18 FEBRUARY 1871, Page 13

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

DR. MAUDSLEY ON BODY AND MIND.

[To THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.1 air,—As it is your custom to admit letters occasionally, I trust you will allow me to say a few words of explanation in reference to your review of my little book on " Body and Mind." I am anxious, first, to say that it was never my intention to advocate the exclusive use of the physiological method of the study of mind ; on the contrary, I think it quite impossible to discard the psychological method of self-conscious observation. It is impos- sible indeed to conceive a physiology of mind, in the present state of our knowledge, without the help gained by observation of self- consciousness. But while accepting the psychological method, properly used, one may reject many of its conclusions, which have been founded hitherto almost entirely on its exclusive use, and are not consistent with the facts that have been brought to light by the progress of physiology. What I would maintain is that the psychological method by itself is utterly inadequate to establish a science of mind, and that to its proper and success- ful use a knowledge of the physiology of the nervous system is indispensable. Therefore it is that I object to the " meta- physical" psychologists (calling them so specially to distinguish from the " empirical " psychologists), who " disdain physiological inquiry, and ignore its results, without ever having been at the

pains to make themselves acquainted with what these results are, and with the steps by which they have been reached"; and there- fore it is, I believe, that their psychology, holding to its old terms and the conventional meanings it has attached to them, is a formid- able obstacle to our getting forward. We are compelled by the development of facts to burst through the fetters of its phraseology before we can move freely. If it had been my purpose in the lec- tures, which it was not, to advocate a method of the study of mind, that method would have been a union of subjective and objective inquiry, which I have more than once declared to be, in my judg- ment, the happy bridal union from which the most fruitful results may be looked for. When, therefore, your reviewer says he would much like to know where I get certain definitions or opinions, the reply would be,—from the best sort of marriage between these two methods which it has been possible to make in my mind.

The manner in which your reviewer disputes my use of the expression "unconscious memory" might be instanced, I think, as an apt example of the way in which psychology allows lan- guage to govern observation and thought. Of course, if we begin by asserting that memory means and ever shall only mean a con- scious revival or recollection, there is an end of this matter ; un- conscious memory would be a contradiction in terms. But by what terms, then, in the language of psychology, are we to de- scribe that unconscious revival not of acts only, but of ideas, that is continually taking place in our daily life ? Such actions cer- tainly constitute a great part of our mental life, and, following upon actions which were at first conscious, but afterwards become automatic, they pass from their conscious to their unconscious states by degrees so insensible that no man can say where the conscious act has ended and the unconscious act has begun. Is it seriously proposed that they shall be deemed to belong to mind while they are attended to by the slightest shade of consciousness, but that the moment this vanishes they shall be transferred abruptly to the world of matter, and be nothing more than, as your reviewer says, " organic habits "? If this be so, then we must admit that a great part of mind will come to be organic habit, a conclusion to which I, of course, shall not object. My position in this matter would be that consciousness is by no means co-extensive with mind ; that, on the contrary, we perform habitually unconscious ideas, uncon- scious acts, and, the contradiction in psychological terms notwith- standing, unconscious memory ; and that, indeed, the largest and most important part of our mental function is unconscious mind. No one can call to mind at any moment a thousandth part of his knowledge ; it exists in his mind, latent or unconscious ; and yet the latent knowledge influences, quite independently of his will or consciousness, the character of every conscious idea which he has. But I must not occupy any more of your space by discussing the large subject of unconscious mental action ; I wish only to indicate that my ideas are not so confused as your reviewer, judging from a purely psychological stand-point, imagines them to be, and would, had he the physio- logical training which he says he has not, I hope see them to be ; and I will conclude by expressing a conviction that it is simply because psychology is based exclusively on observation of self- consciousness that it makes too much of consciousness, and that it has in its definition of terms frequently fixed barriers that have no existence in nature, and must be swept away sooner or later.— I am, Sir, HENRY DIAUDSLEY. 9 Hanover Square, February 14, 1871.

[Dr. Maudsley appears to confound unconscious memory with potential memory,—memory not actually in use,—a very different thing. If he means to assert that we remember all we have really forgotten, but which under certain circumstances we might recall, we cannot but think he is guilty of a gross confusion.—ED. Spectator.]