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

Other Molecules.  This Is Why Animals Feed On Grass And

On Each Other,  And Cannot Proselytise Or Convert The Rude Ground

Before It Has Been Tutored In The First Principles Of The Higher

Kinds Of Association.

Chapter 13 (Conclusion) Pg 142

 

Again,  I Would Recommend The Reader To Beware Of Believing Anything

In This Book Unless He Either Likes It,  Or Feels Angry At Being Told

It.  If Required Belief In This Or That Makes A Man Angry,  I Suppose

He Should,  As A General Rule,  Swallow It Whole Then And There Upon

The Spot,  Otherwise He May Take It Or Leave It As He Likes.  I Have

Not Gone Far For My Facts,  Nor Yet Far From Them; All On Which I Rest

Are As Open To The Reader As To Me.  If I Have Sometimes Used Hard

Terms,  The Probability Is That I Have Not Understood Them,  But Have

Done So By A Slip,  As One Who Has Caught A Bad Habit From The Company

He Has Been Lately Keeping.  They Should Be Skipped.

 

Do Not Let Him Be Too Much Cast Down By The Bad Language With Which

Professional Scientists Obscure The Issue,  Nor By Their Seeming To

Make It Their Business To Fog Us Under The Pretext Of Removing Our

Difficulties.  It Is Not The Ratcatcher's Interest To Catch All The

Rats; And,  As Handel Observed So Sensibly,  "Every Professional

Gentleman Must Do His Best For To Live."  The Art Of Some Of Our

Philosophers,  However,  Is Sufficiently Transparent,  And Consists Too

Often In Saying "Organism Which Must Be Classified Among Fishes,"

Instead Of "Fish," {179a} And Then Proclaiming That They Have "An

Ineradicable Tendency To Try To Make Things Clear." {179b}

 

If Another Example Is Required,  Here Is The Following From An Article

Than Which I Have Seen Few With Which I More Completely Agree,  Or

Which Have Given Me Greater Pleasure.  If Our Men Of Science Would

Take To Writing In This Way,  We Should Be Glad Enough To Follow Them.

The Passage I Refer To Runs Thus:-

 

 

 

 

 

"Professor Huxley Speaks Of A 'Verbal Fog By Which The Question At

Issue May Be Hidden'; Is There No Verbal Fog In The Statement That

The Aetiology Of Crayfishes Resolves Itself Into A Gradual Evolution

In The Course Of The Mesosoic And Subsequent Epochs Of The World's

History Of These Animals From A Primitive Astacomorphous Form?  Would

It Be Fog Or Light That Would Envelop The History Of Man If We Said

That The Existence Of Man Was Explained By The Hypothesis Of His

Gradual Evolution From A Primitive Anthropomorphous Form?  I Should

Call This Fog,  Not Light." {180}

 

 

 

 

 

Especially Let Him Mistrust Those Who Are Holding Forth About

Protoplasm,  And Maintaining That This Is The Only Living Substance.

Protoplasm May Be,  And Perhaps Is,  The Most Living Part Of An

Organism,  As The Most Capable Of Retaining Vibrations,  But This Is

The Utmost That Can Be Claimed For It.

 

Having Mentioned Protoplasm,  I May Ask The Reader To Note The

Chapter 13 (Conclusion) Pg 143

Breakdown Of That School Of Philosophy Which Divided The Ego From The

Non Ego.  The Protoplasmists,  On The One Hand,  Are Whittling Away At

The Ego,  Till They Have Reduced It To A Little Jelly In Certain Parts

Of The Body,  And They Will Whittle Away This Too Presently,  If They

Go On As They Are Doing Now.

 

Others,  Again,  Are So Unifying The Ego And The Non Ego,  That With

Them There Will Soon Be As Little Of The Non Ego Left As There Is Of

The Ego With Their Opponents.  Both,  However,  Are So Far Agreed As

That We Know Not Where To Draw The Line Between The Two,  And This

Renders Nugatory Any System Which Is Founded Upon A Distinction

Between Them.

 

The Truth Is,  That All Classification Whatever,  When We Examine Its

Raison D'etre Closely,  Is Found To Be Arbitrary--To Depend On Our

Sense Of Our Own Convenience,  And Not On Any Inherent Distinction In

The Nature Of The Things Themselves.  Strictly Speaking,  There Is

Only One Thing And One Action.  The Universe,  Or God,  And The Action

Of The Universe As A Whole.

 

Lastly,  I May Predict With Some Certainty That Before Long We Shall

Find The Original Darwinism Of Dr. Erasmus Darwin (With An Infusion

Of Professor Hering Into The Bargain) Generally Accepted Instead Of

The Neo-Darwinism Of To-Day,  And That The Variations Whose

Accumulation Results In Species Will Be Recognised As Due To The

Wants And Endeavours Of The Living Forms In Which They Appear,

Instead Of Being Ascribed To Chance,  Or,  In Other Words,  To Unknown

Causes,  As By Mr. Charles Darwin's System.  We Shall Have Some

Idyllic Young Naturalist Bringing Up Dr. Erasmus Darwin's Note On

Trapa Natans,  {181a} And Lamarck's Kindred Passage On The Descent Of

Ranunculus Hederaceus From Ranunculus Aquatilis {181b} As Fresh

Discoveries,  And Be Told,  With Much Happy Simplicity,  That Those

Animals And Plants Which Have Felt The Need Of Such Or Such A

Structure Have Developed It,  While Those Which Have Not Wanted It

Have Gone Without It.  Thus,  It Will Be Declared,  Every Leaf We See

Around Us,  Every Structure Of The Minutest Insect,  Will Bear Witness

To The Truth Of The "Great Guess" Of The Greatest Of Naturalists

Concerning The Memory Of Living Matter.

 

I Dare Say The Public Will Not Object To This,  And Am Very Sure That

None Of The Admirers Of Mr. Charles Darwin Or Mr. Wallace Will

Protest Against It; But It May Be As Well To Point Out That This Was

Not The View Of The Matter Taken By Mr. Wallace In 1858 When He And

Mr. Darwin First Came Forward As Preachers Of Natural Selection.  At

That Time Mr. Wallace Saw Clearly Enough The Difference Between The

Theory Of "Natural Selection" And That Of Lamarck.  He Wrote:-

 

 

 

 

 

"The Hypothesis Of Lamarck--That Progressive Changes In Species Have

Been Produced By The Attempts Of Animals To Increase The Development

Of Their Own Organs,  And Thus Modify Their Structure And Habits--Has

Chapter 13 (Conclusion) Pg 144

Been Repeatedly And Easily Refuted By All Writers On The Subject Of

Varieties And Species,  . . . But The View Here Developed Tenders Such

An Hypothesis Quite Unnecessary. . . .  The Powerful Retractile

Talons Of The Falcon And The Cat Tribes Have Not Been Produced Or

Increased By The Volition Of Those Animals,  Neither Did The Giraffe

Acquire Its Long Neck By Desiring To Reach The Foliage Of The More

Lofty Shrubs,  And Constantly Stretching Its Neck For This Purpose,

But Because Any Varieties Which Occurred Among Its Antitypes With A

Longer Neck Than Usual At Once Secured A Fresh Range Of Pasture Over

The Same Ground As Their Shorter-Necked Companions,  And On The First

Scarcity Of Food Were Thereby Enabled To Outlive Them" (Italics In

Original). {182a}

 

 

 

 

 

This Is Absolutely The Neo-Darwinian Doctrine,  And A Denial Of The

Mainly Fortuitous Character Of The Variations In Animal And Vegetable

Forms Cuts At Its Root.  That Mr. Wallace,  After Years Of Reflection,

Still Adhered To This View,  Is Proved By His Heading A Reprint Of The

Paragraph Just Quoted From {182b} With The Words "Lamarck's

Hypothesis Very Different From That Now Advanced"; Nor Do Any Of His

More Recent Works Show That He Has Modified His Opinion.  It Should

Be Noted That Mr. Wallace Does Not Call His Work "Contributions To

The Theory Of Evolution," But To That Of "Natural Selection."

 

Mr. Darwin,  With Characteristic Caution,  Only Commits Himself To

Saying That Mr. Wallace Has Arrived At Almost (Italics Mine) The Same

General Conclusions As He,  Mr. Darwin,  Has Done; {182c} But He Still,

As In 1859,  Declares That It Would Be "A Serious Error To Suppose

That The Greater Number Of Instincts Have Been Acquired By Habit In

One Generation,  And Then Transmitted By Inheritance To Succeeding

Generations," {183a} And He Still Comprehensively Condemns The "Well-

Known Doctrine Of Inherited Habit,  As Advanced By Lamarck." {183b}

 

As For The Statement In The Passage Quoted From Mr. Wallace,  To The

Effect That Lamarck's Hypothesis "Has Been Repeatedly And Easily

Refuted By All Writers On The Subject Of Varieties And Species," It

Is A Very Surprising One.  I Have Searched Evolution Literature In

Vain For Any Refutation Of The Erasmus Darwinian System (For This Is

What Lamarck's Hypothesis Really Is) Which Need Make The Defenders Of

That System At All Uneasy.  The Best Attempt At An Answer To Erasmus

Darwin That Has Yet Been Made Is "Paley's Natural Theology," Which

Was Throughout Obviously Written To Meet Buffon And The "Zoonomia."

It Is The Manner Of Theologians To Say That Such And Such An

Objection "Has Been Refuted Over And Over Again," Without At The Same

Time Telling Us When And Where; It Is To Be Regretted That Mr.

Wallace Has Here Taken A Leaf Out Of The Theologians' Book.  His

Statement Is One Which Will Not Pass Muster With Those Whom Public

Opinion Is Sure In The End To Follow.

 

Did Mr. Herbert Spencer,  For Example,  "Repeatedly And Easily Refute"

Lamarck's Hypothesis In His Brilliant Article In The Leader,  March

Chapter 13 (Conclusion) Pg 145

20,  1852?  On The Contrary,  That Article Is Expressly Directed

Against Those "Who Cavalierly Reject The Hypothesis Of Lamarck And

His Followers."  This Article Was Written Six Years Before The Words

Last Quoted From Mr. Wallace; How Absolutely,  However,  Does The Word

"Cavalierly" Apply To Them!

 

Does Isidore Geoffroy,  Again,  Bear Mr. Wallace's Assertion Out

Better?  In 1859--That Is To Say,  But A Short Time After Mr. Wallace

Had Written--He Wrote As Follows:-

 

 

 

 

 

"Such Was The Language Which Lamarck Heard During His Protracted Old

Age,  Saddened Alike By The Weight Of Years And Blindness; This Was

What People Did Not Hesitate To Utter Over His Grave Yet Barely

Closed,  And What Indeed They Are Still Saying--Commonly Too Without

Any Knowledge Of