Here, then, we have two clear and definite views,--supported, the one by our inmost consciousness, the other by unanswerable observation and inference,--yet apparently incompatible the one with the other. And in fact by most writers they have been felt and acknowledged to be even hopelessly incompatible. The supporters of the view that "The Self is a co-ordination,"--and this, I need hardly say, is now the view prevalent among experimental psychologists,--have frankly given up any notion of an underlying unity,--of a life independent of the organism,--in a word, of a human soul. The supporters of the unity of the Ego, on the other hand, if they have not been able to be equally explicit in _denying_ the opposite view, have made up for this by the thorough-going way in which they have _ignored_ it. I know of no source from which valid help has been offered towards the reconcilement of the two opposing systems in a profounder synthesis. If I believe--as I do believe--that in the present work some help in this direction is actually given, this certainly does not mean that I suppose myself capable of stitching the threadbare metaphysical arguments into a more stable fabric. It simply means that certain fresh evidence can now be adduced, which has the effect of showing the case on each side in a novel light;--nay, even of closing the immediate controversy by a judgment more decisively in favour of _both_ parties than either could have expected. On the one side, and in favour of the co-ordinators,--all their analysis of the Self into its constituent elements, all that they urge of positive observation, of objective experiment, must--as I shall maintain on the strength of the new facts which I shall adduce--be unreservedly conceded. Let them push their analysis as far as they like,--let them get down, if they can, to those ultimate infinitesimal psychical elements from which is upbuilt the complex, the composite, the "colonial" structure and constitution of man. All this may well be valid and important work. It is only on their _negative_ side that the conclusions of this school need a complete overhauling. Deeper, bolder inquiry along their own line shows that they have erred when they asserted that analysis showed no trace of faculty beyond such as the life of earth--as they conceive it--could foster, or the environment of earth employ. For in reality analysis shows traces of faculty which this material or planetary life could not have called into being, and whose exercise even here and now involves and necessitates the existence of a spiritual world.