Mathematics and logic themselves are fermenting with human
rearrangements; physics, astronomy and biology follow massive cues
of preference. We plunge forward into the field of fresh experience
with the beliefs our ancestors and we have made already; these
determine what we notice; what we notice determines what we do; what
we do again determines what we experience; so from one thing to
another, altho the stubborn fact remains that there IS a sensible
flux, what is true of it seems from first to last to be largely a
matter of our own creation.
We build the flux out inevitably. The great question is: does it,
with our additions, rise or fall in value? Are the additions WORTHY
or UNWORTHY? Suppose a universe composed of seven stars, and nothing
else but three human witnesses and their critic. One witness names
the stars 'Great Bear'; one calls them 'Charles's Wain'; one calls
them the 'Dipper.' Which human addition has made the best universe
of the given stellar material? If Frederick Myers were the critic,
he would have no hesitation in 'turning-down' the American witness.
Lotze has in several places made a deep suggestion. We naively
assume, he says, a relation between reality and our minds which may
be just the opposite of the true one.
Pages:
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212