligence-Matter must remain in an inseparable relation to the point of simul- taneous disappearance of that Ceptacle from all consciousness. Upon the mate- rial side we have already stated our posi- tion in Proposition I. Upon the spiritual side the hypothesis is contained in Propo- sition IV. It will probably be agreed that the most satisfactory theological test of this last proposition is the teaching found in the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, as the culmination of those teachings. The first eighteen verses of the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John, we take 83 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. it, is a fundamental statement, from the Christian point of view, of the Spiritual Idea — God in man. From this Ceptacle point of view it will accord equally well as a statement of Antecedent, realizing Itself to Itself in its own expression where Idea is "Flesh" as Intelligence-Matter in evolved human body. The Idea in both is that in Intelligence-Matter it real- izes its Being as its everlasting Self. Here it is embodied in the individuality of Jesus Christ. In the fullness of this development in this individual Ego-Iden- tity, it knows its Being in an At-One- Ness with itself, as its own Antecedent or Father. In Chapter V, verses 19 to 47, inclusive, Jesus emphasizes this One-Ness as a thing of evolving conscious develop- ment in mankind, and not His exclusive privilege, indicating that whatever Idea of the Everlasting He embodied, the hu- man race was in a like line with its devel- opment. In Chapter VI, verses 29 to 65, inclusive, the inseparable character of 84 1H11"! 1 """"""" 11 """ TiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiTnnnnuumiEmi Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. spirit in matter and matter in spirit is treated. In Chapter VIII, verses 12 to 59, inclusive, the imperishable character of this idea, the Everlasting, the spirit of this Intelligence-Matter which He says is individualized as the personality of Him- self as Jesus Christ, He amplifies and holds out to those who in their lesser development do not yet comprehend it. And so on through this Gospel of St. John, from the statement in verses 1 to 4, Chapter I, to the end, the doctrine is that Logos was in the beginning and was God. It is Antecedent that is in Things and is Things, that knows Itself in its expression, in human flesh, when it reaches an Ego-Identity that calls itself Jesus Christ. It comprehends itself as Antecedent and human thing in One Identity. This is accomplished only when Antecedent and Expression are in that Identity an inseparable relation. But the Gospel statement that this insep- arable, that God is in man, man in God, 85 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. is in the expression Jesus Christ, is by no means an unquestioned one. Nor will it be until it is also proved an unavoidable conclusion, conceded by science and phi- losophy where they meet and solve the same problem in physics and metaphysics. Evolution, as physics, metaphysics, aes- thetics, ethics and theology would appear to be unfolding consciousness in an order where the direction of the movement of the relatives is from the material toward the ratio-mX. From out the physical comes the first glimmer of Intelligence- Matter. While out of the meta-physical has evolved a conscious Ratio that is the Identity of these Intelligence - Matter- relatives, as Itself. This Ratio is what becomes known to science and philos- ophy as Life, which last, as idea, is repre- sentative of the Nature of the Being, of this Intelligence-Matter. That this is so must have the effect of an unavoidable conclusion, if neither science nor philos- ophy can separate their idea, Ratio-nal, 86 iiiniiiiuiMiiiiiiiM 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 III I III I M II 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H IU-L' LJ ' ' Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. as that which holds together this Intelli- gence-Matter, from that other idea, Life, which is the Being of this Intelligence- Matter, and it matters not whether life is gravitation in atom or affection in proto- plasm. But while this Ratio, or Life Ceptacle, may serve as the Ultimate of science and philosophy which treat only of Intelligence-Matter, it will not answer for theology, which must look beyond the substance of which these treat and which must still be in the same classifica- tion with that substance. Theology can rest upon no Ceptacle as its ultimate which is an idea of Deity, that can have its limitations bounded by any Intelli- gence-Matter known to the present stage of evolved consciousness, however sublime that comprehension. But it must treat of a God that has a Ratio-nal Being with that consciousness capable of having such Being beyond this consciousness. If it does this, it is in a line of reasoning with science and philosophy where their known 87 Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory. is inseparably bound up with their un- known in evolution. Life of Intelligence-Matter becomes conscious of its own Ratio — Nature, as greater or less than any given difference between these relatives, intelligence-mat- ter, where it realizes its ceaseless conti- nuity throughout the entire movement in evolution from physics to theology. The Nature of this Ratio in its latest develop- ment is a Ceptacle of Ever-Lasting-Life, when in its conscious Identity its unused capabilities form an inseparable, present re- lation with its used capabilities. A con- clusion as valid as any furnished by science or philosophy. And one which gives to Theology the Faith-Identity of Jesus Christ where He confides His soul's Ego-Identity to a Ratio-nalism that con- tinues Antecedent and Its expression inseparable, when all intelligence, all matter, and all ratio conceivable to this stage of conscious being, in any Ceptacle, pass out of that consciousness. 88 L. of o. iilliiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiJ ii mmnm PRINTED BY R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. AT THE LAKESIDE PRESS, CHICAGO, ILL. MDCCCC liimmiiiiiiiiiimii lllllllllllllllllllLLLliLliLSiliiii: Tiiriiniiiimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiliiliiimi^^^ APR 18 1900 1llllllllllllllllliili" imiT1limTllinillTimmlTTTTTTTTT,TTini [ J il l I ILL 1 ' ' 1J - U ' ,c rjL ' ' ' ' " '