intellectual self—­and so on.  For how does that help us?  It is the same unknown quantity in different circumstances.  The self that ponders in thought, knows itself as the same that talks in society.  The strange power of being able to analyse ourselves at all is one of the strangest things about us.  What a world of difference lies between the unconscious self of the animal and this conscious self of man!  Professor James’ brilliantly written chapter of investigation into the self leaves us amused rather than enlightened.  Against all arguments to the contrary, we should refuse to give up the word mind, whether it is considered vague or defective in any or every way.  Mind in all its complexity, is what we have to investigate scientifically.  Mind in all its complexity is what the philosopher has to explain, not mind, analysed into simple acts of consciousness.  The hypnotist talks of double, treble and quadruple personalities with totally different characteristics “under suggestion,” but it helps us little for we have not yet defined mind on its sane and normal sides.  Considering the acuteness and the sanity of the French mind, it is somewhat strange that the French psychologists should devote themselves chiefly to the study of the insane and hysterical.  Philosophy, though it gives us soaring thoughts, grand speculations, and metaphysical schemes, from Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, to Herbert Spencer, and Mr. Mallock, cannot give us any knowledge in which they mutually agree.  Mr. Mallock sums up philosophy as a necessity to the mind.  We must believe in some theory of mind, some religion, some philosophy, else life is dreary and unlivable.  This appears to be the result of his book “The Veil of the Temple,” and this is simply the doctrine of utility.  But no philosopher, can tell us why mind works on certain lines and not on others, because they cannot tell us definitely that they know what mind is.  Mind is a function of Matter:  Matter is a function of thought:  Mind is Noumenon the unseen and unknown, as contrasted with Phenomena the seen and known; the universe, the creation of the mind; the mind, the product of the universe.  All these ideas and many others so widely differing can none of them receive a demonstrable proof;—­these contrary statements show how far we are from possessing any real knowledge of what mind is.  After all that has been written, elaborated and imagined, do we actually know more than Omar Khayam knew?

  “There was the door to which I found no key;
  There was the veil through which I could not see;
  Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee
  There was—­and then no more of Thee and Me.”

Philosophy is still powerless to tell us what mind is; the self, the ego always vanishes as we seem to be nearing it, it always eludes our deepest probings—­we only demonstrate our failure in regard to our knowledge of it.  All this is true, but should we therefore despair?  If we are born with the record on the brain of the inexorable desire to know, the very failure should stimulate us to further, and greater, and more fruitful questionings.