Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) by Samuel Butler (classic books to read .TXT) 📕

Mechanism Which Has Been Contrived Once For All,  I By No Means

Exclude The Supposition That In The Constitution Of The Brain,  The

Ganglia,  And The Whole Body,  In Respect Of Morphological As Well As

Molecular-Physiological Condition,  Certain Predispositions Can Be

Established Which Direct The Unconscious Intermediaries More Readily

Into One Channel Than Into Another.  This Predisposition Is Either

The Result Of A Habit Which Keeps Continually Cutting For Itself A

Deeper And Deeper Channel,  Until In The End It Leaves Indelible

Traces Whether In The Individual Or In The Race,  Or It Is Expressly

Called Into Being By The Unconscious Formative Principle In

Generation,  So As To Facilitate Action In A Given Direction.  This

Last Will Be The Case More Frequently In Respect Of Exterior

Organisation--As,  For Example,  With The Weapons Or Working Organs Of

Animals--While To The Former Must Be Referred The Molecular Condition

Of Brain And Ganglia Which Bring About The Perpetually Recurring

Elements Of An Instinct Such As The Hexagonal Shape Of The Cells Of

Bees.  We Shall Presently See That By Individual Character We Mean

The Sum Of The Individual Methods Of Reaction Against All Possible

Motives,  And That This Character Depends Essentially Upon A

Constitution Of Mind And Body Acquired In Some Measure Through Habit

By The Individual,  But For The Most Part Inherited.  But An Instinct

Is Also A Mode Of Reaction Against Certain Motives; Here,  Too,  Then,

We Are Dealing With Character,  Though Perhaps Not So Much With That

Of The Individual As Of The Race; For By Character In Regard To

Instinct We Do Not Intend The Differences That Distinguish

Individuals,  But Races From One Another.  If Any One Chooses To

Maintain That Such A Predisposition For Certain Kinds Of Activity On

The Part Of Brain And Body Constitutes A Mechanism,  This May In One

Sense Be Admitted; But As Against This View It Must Be Remarked -

1.  That Such Deviations From The Normal Scheme Of An Instinct As

Cannot Be Referred To Conscious Deliberation Are Not Provided For By

Any Predisposition In This Mechanism.

2.  That Heredity Is Only Possible Under The Circumstances Of A

Constant Superintendence Of The Embryonic Development By A Purposive

Unconscious Activity Of Growth.  It Must Be Admitted,  However,  That

This Is Influenced In Return By The Predisposition Existing In The

Germ.

3.  That The Impressing Of The Predisposition Upon The Individual

From Whom It Is Inherited Can Only Be Effected By Long Practice,

Consequently The Instinct Without Auxiliary Mechanism {105a} Is The

Originating Cause Of The Auxiliary Mechanism.

4.  That None Of Those Instinctive Actions That Are Performed Rarely,

Or Perhaps Once Only,  In The Lifetime Of Any Individual--As,  For

Example,  Those Connected With The Propagation And Metamorphoses Of

The Lower Forms Of Life,  And None Of Those Instinctive Omissions Of

Action,  Neglect Of Which Necessarily Entails Death--Can Be Conceived

As Having Become Engrained Into The Character Through Habit; The

Ganglionic Constitution,  Therefore,  That Predisposes The Animal

Towards Them Must Have Been Fashioned Purposively.

5.  That Even The Presence Of An Auxiliary Mechanism {105b} Does Not

Compel The Unconscious To A Particular Corresponding Mode Of

Instinctive Action,  But Only Predisposes It.  This Is Shown By The

Possibility Of Departure From The Normal Type Of Action,  So That The

Unconscious Purpose Is Always Stronger Than The Ganglionic

Constitution,  And Takes Any Opportunity Of Choosing From Several

Similar Possible Courses The One That Is Handiest And Most Convenient

To The Constitution Of The Individual.

We Now Approach The Question That I Have Reserved For Our Final One,-

-Is There,  Namely,  Actually Such A Thing As Instinct,  {105c} Or Are

All So-Called Instinctive Actions Only The Results Of Conscious

Deliberation?

In Support Of The Second Of These Two Views,  It May Be Alleged That

The More Limited Is The Range Of The Conscious Mental Activity Of Any

Living Being,  The More Fully Developed In Proportion To Its Entire

Mental Power Is Its Performance Commonly Found To Be In Respect Of

Its Own Limited And Special Instinctive Department.  This Holds As

Good With The Lower Animals As With Men,  And Is Explained By The Fact

That Perfection Of Proficiency Is Only Partly Dependent Upon Natural

Capacity,  But Is In Great Measure Due To Practice And Cultivation Of

The Original Faculty.  A Philologist,  For Example,  Is Unskilled In

Questions Of Jurisprudence; A Natural Philosopher Or Mathematician,

In Philology; An Abstract Philosopher,  In Poetical Criticism.  Nor

Has This Anything To Do With The Natural Talents Of The Several

Persons,  But Follows As A Consequence Of Their Special Training.  The

More Special,  Therefore,  Is The Direction In Which The Mental

Activity Of Any Living Being Is Exercised,  The More Will The Whole

Developing And Practising Power Of The Mind Be Brought To Bear Upon

This One Branch,  So That It Is Not Surprising If The Special Power

Comes Ultimately To Bear An Increased Proportion To The Total Power

Of The Individual,  Through The Contraction Of The Range Within Which

It Is Exercised.

Those,  However,  Who Apply This To The Elucidation Of Instinct Should

Not Forget The Words,  "In Proportion To The Entire Mental Power Of

The Animal In Question," And Should Bear In Mind That The Entire

Mental Power Becomes Less And Less Continually As We Descend The

Scale Of Animal Life,  Whereas Proficiency In The Performance Of An

Instinctive Action Seems To Be Much Of A Muchness In All Grades Of

The Animal World.  As,  Therefore,  Those Performances Which

Indisputably Proceed From Conscious Deliberation Decrease

Proportionately With Decrease Of Mental Power,  While Nothing Of The

Kind Is Observable In The Case Of Instinct--It Follows That Instinct

Must Involve Some Other Principle Than That Of Conscious

Intelligence.  We See,  Moreover,  That Actions Which Have Their Source

In Conscious Intelligence Are Of One And The Same Kind,  Whether Among

The Lower Animals Or With Mankind--That Is To Say,  That They Are

Acquired By Apprenticeship Or Instruction And Perfected By Practice;

So That The Saying,  "Age Brings Wisdom," Holds Good With The Brutes

As Much As With Ourselves.  Instinctive Actions,  On The Contrary,

Have A Special And Distinct Character,  In That They Are Performed

With No Less Proficiency By Animals That Have Been Reared In Solitude

Than By Those That Have Been Instructed By Their Parents,  The First

Essays Of A Hitherto Unpractised Animal Being As Successful As Its

Later Ones.  There Is A Difference In Principle Here Which Cannot Be

Mistaken.  Again,  We Know By Experience That The Feebler And More

Limited An Intelligence Is,  The More Slowly Do Ideas Act Upon It,

That Is To Say,  The Slower And More Laborious Is Its Conscious

Thought.  So Long As Instinct Does Not Come Into Play,  This Holds

Good Both In The Case Of Men Of Different Powers Of Comprehension And

With Animals; But With Instinct All Is Changed,  For It Is The

Speciality Of Instinct Never To Hesitate Or Loiter,  But To Take

Action Instantly Upon Perceiving That The Stimulating Motive Has Made

Its Appearance.  This Rapidity In Arriving At A Resolution Is Common

To The Instinctive Actions Both Of The Highest And The Lowest

Animals,  And Indicates An Essential Difference Between Instinct And

Conscious Deliberation.

Finally,  As Regards Perfection Of The Power Of Execution,  A Glance

Will Suffice To Show The Disproportion That Exists Between This And

The Grade Of Intellectual Activity On Which An Animal May Be

Standing.  Take,  For Instance,  The Caterpillar Of The Emperor Moth

(Saturnia Pavonia Minor).  It Eats The Leaves Of The Bush Upon Which

It Was Born; At The Utmost Has Just Enough Sense To Get On To The

Lower Sides Of The Leaves If It Begins To Rain,  And From Time To Time

Changes Its Skin.  This Is Its Whole Existence,  Which Certainly Does

Not Lead Us To Expect A Display Of Any,  Even The Most Limited,

Intellectual Power.  When,  However,  The Time Comes For The Larva Of

This Moth To Become A Chrysalis,  It Spins For Itself A Double Cocoon,

Fortified With Bristles That Point Outwards,  So That It Can Be Opened

Easily From Within,  Though It Is Sufficiently Impenetrable From

Without.  If This Contrivance Were The Result Of Conscious

Reflection,  We Should Have To Suppose Some Such Reasoning Process As

The Following To Take Place In The Mind Of The Caterpillar:- "I Am

About To Become A Chrysalis,  And,  Motionless As I Must Be,  Shall Be

Exposed To Many Different Kinds Of Attack.  I Must Therefore Weave

Myself A Web.  But When I Am A Moth I Shall Not Be Able,  As Some

Moths Are,  To Find My Way Out Of It By Chemical Or Mechanical Means;

Therefore I Must Leave A Way Open For Myself.  In Order,  However,

That My Enemies May Not Take Advantage Of This,  I Will Close It With

Elastic Bristles,  Which I Can Easily Push Asunder From Within,  But

Which,  Upon The Principle Of The Arch,  Will Resist All Pressure From

Without."  Surely This Is Asking Rather Too Much From A Poor

Caterpillar; Yet The Whole Of The Foregoing Must Be Thought Out If A

Correct Result Is To Be Arrived At.

This Theoretical Separation Of Instinct From Conscious Intelligence

Can Be Easily Misrepresented By Opponents Of My Theory,  As Though A

Separation In Practice Also Would Be Necessitated In Consequence.

This Is By No Means My Intention.  On The Contrary,  I Have Already

Insisted At Some Length That Both The Two Kinds Of Mental Activity

May Co-Exist In All Manner Of Different Proportions,  So That There

May Be Every Degree Of Combination,  From Pure Instinct To Pure

Deliberation.  We Shall See,  However,  In A Later Chapter,  That Even

In The Highest And Most Abstract Activity Of Human Consciousness

There Are Forces At Work That Are Of The Highest Importance,  And Are

Essentially Of The Same Kind As Instinct.

On The Other Hand,  The Most Marvellous Displays Of Instinct Are To Be

Found Not Only In Plants,  But Also In Those Lowest Organisms Of The

Simplest Bodily Form Which Are Partly Unicellular,  And In Respect Of

Conscious Intelligence Stand Far Below The Higher Plants--To Which,

Indeed,  Any Kind Of Deliberative Faculty Is Commonly Denied.  Even In

The Case Of Those Minute Microscopic Organisms That Baffle Our

Attempts To Classify Them Either As Animals Or Vegetables,  We Are

Still Compelled To Admire An Instinctive,  Purposive Behaviour,  Which

Goes Far Beyond A Mere Reflex Responsive To A Stimulus From Without;

All Doubt,  Therefore,  Concerning The Actual Existence Of An Instinct

Must Be At An End,  And The Attempt To Deduce It As A Consequence Of

Conscious Deliberation Be Given Up As Hopeless.  I Will Here Adduce

An Instance As Extraordinary As Any We Yet Know Of,