Observations upon experimental philosophy to which is added The description of a new blazing world / written by the thrice noble, illustrious, and excellent princesse, the Duchess of Newcastle.

35. Of Knowledg and Perception in General.

SInce Natural Knowledg and Perception is the Ground and Principle, not onely of Philosophy both Speculative and Experimental, but of all other

Arts and Sciences, nay, of all the Infinite particular actions of Nature; I thought it not amiss to joyn to the end of this part a full declaration of my opinion con∣cerning that subject.

First, It is to be observed, That Matter, Self-motion and Self-knowledg, are inseparable from each other, and make Nature, one Material, self-moving, and self∣knowing Body.

2. Nature being Material, is dividable into parts; and being infinite in quantity or bulk, her parts are infinite in number.

3. No part can subsist singly, or by it self, precised from the rest; but they are all parts of one infinite bo∣dy; for though such parts may be separated from such parts, and joined to other parts, and by this means may undergo infinite changes by infinite compositions and divisions; yet no part can be separated from the body of Nature.

4. And hence it follows, That the parts of Na∣ture are nothing else but the particular changes of par∣ticular figures, made by self-motion.

5. As there can be no annihilation; so there can neither be a new Creation of the least part or particle of Nature, or else Nature would not be infinite.

6. Nature is purely corporeal or material, and there is nothing that belongs to, or is a part of Nature, which is not corporeal; so that natural and material, or cor∣poreal, are one and the same; and therefore spiritual

beings, non-beings, mixt beings, and whatsoever distinctions the Learned do make, are no ways belong∣ing to Nature: Neither is there any such thing as an Incorporeal motion; for all actions of Nature are corporeal, being natural; and there can no abstraction be made of Motion or Figure, from Matter or Body, but they are inseparably one thing.

7. As Infinite Matter is divided into Infinite parts, so Infinite knowledg is divided into Infinite particular knowledges, and Infinite self-motion into Infinite par∣ticular self-actions.

8. There is no other difference between self-know∣ledg, and particular knowledges, then betwixt self∣motion, and particular self-actions; or betwixt a whole, and its parts; a cause, and its effects: for self-know∣ledg is the ground and principle of all particular know∣ledges, as self-motion is the ground and principle of all particular actions, changes and varieties of natural figures.

9. As Infinite Nature has an infinite self-motion and self-knowledg, so every part and particle has a parti∣cular and finite self-motion and self-knowledg, by which it knows it self, and its own actions, and perceives also other parts and actions; which latter is properly cal∣led Perception; not as if there were two different Prin∣ciples of knowledg in every particular Creature or part of Nature; but they are two different acts of one and the same interior and inherent self-know∣ledg,

which is a part of Natures infinite self-know∣ledg.

10. Thus Perception, or a perceptive knowledg, belongs properly to parts, and may also be called an exterior knowledg, by reason it extends to exterior objects.

11. Though self-knowledg is the ground and prin∣ciple of all particular knowledges and perceptions, yet self-motion, since it is the cause of all the variety of na∣tural figures, and of the various compositions and divisions of parts, it is also the cause of all Percep∣tions.

12. As there is a double degree of corporeal self∣motion, viz. Rational, and Sensitive; so there is also a double degree of Perception, Rational, and Sensitive.

13. A whole may know its parts, and an Infinite a Fi∣nite; but no particular part can know its whole, nor one finite part that which is infinite. I say, no particular part; for when parts are regularly composed, they may by a general Conjunction or Union of their particular knowledges and perceptions, know more, and so judg more probably of the whole, or of Infinite; and al∣though by the division of parts, those composed know∣ledges and perceptions, may be broke asunder like a ruined house or Castle, Kingdom or Government; yet some of the same Materials may chance to be put to the same uses, and some may be joined to those that formerly imployed themselves otherways: And hence

I conclude, That no particular parts are bound to cer∣tain particular actions, no more then Nature her self, which is self-moving Matter; for as Nature is full of va∣riety of motions or actions, so are her parts; or else she could not be said self-moving, if she were bound to cer∣tain actions, and had not liberty to move as she pleases: for though God, the Authour of Nature, has or∣dered her so that she cannot work beyond her own na∣ture, that is, beyond Matter; yet has she freedom to move as she will; neither can it be certainly affirmed, that the successive propagation of the several species of Creatures is decreed and ordained by God, so that Nature must of necessity work to their continuation, and can do no otherwise; but humane sense and reason may observe, that the same parts keep not always to the same particular actions, so as to move to the same spe∣cies or figures; for those parts that join in the compo∣sition of an animal, alter their actions in its dissolution, and in the framing of other figures; so that the same parts which were joined in one particular animal, may, when they dissolve from that composed figure, join se∣verally to the composition of other figures; as for ex∣ample, of Minerals, Vegetables, Elements, &c. and some may join with some sorts of Creatures, and some with others, and so produce creatures of different sorts, when as before they were all united in one particular Creature; for particular parts are not bound to work or move to a certain particular action, but they work

according to the wisdom and liberty of Nature, which is onely bound by the Omnipotent God's Decree not to work beyond her self, that is, beyond Matter; and since Matter is dividable, Nature is necessitated to move in parts; for Matter can be without parts, no more then parts can be without a whole; neither can Na∣ture, being material, make her self void of figure, nor can she rest, being self-moving; but she is bound to divide and compose her several parts into several particu∣lar figures, and dissolve and change those figures again infinite ways: All which proves the variety of Nature, which is so great, that even in one and the same species, none of the particulars resemble one another so much as not to be discerned from each other.

But to return to Knowledg and Perception; I say they are general and fundamental actions of Nature; it being not probable that the infinite parts of Nature should move so variously, nay, so orderly and metho∣dically as they do, without knowing what they do, or why and whether they move; and therefore all particu∣lar actions whatsoever in Nature, as respiration, di∣gestion, sympathy, antipathy, division, composition, pressure, reaction, &c. are all particular perceptive and knowing actions; for if a part be divided from o∣ther parts, both are sensible of their division: The like may be said of the composition of parts. And as for Pres∣sure and Reaction, they are as knowing and perceptive as any other particular actions; but yet this does not

prove, that they are the principle of perception; and that there's no Perception but what is made by Pressure and Reaction, or that at least they are the ground of Animal Perception; for as they are no more but par∣ticular actions, so they have but particular perceptions; and although all Motion is sensible, yet no part is sen∣sible but by its own motions in its own parts; that is, no corporeal motion is sensible but of or by it self: There∣fore when a man moves a string, or tosses a Ball; the string or ball is no more sensible of the motion of the hand, then the hand is of the motion of the string or ball, but the hand is onely an occasion that the string or ball moves thus or thus. I will not say, but that it may have some perception of the hand according to the nature of its own figure, but it does not move by the hands motion, but by its own; for there can be no motion imparted without matter or substance.

Neither can I certainly affirm, that all Perception con∣sists in patterning out exterior objects, for although the perception of our humane senses is made that way, yet Natures actions being so various, I dare not conclude from thence that all the perceptions of the infinitely various parts and figures of Nature are made all after the same manner. Nevertheless, it is probable to sense and reason, that the infinite parts of Nature have not onely interior self-knowledg, but also exterior percep∣tions of other figures or parts, and their actions; by reason there is a perpetual commerce and entercourse

between parts and parts, and the chief actions of Na∣ture are composition and division, which produce all the variety of Nature; which proves, there must of necessity be perception between parts and parts; but how all these particular perceptions are made, no par∣ticular creature is able to know, by reason of their va∣riety; for as the actions of Nature vary, so do the per∣ceptions. Therefore it is absurd to confine all per∣ception of Nature, either to pressure and reaction, or to the animal kind of perception, since even in one and the same animal sense; as for example, of seeing, there are numerous perceptions; for every motion of the Eye, were it no more then a hairs breadth, causes a several perception; besides, it is not onely the five organs in an animal, but every part and particle of his body that has a peculiar knowledg and perception, be∣cause it consists of self-moving Matter: Which if so, then a Looking-glass that patterns out the face of a Man, and a Mans Eye that patterns again the copy from the Glass, cannot be said to have the same per∣ception, by reason a Glass, and an animal, are dif∣ferent sorts of Creatures; for though a piece of Wood, Stone, or Metal, may have a perceptive knowledg of Man, yet it hath not a Man's perception, because it is a Vegetable or Mineral, and cannot have an Animal knowledg or perception, no more, then the Eye patterning out a Tree or Stone, can be said to have a Vegetable or Mineral Perception; nay, when

one Animal, as for example one man, perceives ano∣ther, he doth not perceive his knowledg; for it is one thing to perceive the exterior figure of a Creature, and another thing to perceive its interior, proper, and in∣nate actions; also it is one thing to perceive exterior objects, and another to receive knowledg; for no part can give away to another its inherent and proper parti∣cular nature, neither can one part make it self another part; it may imitate some actions of another part, but not make it self the same part; which proves, that each part must have its own knowledg and perception, ac∣cording to its own particular nature; for though se∣veral parts may have the like perceptions, yet they are not the same; and although the exterior figures of some objects may be alike, yet the perceptions may be quite different; 'tis true, sensitive and rational knowledg is general and infinite in Nature; but every part being finite, can have but a finite and particular knowledg, and that according to the nature of its particular figure; for as not all Creatures, although they be composed of one Matter, are alike in their figures, so not all can have the like knowledges and perceptions, though they have all self-motion; for particular Creatures and acti∣ons are but effects of the onely Infinite self-moving Matter, and so are particular perceptions; and although they are different, yet the difference of effects does not argue different causes; but one and the same cause may produce several and different effects; so that although

there be infinite different motions in Nature, yet they are all but motions, and cannot differ from each other in being motions or self-moving parts; and although there be infinite several and different perceptions, yet they are all perceptions; for the effects cannot alter the cause, but the cause may alter the effects: Wherefore rational and sensitive corporeal motions cannot change from being motions, though they may change from moving thus, to move thus; nor perceptions from being perceptions, though they may change from being such or such particular perceptions; for the change is onely in particulars, not in the ground or principle which continues always the same. The truth is, as it is impossible that one figure should be another figure, or one part another part; so likewise it is impossible, that the perception of one part should be the perception of another; but being in parts, they must be several, and those parts being different, they must be different also: But some are more different then others; for the per∣ceptions of Creatures of different sorts, as for example, of a Vegetable and an Animal, are more different then the perception of particulars of one sort, or of one com∣posed figure; for as there is difference in their interior natures, so in their perceptions; so that a Mineral or Vegetable that perceives the figure of an Animal, has no more the perception of an Animal, then an Animal which perceives or patterns out the figure of a Mineral or Vegetable, has the perceptions of those Creatures;

for example, when a man lies upon a stone, or leans on a tree, or handles and touches water, &c. although these parts be so closely joined to each other, yet their perceptions are quite different; for the man onely knows what he feels, or sees, or hears, or smells, or tasteth, but knows not what sense or perception those parts have; nay, he is so far from that, that even one part of his body doth not know the sense and perception of another part of his body; as for example, one of his hands knows not the sense and perception of his other hand; nay, one part of his hand knows not the per∣ception of another part of the same hand; for as the corporeal figurative motions differ, so do particular knowledges and perceptions; and although sensitive and rational knowledg is general and infinite in in∣finite Nature, yet every part being finite, has but finite and particular perceptions, besides, percepti∣on being but an effect, and not a cause, is more vari∣ous in particulars; for although all Creatures are com∣posed of rational and sensitive Matter, yet their percep∣tions are not alike; neither can the effect alter the cause; for though the several actions of sensitive and rational Matter be various, and make several perceptions, yet they cannot make several kinds of sensitive and rational Matter; but when as perceptions change, the parts of the sensitive and rational matter remain the same in themselves; that is, they do not change from being sen∣sitive or rational parts, although they may make nu∣merous

perceptions in their particular parts, according to the various changes of self-motion.

But some may say, If the particular parts of one com∣posed figure be so ignorant of each others knowledg, as I have expressed, How can they agree in some action of the whole figure, where they must all be imployed, and work agreeably to one effect? As for example; when the Mind designs to go to such a place, or do such a work; How can all the parts agree in the per∣forming of this act, if they be ignorant of each others actions? I answer: Although every Parts knowledg and perception, is its own, and not anothers; so that every part knows by its own knowledg, and perceives by its own perception; yet it doth not follow from thence, that no part has any more knowledg then of it felf, or of its own actions; for, as I said before, it is well to be observed, that there being an entercourse and commerce, as also an acquaintance and agreement between parts and parts, there must also of necessity be some knowledg or perception betwixt them, that is, one part must be able to perceive another part, and the actions of that same part; for wheresoever is life and knowledg, that is, sense and reason, there is also per∣ception; and though no part of Nature can have an absolute knowledg, yet it is neither absolutely ignorant, but it has a particular knowledg, and particular percep∣tions, according to the nature of its own innate and in∣terior figure. In short, as there are several kinds,

sorts and particular perceptions, and particular igno∣rances between parts, so there are more general percep∣tions between some parts, then between others; the like of ignorance; all which is according to the various actions of corporeal self-motion: But yet no part can have a thorow perception of all other parts and their actions, or be sure that that part which it perceives has the like perception of it again; for one part may per∣ceive another part, and yet this part may be ignorant of that part, and its perception; for example, my eye perceives an object, but that object is not necessitated to perceive my eye again; also my eye may perceive the pattern of it self made in a Looking-glass, and yet be ignorant whether the Glass do the like. Again, when two parts touch each other, one part may perceive the other, and yet be ignorant whether t' other does the like; for example, a man joins both his hands toge∣ther; they may have perception of each other, and yet be ignorant of each others perception; and most commonly, one part judges of anothers perception by its own; for when one man perceives the actions of another man, he judges by those actions what percep∣tions he has, so that judgment is but a comparing of actions; for as likeness of interior motions makes sym∣pathy, so comparing of actions makes judgment, to know and distinguish what is alike, and what is not. Therefore perception of exterior objects, though it proceeds from an interior principle of self-knowledg,

yet it is nothing else but an observation of exterior parts or actions; so that parts in their several com∣positions and divisions may have several perceptions of each other, according to the nature of their figurative corporeal motions; and although each parts knowledg is its own, yet parts may have as much knowledg of each other, as they can perceive, or observe of each other; for the perceptive motions of one part, may inform themselves of the actions of other parts. The truth is, every particular part has its own motions fi∣gures, sense and reason, which by a conjunction or composition of parts, makes a general knowledg; for as the division of parts causes a general obscurity, so composition of parts makes a general knowledg and understanding; and as every part has self-motion, so it has self-knowledg and perception.

But it is to be observed, That since there is a double perception in the infinite parts of Nature, sensitive and rational; the perception and information of the rati∣onal parts is more general, then of the sensitive, they being the most prudent, designing and governing parts of Nature, not so much encumbred with labouring on the inanimate parts of matter as the sensitive: There∣fore the rational parts in a composed figure, or united action, may sooner have a general knowledg and in∣formation of the whole then the sensitive; whose know∣ledg is more particular; as for example, a man may have a pain in one of the parts of his body, although

the perception thereof is made by the sensitive corpo∣real motions in that same part, yet the next adjoining sensitive parts may be ignorant thereof, when as all the rational parts of the whole body may take notice of it. Thus the rational parts having a more general acquain∣tance then the sensitive, and being also the designing and architectonical parts, they imploy the sensitive parts to work to the same effect; but these are not always rea∣dy to obey, but force sometimes the rational to obey them, which we call irregularity; which is nothing but an opposition or strife between parts; as for ex∣ample, a man designs to imploy the exterior strength and action of his exterior parts; but if through irregu∣larity the legs and arms be weak, the stomack sick, the head full of pain; they will not agree to the executing of the commands of the rational parts. Likewise the mind endeavours often to keep the sensitive motions of the body from dissolution; but they many times follow the mode, and imitate other objects, or cause a dis∣solution or division of that composed figure by volun∣tary actions.

Thus the sensitive and rational motions do often∣times cross and oppose each other; for although several parts are united in one body, yet are they not always bound to agree in one action; nor can it be o∣therwise; for were there no disagreement between them, there would be no irregularities, and conse∣quently no pain or sickness, nor no dissolution of any natural figure.

And such an agreement and disagreement is not onely betwixt the rational and sensitive parts, but also betwixt the rational and rational, the sensitive and sensitive; for some rational Parts, may in one compo∣sed figure have opposite actions; as for example, the Mind of Man may be divided so, as to hate one per∣son, and love another; nay, hate and love one and the same person for several things at the same time, as also rejoice and grieve at the same time. For ex∣ample, a man has two Sons; one is kill'd in the Wars, and the other comes home with victory and honour; the Father grieves for the slain Son, and rejoyces for the victorious Son: for the Mind being material, is di∣vidable as well as composable; and therefore its parts may as well oppose each other, as agree; for agree∣ment and friendship is made by composition, and dis∣agreement by division; and sense and reason is either stronger or weaker, by composition or division, re∣gularity or irregularity, for a greater number of parts may over-power a less; also there are advantages and disadvantages amongst parts, according to the several sorts of corporeal figurative motions; so that some sorts of corporeal motions; although fewer or weaker, may over-power others that are more numerous and strong; but the rational being the most subtil, active, observing and inspective parts, have, for the most part, more power over the sensitive, then the sensitive have over them; which makes that they, for the most

part, work regularly, and cause all the orderly and regular compositions, dissolutions, changes and vari∣eties in the infinite parts of Nature; besides, their per∣ception and observation being more general, it lasts longer; for the rational continue the perception of the past actions of the sensitive, when as the sensitive keep no such records.

Some say, that Perception is made by the Ideas of exterior objects entering into the organs of the sentient; but this opinion cannot be probable to sense and rea∣son; for first, If Ideas subsist of themselves, then they must have their own figures, and so the figures of the objects would not be perceived, but onely the figures of the Ideas. But if those Ideas be the figures of the ob∣jects themselves, then by entring into our sensories the objects would lose them; for one single object can have no more but one exterior figure at one time, which surely it cannot lose and keep at one and the same time; But if it be a Print of the object on the Air, it is impos∣sible there could be such several sorts of Prints as there are Perceptions, without a notable confusion. Besides: when I consider the little passages, as in the sense of touch, the pores of the flesh, through which they must enter, I cannot readily believe it; nay, the Motions and Prints would grow so weak, and faint in their jour∣ney, especially if the object be a great way off, as they would become of no effect. But if their opinion be, that Ideas can change and alter, then all immaterial

substances may do the same, and spirits may change and alter into several immaterial figures; which, in my opinion cannot be: for what is supernatural, is unalterable; and therefore the opinion of Ideas in per∣ception, is as irregular, as the opinion of senseless atomes in the framing of a Regular World.

Again: Some of our Modern Philosophers are of opinion, That the subject wherein Colour and Image are inherent, is not the object or thing seen; for Image and Colour, say they, may be there where the thing seen is not: As for example, The Sun, and other vi∣sible objects, by reflexion in Water or Glass; so that there is nothing without us really which we call Image or Colour; for the Image or Colour is but an appa∣rition unto us of the motion and agitation which the object works in the brain or spirits, and divers times men see directly the same object double, as two Can∣dles for one, and the like. To which I answer: That all this doth not prove that the object is not perceived, or that an object can be without image or colour, or that figure and colour are not the same with the object; but it proves, that the object enters not the eye, but is onely patterned out by the perceptive motions in the optick sense; for the reflection of the Sun in Water or Glass, is but a copy of the original, made by the figu∣rative perceptive motions in the Glass or Water, which may pattern out an object as well as we do; which co∣py is patterned out again by our optick perception, and

so one copy is made by another. The truth is, Our optick sense could not perceive either the original, or copy of an exterior object, if it did not make those fi∣gures in its own parts; and therefore figure and colour are both in the object, and the eye; and not, as they say, neither in the object, nor in the eye; for though I grant that one thing cannot be in two places at once, yet there may be several copies made of one original, in several parts, which are several places, at one and the same time; which is more probable, then that figure and colour should neither be in the object, nor in the eye, or according to their own words, that figure and colour should be there where the thing seen is not; which is to separate it from the object, a thing against all possibility, sense and reason; or else, that a substance∣less and senseless Motion should make a progressive journey from the object to the sentient, and there print, figure and colour upon the optick sense by a bare agita∣tion or concussion, so that the perception or apparition, (as they call it) of an object, should onely be accord∣ing to the stroke the agitation makes; as for example, the perception of light after such a manner, figure after such, and colour after another; for if Motion be no substance or body, and besides void of sense, not know∣ing what it acts; I cannot conceive how it should make such different strokes upon both the sensitive organ, and the brain, and all so orderly that every thing is per∣ceived differently and distinctly. Truly this opinion

is like Epicurus's of Atomes; but how absurd it is to make senseless corpuscles the cause of sense and reason, and consequently of perception, is obvious to every ones apprehension, and needs no demonstration.

Next, as Colour, according to their opinion, is not inherent any otherwise in the object, but by an ef∣fect thereof upon us, caused by such a motion in the object; so neither, say they, is sound in the thing we hear, but in our selves; for as a man may see, so he may hear double or trebble by multiplication of Ec∣choes, which are sounds as well as the Original, and not being in one and the same place, cannot be inhe∣rent in the body; for the Clapper has no sound in it, but motion; and maketh motion in the inward parts of the Bell; neither has the Bell motion, but sound; and imparts motion to the air, the air again imparts motion to the ear and nerves, until it comes to the brain, which has motion, not sound; from the brain it rebounds back into the nerves outward, and then it becoms an apparition without, which we call sound. But Good Lord, what a confusion would all this produce, if it were thus! What need is there of imparting Motion, when Nature can do it a much easier way? I wonder how rational men can believe that motion can be imparted without matter: Next, that all this can be done in an instant: Again, that it is the organ of the sentient that makes colour, sound, and the like, and that they are not really inherent in the object it self. For

were there no men to perceive such or such a colour, fi∣gure or sound, can we rationally think that object would have no colour, figure nor sound at all? I will not say, That there is no pressure or reaction, but they do not make sense or reason; several parts may produce several effects by their several compositions, but yet this does not prove that there can be no perception but by pressure upon the organ, and consequently the brain, and that the thing perceived is not really existent in the object, but a bare apparition to the sentient; the Clapper gives no Motion to the Bell, but both the Clapper, and the Bell, have each their own Motion by which they act in striking each other, and the conjun∣ction of such or such parts makes a real sound, were there no Ear to hear it.

Again: Concerning the sense of Touch, the heat, say they, we feel from the Fire, is in us; for it is quite different from that in the fire; our heat is pleasure, or pain; according as it is great or moderate; but in the Coal there is no such thing. I answer: They are so far in the right, that the heat, we feel, is made by the per∣ceptive motions of, and in our own parts, and not by the fires parts acting upon us; but yet if the fire were not really such a thing as it is, that is, a hot and burning body, our sense would not so readily figure it out as it does; which proves, it is a real copy of a real object, and not a meer fantasme, or bare imparted motion from the object to the sentient, made by pressure and reaction;

for if so, the fire would waste in a moment of time, by imparting so much motion to so many sentients; be∣sides, the several strokes which the several imparted motions make upon the sentient, and the reaction from the sentient to the exterior parts, would cause such a strong and confused agitation in the sentient, that it would rather occasion the body to dissolve through the irregularities of such forced motions. But having dis∣coursed enough of this subject heretofore, I will add no more, but refer both their and my own opinions, to the judicious and unpartial Reader; Onely concern∣ing Fire, because they believe, it is the onely shining body upon Earth, I will say this: If it were true; then a Glow-worms tail, and Cats eyes, must be fire also; which yet Experience makes us believe other∣wise.

As for Sleep, they call it a privation of the act of sense; To which I can no ways give my consent, be∣cause I believe sense to be a perpetual corporeal self-mo∣tion without any rest. Neither do I think the senses can be lockt up in sleep; for if they be self-moving, they cannot be shut up, it being as impossible to de∣prive self-motion of acting, as to destroy its nature; but if they have no self-motion, they need no locking up at all; because it would be their nature to rest, as be∣ing moveless. In short, sense being self-motion, can neither rest nor cease; for what they call cessation, is nothing else but an alteration of corporeal self-motion;

and thus Cessation will require as much a self-moving Agent, as all other actions of Nature.

Lastly, say they, It is impossible for sense to imagine a thing past, for sense is onely of things present. I an∣swer, 'tis true, by reason the sensitive corporeal motions work on and with the parts of Inanimate Matter; ne∣vertheless, when a repetition is made of the same actions, and the same parts, it is a sensitive remembrance: And thus is also Experience made: which proves, there is a sensitive perception and self-knowledg; because the senses are well acquainted with those objects they have often figured or patterned out; and to give a further demonstration thereof, we see that the senses are ama∣zed, and sometimes frighted at such objects as are un∣usual, or have never been presented to them before. In short, Conception, Imagination, Remembrance, Ex∣perience, Observation, and the like, are all made by coporeal self-knowing, perceptive self-motion, and not by insensible, irrational, dull, and moveless Mat∣ter.