permanent or real。 Meanwhile； as mind itself is not an abstractly simple entity； but a system of
processes； wherein it distinguishes itself into moments； but in the very act of distinguishing remains
free and detached； and as mind articulates its body as a whole into a variety of functions； and
designates one particular part of the body for only one function： — so too one can represent to
oneself the fluent state of its internal existence ＇its existence within itself＇ as something that is
articulated into parts。 Moreover； it seems bound to be thought of in this way； because the
self…reflected being of mind in the brain itself is again merely a middle term between its pure
essential nature and its bodily articulation； an intermediate link； which consequently must partake
of the nature of both； and thus in respect of the latter must also again have in it actual articulation。
The psycho…organic being has at the same time the necessary aspect of a stable subsistent
existence。 The former must retire； qua extreme of self…existence； and have this latter as the other
extreme over against it； an extreme which is then the object on which the former acts as a cause。 If
now brain and spinal cord are that bodily self…existence of mind； the skull and vertebral column
form the other extreme separated off； viz。 the solid fixed stable thing。
When； however； any one thinks of the proper place where mind exists； it is not the back that
occurs to him； but merely the head。 Since this is so； we can； in examining a form of knowledge like
what we are at present dealing with； content ourselves with this reason — not a very bad one in the
present case — in order to confine the existence of mind to the skull。 Should it strike any one to
take the vertebral column for the seat of mind； in so far as by it too knowledge and action
doubtless are sometimes partly induced and partly educed； this would prove nothing in defence of
the view that the spinal cord must be taken as well for the indwelling seat of mind； and the
vertebral column for the existential counterpart； because this proves too much。 For we may bear in
mind that there are also other approved external ways for getting at the activity of mind in order to
stimulate or inhibit its activity。
The vertebral column； then； if we like； drops rightly out of account； and it is as well made out as
many another doctrine of the philosophy of nature that the skull alone does not indeed contain the
〃organs〃 of mind （but its existent embodiment）。 For this was previously excluded from the
conception of this relation； and on that account the skull was taken for the aspect of existence； or；
if we may not be allowed to recall the conception involved； then experience unquestionably
teaches that； as we see with the eye qua organ； so it is not with the skull that we commit murder；
steal； write poetry； etc。
We must on that account refrain from using the expression 〃organ〃 also when speaking of that
significance of the skull which we have still to mention。 For although it is a common thing to hear
people say； that to reasonable men it is not words but facts that really matter； yet that does not
give us permission to describe a thing in terms not appropriate to it。 For this is at once stupidity
and deceit； pretending merely not to have the right 〃word〃； and biding from itself that in reality it
has not got hold of the fact itself； the notion。 If the latter were there； it would soon find the right
word。
What has been here determined is； in the first instance； merely that just as the brain is the caput
vivum； the skull is the caput mortuum。
It is in this ens mortuum； then； that the mental processes and specific functions of the brain would
have to find their external reality manifested； a reality which is none the less in the individual
himself。 For the relation of those processes and functions to what； being an ens mortuum； does
not contain mind indwelling within it； there is offered； in the first instance； the external and
mechanical relation defined above； so that the organs proper — and these are in the brain — here
press the skull out round； there make it broad； or force it flat； or in whatever way we care to state
the effect thus exerted。 Being itself a part of the organism； it must be supposed to have in it too； as
is the case in every bone； an active； living； formative influence； so that； from this point of view； it
really； from its side； presses the brain； and fixes its external boundary — which it is the better able
to do being the harder。 In that case； however； the relation of the activity of the one to the other
would always maintain the same character； for whether the skull is the determining factor or the
factor determined； this would effect no alteration in the general causal connexion； only that the
skull would then be made the immediate organ of self…consciousness； because in it qua cause the
aspect of existence…for…self would find expression。 But； since self…existence in the sense of organic
living activity belongs to both in the same manner； the causal connexion between them in point of
fact drops altogether。
This development of the two； however； would be inwardly connected； and would be an organic
preestablished harmony； which leaves the two interrelated aspects free as regards one another；
each with its own proper form and shape； without this shape needing to correspond to that of the
other； and still more so as regards the relation of the shape and the quality — just as the form of
the grape and the taste of wine are mutually independent of one another。
Since； however； the character of self…existence appertains to the aspect of brain； while that of
existence to the feature of skull； there is also a causal connexion to be set up between them inside
the organic unity — a necessary relation between them as external for one another； i。e。 a relation
itself external； whereby their form and shape are determined the one through the other。
As regards the condition； however； in which the organ of self…consciousness would operate
causally on the opposite aspect； all sorts of statements can be made。 For the question concerns
the constitution of a cause which is considered in regard to its indifferent existence； its shape and
quantity； a cause whose inner nature and self…existence are to be precisely what leave quite
unaffected the immediately existing aspect。 The organic self…formation of the skull is； to begin with；
indifferent to the mechanical influence exerted； and the relationship in which these two processes
stand； since the former consists in relating itself to itself； is just this very indeterminateness and
boundlessness。 Furthermore； even though the brain accepted the distinctions of mind； and took
them into itself as existential distinctions； and were a plurality of inner organs occupying each a
different space； it would be left undecided whether a mental element would； according as it was
originally stronger or weaker； either be bound to possess in the first case a more expanded
brain…organ； or in the latter case a more contracted brain…organ； or just the other way about。 But it
is contradictory to nature for the brain to be such a plurality of internal organs； for nature gives the
moments of the notion an existence of their own； and hence puts the fluent simplicity of organic life
clear on one side； and its articulation and division with its distinctions on the other； so that； in the
way they have to be taken here； they assume the form of particular anatomical facts。
The same holds good in regard to the question whether the improvement of the brain would
enlarge or diminish the organ； whether it would make it coarser and thicker or finer。 By the fact
that it remains undetermined how the cause is constituted； it is left in the same way undecided bow
the effect exerted on the skull comes about； whether it is a widening or a narrowing and shrinking
of it。 Suppose this effect is named in perhaps more distinguished phrase a 〃solicitation〃； we cannot
say whether this takes place by swelling like the action of a cantharides…plaster； or by shrivelling
like the action of vinegar。
In defence of all views of that kind plausible reasons can be adduced； for the organic relation；
which quite as much exerts its influence； finds one fit as well as another； and is indifferent to all this
wit of mere understanding。
It is； however； not the interest of observation to seek to determine this relation。 For it is in any
case not the brain in the sense of a physical part which takes its stand on one side； but brain in the
sense of the existential form of self…conscious individuality。 This individuality； qua abiding character
and self…moving conscious activity； exists for itself and within itself。 Opposed to this existence
within itself and on its own account stand its reality and its existence for another。 Its own peculiar
existence is the essential nature； and is subject； having a being in the brain； this being is subsumed
under it； and gets its value merely through its indwelling significance。 The other aspect of
self…conscious individuality； however； that of its existence； is being qua independent and subject；
or qua a thing； viz。 a bone： the real existence of man is his skull…bone。 This is the relationship and
the sense which the two aspects of this relation have when the mind adopts the attitude of
observation。
Observation has now to deal with the more determinate relation of these aspects。 The skull…bone
doubtless in general has the significance of being the immediate reality of mind。 But the
many…sidedness of mind gives its existence a corresponding variety of meanings。 What we have to
find out is the specific meaning of the particular regions into which this existence is divided； and we
have to see how the reference to mind is denoted in them。
The skull…bone is not an organ of activity； nor even a process of utterance。 We neither commit
theft； murder； etc。； with the skull…bone； nor does it in the least distort its face to suit the deed in
such cases； so that the skull should express the meaning in the language of gesture。 Nor does this
existential form possess the value even of a symbol。 Look