WCP2845

[1]

Clayton House

Clifton Park

Bristol

September 17^th [19]'05

My dear Dr Wallace,

You have undertaken a difficult task but one full of interest and importance. It seems to me that it will be necessary for you to bring into due relations the scientific and the metaphysical aspects of character and of evolution. I don't suppose you have read any of my lucubration's on the importance of distinguishing the two. By the scientific aspect I mean that which deals with, and sticks to the antecedences co-existences and sequences which are presented to our experience. Science (thus regarded) does not [2] go beyond the facts and the observed conditions of their occurrence. It knows nothing about how underlying cause or raison d'etre of the sequence. It gives the conditions under which evolution as a mater of fact does occur. It altogether ignores any agency whether selective or other. Cause (in the sense of raison

'etre) agency force are metaphysical conceptions.

Under character, then, you will have (from my point of view) to distinguish carefully between the empirical ego of science with which (Hume¹, Huxley² Clifford³and others deal) and the metaphysical ego as an agency.(with which the philosophers and metaphysicians deal). I believe [3] that both are valid conceptions but they must be distinguished for clearness of thought otherwise we only have the old fight conducted from different platforms — neither party accepting the premisses demanded by the other.

Munsterberg⁴in his Willenshandlung deals with volition from the scientific point of view and reaches the conclusion that for Psychology as a science the will as agent is non-existent Pringle Pattison⁵ has a good criticism from the metaphysical standpoint in a "Contemporary Review" article" on "The New Psychology and Automatism" But unfortunately my reprint bears no date. I should think about 1890.

I am afraid that I do not know of any work or article in [4] which the diverse aspects of the question you are to deal with are brought to a focus, distinguished, and discussed. No one in the evolutionary camp has done much more than scoff at the other aspect; and you would have to get this out of the philosophers — a task in which I don't envy you but it wants doing.

If you would care to see what I have said about analogous questions I could probably let you have, in the course of a few days, the proofs of a little book on the Interpretation of Nature. I expect them in page form shortly. But perhaps my lines would not be helpful to you.

If I am in your neighbourhood I should certainly call — I have had experience of the pleasure it gives me.

Yours very truly | C. Lloyd-Morgan [signature]