Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 381, 15 June 1928, Page 8

Citizens Say

TRANS-TASMAN FLIGHT

Sir, — If and when Captain KingsfordSmith arrives in New Zealand, I hope that arrangements will be made ii>r him to visit the four centres. At present Christchurch, Dunedin, Wellington, and other cities are stressing their claims, as against Auckland’s, to have the honour of being first to receive the flyers. If the aviators land in Christchurch, where there is a complete airdrome, and all the necessary facilities, it is to be hoped that Auckland will leave no stone unturned in its endeavour to arrange a northern flight. There are any number of suitable landings round about the outskirts of the city, and it behoves us to be up and doing if we are to give these intrepid fellows the hand of welcome KIWI. “SHAMEFUL” Sir,— As a ratepayer who was an interested onlooker when what might be called “the Murray revelations” were made at the City Council’s meeting last night, I should like to mention the attitude of Mr. A. J. Stallworthy while the statement of Mr. Reuben Jaffe was being read. Without going into the merits or otherwise of that statement, one could see at once that it was purely ex parte, and to be treated as such. Yet Mr. Stallworthy demeaned his office to my way of thinking, by exclaiming, as it was being read: “Shameful!” “I should think so!” etc., and was never once called to order. And, by the way, was • crowded council chamber the place in which, according to the ethics of the game—even local bodies should observe some sort of ethics—such a weapon as Mr. Reuben Jaffe’s sensational statement should have been brought into play? LOOKER-ON. LOOKING AFTER EX-SOLDIERS Sir, — I was delighted to read the appeal of your correspondent. “Father of a Son That Lies in France.” He asks if an heroic attitude cannot be adopted : by those who have money to bequeath, and if the returned s6ldiers and their needs cannot be considered at such times. I agree with him entirely. And why wait until death to make the gifts? Some of our wealthy citizens, after

(To the Editor.)

making due provision for themselves in this lifetime, and for their families, should make over a reasonable sum to be devoted to the benefit of the returned men, who, as Sir Andrew Russell has pointed out, are in many cases still in need of assistance MOTHER. A N.Z. REPRESENTATIVE? Sir, It is rather a pity that it has been decided not to find room for a New Zealander in the Southern Cross when it makes its flight to the 33ominion. It is far from my intention to criticise the brave Australian flyers, who deserve all the credit they have grained, and more. But it would have been such a salve to New Zealand if one of our citizens had been atle to accompany the Australians across the Tasman. New Zealanders have attempted the flight, and the brave fellows unfortunately were killed. It would therefore be a graceful act if New Zealand were permitted to be represented on the flight. It would not detract from the credit which must naturally so to the Australians. FIGARO. THE SOUL CONTROVERSY Sir, — As stated in my previous letter, I offer, with your permission, my evidence for the “Arthur Keith side” of the controversy on the soul. With any subject of investigation science seeks to answer three questions: — (1) “What is it?” With the soul, no one has yet described it scientifically. Attempts have been made, but each one means whatever the describer likes to make it—mind, consciousness, life, the self, ego, spirit, and what not. In the scientific interpretation of I phenomena it is useless and explains j nothing. Mr. Dougall says: “The notion of the soul is a speculative hypotheses,” and says substantially the same of mind and consciousness. The ego or self, likewise cannot be defined. They vary and are never constant. Psychoanalysis shows that individuals often possess more than one distinct “self” —multiple personalities. Water | equals “H 20,” a synthesis producing phenomena called “wetness,” “liquidity,” etc. A human being equals “X,” a synthesis producing phenomena called “mind,” “consciousness,” “soul,” “personality.” etc. Why should we in the latter, any more than in the former i objectify abstract terms of descrip-