The Complex Vision

nningly concealed. Such a conclusion may be presented to us as the logical result of a long train of

h they intend to be regarded as having started; nor in making this secret journey are they forgetful to erase their footsteps from the sand, so that when they pu

rn out to be the end; but unlike many I shall openl

gard this original revelation as something which is arrived at by the use of a certain synthetic activity of

sped, at least in its general outlines, before we can adva

stion should be asked . . . "why philosophize at all?" And again . . . "what are

on to the mystery which we call life, both with regard to the na

osophize because man is a philosophical animal. We breathe because we cannot help breathing and we philosophize because we cannot help philosophizing. We may be as sceptical as

lly arises . . . how have we to philosophize if our philosophy

scoveries are rendered misleading if the total activity, at least in its general movement, of our instrument of research is not brought into focus. This instrument

nt of these basic energies. Nor even when the person is full grown will it be found that these energies exist in him in the same proportion as the

person whose activities these were would necessarily colour the resultant vision with the stain or dye of his or

or us but this. Yet it remains as an essential aspect of the process of philosophizing that we should endeavour to bring over to our vision as many other visions as we can succeed in influencing. For since we have the power of communicating our thought t

ation, so in the case of persons antagonistic to ourselves the activity of philosophizing is attended by the emotion of hate and the instinct of dest

crites!" Just because the process of philosophizing is necessarily personal, it is evident that the primordial aspect of it wh

ith this is proved by t

mony of energy, corresponding to our complex vision, seems to have created many mysterious modes of communication b

e is really identical with the sensation which another person feels. And this difficulty is much further complicated by the fact that words themselves tend in the process to harden

t, except in a hard and inflexible manner, represent what we ourselves feel. Words tend all too quickly to become symbolic; and it is often the chief importance of wha

hick accretion of traditional crust but are fresh and supple and organic. He should use such words, in fact, as might be said to have the flexibility of life, and like living plants to possess leaves and sap. He should avoid as far as he can such metaphors and images as alread

ns of expressing his thoughts. The object of philosophizing being to "carry over" into another person's consciousness one's personal reaction to things, it may well happen that a hint, a gesture,

t some kind of appeal, often so faint and unconscious as to be quite unrecognized, to an invisible audience of hidden attendants upon the argument, who are tacitly assumed in some mysterious way to be the arbiters. These invisible companions seem to gather to themselves, as we are vaguely aw

ing that in my friend's vision there is "something of the truth" which I am unable to grasp. I think the more constantly we encounter other minds in these philosophical disputes the more does there grow and take shape in our own mind the idea of some mysterious and invisible wa

tern or standard of ideas "the vision of the immortal companions." By the term "the immortal companions" I do not mean to indicate any "immanent" power or transcendental "over-soul." Nor do I mean to indicate that they are created by our desir

ess we find ourselves constantly turning. All our philosophy, all our struggle with life, falls into two aspects as we grow more and more aware of what we are doing. T

as never been reached, because to reach it we have to create it, and a return to something that has been with

om which we start and the thing towards which, moulding the future as we go, we find ourselves moving. In the unfathomable depths of the past we are aware of a form, a shape, a principle, a premonition; and into the unfathomable depths of the future we project the fulf

re definite way than by the premonition, the hope, the dream, the passion, the prophecy, the vision, of those inv

he shape to the future, holds the future already in its hand. And this surviving motive, ultimately selected by our will, is of necessity purged and tested by a con

n that revelation of the complex vision which is also the goal of its journey. The complex vision, in t

ff and texture of its being. In the ecstasy of its creative and receptive "rapport" with these it becomes aware of the presence of cer

e actual spectacle, or mass of impressions to be dealt with, presents itself, we are forced to suppose, as more or le

o move from point to point in this apparently real universe and able to remain, as invisible observers, outside all the phenomena of time and space. As the ultimate in

seem to claim, on the strength of this "a priori" a precedence over the second, it has no real right to make such a claim. The truth of the situation is indeed the reverse of this; and upon this truth, more than upon anything else, our whole method of enquiry depends. For the fact that we are unable to think of our integral personal self as actually bei

space, is nothing but a necessary inevitable abstraction from the concrete reality of our personal self which is within time and space. There is no need to be startled at the apparent paradox of this, as though the

represents the inevitable manner in which reason has to work when it works in isolation, and

e larger than a real thing; nor can an unreal t

ributes of the human soul when they are held together by the synthetic activity of what I name the "apex-thought." But this logical revelation of the "a priori" unity of consciousness outside of time and space is not the only result of the isolated play of some par

to the revelation of the concrete personal individual soul. This revelation of self-consciousness, working in isolation, has as its result the conception of one universal "I am I" or cosmic self, which is nothing more or less than the whole universe, contemplating itself as its own object. To this conception are we driven, when in isolation from the soul's other attributes our self-consciousness gives itself up to its own activit

n self-consciousness thus expands; and the conceptions we arrive at can only be described as the idea that the whole universe with all

th are unreal. Both are shadowy projections from the true reality, which is the personal self existing side by side with "the immortal companions." Nor must it be supposed that these primordial aspects of life are of equal importance and that we have an equal righ

o some minds that the conception of the "impossible" should be introduced into any philosophy at the very start. The complex vision is, however, essentially creative. The creation of something really new in the world is regarded by pure reason as impossible. Therefor

f the creative and resistant power of individual souls. That the "invisible companions" should be in eternal contact with every living "soul" is a

e, like reason and self-consciousness, to f

than to much that is called "idealism," certainly cannot itself be regarded as materialistic. And it cannot be so regarded because its central assumption and implication is the concrete basis of personality which we call the "soul." And the "soul," when we think of it as something real, must inevitably be associated with what might be called "the vanishing point of sensation." In other words the soul must be thought of as having some kind of "

be and yet which we feel to be so much more real than our physical body, justifies us in making an experiment which to many minds will seem uncalled for and ridiculous. I m

become "dead wood" rather than living branches and leaves; that it seems advisable, from the point of view of getting

sary, considering the intricate and delicately balanced character of man's complex vision, to make

manner, our ultimate view of life, the images which are called up are geometrical or chemical rather than anthropomorphic. It is probable that even the most rational and logical among u

reciated far better, both by the philosopher himself and by his friends, if this v

rse upon which we all gaze. Even the most purely rational minds who find the universe in "pure thought" are drive

lex vision, by sensation as an organ of research. But they have a further interest. They are an illuminating revelation of the inherent character and personal bias of the individual soul who is philosophizing. I suppose to a great many minds what we call "the universe" presents itself as a

h a person's physical body as it feels itself con

nary variety of pictorial images. Without laying any undue stress upon this pictorial tendency, I should like to in

of which, where the flames are fused and lost in one another, is continually cleaving the darkness like the point of a fiery arrow, while the

as a cloud of impenetrable smoke. I am always conscious of the curious fact that, while I can most vividly see the apex-point of the thing, and while I know that this moving py

us in our groping towards reality as they are to help us. If my image of a moving, horizontal pyramid with an apex-point of many names fused into one and a base of impenetrable invisibility s

is perfectly at liberty to form his own pictorial image of what I am endeavouring to make clear. He may, if he pleases, visualize "the soul" as a sort of darkened planet from which the attributes of the complex vision radiate to th

ch an one I would only ask, in what sort of manner he visualizes, when he thinks of it at all, the "soul" which he feels conscious of in his own body; and in the second place how he visualizes the connection between the will, the instinct, the reason and so forth, which animate his body and endow it w

turn his attention to the ideal systems of supposedly "pure thought." He will find infinite satisfaction for his spleen in the crafty

that is dyed in the grain by taste, instinct, intuition, imagination. And every philosopher who attempts to round off his system by pure reason alone, and who refuses to recogn

representation of reality who is shy of all pictorial images. They are dangerous and tr

hinkers are compelled to use images drawn from antique mythology. Poetic thought may go astray. But it can never negate

it. But even this is not complete. In fact it is extremely far from complete, directly we think closely about it. For not only does such a picture omit the real

a result which does not answer the question of philosophy, but rather denies that any answer is possible. But though this obvious objective spectacle of the universe, with our bodily self as a part

but it also requires recognition of certain basic assumptions, imp

. Thus I am permitted to retain, in spite of its arbitrary fantasy, my pictorial image of a pyramidal arrow of fire, moving from darkness to darkness. My picture

to the mystery in front of it, it matters little how we conceive of it as moving. That it should move, in some way or anothe

f malice ultimately desires. The eternal conflict between love and malice is the eternal contest between