“The objective mind is capable of reasoning by all methods- inductive and deductive, analytic and synthetic”.
“The subjective mind is incapable of inductive reasoning, while the individual is in the state of hypnotism or trance”.
“The feats of the subjective mind have caused amazement for ages, but it has never been noticed heretofore that its reasoning is always deductive or syllogistic. It never classifies a series of known, facts, and reasons from them to general principles; but given a general principle to start with it will reason from that down to all legitimate inferences with a marvelous cogency and power”.
There is a good ground for believing that the memory of the subjective mind is perfect; that no experience through which the individual passes, nothing that he has ever perceived through any of his senses, is ever lost. Many illustrations of this could he given if time permitted; of extraordinary feats of memory during illness-of a forgotten language received; of whole pages of Greek and Hebrew remembered and recited by an illiterate servant girl, who, years before, had worked in the house of a prescriber who was in the habit of reading aloud passages from Greek and Hebrew authors, which her ear casually heard while she was working about the room, etc. Suffice it to say that Mr. Hudsons book of four hundred pages is devoted to the application of this hypothesis to the explanation of a vast number of strange and mysterious things, and that it does explain them satisfactory.
I have already quoted his opinion that the subjective mind is a separate entity, independent of the physical organism. In another place he says: “Subjective memory appears to be an inherent power, and free from anatomical relations, or at least it does not appear to depend upon the healthy condition of the brain for its power of manifestations”.
At this point the theories of Hahnemann, of Professor Gates and Mr. Hudson meet and complement each other. Something was lacking in each which the others supply and a fair consideration of all greatly elucidates the subjective we are discussing. Hahnemanns “life force” corresponds to Professor Gates “cellular mind,” which is nothing more nor less than Hudsons “subjective mind,” Professor Gates definitely locates Hudsons subjective mind and shows how it does its work in bringing about structural changes. A little reflection will show why hahnemanns “life force” is “blind,” “unreasoning,” etc., and why it is not to be trusted in disease. It is subject to every evil suggestion, conveyed from the objective mind of its own or other individualities, and it can only reason deductively. Every mental functioning works cellular and tissue change, and the physical evidences of disease are the result of morbid suggestions.
Hahnemanns “rational mind” and “higher human mind” correspond to Hudsons “objective mind,” the highest function of which is to reason, and which is able to reason inductively as well as deductively, analytically as well as synthetically.
Hahnemanns vital force was not, as he thought, unintelligent, unreasoning and blind, neither is it automatic in the ordinary sense of the word. It reasons correctly, but deductively, even from a false premise. Working in harmony with the “rational” or objective mind during health, it manifests the highest intelligence and most beautiful reasoning powers, as Hahnemann partly recognized. It is only when it is divorced from the objective mind or subjective to evil suggestion that it goes wrong. Even then it is true and consistent, and even admirable, though wasting its energy in reasoning on a false premise, as when it suppurates an eye away in the attempt to remove a splinter from the cornea. If the “rational mind” would first remove the splinter this, same subjective mind, this same “blind and unintelligent force,” would immediately and effectually heal the wound, and by precisely the same process that, carried too far, becomes suppuration. The same is true in the case of the broken bone and other illustrations used by Hahnemann, already quoted and easily explained. Professor Gates studies of pathology, or, as the calls it, “abnormal cellular mentation,” were supplemented and brought nearer to completion by the work of Mr. Hudson.
The attention of the psychologists was centered upon the performances of the subjective mind during the abnormal condition of spontaneous or induced hypnotism. They noticed the strange modification of organic and mental functions during this state and commented upon them. But it seems to have occurred to nobody that the power which intelligently presides over the vital functions of the human organism in its normal state, which go on quite independently of the objective mind, is identical with that power which operates in the abnormal hypnotic condition, namely, the subjective mind. Professor Gates experiments demonstrated this, although he apparently did not make this particular deduction.
Few have seen, in this connection, the great possibilities of the Hahnemannian “proving” as a method and instrument in biological and psychological research. The living human organism is the most delicately responsive regent in the world. By means of drugs properly used, we may bring into view nearly every phase of every function of the economy, mental and physical, for observation and study.
It is only when, in the slow progress of science along the higher lines, we find the most advanced of the workers developing and using methods which are essentially but modifications of the method devised and used by Hahnemann nearly a century ago, that we realize how great is our inheritance from that inspired man. The beauty and utility of his method of sounding the depths of the human mind and body consisted in its directness, simplicity and naturalness. Men of today engaged in analogous or related lines of investigation are trying to accomplish similar results by methods which, though similar, are vastly more complicated and indirect, not knowing that in instrument, formed and perfect, is lying ready at their hand.
Professor Gates might well have devoted some time to a careful study of Hahnemanns “Organon,” with special attention to the method and principles of drug-proving. If he had put it to practical use Hahnemanns debt to him for elucidating the vital force would have been more than paid, for Professor Gates, it seems, thought he was on the eve of discovery of the fundamental law of cure, although he has not yet announced it. It would be interesting indeed if it turned out to be a verification of Hahnemanns discovery.