What boots it, then, to have shown that the current disillusionment with respect to ourselves is illusory, if we don’t know how to give the control of our lives into the keeping of the better elements that are in us? In fact, our discussion thus far has done little more than clear the ground for a tussle with our main problem, which concerns, not the existence of high motives, but the bondage in which we find them. What we must ascertain, if possible, is the nature of this bondage and how we can release ourselves from it. And first, the nature of our bondage. Let us frankly face the disagreeable facts, not being outdone by the cynic himself in the ferreting out of irrationalities. Only so can we hope to find the remedy for our condition. XX OUR “LOWER NATURE” DOES NOT EXPLAIN OUR BONDAGE If we could refer human folly all in a lump to our “lower nature” it would be convenient in several ways. For one thing, like those who refer their every slip to the solicitations of Satan, we should be relieved from the laborious and often disagreeable task of tracing out the particular threads of influence that make our conduct bad. On the other hand, every accusation against our “lower nature” really flatters whatever we happen to regard as our “higher nature.” The Indian mystic says “Neti, neti” of the lower, finite, and merely apparent reality, while he identifies his true self with the infinite. Plato believes that, in his own person as philosopher, Reason, ever pure and uncontaminated, though it be associated with the passions, is manifested as a self-certifying and self-sufficient good. A parallel self-gratulation was provided by Christian theology through its doctrine that the Christian has a regenerated nature which participates in some measure in the infallibility of God. Similarly, our evolutionary relation to “the ape and tiger” is often used as a foil for displaying our true dignity. But this attribution of our irrational conduct to our “lower nature” is altogether too convenient. It is like a child’s classification of human beings into “good people” and “bad people.” As “bad people” are partly good, so our “lower nature” is not altogether low; and, as “good people” are not perfectly satisfactory, so--at least possibly--our “higher nature” is not altogether high. In short, this whole theory of our bondage requires re-examination.