there is only one description of physical force in nature.

_Germsell_. No more there is. Why, Mr Spencer says that the law of
metamorphosis which holds among the physical forces, holds equally
between them and the mental forces; but mark you, what is the grand
conclusion at which he arrives? I happen to remember the passage: "How
this metamorphosis takes place; how a force existing, as motion, heat, or
light, can become a mode of consciousness; how it is possible for aerial
vibrations to generate the sensation we call sound; or for the forces
liberated by chemical changes in the brain to give rise to emotion,--these
are mysteries which it is impossible to fathom."

_Lord Fondleton_ [_aside to_ Mrs Gloring]. What a jolly easy way of
getting out of a difficulty!

_Drygull_. Of course, if you admit such gross ignorance as to how it is
possible for aerial vibrations "to generate the sensation we call sound,"
I don't wonder at your not hearing the tom-tom in the Himalayas we were
listening to just now. If you knew a little more about the astral law
under which aerial vibrations may be generated, you would not call things
impossible which you admit to be unfathomable mysteries. If it is an
unfathomable mystery how a sound is projected a mile, why do you refuse
to admit the possibility of its being projected two, or two hundred, or
two thousand? Under the laws which govern mysteries, which you say are
unfathomable, if the mystery is unfathomable, so is the law, and you have
no right to limit its action.

_Rollestone_. To come back to the question of a possible distinction in
the essential or inherent qualities of dynamic or physical forces. There
is nothing in the hypothesis which may not be reasonably assumed and