more “personalities” engaged in the struggle, each coming to the surface in turn and submerging the others. It is not the fancifulness of this theory that one might object to so much as its utter inadequacy to explain the facts, nay, its utter unintelligibility _on the principles of those who propound it_. For we must not lose sight of the fact that it is propounded by philosophers who purport to explain mental life and human personality without recourse to a _substantial soul_, to any _substantial_ basis of mental life, or indeed to the concept of _substance_ at all: by philosophers who will talk of a mental process without admitting mind or soul as a _substance_ or _subject_ of that process, of a “series” or “stream” of mental functions or activities without allowing any _agent_ that would exercise those functions, or any _substantial abiding principle_ that would unify the series or stream and know it as such; philosophers who regard the _Ego_, “self,” or “person,” as _nothing other than_ the group or series or stream of mental states, and not as anything of which these are the states; and, finally, who speak of these groups of functions or activities as “personalities”—which they describe as “struggling” with one another—apparently oblivious of the fact that by using such language they are _in their thought at least_ transforming these _activities_ into _agents_, these _states_ into _subjects of states_, in a word, these _accidents_ into _substances_; or else they are making their language and their thought alike unintelligible.(321)