THEO. I did not “confess” it was a fancy. I simply said that physiologists and scientists in general regard such reminiscences as hallucinations and fancy, to which _learned_ conclusion they are welcome. We do not deny that such visions of the past and glimpses far back into the corridors of time, are abnormal, as contrasted with our normal daily life experience and physical memory. But we do maintain with Professor W. Knight, that “the absence of memory of any action done in a previous state cannot be a conclusive argument against our having lived through it.” And every fair-minded opponent must agree with what is said in Butler’s _Lectures on Platonic Philosophy_—“that the feeling of extravagance with which it (pre-existence) affects us has its secret source in materialistic or semi-materialistic prejudices.” Besides which we maintain that memory, as Olympiodorus called it, is simply _phantasy_, and the most unreliable thing in us.[31] Ammonius Saccas asserted that the only faculty in man directly opposed to prognostication, or looking into futurity, is _memory_. Furthermore, remember that memory is one thing and mind or _thought_ is another; one is a recording machine, a register which very easily gets out of order; the other (thoughts) are eternal and imperishable. Would you refuse to believe in the existence of certain things or men only because your physical eyes have not seen them? Would not the collective testimony of past generations who have seen him be a sufficient guarantee that Julius Cæsar once lived? Why should not the same testimony of the psychic senses of the masses be taken into consideration? ENQ. But don’t you think that these are too fine distinctions to be accepted by the majority of mortals? THEO. Say rather by the majority of materialists. And to them we say, behold: even in the short span of ordinary existence, memory is too weak to register all the events of a lifetime. How frequently do even most important events lie dormant in our memory until awakened by some association of ideas, or aroused to function and activity by some other link. This is especially the case with people of advanced age, who are always found suffering from feebleness of recollection. When, therefore, we remember that which we know about the physical and the spiritual principles in man, it is not the fact that our memory has failed to record our precedent life and lives that ought to surprise us, but the contrary, were it to happen. WHY DO WE NOT REMEMBER OUR PAST LIVES? ENQ. You have given me a bird’s eye view of the seven principles; now how do they account for our complete loss of any recollection of having lived before?