If one were to take a half-dozen or so of men, picked haphazard, irrespective of colour, and to ask them the question, "What is man's future?", one would receive a remarkable variety of opinions. The Buddhist would say that the highest state to which he could attain is "Devachan"; the Moslem would speak of a "Paradise" designed apparently for men only, and composed mainly of sherbet and houris; while the devout Jew would probably mention Abraham's bosom. At least, I presume these would be the replies, but I may be wrong; creeds are becoming so accommodating nowadays. The Christian would answer according to his main sect. Were he a Romanist, he would describe a probationary state of Purgatory preparatory to entering Heaven or a less pleasant place. The latter region has, I am told, been modified of late from a condition of unimaginable infinity of torture to one where the sinner is debarred for ever from seeing God ­ an ideal spot for an unbeliever, so justifying of his unbelief. This is another instance of the accommodation of creeds to suit changing thought. The replies of the various "denominations" of Protestants would offer a maze of conflicting and often primitive ideas neither edifying nor convincing. The true Rationalist would say frankly that man was concerned less with the future of the individual than with that of the species, that this depended upon the development of his reasoning. But I am inclined to think that he might be a little hazy as to how the best for the species was to be obtained. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that reasoned conviction cannot command that behaviour which is the counterpart of such conviction.

I have written in the Guide more than once of the works of Mr. Matthias Alexander, and it is my sincere conviction that if Rationalists would study carefully and with thoroughly open minds his Man's Supreme Inheritance and Constructive Conscious Control, and endeavour to acquaint themselves with the philosophy and practice of his work, they would, find themselves in possession of a golden key to the reconciliation of reasoned conviction and its behaviour counterpart, and to the real possible future of mankind. That I am not alone in this opinion is shown by Professor John Dewey's Introduction to Conscious Control, in which he says:

"As a consequence of sincerity and thoroughness, maintained in spite of great odds, without diversion to side issues of fame and external success, Mr. Alexander has demonstrated a new scientific principle with respect to the control of human behaviour, as important as any principle which has ever been discovered in the domain of external nature. Not only this, but his discovery is necessary, to complete the discoveries that have been made about non-human nature, if these discoveries and inventions are not to end by making us their servants and helpless tools."

That is to say, Mr. Alexander's theory is emphatically a logical necessity.

Readers will at once ask, What is Mr. Alexander's theory? His conception of the human organism is based neither upon man's mental, nor his physical parts alone, as separate entities, but upon that of an indivisible unity ­ that it is psycho-physical. In his Conscious Control he states: "I use the term 'psycho-physical activity' to indicate all human manifestations, and 'psycho-physical mechanism' to indicate the instrument which makes these manifestations possible" ­ that is to say, which makes possible the behaviour counterpart. It is in accordance with this conception that he has worked out a technique which he has applied in practice for thirty years to promote the psycho-physical growth and development of the human organism and constructive conscious control of the activities involved. Further, this technique provides for our psycho-physical attitude towards the familiar and simple things of life, for it is a practical process of reasoning from the known to the unknown, first in regard to the use of the psycho-physical self, and then in connection with the use of the self in meeting the demands of every-day life in the ever-changing environment of civilization. This relation to environment demands a technique in which direction and guidance shall be built up consciously and constructively, employing the real central control in the use of the self in human activity. It must be emphasized that the central control thus employed is that advocated by Magnus, and referred to recently by Sherrington at the Royal Society. That this simple control should have been discovered and used by Mr. Alexander thirty years ago is especially interesting, because it cleared the way for him to the recognition of the "simple elements" demanded in a recent admirable article in the Times Literary Supplement as indispensable in any future universal science, and fostered the correct psycho-physical attitude towards the familiar and the unfamiliar. Every Rationalist will know that it is the want of this correct psycho-physical attitude towards the things of daily life which makes for the perpetuation of the very problems he is ever endeavouring to solve. Mr. Alexander's books abound with the interpretation of psycho-physical experiences as the unrecognized springs of human conduct; so that, as Dewey pointed out in the passage already quoted, he has demonstrated a new scientific principle. In accordance with this principle there is an actual technique for developing the reliability of sensory consciousness and sensory observation, conditions essential to men of science and to Rationalists, and for the psycho-physical interpretation of form and content ­ two conceptions the separation of which by modern physics is deplored by the Times writer.

One of the great failings in the conduct of human affairs is that the vast majority of us think only of the "end in view" when we wish to achieve anything. By so doing we give ourselves and others endless unnecessary trouble; it is a form of that loose thinking which is the great curse of the time. It results in the misuse of our bodies, so that most of us hold ourselves persistently in a position of mechanical disadvantage which leads to a multitude of bodily ills; and it leads us also to form faulty opinions in our anxiety to reach at any cost the desired end. In Mr. Alexander's technique the "means whereby" is everything ­ "means whereby" which create their "ends." The use of prevention follows the contention that if something is wrong the "cause" must be prevented as a primary principle before any attempt is made to do what is right in the right way, the latter being the familiar, primary consideration. In attempts to eradicate shortcomings, the procedure is always on a general and not a specific basis. In other words, the improved working of the whole organism as a unity (general) is the "means whereby" specific shortcomings are dealt with ­ they are eradicated in the process. The same process, applied to bad habits of the body of the individual, is the right means for dealing with bad habits of the body politic.

It was pointed out in the leading article in the Times Literary Supplement above referred to that "a universal science cannot tolerate a complete separation of matter and mind." This is precisely the foundation-stone of Mr. Alexander's teaching. The misuse of the body, in standing, walking, sitting, breathing, articulation, or in any other daily action, cannot be treated successfully upon any other method than a psycho-physical one. Mr. Alexander in the works referred to makes this plain, and he points out decisively that this applies, not to the individual man alone, with his stammer, his faulty drive at golf, or his asthma, but to a whole nation as well in its attitude towards any question which calls urgently for solution. To my mind, Mr. Alexander points definitely and uncompromisingly the way to man's right future, if man will but follow his directing finger. Rationalists will find no flaws in his arguments; they are as logical sequence as they are clear in exposition. But they require close attention for the grasping of their true significance; indeed, I doubt whether their true significance becomes completely apparent until one sees their originator at work.

In conclusion, I would like to make one more. quotation from Professor Dewey. "It is, however, one thing," he says,

to teach the need of a return to the individual man as the ultimate agency in whatever mankind and society collectively can accomplish, to point out the necessity of straightening out this ultimate condition of whatever humanity in mass can attain. It is another thing to discover the concrete procedure by which this greatest of all tasks can be executed. And this indispensable thing is exactly what Mr. Alexander has accomplished."

The part played by consciousness in Mr. Alexander's argument reminds one of a remark made by Huxley in his Essay on "Science and Morals." Stating his "hearty disbelief" in Büchner's Kraft und Stoff as the Alpha and Omega of existence, he says:

In the first place, as I have already hinted, it seems to me pretty plain that there is a third thing in the universe ­ to wit, consciousness ­ which, in the hardness of my heart or head, I cannot see to be matter, force, or any conceivable modification of either, however intimately the manifestations of the phenomena of consciousness may be connected with the phenomena known as matter and force.