New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-07-04

furnished to either hypothesis ncuralled by as good
seeing to be necessary deduction from the law OF
correlation that what exists IN consciousness under
Of mechanical notion and by consequence into cquva-
Tents Of all the forces which matter exhibits may con
slider 1t therefore demonstrated that the phenomena
Of are material But mse e
BY matter are cognizabie only under the shapes Of
those equivalent amounts Of consciousness which they
produce is 70 be Inferred that these forces when
existing out of consciousness, are Of the same In.
trnsic nature as when existing in consciousness apd
identical With. that We can mind. Manifestly. the
correlation and equivalence between the forces OF the
outer and the inner worlds may be used N assnilae
either of the Others. according set out with one
Mr.. spencer sets out here with the assumption that
bis system intsrprcts all phenomena in terms Of mat
the phenomena Of the human mind; But this IS what
Mr. Tishe defines IN the words which follow as ma,
mind that before philosopher eau correctly be
fhaF s ,Sa Sad s +
as love and hate, or the sensation OF dness or the
dea OF yr' not oeg aos. @ @ %he na
Fiske here defines a. matcralism. hut he does the
same again in repreensing the MaerelIst as seeing
sary deduction from the correlation Of forces. But
the me y1Gr ~ s of this wonderful Tsaon
How the Matcralist could pursue snch line OF
be maintained at ALL that IS iH the only Ray w sH1
1t could be done; but to seek reconciliation Of
religion and science s, by calling upon the sprtualist
foe th Mator!ast by adopting HIS principles is, TO
system In behalf of which 1t Is DONE from the charge
Of Materalsm. such reconciliation at once suggests
that OF the lion and the lamb when they lie down
together with the lamb inside.
Another feature Of this remarkable piece Of verbal
Iuggcry Is when forces are represented as existing in
existing in consciousness may be 1t hos often been
pointed ont and especially By eyolutlonsts IKE Pro
Spencer himself, that the forces of the body
much external to consciousness as are those OF mani
mate nature. What then can Mr.. spencer mean lie
speaks by way Of making faint show Of sense in the
expression Of the forces of the external world as
producing equivalent amounts of consciousness, but
that is only reassetion OF what, shall presently
see, Mr.: Fiske With dine moderation dcnonnccs as
wonderfully conclusive refntation Of the charge Of
on ri Ism Is nehGT h %9G nor less than
which MI: Fiske speaks as follows:
A wave Of molecular motion 10 tho brain cannot
o Nothing Mhs eT sa S set ms oS waves
moecIlar motion either In the gray walls Of gangla
In any way into the organism as physical force must
come out again ~ physical force and every phnse Of
time must be Vigorously accounted for in terms Of
force or else tho law OF the conservation Of
ness feeling anywhere in the series as either caused
by or causing actions In the brain or nerves is not
to state what Is untrue. but to talk nonsense (Ex-
curSions Of an EvOlutonist. p. 1922
From this It wonld appear that in the opinion OF
Mr nIEg wnGh Mr Spencer propose to reco9co
the correlation Of forces that the phenomena Of
sclonsnesS are material phenomena, that there Is
correlation OF the forces Of the outer and the inner
worlds or that there + correlation between the
physical forces and the sensations like that between
the physical forces themselves" he IS not simply telling
what Is not true but that he Is talking nonsense To
that Extent am happy to agree with Mr. Flske, and
to commend tho manly candor with which ne has so
often and 50 vanly pressed upon the attention Of his
theological opponents most important truth ~ which
they should have been the first dIscovcrprs.
II my esteemed critic the president Of the Brooklyn
Ethical Association. who thinks that my erroneous
statements respecting Mr.. Spcnccrs philosophy ought
tn Dee anthoravcly corrected. is sill of the opinion
that mSconcciv" ~" position ~ these two great
thinkers and that the supposed conflict between their
teachings exists only In my Imagination. let invite
nm 10 submit the question to Mr. Fiskc and 10 ask
him 70 state In the most explicit terms al hts command
whether the doctrine taught In the passages above
quoted from Mr. spencer is not the same mechanical
Interpretation 81 psychical phenomena which ne has
alwavs designated and rcfuted matcrialsm and
whether Mr.. Spcnccr's affirmation and his own rcfuta-
ton 81 II do not proceed o>tcnsbly upon tho same
cumulative principle Of the correlation forces
Any answer "a these inquiries which docs not consist
too largely Of authoritative assertions will DE awaited
with graf Interest : H. WILDER
York. June 2G. 1900