The Complex Vision

mate ideas." Let no one think that any magical waving of the wand of modern psychology can explain away these universal human experience. They may be named by different ap

ffered, in what follows, of the existence of these experiences is sufficiently startling to require no assistance from novelty of phrasing to give it interest and poignancy. That our souls are actually able to touch, in the darkness which surrounds us, the souls of super-human bein

harmless and natural speculation. It is only when it presents itself as a necessary link in philosophical discussion that it appears startling. And the mere fact that it does appear startling when introduced into philosophy shows how, lamentably philosophy has got

is dream, this vision, this hope, that all these souls seem to themselves to draw their motive of movement. But though they seem to themselves to be "moving" into an indetermined future still to be created by their wills, they also seem to themselves to be "returning" towards the discovery of that invisible standard of beauty, truth and goodness, which has as their motive-impulse been with them from the beginning. This implicit standard, this invisible patter

t be thought of at all-as some unutterable mystery out of which the universe originally sprang. From this unutterable mystery, to which we h

t can neither love it nor hate it. It can neither reject it nor accept it. It can neither worship it nor revolt against it. It is only imaginable in the illegitimate

ond thought, cannot be accepted by the complex vision as the parent of the universe. The universe has therefore no parent, no origin, no c

Such a primordial "act of faith" it can and must make with regard to the objective reality of other souls. But such an "act of faith" is not demanded with regard to the unutterable mystery behind the universe. We

y" is a misleading one because it appears to justify the emotions of awe and reverence. We have no right to regard this thin simulacrum, this mathematical formula, this stop

es-though to do so several attitudes of the complex vision must be outraged and suppressed-the resistant power of malice. It has even a right to worship the universe, that turbu

mplex vision is concerned there can be no reality "behind the appearances of things" except the reality of the soul itself. Thus there is no "parent" of man and of the universe. But "the immortal companions" of men are implied from

eauty and hideousness, of conscience with its duality of good and evil, and the attribute of "reason" with its duality of the true and the false. Every one of these ba

es of emotion, taste, conscience, and reason indicate an implicit faith in the objective reality of the ideas of beauty and nobility and truth; so the soul's basic attribute of self-c

is to reduce these "companions of men" to a monistic unity and to make this unity

oes not embody them absolutely; otherwise the whole movement of life would end. It is unthinkable that it should ever embody them absolutely. For it is in the inherent nature of such a vision that it sh

egard to its general synthesis and orientation. But it is not really complete; and can never be so. For when we consider the nature of love alone, it becomes ridiculous to speak of an absolute or complete love. If the love of these "companions of men" became at any moment incapable of a deeper and wider manifestation, at that very moment the who

ving soul. This is really the crux of the whole matter. Vaguely and obscurely do we all feel the pressure of these deep and secret impulses. Profoundly do we feel that these mysterious "ideas," which give life its dramatic intensity, are part of the depths of our own soul and part of the depths of t

cognizes one side of the eternal duality of things as embodied in actual living souls, how is it that we are not equally compelled to a similar act of faith in relation to the other side of this duality? In simpler words, how is it

we have no right to regard the ideas of falseness, hideousness, evil and malice, as objectively embodied in living personalities?

he emotion of love is the motive-force of the power of creation, a force which we have to recognize as containing

egard to the existence of living souls which embody evil and malice. We are not compelled towards this act of faith because the nature of the "other side" of the eternal duality is such that it cannot be embodied, in any complete or objective way, in a living personality. It can and it does appear in every personality

esists creation. The power that creates must be regarded as embodied in personality, for creation always implies personality. But the power that

; being resolvable into a choice between hideousness, falsehood, evil, malice, and the opposites of these. But the soul itself, being a living and personal t

alive, it is the eternal defiance of evil. Personality is the secret of the universe. The universe exists by reason of a struggle between what creates and what resists creation. Therefore personality exists by reason of a

e and since the absolute victory of life over death, of love over malice, of truth over falsehood, of beauty over hideousness and of nobility over ig

ggle that the fuller realization of all of them is attained. And this struggle must inevitably assume a double character. It must assume the character of a struggle within the individual soul and of a struggle of the individual soul

e dogma that these two eternal antagonists are in reality one and the same thing. They are only one and the same thing in

cts and have gone over our ground again and again-even as builders of a bridge might test the solidity of their fabric stone by stone and arch by arch. By that "conscience in reason" which never allows us

were no such beings these energies could not function; but they do function; therefore there are such beings." What we have a right to say is simply this, that it is an actual experience th

t the universe itself is composed of the very stuff of their contention. We have in the first place, then, completely eliminated from our discussion that "inscrutable mystery" behind the universe. In every direction we find the universe unfathomable; and th

These living souls are each possessed of that multiform activity which I have named the complex vision. Among the ba

future-of this procession of souls. The crux of the whole situation is found in the evasive and tantalizing problem of the real nature of

souls. The sense which we all have when we attempt to exchange our individual feelings with regard to these things is that we are

n this implicit assumption; of wh

objective truth or beauty or nobility. Language itself is founded upon that original act of faith by which we assume the independent existence of other souls. A

iffer from our own leads us by an inevitable, if not a logical, step to the assumption that all our different visions are

on to its own dream, its own hope, its own prophecy, its own premonition, its own struggle towards a richer and fuller manifestation. In its relation to our broken, baffled, and subjective visions it is already so complete as to be relatively absolute. To

d and startling implications-been merely tempted into an alluring metaphorical image, or have

reason in the sense of being the organic, dynamic, and creative "logic" of the complex vision itself, using the very apex-thought of its pyramidal activity

which there is no escape if certain attributes of the human soul are to be trusted at all. We cannot get rid of this dilemma, one of those d

ilosophical discussion seems to be implied by the very nature of man's soul, to

dual subjective visions are only imperfect representations, the real vision of actual living "gods" or only the projection, upon the evasive

losophers are capable of treating this subject with quiet intellectual curiosity; but all living men and women-philosophers inclu

ind a plausible excuse for our struggles with oursel

have on the one hand a consciousness of truth and beauty and nobility; and on the other a consciousness of unreality, of hideousness, and of evil. But there come other, deeper, more d

them to a savage and merciless analysis. It takes the emotion of love and the emotion of malice and tries to force its way behind them. It turns upon i

t of its focussed attributes gathers itself together to pierce the mystery. Like a strain of indescribable

o disappear and an indescribable happiness flows in upon the soul. At this moment when this consummation is reached the soul's complex vision becomes aware that the ideas of beauty, truth and goodness are not mental abstractions or material qualities or evolutio

ware that these three primordial "ideas" are only varying facets and aspects of one unfathomable secret which is the activity of love. It becomes a

te and savage struggle with itself, the complex vision reaches its consummation. And this reality, thus created and thus discovered by

ived of as existing in a far greater completeness in these silent "watchers" and "companions" whom we name "the immortal gods." It requires, therefore, that these immortal ones shou

to get ourselves out of the way of ourselves, as if we were seeking to make room for some deeper personality within us which is ourself and yet not ourself. This is that

uman, which the universal medium of the world holds together. In arriving at this conclusion which seems to me to be the consummation vouched for and attested by the rhythmic energy of the co

abysmal resistance to such a reality. This is naturally a fact that we cannot afford to disregard. But in our final decision in so high and diff

the reality of this "eternal vision" depends, more than has as yet been understood, upon our whole

invisible companions" are themselves that depth. The "invisible companions" are not in any sense connected with the conception of an "over-soul." T

g but fling the mystery one step further back without in the least elucidating it; and in thus throwing it back it thins it out and cheapens it. There is nothing which appeals to the aesthetic sense about this hypothesis of an "over-soul"

rth indiscriminately its "truth," "beauty," "nobility" and "love," is an entirely materialistic one. It is a clumsy and crude metaph

tance as a vast porous sponge continually penetrated by a flood of water or air or vapour drawn from some hidden cistern or reservoir or cosmic lake. The modern theological expres

han the expression of thwarted sex-desire directed towards the universe instead of towards the person who has repulsed it. The basic motive of mysticism, alt

inctive wisdom in human language, a far no

ysiological associations than any other human word except the word "soul." It must, however, be recognized, when we su

cept perhaps "ether" or electricity, is obviously nothing less than the wind. "The wind bloweth where it listeth," and this elementary "freedom of the

conveyed by the word "spirit" or "breath" with the idea conveyed by the word "consciousness" when abstracted from any particular conscious soul.

thought-with that attenuated and etherial materialism implied in the words "breath" or "breathing" and in the elemental "freedom of the wind." The word

n of philosophical systems the word "spirit" has in large measure usurped the position that ought to belo

t. But I cannot help feeling that the moment has arrived for reinstating

"self" which exists, according to universal experience, "within" the physical body and is the indescribable "substratum"

ht without the use of sense-impressions it can at least concentrate its attention upon this primal necessity and be aware of it and cautious of it and hypercritical in its use. It can do more than this. It can throw back, so to speak, the whole weight of the mystery and drive

olves itself into this. The highest, deepest, most precious thing we know or can imagine is personality. Personality is and must be our ultima

the personal unity from which they have been taken. We are compelled by the inevitable necessity of thought itself, which cannot escape from the world of sense-impressions, to think of personality as po

nuation of the world of sense-impression. It is far thinner and more remote than the sense-element in our conception of spirit. Why, it may be aske

n our hands which we call "thought-in-the-abstract"-or "pure thought" or "pure self-consciousness." But it may be a

ng of the soul as "something within" our physical body is an ultimate fact o

l body is itself only a part of that objective universe of sense-impressions whi

I am conscious of as the empirical self or "soul" but an impersonal macrocosmic monad or "unity of apperception" which underli

"personal monad"; but it indicates clearly enough that the former is an abstraction from the latter. My thought can certainly think of th

e is nothing at all. Inside my thought there is all that is. The metaphysical reason insists that this all-comprehensive thought or all-embracing consciousn

nad" at all, it is a monad which certainly lacks the essential power of the individual monad

s a second abstraction, which takes its place between this ultimate monad which is pure "

reason, becomes therefore an intervening monad which exists midway between the monad which is pure "subject"-if that ca

e complex vision, groping about in a vacuum and finding nothing. We are, however, bound by the "conscience of reason," and by what might be called reason's sense of honour to articulate as clearly as we can all these movements of pure thought working in the void; but we certainly are forbidden by the original revelation of the complex vision to accept them as the starting point of our philosophical enquiry

d be left in this perilous bridge hung across the gulf. Reason, then, working in isolation, provides us with the recognition of an ultimate universal "subject" or, in metaphysical language, with an "a priori unity of apperception." Simultane

e first, the outer edge of thought, can only be regarded as "pure subject," the second can

t be thought of as possessing some "substratum" or "vanishing point of sensation" as the implication of its permanence and continuous identity. This "vanishing point of sensation," or in other words this attenuated form of "matter" or "energ

he thing "thinking" and the thing "thought." The soul, therefore, must be conceived if we are to be true to the original revelation of the complex vision, as having an indefinable "something" as its substratum or implication of identity. And this something, although impossible to be analysed, must be regarded as existing within that mysterious medium which is the uniting force of the universe. The soul must, in fact, be thought of as possessing some sort of "spiritual body" which is the centre of its complex vision and which, therefore, expres

limit where the ultimate attenuation of what we call "matter" or "energy" passes into unfathomableness, this centre of the soul, this "spiritual body," this invisi

d also is not a portion of this universe. This "spiritual body," this "vanishing point of sensation," which is the principle of permanence and continuity and identity in the soul, is obviously th

complex vision would not exist. And just as the complex vision could not exist without the reality of the objective world, so the objectiv

e a portion of the objective world so as to give validity, so to speak, and assurance that this objective world with its mysterious medium crowded with living bodies and inanimate objects is not a mere illusion. But the "substratum" of the soul must be something else in add

erpetually passing into "mind." For since it is the centre-point of life it must be composed of a stuff woven, so to speak,

e and space. But it must also be the ultimate unity of "the life of thought." And since, as we have seen, it is within the power of reason and self-consciousness to isolate themselves from the other attributes of the soul and to project themselves outside of space and time, it

ity is unfathomable, the "substratum" of the soul, which is the point where the known and the unknown meet, must be

t a portion of the objective universe. The substratum of the soul is, in fact, the essential and ultimate reality, where all that we know loses itself in all that we do not know. Because we are compelled to admit that only one

n be regarded as a portion of the objective universe does not give the soul any advantage over the universe. For the universe, like the soul, has also its unfathomable depths. That indefinable medium, for instance, which we are compelled to think of as making it possible that

tor asking the question how we can conceive such a vaguely denned entity as the soul

inct, will, intuition, imagination, and the rest? Surely, such an one might protest, it is in the physical body that these find their unity? Surely, if we must h

The physical body can only be regarded as unfathomable when definitely included in the whole physical universe. But the substratum of the soul is doubly unfathomable. It is unfathomable as being the quintessence or vanishing-point of "matter" or "energy," and it is unfathomable as being the qui

an unfathomable portion of the very universe it creates. The answer which the philosophy of the complex vision

e fantastic and ridiculous to look for it in the "little cells of the brain" than in some obscure "something," or "vanishing point of sensation," where mind and matter are fused together. That this "something" which is able to say "I am I" should possess instinct, reason, will, intuition, conscience and the rest, may be hard to imagine. But that the "little cells of the brain" should possess these is no

ality, the image of a pyramidal wedge of flames, is certainly felt to be but a thin and rigid f

ectacle of common life, be accepted, included and continually returned to. It insists that the word "illusion" be no more used about this spectacle. It insists that this vast unfathomable universe of time and space be recognized as an ultimate reality, and that all these projected images of the pure reason, all these circles, cubes, squares and straight lines, all these "unities of apperception,"

e than it is a circle or a cube or a square or an "a priori synthetic unity of apperception" or "an univers

h are essential and organic, and to put into their proper place of comparative unreality all these "unities" and circles, all these pyramids and "monads." When we think of the astounding beauty and intricacy of the actual human body; when we think of the astounding beauty and intricacy of the actual living soul which animates this body, and when we think of the

struggle towards a fuller life of all the living entities which the indefinable medium of the universe contains. Natu

n is itself an integral portion of the creative energy of Nature; for "Nature" is no more than the beautiful and classical word which recalls us to the objective spectacle which is t

tacle finding its myriad creative centres of new life in all living souls. The value of the word Nature, the value of the conception of Nature, is that it reminds us that, held to

together, and to "return to Nature" is nothing more than to return to the objective spectacle of

cle of life, the spectacle which includes the stars, the planets, plants, trees, grass, moss, lichen, earth, birds, fish, animals, is a spectacle continually shifting and changing under th

and the like, that when we seek to visualize the actual appearance of these "invisible companions," it seems much more appropriate to image their souls as clothed, like the so

f the "immortals" possessed physical bodies such as our own, they also would be subject to this law along with the rest of the universe. But the generations of mankind come and go and the "inv

ody, which makes it possible for these companions of men to remain in perpetual contact with every living soul born into the world. The difficulty we experience in

ealities. The complex vision is itself another one of these; and the real existence of the soul is implied in the activity of the complex vision. The reality of t

ones we possess the whole universe would be transformed. It is only when the soul's essential part in the creation of Nature is fully realized that we see h

although the soul may be driven back into its unfathomable depths and held there as if in prison; and although madness intervene between the soul's vision and the world, and sleep may fling it into oblivion, and death may destroy it utterly; tortu

Our starting-point cannot be the "a priori synthetic unity of apperception," because this is an abstraction of

is an abstraction of the "I am I" and if accepted as a real fact would negate and suppr

nary externality, because this external world depends for its very existence

reality of the external world, and which itself is the vision of a real concrete personality. The individual is thus disclosed as something more than

a universe more or less identical in character with the universe of which our own soul is the centre. These separate universes we have to conceive as being subjective impressions o

s the presence of those supreme companions whose real and personal existence I have attempted to indicate. These ideal and yet most real companions of humanity make their presence felt by the soul i

ing from these "companions" or find their origin and cause in them, any more than they spring from some imaginary "parent" of the universe and find their origin and cause in something "behind life." They do not "spring" from anything at all; but are the very stuff and texture of our own unfathomable souls, just as they are the very stuff and texture of the unfathomable souls of the immortal gods. What we ar

s therefore a double form. It takes the form of an individual return to the fulness of ideas which have always been implicit and latent in our individual souls. And it takes the form of a co-operative advance towards the fulness of ideas which are foresh

uman reason playing isolated games with itself, is driven by its own nature to reduce "all objects of all thought" to the circle of one "synthetic unity" which is the implied "a priori" background of all actual vision. It accepts fully the

th that to call it an "illusion" is a misuse of language. But although it accepts both the extreme "materialistic" view and the extreme "idealistic" view as inevitable revelations of reality, it d

icular attribute of the mind. The philosophy of the complex vision refuses to accept as its starting-point any attenuated materialistic hypothesis, such as may be indicated by the arbitrary words "life" or "movement" or "ether" or "force" or "energy" or "at

l-mell and "hand-to-mouth." It seems conscious of a certain outrage to its aesthetic sense in the method and the attitude of this philosophy. The pragmatic attitude, though it would be unfair to call it superficial, does not appeal to the philosophy of the complex vision as being one of the supreme, desperate struggles of the human race to overcome the resistance of the Sphinx. The philosophy of the complex vision implies the difficult attainment of an elaborate harmony. It regards "philosophy" as t

"will" of pragmatism. It is perhaps as a matter of "taste" that pragmatism proves most unsatisfactory to it. It seems to be conscious of something in pragmatism, which, though itself perhaps not precisely "commercial," seems curiously well adapted

tion to ordinary moments. The philosophy of the complex vision judges the value of any "truth" by its relation to that rare and difficult harmony which can be obtained only in extraordinary moments. To the pragmatic philosopher a shrewd, efficient and healthy-minded person, with a good "working" religi

agmatism" helps to throw a clear light upon what the complex vision reveals about

out the words "truth," "beauty," "goodness," thus pedestalled side by side. But just as with the old-fashioned word "

eady acquired a clear traditional and natural connotation than to invent new words according to one's own arbitrary fancy. It would not be difficult to invent such words. In place of "truth" one could say "the objective reality of things" rhythmically apprehended by the complex vision. Instead of "beauty" one could say "the world seen under the light of a peculiar

takable; though there may be infinite minute shades of difference between one person's interpretation of such a meaning and another's. What it all really amounts t

ll emotional vision. But the resultant conclusions of such philosophizing, with their easy-going assumption that what we call "beauty" and "goodness" have n

tions and revelations that change the whole perspective of our days. To "interpret life" from the material offered by the uninspired unconcentrated unrhythmical "average" moods of the soul is like trying to interpret the play of "Hamlet" from a version out of whic

imate ideas and that life cannot be interpreted without considering them is not a matter for any sort of scepticism. It is a basic assumption, without which there could be