can consciously apply tests of workability we must have done a little generalizing, because the conscious application of pragmatic tests is partly a deductive process, even though at the moment we are unconscious of that aspect of it. To the extent that we consiously apply further tests of workability we find that the concepts work just so far as they are true. When we attain to a consciousness that we are making deductive application of general ideas, we tend to say our ideas work because they are true. As we see this, and coordinate it with our earlier exposition of the inductive aspect of this behavioristic psychology, we again come to the conclusion that there is no such conflict as is postulated in the pragmatic issue.

In the realities of acquiring knowledge both formulas are always actually and practically implicit. Persons who affirm that our ideas are true only because they work, are for the moment seeing only the inductive part of the process which perhaps is the first that we become conscious of in our individual development. That person who affirms that our ideas of things work only because they are true is seeing the complex intellectual behavior only in its deductive aspects, and is forgetting that sometimes our ideas seem to work because they are relatively false and the conditions of the applied pragmatic test are too simple to expose the error. When we acquire a synthetic view of the behavior of the human energy operative in the knowing process, we see the inductive and deductive methods proceed interdependently even in the unconscious activities. In the more highly developed states of conscious supervision over our intellectual processes, we carefully provide for the interaction and check of both methods. So we tend to become aware of the interaction of the modes of conduct presented by both the formulas in the pragmatic issue at the beginning of this essay. Each represents an incomplete aspect

of the realities actually involved in the process of consciously developing intelligence.

If that is so, then why was there ever a philosophic issue made of it? I suspect it is because even philosophers have their unsolved personal problems-their subjective conflicts. In philosophers, as in children and hystericals, these conflicts, induced by a past thwarted integration, conduce to negativism, that is to the future dissociation of different aspects of the inspected realities, and so tend to inhibit and limit the larger synthetic understanding of their problems, including the philosophic ones.

If in infancy a future philosopher was habitually compelled to subordinate the method of his expenditure of energy to the authority of a parent instead of the arbitrament of "facts," he may easily grow to maturity of years with an emotional aversion to accepting things as they are, or their interpretation according to the accepted authorities, even in philosophy. If his own intellect is sufficiently fertile, he will see some aspects of things and of their relations, which his fellow philosophers have overlooked. If his aversion to "authority" is sufficiently strong, that aversion will preclude the coordinating of his new aspect with what is reconcilable to it, in that which is already accepted, and will tend to see the new only in dissociation, that is in its negating aspects, as a conflict with that which is already accepted. Thus probably grew the pragmatic controversy depicted in the first paragraph. The integrating process represents a relatively higher evolutionary level.

In this case the synthetic aspect of the mechanism of growing intelligence is missed by pragmatists who make a philosophic cult of one of these related formulas to the exclusion of the others. In consequence of this limitation upon their powers of coordination, they are impelled to frame up verbal defenses for their unintegrated aspects of

things, and such formulas as present the seeming conflict in the first paragraph of this essay are the result.

If now we re-read these formulas and coordinate them as different aspects of the behavior of human forces, it is easy to see that the apparent conflict of theory is due to inaccuracy of observation and statement, probably induced by the necessities of repressed emotional conflicts of the past, which have hitherto precluded, on the part of particular philosophers, efficient effort toward the coordination of the two formulas into a more complete understanding of these related psychologic factors.

THEODORE SCHROEDER.

NEW YORK CITY.

E

LUCRETIUS RETURNS.

A PHILOSOPHICAL POEM.

"Now Philosophy is like unto a Garden, wherein upspring all manner of flowers and herbage, sweet of scent and potent to heal. And the Soul is like unto a Moth, leaving the cocoon of the Unconscious to fit through the twilight, seeking the Nectar of Life. Now within the Garden hovers the Soul amid the herbage and flowers, darkly swaying in the dim starlight and the shadow; hither and thither, drawn or repelled, lured by a remembered fragrance or driven back by an unfamiliar form that is but half revealed-thus the Soul wanders through the mysterious dusk of the Garden."-From The Golden Scroll of Krotona.

TERNAL stars that heaven's hill bedew,
Ye looked upon the manger where Mankind
Lay wrapped in rags; ye heard the angels sing,
When royal Magi spread their gifts of myrrh
And frankincense upon a shabrack coarse;
Ye gleamed above the boy at merry play
In Nazareth, and wept at Golgotha-
Smiled on the resurrection, and, at last,
World-wounded, he ascended unto you.

Eternal stars that heaven's hill bedew,
Ye heard Creation's grand exordium—
The moan of seas in the azoic age,
The din of wood and jungle; then, anon,
The war-song of the savage fierce and free,
Grim troglodyte and fleet lacustrian;

At last the pulse of forges and the roar
Of teeming cities-an aubade of joy,
Thrush-throated like the chant of cherubim.

Attend! Mine is no plaint of selfish woe:
Weeping o'er Niobe and Tantalus-
O'er Truth, o'er Justice, and o'er Liberty.

Tears shed for butchered Innocence, the blood
Clotted upon the lacerated back

Of Helotry, the virus from the fangs
Dript of dread hydras preying upon Man,
The sighs of sunless centuries, each curse

That livid lips of trodden Truth have framed,
Pour into Hate's alembic and distill

Into revenge-into a cup of gall

For Tyranny, in stupor gluttonous

Huddled on filthy couch. What of a world
Where Wrong is fattened, Folly wears the crown,
While Justice spreads her ermine over straw,
And Learning feeds upon the hedgerow haws?
Shame on humanity! I have known wights
Who daubed their cheeks as silly damsels do,
And strutted round with rings upon their hands,
Yet sat in senates where to counsel met
The sceptered wisdom of a mighty age.
I have seen gypsum hawked about the streets,
Figures of poets, by a man whose soul

Soared far in song above the paltry souls
Of those he modeled as the unpitying sun
Above his fevered head.

Is there a God

To mete our merits and adjudge our fails,

And could he be thus blind?