The difference in the two presentations consists in this, that in the second of them there is a suggestion of life and movement which is lacking in the first. But why the different effect upon the mind? Nisbet answers--"the visual and motor centres contribute to the creation of the image"--an answer admirably typical of the fashionable psychology of the day, not necessarily wrong in itself, but so curiously incomplete! Nisbet holds that man himself is a machine, and thus could not easily go farther-- especially as his own machinery evidently would not work any farther. The nature-mystic begins at the other end. He holds that even the inorganic world is more than machinery--that it is instinct with life and meaning. When, therefore, life and movement are attributed to seemingly inert or motionless objects, there is a responsive thrill caused by the subconscious play of primitive intuitions that are based on the facts of existence. Spirit realises more vividly than in normal experience that it is in touch with spirit. Contrast with the psychological dictum the proud claim advanced by Emerson. "The gods talk in the breath of the woods, They talk in the shaken pine, And fill the reach of the old sea-shore With melody divine. And the poet who overhears Some random word they say Is the fated man of men, Whom the ages must obey." There are two claims presented here--one directly, the other indirectly. The direct claim is that there are seers and interpreters who can catch the mystic words that nature utters. The indirect is that the general mass of humanity have the capacity for sharing the experiences of their poet leaders. The one class are endowed to an exceptional degree with receptivity; the other are also receptive, but are dependent on those who can give expression to the intuitions which are, though in varying degrees, a possession common to humanity at large. As Sir Lewis Morris puts it: "All men are poets if they might but tell The dim ineffable changes which the sight Of natural beauty works on them." He, too, recognises the mediating function of the poet. "We are dumb, Save that from finer souls at times may rise Once in an age, faint inarticulate sounds, Low halting tones of wonder, such as come From children looking on the stars, but still With power to open to the listening ear The Fair Divine Unknown, and to unseal Heaven's inner gates before us evermore." And what is this but to claim for the mass of men, in varying but definite degrees, a capacity for the experiences of the nature-mystic? Poetry and Nature Mysticism are linked together in an imperishable life so long as man is man and the world is the world.