Biographia Epistolaris, Volume 2: being The Biographical Supplement of Coleridge's Biographia Literaria — John Shaqi
Biographia Epistolaris, Volume 2: being The Biographical Supplement of Coleridge's Biographia LiterariaColeridge, Samuel Taylor
General
Biographia Epistolaris, Volume 2: being The Biographical Supplement of Coleridge's Biographia Literaria
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772-1834 -- Correspondence
This idea is advanced on the supposition that _one mind_ could command
an unlimited direction over any given number of _limbs_, provided they
were all connected by _joint_ and _sinew_. But suppose, through some
occult and inconceivable means, these limbs were dis-associated, as to
all material connexion; suppose, for instance, one mind with unlimited
authority, governed the operations of _two_ separate persons, would not
this substantially, be only _one person_, seeing the directing principle
was one? If the truth here contended for, be admitted, that _two
persons_, governed by _one mind_, is incontestably _one person_; the
same conclusion would be arrived at, and the proposition equally be
justified, which affirmed that, _three_, or otherwise _four_ persons,
owning also necessary and essential subjection to _one mind_, would only
be so many diversities or modifications of that _one mind_, and
therefore the component parts virtually collapsing into _one whole_, the
person would be _one_. Let any man ask himself, whose understanding can
both reason and become the depository of truth, whether, if _one mind_
thus regulated with absolute authority, _three_, or otherwise _four_
persons, with all their congeries of material parts, would not these
parts inert in themselves, when subjected to one predominant mind, be in
the most logical sense, _one person_? Are ligament and exterior
combination indispensable pre-requisites to the sovereign influence of
mind over mind? or mind over matter?
But perhaps it may be said, we have no instance of one mind governing
more than one body. This may be, but the argument remains the same. With
a proud spirit, that forgets its own contracted range of thought, and
circumscribed knowledge, who is to limit the sway of Omnipotence? or
presumptuously to deny the possibility of _that_ Being, who called light
out of darkness, so to exalt the dominion of _one mind_, as to give it
absolute sway over other dependant minds, or (indifferently) over
detached, or combined portions of organized matter? But if this
superinduced quality be conferable on any order of created beings, it is
blasphemy to limit the power of God, and to deny _his_ capacity to
transfuse _his own_ Spirit, when and to whom he will.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account