NewThoughtLibrary.com / DivineLibrary.org

no force, no activity can be lost, how shall an act of mind fade out of consciousness? What is this fading away, if it be not a loss of force? Or, again, if the mind have but a given amount of force to bestow, and each act takes a portion, how long will it be before its stock of power will be exhausted? Or, if this power is divided up into a multiplicity of acts, and previous acts, therefore, are weakened in their impressions, does not this imply a withdrawal in part of activity from earlier actions, and if a partial withdrawal is possible, what renders complete removal impossible? Again, what is meant by recalling an obscure cognition? Is it simply infusing more power into it, deepening the action already present, or, is it a new act of mind by which we direct attention to it, and bring it to the light? Must this new act also, in turn, subsist forever, still farther sub-dividing the power of the mind? These and many like questions are pertinent to this semi-physical theory, and show it to be unintelligible, not to say preposterous. It has no coherence and completeness in itself. (4) Nor does it explain the difficulties which the facts of memory present, and which call it forth. Indeed, these phenomena are every way more comprehensible than the solution of them thus offered. The act of recollection still remains, and is certainly no more intelligible because we suppose somewhere, in some out-of -sight region of the mind, is lurking a previous act, which this new one fastens upon and brings forward. What relation do these distinct co-existing acts, the recalling and the recalled, the captor and the captive, bear to each other? How do they together constitute memory? Recollection seems to be as single, simple an effort of mind, as perception or thought in the first instance. There is no occasion, because memory is an act of recollection, to put either in the mind or out of the mind, in an independent self- existent form, the exact thing recollected. A dead man can be