Part 9

I am reading now the works of that Famous and most Renowned _Author, Des Cartes,_ out of which I intend to pick out onely those discourses which I like best, and not to examine his opinions, as they go along from the beginning to the end of his books; And in order to this, I have chosen in the first place, his discourse of motion, and do not assent to his opinion,[1] when he defines _Motion to be onely a Mode of a thing, and not the thing or body it selfe_; for, in my opinion, there can be no abstraction made of motion from body, neither really, nor in the manner of our conception, for how can I conceive that which is not, nor cannot be in nature, that is, to conceive motion without body? Wherefore Motion is but one thing with body, without any separation or abstraction soever. Neither doth it agree with my reason, that[2] _one body can give or transferr motion into another body; and as much motion it gives or transfers into that body, as much loses it: As for example, in two hard bodies thrown against one another, where one, that is thrown with greater force, takes the other along with it, and loses as much motion as it gives it._ For how can motion, being no substance, but onely a mode, quit one body, and pass into another? One body may either occasion, or imitate anothers motion, but it can neither give nor take away what belongs to its own or another bodies substance, no more then matter can quit its nature from being matter; and therefore my opinion is, that if motion doth go out of one body into another, then substance goes too; for motion, and substance or body, as afore-mentioned, are all one thing, and then all bodies that receive motion from other bodies, must needs increase in their substance and quantity, and those bodies which impart or transferr motion, must decrease as much as they increase: Truly, _Madam_, that neither Motion nor Figure should subsist by themselves, and yet be transferable into other bodies, is very strange, and as much as to prove them to be nothing, and yet to say they are something. The like may be said of all others, which they call accidents, as skill, learning, knowledge, &c. saying, they are no bodies, because they have no extension, but inherent in bodies or substances as in their subjects; for although the body may subsist without them, yet they being always with the body, body and they are all one thing: And so is power and body, for body cannot quit power, nor power the body, being all one thing. But to return to Motion, my opinion is, That all matter is partly animate, and partly inanimate, and all matter is moving and moved, and that there is no part of Nature that hath not life and knowledg, for there is no Part that has not a comixture of animate and inanimate matter; and though the inanimate matter has no motion, nor life and knowledg of it self, as the animate has, nevertheless being both so closely joyned and commixed as in one body, the inanimate moves as well as the animate, although not in the same manner; for the animate moves of it self, and the inanimate moves by the help of the animate, and thus the animate is moving and the inanimate moved; not that the animate matter transfers, infuses, or communicates its own motion to the inanimate; for this is impossible, by reason it cannot part with its own nature, nor alter the nature of inanimate matter, but each retains its own nature; for the inanimate matter remains inanimate, that is, without self-motion, and the animate loses nothing of its self-motion, which otherwise it would, if it should impart or transferr its motion into the inanimate matter; but onely as I said heretofore, the inanimate works or moves with the animate, because of their close union and commixture; for the animate forces or causes the inanimate matter to work with her; and thus one is moving, the other moved, and consequently there is life and knowledg in all parts of nature, by reason in all parts of nature there is a commixture of animate and inanimate matter: and this Life and Knowledg is sense and reason, or sensitive and rational corporeal motions, which are all one thing with animate matter without any distinction or abstraction, and can no more quit matter, then matter can quit motion. Wherefore every creature being composed of this commixture of animate and inanimate matter, has also selfe-motion, that is life and knowledg, sense and reason, so that no part hath need to give or receive motion to or from another part; although it may be an occasion of such a manner of motion to another part, and cause it to move thus or thus: as for example, A Watch-maker doth not give the watch its motion, but he is onely the occasion, that the watch moves after that manner, for the motion of the watch is the watches own motion, inherent in those parts ever since that matter was, and if the watch ceases to move after such a manner or way, that manner or way of motion is never the less in those parts of matter, the watch is made of, and if several other figures should be made of that matter, the power of moving in the said manner or mode, would yet still remain in all those parts of matter as long as they are body, and have motion in them. Wherefore one body may occasion another body to move so or so, but not give it any motion, but every body (though occasioned by another, to move in such a way) moves by its own natural motion; for self-motion is the very nature of animate matter, and is as much in hard, as in fluid bodies, although your _Author_ denies it, saying,[3] _The nature of fluid bodies consists in the motion of those little insensible parts into which they are divided, and the nature of hard bodies, when those little particles joyned closely together, do rest_; for there is no rest in nature; wherefore if there were a World of Gold, and a World of Air, I do verily believe, that the World of Gold would be as much interiously active, as the World of Air exteriously; for Natures motions are not all external or perceptible by our senses, neither are they all circular, or onely of one sort, but there is an infinite change and variety of motions; for though I say in my Philosophical opinions,[4] _As there is but one onely Matter, so there is but one onely Motion_; yet I do not mean, there is but one particular sort of motions, as either circular, or straight, or the like, but that the nature of motion is one and the same, simple and intire in it self, that is, it is meer motion, or nothing else but corporeal motion; and that as there are infinite divisions or parts of matter, so there are infinite changes and varieties of motions, which is the reason that I call motion as well infinite as matter; first that matter and motion are but one thing, and if matter be infinite, motion must be so too; and secondly, that motion is infinite in its changes and variations, as matter is in its parts. And thus much of motion for this time; I add no more, but rest,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend,_

_and Servant._

[1] _Philos. p._ 2. _Art._ 25.

[2] _Art._ 40.

[3] _Philos. part._ 2. _a._ 54.

[4] _Part._ 1. _c._ 5.

XXXI.

_MADAM,_

I observe your _Author_ in his discourse of Place makes a difference[1] betwixt an _Interior and Exterior place_, and that according to this distinction, _one body may be said to change, and not to change its place at the same time, and that one body may succeed into anothers place_. But I am not of this opinion, for I believe not that there is any more place then body; as for example, Water being mix'd with Earth, the water doth not take the Earths place, but as their parts intermix, so do their places, and as their parts change, so do their places, so that there is no more place, then there is water and earth; the same may be said of Air and Water, or Air and Earth, or did they all mix together; for as their bodies join, so do their places, and as they are separated from each other, so are their places. Say a man travels a hundred miles, and so a hundred thousand paces; but yet this man has not been in a hundred thousand places, for he never had any other place but his own, he hath joined and separated himselfe from a hundred thousand, nay millions of parts, but he has left no places behind him. You will say, if he travel the same way back again, then he is said to travel thorow the same places. I answer, It may be the vulgar way of expression, or the common phrase; but to speak properly, after a Philosophical way, and according to the truth in nature, he cannot be said to go back again thorow the same places he went, because he left none behind him, or els all his way would be nothing but place after place, all the hundred miles along; besides if place should be taken so, as to express the joyning to the neerest bodies which compass him about, certainly he would never find his places again; for the air being fluid, changes or moves continually, and perchance the same parts of the air, which compassed him once, will never come near him again. But you may say, If a man be hurt, or hath some mischance in his body, so as to have a piece of flesh cut out, and new flesh growing there; then we say, because the adjoyning parts do not change, that a new piece of flesh is grown in the same place where the former flesh was, and that the place of the former flesh cut or fallen out, is the same of this new grown flesh. I answer, In my opinion, it is not, for the parts being not the same, the places are not, but every one hath its own place. But if the wound be not filled or closed up with other new flesh, you will say, that according to my opinion there is no place then at all. I say, Yes, for the air or any thing else may be there, as new parts joyning to the other parts; nevertheless, the air, or that same body which is there, hath not taken the fleshes place, which was there before, but hath its own; but, by reason the adjoyning parts remain, man thinks the place remains there also which is no consequence. 'Tis true, a man may return to the same adjoining bodies, where he was before, but then he brings his place with him again, and as his body, so his place returnes also, and if a mans arm be cut off, you may say, there was an arm heretofore, but you cannot say properly, this is the place where the arm was. But to return to my first example of the mixture of Water, and Earth or Air; Suppose water is not porous, but onely dividable, and hath no other place but what is its own bodies, and that other parts of water intermix with it by dividing and composing; I say, there is no more place required, then what belongs to their own parts, for if some contract, others dilate, some divide, others joyn, the places are the same according to the magnitude of each part or body. The same may be said of all kinds or sorts of mixtures, for one body hath but one place; and so if many parts of the same nature joyn into one body and increase the bulk of the body, the place of that same body is accordingly; and if they be bodies of different natures which intermix and joyne, each several keeps its place; And so each body and each particular part of a body hath its place, for you cannot name body or part of a body, but you must also understand place to be with them, and if a point should dilate to a world, or a world contract to a point, the place would always be the same with the body. And thus I have declared my opinion of this subject, which I submit to the correction of your better judgment, and rest,

Madam,

_Your Ladiships_

_faithful Friend and humble Servant._

[1] _Philos. p._ 2. _a._ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

XXXII.

_MADAM,_

In my last, I hope, I have sufficiently declared my opinion, That to one body belongs but one place, and that no body can leave a place behind it, but wheresoever is body, there is place also. Now give me leave to examine this question: when a bodies figure is printed on snow, or any other fluid or soft matter, as air, water, and the like; whether it be the body, that prints its own figure upon the snow, or whether it be the snow, that patterns the figure of the body? My answer is, That it is not the body, which prints its figure upon the snow, but the snow that patterns out the figure of the body; for if a seal be printed upon wax, 'tis true, it is the figure of the seal, which is printed on the wax, but yet the seal doth not give the wax the print of its own figure, but it is the wax that takes the print or pattern from the seal, and patterns or copies it out in its own substance, just as the sensitive motions in the eye do pattern out the figure of an object, as I have declared heretofore. But you will say, perhaps, A body being printed upon snow, as it leaves its print, so it leaves also its place with the print in the snow. I answer, That doth not follow; For the place remains still the bodies place, and when the body removes out of the snow, it takes its place along with it: Just like a man, whose picture is drawn by a Painter, when he goes away, he leaves not his place with his picture, but his place goes with his body; and as the place of the picture is the place of the colour or paint, and the place of the copie of an exterior object patterned out by the sensitive corporeal motions is the place of the sensitive organ, so the place of the print in snow, is the snows place; or else, if the print were the bodies place that is printed, and not the snow's, it might as well be said, that the motion and shape of a watch were not the motion and shape of the watch, but of the hand of him that made it. And as it is with snow, so it is with air, for a mans figure is patterned out by the parts and motions of the air, wheresoever he moveth; the difference is onely, that air being a fluid body doth not retain the print so long, as snow or a harder body doth, but when the body removes, the print is presently dissolved. But I wonder much, your _Author_ denies, that there can be two bodies in one place, and yet makes two places for one body, when all is but the motions of one body: Wherefore a man sailing in a Ship, cannot be said to keep place, and to change his place; for it is not place he changes, but onely the adjoyning parts, as leaving some, and joyning to others; and it is very improper, to attribute that to place which belongs to parts, and to make a change of place out of change of parts. I conclude, repeating once again, that figure and place are still remaining the same with body; For example; let a stone be beat to dust, and this dust be severally dispersed, nay, changed into numerous figures; I say, as long as the substance of the stone remains in the power of those dispersed and changed parts, and their corporeal motions, the place of it continues also; and as the corporeal motions change and vary, so doth place, magnitude and figure, together with their parts or bodies, for they are but one thing. And so I conclude, and rest,

Madam,

_Your Faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

XXXIII.

_MADAM,_

I am absolutely of your _Authors_ opinion, when he sayes,[1] _That all bodies of this Universe are of one and the same matter, really divided into many parts, and that these parts are diversly moved_: But that these motions should be circular more then of any other sort, I cannot believe, although he thinks that this is the most probable way, to find out the causes of natural effects: for nature is not bound to one sort of motions more then to another, and it is but in vain to indeavour to know how, and by what motions God did make the World, since Creation is an action of God, and Gods actions are incomprehensible; Wherefore his æthereal Whirlpools, and little particles of matter, which he reduceth to three sorts and calls them the three elements of the Universe, their circular motions, several figures, shavings, and many the like, which you may better read, then I rehearse to you, are to my thinking, rather Fancies, then rational or probable conceptions; for how can we imagine that the Universe was set a moving as a Top by a Whip, or a Wheele by the hand of a Spinster, and that the vacuities were fill'd up with shavings? for these violent motions would rather have disturbed and disordered Nature; and though Nature uses variety in her motions or actions, yet these are not extravagant, nor by force or violence, but orderly, temperate, free, and easie, which causes me to believe, the Earth turns about rather then the Sun; and though corporeal motions for variety make Whirl-winds, yet Whirl-winds are not constant, Neither can I believe that the swiftness of motion could make the matter more subtil and pure then it was by nature, for it is the purity and subtilty of the matter, that causes motion, and makes it swifter or slower, and not motion the subtilty and purity of matter; motion being onely the action of matter; and the self-moving part of matter is the working part of nature, which is wise, and knows how to move and form every creature without instruction; and this self-motion is as much her own as the other parts of her body, matter and figure, and is one and the same with her self, as a corporeal, living, knowing, and inseparable being, and a part of her self. As for the several parts of matter, I do believe, that they are not all of one and the same bigness, nor of one and the same figure, neither do I hold their figures to be unalterable; for if all parts in nature be corporeal, they are dividable, composable, and intermixable, and then they cannot be always of one and the same sort of figure; besides nature would not have so much work if there were no change of figures: and since her onely action is change of motion, change of motion must needs make change of figures: and thus natural parts of matter may change from lines to points, and from points to lines, from squares to circles, and so forth, infinite ways, according to the change of motions; but though they change their figures, yet they cannot change their matter; for matter as it has been, so it remaines constantly in each degree, as the Rational, Sensitive and Inanimate, none becomes purer, none grosser then ever it was, notwithstanding the infinite changes of motions, which their figures undergo; for Motion changes onely the figure, not the matter it self, which continues still the same in its nature, and cannot be altered without a confusion or destruction of Nature. And this is the constant opinion of,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend_

_and humble Servant._

[1] _Philos. part._ 3. _a._ 40.

XXXIV.

_MADAM,_

That _Rarefaction_ is onely a _change of figure_, according to your _Authors_ opinion,[1] is in my reason very probable; but when he sayes, that _in rarified bodies are little intervals or pores filled up with some other subtil matter_, if he means that all rarified bodies are porous, I dissent from him; for it is not necessary that all rarified bodies should be porous, and all hard bodies without pores: but if there were a probability of pores, I am of opinion, it would be more in dense and hard, than in rare and soft bodies; as for example, rarifying and dilating motions are plaining, smoothing, spreading and making all parts even, which could not well be, if there were holes or pores; Earth is dense and hard, and yet is porous, and flame is rare and dilating, and yet is not porous; and certainly Water is not so porous as Earth. Wherefore pores, in my opinion, are according to the nature or form of the figure, and not according to the rarity or thinness, and density or thickness of the substance. As for his thin and subtil matter filling up the pores of porous bodies, I assent to your _Author_ so far, that I meane, thin and thick, or rare and dense substances are joyned and mixed together. As for plaining, smoothing and spreading, I do not mean so much artificial plaining and spreading; as for example, when a piece of gold is beaten into a thin plate, and a board is made plain and smooth by a Joyners tool, or a napkin folded up is spread plain and even, although, when you observe these arts, you may judge somewhat of the nature of natural dilations; for a folded cloth is fuller of creases then when plain, and the beating of a thin plate is like to the motion of dilation, which is to spread out, and the forme of rarifying is thinning and extending. I add onely this, that I am not of your _Authors_ opinion, that Rest is the Cause or Glue which keeps the parts of dense or hard bodies together, but it is retentive motions. And so I conclude, resting,

Madam,

_Your Faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

[1] _Philos. part._ 2. _a._ 6, 7.

XXXV.

_MADAM,_

_That the Mind_, according to your _Authors_ opinion, _is a substance really distinct from the body, and may be actually separated from it and subsist without it_: If he mean the natural mind and soul of Man, not the supernatural or divine, I am far from his opinion; for though the mind moveth onely in its own parts, and not upon, or with the parts of inanimate matter, yet it cannot be separated from these parts of matter, and subsist by its self as being a part of one and the same matter the inanimate is of, (for there is but one onely matter, and one kind of matter, although of several degrees,) onely it is the self-moving part; but yet this cannot impower it, to quit the same natural body, whose part it is. Neither can I apprehend, that the Mind's or Soul's seat should be in the _Glandula_ or kernel of the Brain, and there sit like a Spider in a Cobweb, to whom the least motion of the Cobweb gives intelligence of a Flye, which he is ready to assault, and that the Brain should get intelligence by the animal spirits as his servants, which run to and fro like Ants to inform it; or that the Mind should, according to others opinions, be a light, and imbroidered all with Ideas, like a Heraulds Coat; and that the sensitive organs should have no knowledg in themselves, but serve onely like peeping-holes for the mind, or barn-dores to receive bundles of pressures, like sheaves of Corn; For there being a thorow mixture of animate, rational and sensitive, and inanimate matter, we cannot assign a certain seat or place to the rational, another to the sensitive, and another to the inanimate, but they are diffused and intermixt throughout all the body; And this is the reason, that sense and knowledg cannot be bound onely to the head or brain; But although they are mixt together, nevertheless they do not lose their interior nature, by this mixture, nor their purity and subtilty, nor their proper motions or actions, but each moves according to its nature and substance, without confusion; The actions of the rational part in Man, which is the Mind or Soul, are called Thoughts, or thoughtful perceptions, which are numerous, and so are the sensitive perceptions; for though Man, or any other animal hath but five exterior sensitive organs, yet there be numerous perceptions made in these sensitive organs, and in all the body; nay, every several Pore of the flesh is a sensitive organ, as well as the Eye, or the Ear. But both sorts, as well the rational as the sensitive, are different from each other, although both do resemble another, as being both parts of animate matter, as I have mentioned before: Wherefore I'le add no more, onely let you know, that I constantly remain,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend,_

_and Servant._

XXXVI.

_MADAM,_