[81] The Open Court, Nos. 153 and 154.
To begin with, I state with pleasure that the monistic tendency of both endeavors is in the direction that appears to me to be the true one and that is most likely to afford elucidation. Consequently, agreement in matters of detail is of subordinate importance and is only a question of time.
Let me cite, first, a few passages from "Feeling and Motion" to which I give my full assent. They are the following:
"The interconvertibility of motion and feeling is an error."
"Feeling is real as much as are matter and motion."
"Its reality accordingly is most immediate and direct, so that it would be ridiculous to doubt it."
"Man's method of understanding the process of nature is that of abstraction."
"Every concept is formed for some purpose, and every concept by serving one purpose necessarily becomes one-sided…. We must bear in mind…. (1) the purpose it has to serve, and (2) that the totality of things from which abstractions can be made is one indivisible whole…. We must not imagine that the one side only is true reality."
Some years ago I should also have agreed in toto with the passages in which Dr. Carus speaks of the animation of all nature, and of the feeling that accompanies every motion. To-day this form of expression would not, it seems to me, correctly characterise the matter. If I were now prematurely to advance a definitive formulation, I should fear lest, so far as myself and perhaps others are concerned, important aspects might remain concealed.
I shall next cite the passages with respect to which I do not agree with Dr. Carus, and then I shall endeavor to state wherein our differences of opinion consist: