tactile, the circulation of the blood and all its mechanism would not
correspond with the transsubstantiation of our Will, as the
circulation of the nerve fluid corresponds to that of the Mind?
Finally, whether the more or less rapid affluence of these two real
substances may not be the result of a certain perfection or
imperfection of organs whose conditions require investigation in every
manifestation?

Having set forth these principles, he proposed to class the phenomena
of human life in two series of distinct results, demanding, with the
ardent insistency of conviction, a special analysis for each. In fact,
having observed in almost every type of created thing two separate
motions, he assumed, nay, he asserted, their existence in our human
nature, and designated this vital antithesis Action and Reaction.

"A desire," he said, "is a fact completely accomplished in our will
before it is accomplished externally."

Hence the sum-total of our Volitions and our Ideas constitutes Action,
and the sum-total of our external acts he called Reaction.

When I subsequently read the observations made by Bichat on the
duality of our external senses, I was really bewildered by my
recollections, recognizing the startling coincidences between the
views of that celebrated physiologist and those of Louis Lambert. They
both died young, and they had with equal steps arrived at the same
strange truths. Nature has in every case been pleased to give a
twofold purpose to the various apparatus that constitute her
creatures; and the twofold action of the human organism, which is now
ascertained beyond dispute, proves by a mass of evidence in daily life