FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184  
185   186   187   188   >>  
age consisting of such imitations. It is against this simple and superficial theory that Professor Mueller has argued so well. But in these words _sucre_, _sucre_, incautiously included by him as instances of the same thing, we are in the presence of a very different problem. To imitate one sound by another sound is a mere simple, external, and trivial imitation; onomatopoieia, and nothing more than that. But to imitate a _sound_, by a _taste_, or to recognize that such an imitation has occurred, is a testimony to the existence of that recondite and all-important _echo of likeness_ through domains of Being themselves the most unlike, which we call ANALOGY. That we do recognize such _analogy_ or _correspondence of meaning_, that Professor Mueller himself does so, is admitted when he tells us that another form of the words in question is 'not at all sweet-sounding.' It is not in this perception, therefore, that we deceive ourselves, but only in supposing that these particular words came to mean sugar, _because_ they were sweet-sounding. That there is this perception of the analogy in question is again confessed by the fact that we have the same feeling in respect to the German _suesse_, sweet; while the English words _sugar_ and _sweet_, notwithstanding any greater familiarity of association, do not convey the same ideas in the same marked degree. The words _mellifluous_ (honey-flowing) and _melody_ (honey-sound) are themselves standing witnesses in behalf of the existence of the same perception. The fact that we instinctually speak of a _sweet_ voice, is another witness. If, then, there is an echo of likeness (real analogy) between these two unlike spheres of Thought and Being, _Sound_ and _Taste_, may there not be precisely a similar echo through other and all spheres; so that there shall be a Something in Number, in Form, in Chemical Constitution, in the Properties of Mind, in Ultimate Rational Conceptions, in fine, that echoes to this idea, which, by a stretch of the powers of Language, we call _sweet_, both in respect to Sound and Taste? May it not have been precisely this Something and the other handful of primitive Somethings, each with its multitudinous echoes, that the _Nascent Intuition_ of the race laid hold of and availed itself of _irreflectively_ for laying the foundations of Speech? Again, may it not happen that the _Reflective Intellect_ should in turn discover _intelligently_ (or _reflectively_) just
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184  
185   186   187   188   >>  



Top keywords:

perception

 

analogy

 
existence
 

likeness

 

precisely

 

simple

 

question

 

recognize

 

Something

 
echoes

sounding
 

unlike

 

imitate

 
Professor
 
respect
 

Mueller

 

imitation

 
spheres
 

flowing

 
melody

standing

 
Number
 
Chemical
 

intelligently

 

Thought

 

reflectively

 
witnesses
 

instinctually

 

similar

 
witness

behalf
 

powers

 

availed

 

Intuition

 

multitudinous

 

Nascent

 

irreflectively

 

Reflective

 

happen

 
Speech

foundations
 
Intellect
 

laying

 

stretch

 

Conceptions

 
Rational
 

Properties

 

Ultimate

 

Language

 

primitive