Page:The reflections of Lichtenberg.djvu/67

 irresistible force; as will also probably be the case with a great many others who do not care to acknowledge the fact. No argument has yet convinced me to the contrary. And in any case, this opinion of mine is the natural one, whereas others are artificial and involve conclusions as contradictory to all experience as anything well can be. A thinking being recognizing the future more easily than the past would be quite possible. As it is, there is a good deal in the case of insects to lead us to the conclusion that they are more exercised by the future than the past. Had animals as good a recollection of the past as they have presentiment of the future, not a few insects would be superior to ourselves. It appears, however, as if the capacity of anticipation stood in inverse ratio to that of remembrance. When I argue with somebody in a dream, and he refutes and lays down the law to me, I am the one giving myself the information, that is to say, doing the thinking. It is apprehended under the form of a dialogue. Can we wonder, in view of this, that primitive people should have made use of the inversion, or attributed, like Eve, their own thoughts to the serpent, and express them as being what “the serpent said unto the woman.” In the same category are expressions such as “the Lord spake to me, and said”, “my spirit said to me", and so on. As we do not exactly know where it is that we think, we can put the thoughts where we please. And