essays on life, art and science-第32章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


as　matters　of　course。　　If　they　have　been　lucky　they　make　a　note　of
it　and　try　to　repeat　their　success。　　If　they　have　been　unfortunate
but　have　recovered　rapidly　they　soon　forget　it；　if　they　have
suffered　long　and　deeply　they　grizzle　over　it　and　are　scared　and
scarred　by　it　for　a　long　time。　　The　question　is　one　of　cognisance　or
non…cognisance　on　the　part　of　the　new　germs；　of　the　more　profound
impressions　made　on　them　while　they　were　one　with　their　parents；
between　the　occasion　of　their　last　preceding　development；　and　the
new　course　on　which　they　are　about　to　enter。　　Those　who　accept　the
theory　put　forward　independently　by　Professor　Hering　of　Prague
（whose　work　on　this　subject　is　translated　in　my　book；　〃Unconscious
Memory〃）　｛40｝　and　by　myself　in　〃Life　and　Habit；〃　｛41｝　believe　in
cognizance；　as　do　Lamarckians　generally。　　Weismannites；　and　with
them　the　orthodoxy　of　English　science；　find　non…cognisance　more
acceptable。

If　the　Heringian　view　is　accepted；　that　heredity　is　only　a　mode　of
memory；　and　an　extension　of　memory　from　one　generation　to　another；
then　the　repetition　of　its　development　by　any　embryo　thus　becomes
only　the　repetition　of　a　lesson　learned　by　rote；　and；　as　I　have
elsewhere　said；　our　view　of　life　is　simplified　by　finding　that　it　is
no　longer　an　equation　of；　say；　a　hundred　unknown　quantities；　but　of
ninety…nine　only；　inasmuch　as　two　of　the　unknown　quantities　prove　to
be　substantially　identical。　　In　this　case　the　inheritance　of
acquired　characteristics　cannot　be　disputed；　for　it　is　postulated　in
the　theory　that　each　embryo　takes　note　of；　remembers　and　is　guided
by　the　profounder　impressions　made　upon　it　while　in　the　persons　of
its　parents；　between　its　present　and　last　preceding　development。　　To
maintain　this　is　to　maintain　use　and　disuse　to　be　the　main　factors
throughout　organic　development；　to　deny　it　is　to　deny　that　use　and
disuse　can　have　any　conceivable　effect。　　For　the　detailed　reasons
which　led　me　to　my　own　conclusions　I　must　refer　the　reader　to　my
books；　〃Life　and　Habit〃　｛42｝　and　〃Unconscious　Memory；〃　｛42｝　the
conclusions　of　which　have　been　often　adopted；　but　never；　that　I　have
seen；　disputed。　　A　brief　resume　of　the　leading　points　in　the
argument　is　all　that　space　will　here　allow　me　to　give。

We　have　seen　that　it　is　a　first　requirement　of　heredity　that　there
shall　be　physical　continuity　between　parents　and　offspring。　　This
holds　good　with　memory。　　There　must　be　continued　identity　between
the　person　remembering　and　the　person　to　whom　the　thing　that　is
remembered　happened。　　We　cannot　remember　things　that　happened　to
some　one　else；　and　in　our　absence。　　We　can　only　remember　having
heard　of　them。　　We　have　seen；　however；　that　there　is　as　much　bona…
fide　sameness　of　personality　between　parents　and　offspring　up　to　the
time　at　which　the　offspring　quits　the　parent's　body；　as　there　is
between　the　different　states　of　the　parent　himself　at　any　two
consecutive　moments；　the　offspring　therefore；　being　one　and　the　same
person　with　its　progenitors　until　it　quits　them；　can　be　held　to
remember　what　happened　to　them　within；　of　course；　the　limitations　to
which　all　memory　is　subject；　as　much　as　the　progenitors　can　remember
what　happened　earlier　to　themselves。　　Whether　it　does　so　remember
can　only　be　settled　by　observing　whether　it　acts　as　living　beings
commonly　do　when　they　are　acting　under　guidance　of　memory。　　I　will
endeavour　to　show　that；　though　heredity　and　habit　based　on　memory　go
about　in　different　dresses；　yet　if　we　catch　them　separatelyfor
they　are　never　seen　togetherand　strip　them　there　is　not　a　mole　nor
strawberry…mark；　nor　trick　nor　leer　of　the　one；　but　we　find　it　in
the　other　also。

What　are　the　moles　and　strawberry…marks　of　habitual　action；　or
actions　remembered　and　thus　repeated？　　First；　the　more　often　we
repeat　them　the　more　easily　and　unconsciously　we　do　them。　　Look　at
reading；　writing；　walking；　talking；　playing　the　piano；　&c。；　the
longer　we　have　practised　any　one　of　these　acquired　habits；　the　more
easily；　automatically　and　unconsciously；　we　perform　it。　　Look；　on
the　other　hand；　broadly；　at　the　three　points　to　which　I　called
attention　in　〃Life　and　Habit〃：…

I。　　That　we　are　most　conscious　of　and　have　most　control　over　such
habits　as　speech；　the　upright　position；　the　arts　and　scienceswhich
are　acquisitions　peculiar　to　the　human　race；　always　acquired　after
birth；　and　not　common　to　ourselves　and　any　ancestor　who　had　not
become　entirely　human。

II。　　That　we　are　less　conscious　of　and　have　less　control　over　eating
and　drinking　＇provided　the　food　be　normal＇；　swallowing；　breathing；
seeing；　and　hearingwhich　were　acquisitions　of　our　prehuman
ancestry；　and　for　which　we　had　provided　ourselves　with　all　the
necessary　apparatus　before　we　saw　light；　but　which　are　still；
geologically　speaking；　recent。

III。　　That　we　are　most　unconscious　of　and　have　least　control　over
our　digestion　and　circulationpowers　possessed　even　by　our
invertebrate　ancestry；　and；　geologically　speaking；　of　extreme
antiquity。

I　have　put　the　foregoing　very　broadly；　but　enough　is　given　to　show
the　reader　the　gist　of　the　argument。　　Let　it　be　noted　that
disturbance　and　departure；　to　any　serious　extent；　from　normal
practice　tends　to　induce　resumption　of　consciousness　even　in　the
case　of　such　old　habits　as　breathing；　seeing；　and　hearing；　digestion
and　the　circulation　of　the　blood。　　So　it　is　with　habitual　actions　in
general。　　Let　a　player　be　never　so　proficient　on　any　instrument；　he
will　be　put　out　if　the　normal　conditions　under　which　he　plays　are
too　widely　departed　from；　and　will　then　do　consciously；　if　indeed　he
can　do　it　at　all；　what　he　had　hitherto　been　doing　unconsciously。　　It
is　an　axiom　as　regards　actions　acquired　after　birth；　that　we　never
do　them　automatically　save　as　the　result　of　long　practice；　the
stages　in　the　case　of　any　acquired　facility；　the　inception　of　which
we　have　been　able　to　watch；　have　invariably　been　from　a　nothingness
of　ignorant　impotence　to　a　little　somethingness　of　highly　self…
conscious；　arduous　performance；　and　thence　to　the
unselfconsciousness　of　easy　mastery。　　I　saw　one　year　a　poor　blind
lad　of　about　eighteen　sitting　on　a　wall　by　the　wayside　at　Varese；
playing　the　concertina　with　his　whole　body；　and　snorting　like　a
child。　　The　next　year　the　boy　no　longer　snorted；　and　he　played　with
his　fingers　only；　the　year　after　that　he　seemed　hardly　to　know
whether　he　was　playing　or　not；　it　came　so　easily　to　him。　　I　know　no
exception　to　this　rule。　　Where　is　the　intricate　and　at　one　time
difficult　art　in　which　perfect　automatic　ease　has　been　reached
except　as　the　result　of　long　practice？　　If；　then；　wherever　we　can
trace　the　development　of　automatism　we　find　it　to　have　taken　this
course；　is　it　not　most　reasonable　to　infer　that　it　has　taken　the
same　even　when　it　has　risen　in　regions　that　are　beyond　our　ken？
Ought　we　not；　whenever　we　see　a　difficult　action　performed；
automatically　to　suspect　antecedent　practice？　　Granted　that　without
the　considerations　in　regard　to　identity　presented　above　it　would
not　have　been　easy　to　see　where　a　baby　of　a　day　old　could　have　had
the　practice　which　enables　it　to　do　as　much　as　it　does
unconsciously；　but　even　without　these　considerations　it　would　have
been　more　easy　to　suppose　that　the　necessary　opportunities　had　not
been　wanting；　than　that　the　easy　performance　could　have　been　gained
without　practice　and　memory。

When　I　wrote　〃Life　and　Habit〃　（originally　published　in　1877）　I　said
in　slightly　different　words：…

〃Shall　we　say　that　a　baby　of　a　day　old　sucks　（which　involves　the
whole　principle　of　the　pump　and　hence　a　profound　practical　knowledge
of　the　laws　of　pneumatics　and　hydrostatics）；　digests；　oxygenises　its
bloodmillions　of　years　before　any　one　had　discovered　oxygensees
and　hears；　operations　that　involve　an　unconscious　knowledge　of　the
facts　concerning　optics　and　acoustics　compared　with　which　the
conscious　discoveries　of　Newton　are　insignificantshall　we　say　that
a　baby　can　do　all　these　things　at　once；　doing　them　so　well　and　so
regularly　without　being　even　able　to　give　them　attention；　and　yet
without　mistake；　and　shall　we　also　say　at　the　same　time　that　it　has
not　learnt　to　do　them；　and　never　did　them　before？

〃Such　an　assertion　would　contradict　the　whole　experience　of
mankind。〃

I　have　met　with　nothing　during　the　thirteen　years　since　the
foregoing　was　published　that　has　given　me　any　qualms　about　its
soundness。　　From　the　point　of　view　of　the　law　courts　and　everyday
life　it　is；　of　course；　nonsense；　but　in　the　kingdom　of　thought；　as
in　that　of　heaven；　there　are　many　mansions；　and　what　would　be
extravagance　in　the　cottage　or　farmhouse；　as　it　were；　of　daily
practice；　is　but　common　decency　in　the　palace　of　high　philosophy；
wherein　dwells　evolution。　　If　we　leave　evolution　alone；　we　may　stick
to　common　practice　and　the　law　courts；　touch　evolution　and　we　are　in
another　world；　not　higher；　not　lower；　but　different　as　harmony　from
counterpoint。　　As；　however；　in　the　most　absolute　counterpoint　there
is　still　harmony；　and　in　the　most　absolute　harmony　still
counterpoint；　so　high　philosophy　should　be　still　in　touch　with
common　sense；　and　common　sense　with　high　philosophy。

The　common…sense　view　of　the　matter　to　people　who　are　not　over…
curious　and　to　whom　time　is　money；　will　be　that　a　baby　is　not　a　baby
until　it　is　born；　and　that　when　born　it　should　be　born　in　wedlock。
Nevertheless；　as　a　sop　to　high　philosophy；　every　baby　is　allowed　to
be　the　offspring　of　its　father　and　mother。

The　high…philosophy　view　of　the　matter　is　that　every　human　being　is
still　but　a　fresh　edition　of　the　primordial　cell　with　the　latest
additions　and　corrections；　there　has　been　no　leap　nor　break　in
continuity　anywhere；　the　man　of　to…day　is　the　primordial　cell　of
millions　of　years　ago　as　truly　as　he　is　the　himself　of　yesterday；　he
can　only　be　denied　to　be　the　one　on　grounds　that　will　prove　him　not
to　be　the　other。　　Every　one　is　both　himself　and　all　his　direct
ancestors　and　descendants　as　well；　therefore；　if　we　would　be
logical；　he　is　one　also　with　all　his　cousins；　no　matter　how　distant；
for　he　and　they　are　alike　identical　with　the　primordial　cell；　and　we
have　already　noted　it　as　an　axiom　that　things　which　are　identical
with　the　same　are　identical　with　one　another。　　This　is　practically
making　him　one　with　all　living　things；　whether　animal　or　vegetable；
that　ever　have　existed　or　ever　willsomething　of　all　which　may　have
been　in　the　mind　of　Sophocles　when　he　wrote：…


〃Nor　seest　thou　yet　the　gathering　hosts　of　ill
That　shall　en…one　thee　both　with　thine　own　self
And　with　thine　offspring。〃


And　all　this　has　come　of　admitting　that　a　man　may　be　the　same　person
for　two　days　running！　　As　for　sopping　common　sense　it　will　be　enough
to　say　that　these　remarks　are　to　be　taken　in　a　strictly　scientific
sense；　and　have　no　appreciable　importance　as　regards　life　and
conduct。　　True　they　deal　with　the　foundations　on　which　all　life　and
conduct　are　based；　but　like　other　foundations　they　are　hidden　out　of
sight；　and　the　sounder　they　are；　the　less　we　trouble　ourselves　about
them。

What　other　main　common　features　between　heredity　and　memory　may　we
note　besides　the　fact　that　neither　can　exist　without　that　kind　of
physical