Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) by Samuel Butler (best novels ever .TXT) 📖

Chapter 8 Pg 86

 

I.  A Mere Necessary Consequence Of Bodily Organisation. {92b}

 

Ii.  A Mechanism Of Brain Or Mind Contrived By Nature.

 

Iii.  The Outcome Of An Unconscious Activity Of Mind.

 

In Neither Of The Two First Cases Is There Any Scope For The Idea Of

Purpose; In The Third,  Purpose Must Be Present Immediately Before The

Action.  In The Two First Cases,  Action Is Supposed To Be Brought

About By Means Of An Initial Arrangement,  Either Of Bodily Or Mental

Mechanism,  Purpose Being Conceived Of As Existing On A Single

Occasion Only--That Is To Say,  In The Determination Of The Initial

Arrangement.  In The Third,  Purpose Is Conceived As Present In Every

Individual Instance.  Let Us Proceed To The Consideration Of These

Three Cases.

 

Instinct Is Not A Mere Consequence Of Bodily Organisation; For -

 

(A.)  Bodies May Be Alike,  Yet They May Be Endowed With Different

Instincts.

 

All Spiders Have The Same Spinning Apparatus,  But One Kind Weaves

Radiating Webs,  Another Irregular Ones,  While A Third Makes None At

All,  But Lives In Holes,  Whose Walls It Overspins,  And Whose Entrance

It Closes With A Door.  Almost All Birds Have A Like Organisation For

The Construction Of Their Nests (A Beak And Feet),  But How Infinitely

Do Their Nests Vary In Appearance,  Mode Of Construction,  Attachment

To Surrounding Objects (They Stand,  Are Glued On,  Hang,  &C.),

Selection Of Site (Caves,  Holes,  Corners,  Forks Of Trees,  Shrubs,  The

Ground),  And Excellence Of Workmanship; How Often,  Too,  Are They Not

Varied In The Species Of A Single Genus,  As Of Parus.  Many Birds,

Moreover,  Build No Nest At All.  The Difference In The Songs Of Birds

Are In Like Manner Independent Of The Special Construction Of Their

Voice Apparatus,  Nor Do The Modes Of Nest Construction That Obtain

Among Ants And Bees Depend Upon Their Bodily Organisation.

Organisation,  As A General Rule,  Only Renders The Bird Capable Of

Singing,  As Giving It An Apparatus With Which To Sing At All,  But It

Has Nothing To Do With The Specific Character Of The Execution . . .

The Nursing,  Defence,  And Education Of Offspring Cannot Be Considered

As In Any Way More Dependent Upon Bodily Organisation; Nor Yet The

Sites Which Insects Choose For The Laying Of Their Eggs; Nor,  Again,

The Selection Of Deposits Of Spawn,  Of Their Own Species,  By Male

Fish For Impregnation.  The Rabbit Burrows,  The Hare Does Not,  Though

Both Have The Same Burrowing Apparatus.  The Hare,  However,  Has Less

Need Of A Subterranean Place Of Refuge By Reason Of Its Greater

Swiftness.  Some Birds,  With Excellent Powers Of Flight,  Are

Nevertheless Stationary In Their Habits,  As The Secretary Falcon And

Certain Other Birds Of Prey; While Even Such Moderate Fliers As

Quails Are Sometimes Known To Make Very Distant Migrations.

 

(B.) Like Instincts May Be Found Associated With Unlike Organs.

Chapter 8 Pg 87

Birds With And Without Feet Adapted For Climbing Live In Trees; So

Also Do Monkeys With And Without Flexible Tails,  Squirrels,  Sloths,

Pumas,  &C.  Mole-Crickets Dig With A Well-Pronounced Spade Upon Their

Fore-Feet,  While The Burying-Beetle Does The Same Thing Though It Has

No Special Apparatus Whatever.  The Mole Conveys Its Winter Provender

In Pockets,  An Inch Wide,  Long And Half An Inch Wide Within Its

Cheeks; The Field-Mouse Does So Without The Help Of Any Such

Contrivance.  The Migratory Instinct Displays Itself With Equal

Strength In Animals Of Widely Different Form,  By Whatever Means They

May Pursue Their Journey,  Whether By Water,  Land,  Or Air.

 

It Is Clear,  Therefore,  That Instinct Is In Great Measure Independent

Of Bodily Organisation.  Granted,  Indeed,  That A Certain Amount Of

Bodily Apparatus Is A Sine Qua Non For Any Power Of Execution At All-

-As,  For Example,  That There Would Be No Ingenious Nest Without

Organs More Or Less Adapted For Its Construction,  No Spinning Of A

Web Without Spinning Glands--Nevertheless,  It Is Impossible To

Maintain That Instinct Is A Consequence Of Organisation.  The Mere

Existence Of The Organ Does Not Constitute Even The Smallest

Incentive To Any Corresponding Habitual Activity.  A Sensation Of

Pleasure Must At Least Accompany The Use Of The Organ Before Its

Existence Can Incite To Its Employment.  And Even So When A Sensation

Of Pleasure Has Given The Impulse Which Is To Render It Active,  It Is

Only The Fact Of There Being Activity At All,  And Not The Special

Characteristics Of The Activity,  That Can Be Due To Organisation.

The Reason For The Special Mode Of The Activity Is The Very Problem

That We Have To Solve.  No One Will Call The Action Of The Spider

Instinctive In Voiding The Fluid From Her Spinning Gland When It Is

Too Full,  And Therefore Painful To Her; Nor That Of The Male Fish

When It Does What Amounts To Much The Same Thing As This.  The

Instinct And The Marvel Lie In The Fact That The Spider Spins

Threads,  And Proceeds To Weave Her Web With Them,  And That The Male

Fish Will Only Impregnate Ova Of His Own Species.

 

Another Proof That The Pleasure Felt In The Employment Of An Organ Is

Wholly Inadequate To Account For This Employment Is To Be Found In

The Fact That The Moral Greatness Of Instinct,  The Point In Respect

Of Which It Most Commands Our Admiration,  Consists In The Obedience

Paid To Its Behests,  To The Postponement Of All Personal Well-Being,

And At The Cost,  It May Be,  Of Life Itself.  If The Mere Pleasure Of

Relieving Certain Glands From Overfulness Were The Reason Why

Caterpillars Generally Spin Webs,  They Would Go On Spinning Until

They Had Relieved These Glands,  But They Would Not Repair Their Work

As Often As Any One Destroyed It,  And Do This Again And Again Until

They Die Of Exhaustion.  The Same Holds Good With The Other Instincts

That At First Sight Appear To Be Inspired Only By A Sensation Of

Pleasure; For If We Change The Circumstances,  So As To Put Self-

Sacrifice In The Place Of Self-Interest,  It Becomes At Once Apparent

That They Have A Higher Source Than This.  We Think,  For Example,

That Birds Pair For The Sake Of Mere Sexual Gratification; Why,  Then,

Do They Leave Off Pairing As Soon As They Have Laid The Requisite

Number Of Eggs?  That There Is A Reproductive Instinct Over And Above

The Desire For Sexual Gratification Appears From The Fact That If A

Man Takes An Egg Out Of The Nest,  The Birds Will Come Together Again

Chapter 8 Pg 88

And The Hen Will Lay Another Egg; Or,  If They Belong To Some Of The

More Wary Species,  They Will Desert Their Nest,  And Make Preparation

For An Entirely New Brood.  A Female Wryneck,  Whose Nest Was Daily

Robbed Of The Egg She Laid In It,  Continued To Lay A New One,  Which

Grew Smaller And Smaller,  Till,  When She Had Laid Her Twenty-Ninth

Egg,  She Was Found Dead Upon Her Nest.  If An Instinct Cannot Stand

The Test Of Self-Sacrifice--If It Is The Simple Outcome Of A Desire

For Bodily Gratification--Then It Is No True Instinct,  And Is Only So

Called Erroneously.

 

Instinct Is Not A Mechanism Of Brain Or Mind Implanted In Living

Beings By Nature; For,  If It Were,  Then Instinctive Action Without

Any,  Even Unconscious,  Activity Of Mind,  And With No Conception

Concerning The Purpose Of The Action,  Would Be Executed Mechanically,

The Purpose Having Been Once For All Thought Out By Nature Or

Providence,  Which Has So Organised The Individual That It Acts

Henceforth As A Purely Mechanical Medium.  We Are Now Dealing With A

Psychical Organisation As The Cause Instinct,  As We Were Above

Dealing With A Physical. Psychical Organisation Would Be A

Conceivable Explanation And We Need Look No Farther If Every Instinct

Once Belonging To An Animal Discharged Its Functions In An Unvarying

Manner.  But This Is Never Found To Be The Case,  For Instincts Vary

When There Arises A Sufficient Motive For Varying Them.  This Proves

That Special Exterior Circumstances Enter Into The Matter,  And That

These Circumstances Are The Very Things That Render The Attainment Of

The Purpose Possible Through Means Selected By The Instinct.  Here

First Do We Find Instinct Acting As Though It Were Actually Design

With Action Following At Its Heels,  For Until The Arrival Of The

Motive,  The Instinct Remains Late And Discharges No Function

Whatever.  The Motive Enters By Way Of An Idea Received Into The Mind

Through The Instrumentality Of The Senses,  And There Is A Constant

Connection Between Instinct In Action And All Sensual Images Which

Give Information That An Opportunity Has Arisen For Attaining The

Ends Proposed To Itself By The Instinct.

 

The Psychical Mechanism Of This Constant Connection Must Also Be

Looked For.  It May Help Us Here To Turn To The Piano For An

Illustration.  The Struck Keys Are The Motives,  The Notes That Sound

In Consequence Are The Instincts In Action.  This Illustration Might

Perhaps Be Allowed To Pass (If We Also Suppose That Entirely

Different Keys Can Give Out The Same Sound) If Instincts Could Only

Be Compared With Distinctly Tuned Notes,  So That One And The Same

Instinct Acted Always In The Same Manner On The Rising Of The Motive

Which Should Set It In Action.  This,  However,  Is Not So; For It Is

The Blind Unconscious Purpose Of The Instinct That Is Alone Constant,

The Instinct Itself--That Is To Say,  The Will To Make Use Of Certain

Means--Varying As The Means That Can Be Most Suitably Employed Vary

Under Varying Circumstances.

 

In This We Condemn The Theory Which Refuses To Recognise Unconscious

Purpose As Present In Each Individual Case Of Instinctive Action.

For He Who Maintains Instinct To Be The Result Of A Mechanism Of

Mind,  Must Suppose A Special And Constant Mechanism For Each

Variation And Modification Of The Instinct In Accordance With

Chapter 8 Pg 89

Exterior Circumstances,  {97} That Is To Say,  A New String Giving A

Note With A New Tone Must Be Inserted,  And This Would Involve The

Mechanism In Endless Complication.  But The Fact That The Purpose Is

Constant Notwithstanding All Manner Of Variation In The Means Chosen

By The Instinct,  Proves That There Is No Necessity