At this point I am confronted with the question that naturally arises when one begins to consider an unfamiliar object, subject, or principle - the question of: "What is it?" "What is Mind-Power" is a difficult question to answer, for it implies a knowledge of the thing "in-itself," apart from its activities and manifestations. And this "thing-it-selfness" is something that the candid, scientific thinker admits is beyond the range of his thought and knowledge. Any attempt to answer such a question must involve one in a maze of metaphysical and philosophical speculation regarding something with is by nature unknowable. And so I may as well frankly state here that I do not purpose "guessing" at the "thing-in-itselfness" of Mind-Power. For, at the best, any attempt at an answer would be merely a guess - for I do not know, neither do I know anyone else who knows!

I am acquainted with the numerous speculations of the ancient and modern philosophers and metaphysicians on the subject - I have read and studied them, and have rejected them as mere theories unsupported by facts. And I have made and rejected a dozen or more theories of my own on the subject - all vague, foolish speculations. I have studied the best of what has been written and thought regarding this "thing--in-itselfness" of mind and Mind-Power, so you see my ignorance is not the ignorance that comes from lack of thought, or lack of acquaintance with the thoughts of others - but is rather the ignorance that comes as the result of much thought, and much study of the thoughts of others - the ignorance that is only realized through knowledge. Regarding these ultimate questions, the best thinkers freely confess their ignorance knowing that, as Nordau has said, they "have plucked that supremest fruit of the Tree of Knowledge - the consciousness of our ignorance." Like Pyrrhon, some twenty-five centuries ago, they say "Uden horizo" - "I do not decide."

We do not know "things-in-themselves" - we cannot know them. If we knew the ultimate truths regarding the tiniest and most insignificant thing in the universe, we would know everything that is - for that tiniest thing is connected with, and related to everything in the universe, and that which underlies the universe - and to know the "thing-in-itself" of anything would be to know the great "Thing-in-Itself" of The All. All that we can do is to know and consider things by what they do; and how they act; and through their manifestations and activities; and the results and effects of the same - rather than by what they are in the abstract, or apart from their activities, manifestations, and the phenomena proceeding from them. Apart from their activities, manifestations and phenomena, things are but abstract no-things so far as our understanding is concerned - airy "words" coined by the metaphysicians and philosophers in order to provide food for speculation, argument, and dispute without end. And we may as well admit the fact that all consideration of ultimate things - things-in-themselves - inevitably leads us to the conclusion that the only real Thing-in-Itself is a Something, underlying all things and yet a No-Thing, and which transcends all of our experience, knowledge, reason, thought, and even imagination. And therein lies the folly of attempting to tell "just what" anything is.

In view of the facts mentioned, and which are held to be correct by the world's best thinkers, how much saner is it to devote our attention to the consideration of things as known through their activities, manifestations, and phenomena - knowing them by what they do, and and how they act; by the laws and principles of the activities and operations; rather than by speculations concerning their nature as abstract thing-in-themselves. This is the method of modern Science, as compared with those of speculative philosophy and metaphysics. But, "a little learning is a dangerous thing"; and "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." And so we shall never be at a loss for ingenious theories and "solutions" of ultimate problems. We have among us some who glibly inform us that they know "just what Mind is!" Such add to the gaiety of the nations, and therefore are useful and interesting. Did you ever hear of the youth at college, who when asked by his professor: "What is electricity?" answered "Well, sir, 1 did know, but I have forgotten!" The professor answered, dryly: "Now, isn't that too bad! Here is the only person in the world who ever knew just what electricity is - and he has forgotten! What a loss to the race!" Why do we not have courage enough to leave off this making of the speculative soap-bubbles with which we have been amusing ourselves, and learn to answer honestly, "I do not know!" or, at least like modern Science, learn to frankly state; Here our knowledge of the subject ends; to-morrow we may know more, but sufficient for the day is the knowledge thereof - and an inch of knowledge of facts is worth a mile of unsupported speculation and theory. As Thomas L. Harris has said:

"The theorist who dreams a rainbow dream,

And calls hypothesis 'philosophy,'

At best is but a paper financier

Who palms his specious promises for gold

Facts are the basis of philosophy;

Philosophy, the harmony of facts.

Seen in their right relation." And, now, having confessed your ignorance and mine, let us proceed to a consideration of Mind-Power as known by its activities. In the first place, let me say that I do not hold that Mind-Power is identical with mind. Rather does it seem to me to be correlated to mind, particularly in the operation of mind known as desire, will, and imagination. If you like, we may consider it to be the acting aspect of mind. Mind has three aspects - the aspect of being, or substance; the aspect of thought, with the sub-divisions of reason, feeling, emotion, desire, will, etc., on both conscious and subconscious planes; and third, the aspect of ACTING. And it is in this aspect of action that mind is known as Mind-Power.