which merely repeats it in another form, and that all things shall ever be flowing away. _When we pass from pure perception to memory, we definitely abandon matter for spirit._” [401] Bergson is always able to detect the relapses even of “mechanism” and of the mechanical philosophy of science into “finalism,” as when he says on p. 72 of his _Creative Evolution_, “To sum up, if the accidental variations that bring about evolution are insensible variations, some good genius must be appealed to--the genius of the future species--in order to preserve and accumulate these variations, for “selection” will not look after this. If, on the other hand, the accidental variations are sudden, then, for the previous function to go on, or for a new function to take its place, all the changes that have happened together must be complementary. So we have to fall back on the good genius again to obtain the convergence of simultaneous changes, as before to be assured of the continuity of direction of successive variations.” [402] We must remember that to Bergson evolution has taken place along different lines--those of Automatism (in plant-life), Instinct (in animal life), and Intelligence (in human life and the higher animals), and that along none of those lines are we to fall into the errors either of materialism, or of “Darwinism” (the belief in “accidental variations”), or of the “design-philosophy,” or even of theories like “neo-Lamarckianism” or neo-vitalism. To him all these philosophies are but imperfect and hypothetical attempts to grasp “movement” and “life” which both “_transcend finality, if we understand by finality the realisation of an idea conceived or conceivable in advance_” (_Creative Evolution_, p. 236). [403] “Paleyism” or “Miltonism” are still good names for the thing, I have read in some competent book upon Evolution. [404] See below, p. 261.