________________
[ 42
]
in quantity until they are big enough to be noticed, thus emerging. It believes that they appeared for the first time at a definite period in the history of matter, and that they are inevitable consequence or concomitant of certain material patterns. Materialistic monists, here, make the confusion worse confounded. If the two substances are distinct, one cap not be the projection of another. This confusion has arisen out of the absence of clear understanding of the properties of form and spirit, life and mind and spirit and matter.
The causes of these confused conclusions are twofold. In their overzealousness for the so-called scientific materialism, its fathers over-valued the results of science. They fell prey to the logical fallacy of over-valuation (Ativyāpti). They made a "leap' and an unscientific leap. Science has not yet been able to demonstrate that the organic can grow out of the inorganic, the living from the non-living and animate from the inanimate. But the materialistic monists presumed, though unfounded and unwarranted and at the face of the challenge of science, that there is a transition from the non-living to the living. A living organism is something that arose out of inorganic matter.2 Secondly, they believe in the emergance of the new substancc. Science has not yet proved the Theory of Emergent Evolution. The theory of emergence may at the best be regarded as a mere possibility. 3
The materialistic monists have a very dim conception of the substance called Consciousness. They pervesely uuderstand it only as a category. They believe that consciousness is a process, that it develops, that it does not amount to a mechanical union of diverse thoughts and feelings. Consciousness is no lifeless miror. They consider those materialists wrong who deny the active role of consciousness and assert that it merely reflects processes that are going on in nature. Consciousness is creative, free. 4 Though experience of
1. M. Shirokov; op. cit ; Pages 11-13 2, M. Shirokov; op. cit ; Pages 318, 322. 3. J.W.N. Sullivan ; Limitations of Science; 1953; Pages 4. M. Shirokov; op, cit ; Pages 36, 48
104-105.