Metageometrical Near-Truths

Realism is Psychological and Vital—The Impermanence of Facts—On the Tendency of the Intellect to Fragmentate—The Intellect and Logic—The Passage of Space, the Kosmometer and Zoometer, Instruments for the Measurement of the Passage of Space and the Flow of Life—The Disposal of Life and the Power to Create—Space a Dynamic, Creative Process—Numbers and Kosmogony—The Kosmic Significance of the Circle and the Pi-Proportion—Mechanical Tendence of the Intellect and its Inaptitude for the Understanding of Life—The Criterion of Truth.

Kosmic truth has many facets. The rays of light which we see darting from its surface do not always come from the core. Often they are reflections of rays whose light stops short at the superfice; and these, in turn, are reflections of deeper realities. Thus the reflected light may be traced to its source by following the lead of external reflections. It is now known that moonlight, and perhaps, in many cases, starlight, are reflections of sunlight, if not of our sun, some other in the universe. But it is only at certain times and under certain conditions that we can see the sun which is the source of the other kinds of light. The stars which owe their light to suns are so many facets of sunlight. The moon is a facet of sunlight also. Facts are facets of truth. They are so many faces of eternal truth. They represent the many ways reality exhibits itself, or rather its effects, to the consciousness. When we, therefore, become aware of facts we have not in virtue thereof become aware of the reality which produces the facts. We have come to know only something of the termini of realism while the complexities and internal ramifications which lie between realism itself and these termini altogether elude our cognition.

Let us examine briefly an icosahedron, for instance. An icosahedron is a figure comprehended under twenty equal sides. These various sides are so many faces by means of which the figure presents itself to the consciousness. These faces, however, are not the real object. The figure may be examined by viewing it from any one of its sides; yet, by simply examining a single face, or any number of faces, less the total number, we arrive at no satisfactory knowledge of the magnitude or its substance. We must first become conscious of all the faces, holding them in mind as a composite picture, before we can even begin to have anything like a complete notion of the icosahedron. Then by continuing the examination we may find that the magnitude is composed of wood fiber or stone or metal, as the case may be. In this way we might carry the examination to indefinite limits and finally arrive at a very comprehensive knowledge of the icosahedron and yet be unaware altogether of the forces which have been at work in the production of the magnitude or of the reality which lies back of it.

Realism is psychological and vital. In essence it is mind, spirit, life. Yet these three are one. Mind is the outward vehicle of life; spirit is the form or the interior vehicle which life assumes in order to express itself. Realism, then, is life. Is the logician dealing with reality when he collects and coÖrdinates the various modes of interpretation by which we learn to understand the symbolism of life? Obviously not. The data of logic are simply a collection of rules for interpreting concepts. It is a compendium of indices for the Book of Life. It is no more the book itself than a table of contents is a book. But logic occupies about the same category as does an index to a volume. A book, however, is more than its conventional contents. It is the thought that is symbolized therein. The book of life, accordingly, is the sum total of life's expressions; but it is not life itself. That is the subtle, evasive something which the contents of the book of life symbolize. Nature, both in her palpable and impalpable aspects, may be said to be the book of life wherein are recorded the movements, the expressions, and the diacritics of life. The whole is a magnitude of many facets (little faces). We shall have to know all the faces before we can say that we have a comprehensive knowledge of nature. For so long as we have only a fragmentary knowledge of the whole, so long even as we have merely a superficial knowledge of any aspect of nature, just so long will our knowledge be in vain. Just as it frequently happens that, on account of the partial view of things, we are led to make incorrect judgments concerning them, so when we come to make assertions about life or nature in general, we are apt to fall into the error of rendering judgments upon insufficient data. And it is not at all likely that judgments thus arrived at can possess true validity because it may happen, and undoubtedly does always so happen under the present limitations of human knowledge, that the very elements which are ignored or neglected in forming a judgment possess enough of virtue to alter the intrinsic value of determinations based upon otherwise insufficient data. Hence it develops not infrequently that our judgments repeatedly have to be changed in proportion as our data are made more and more comprehensive. Men searching eagerly for the truth sometimes allow themselves to be carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment which arises upon the discovery of a new facet of truth; but if all searchers were to bear in mind the fact that reality presents itself to consciousness in myriad ways and that there are innumerable facets all leading eventually back to the source of all they not so easily would be induced to jump to the conclusion that they had covered the entire ground. For when we have discovered a million facts, or many millions of them, about nature we may say that we have only merely begun and that what we have found is not to be compared with the totality even of the directly observable phases of nature.

Logic, therefore, deals with the symbolism existing between and among facets of truth, and not directly with truth itself, although the conclusions reached by the logicians may be true enough from an intrinsic standpoint. Logic is not truth, however; it is merely the consistence of relations and inter-relations between facts and among groups of facts. Truth is not established by logic; it stands in no need of the light of logic for its revelation; indeed, more apt than not is logic to obscure truth. Truth is its own proof; it is self-evident. Logic is a mere modeler of facts; it is static, immobile, fixed. All truly logical processes need a starting point, a foundation, a premise, a base. Truth, being eternal, mobile, dynamic, vital, needs no starting point; needs no foundation because it is itself fundamental; it requires no premise because no premise is comprehensive enough to encompass it. There is only one way of arriving at truth and that is not to arrive at all—just to recognize it without procedure. The fact that facts are, and the fact of their relations and inter-relations, their sequence and implications, can be arrived at only by logical processes. Life, in its passage through the universum of spatiality, carefully diacriticizes between the realm of facts and the domain of truth, marking each off from the other by unmistakable signs and barriers. Truth is perceived as an axiomatic, self-evident principle and no amount of logic could prove or establish its verity. Facts are intellectual creatures; truth is intuitional, vital. The intellect conceives the consistence of facts while the intuition recognizes truth—is truth, and therefore, follows in the wake of life as consciousness.

There is no permanence in facts and the intellectual recognition of their consistence. The discovery of a single new fact may destroy the consistence of a whole mass of previously correlated facts. Thus is revealed the miracle power of logic over facts. It can take a mass of facts, related or unrelated, mold them into hypotheses, endow them with a sort of interior consistency, and make these hypotheses take the posture of truth. Hence logic is often an effective mask which the intellect commonly imposes upon its material; but it does so instinctively and can no more escape the rigorous compulsion of this instinctive functioning than water can escape its liquidity. Wherefore, we conclude that true permanence abides alone in truth because truth is duration itself. For the foundations of the whole structure of facts in religion, science, art and philosophy which man has toilfully built up in the last million years might easily be destroyed or overturned by the discovery of some great fact or by appreciating the true value of truth. Let us suppose it should suddenly be realized by men that they are really and truly gods capable of creating and possessing all the other virtues, powers and capabilities which we are accustomed to impute to supreme divinity; and suppose that the fact of their omnipotence and divine omniscience always had been obvious but that men were so engaged upon details and the non-essentials of life and matter that they had not noticed nor realized it before, would not this realization make a vast difference in the character of our knowledge and the attitude which we would necessarily assume thereafter towards matter, life and the problems which they present? Would not it completely revolutionize our arts, our sciences and our philosophies? How much, then, of the facts of these would be left when the light of omniscience had been turned on—when truth itself could be perceived and interiorly realized? Not much, to be sure. We should undoubtedly have to dispense with the entirety of our fact-mass, for it should then be entirely useless and meaningless in the light of the resplendent omniscience of truth. As at present constituted consciousness is focused upon the material plane for the purposes of superficial observances. But if the focus of consciousness should be changed so as to reveal conditions upon what must be a higher and more interior level, the aspect of things would be entirely changed and the whole of our theory of knowledge would have to be reconstituted. It is conceivable, yea obvious, that the stern reality of being is far removed into the Great Interior of that which is; and there is a point in the path to the interiority of being where there is no illusion, no appearance, indeed, nothing but the cold, illuminating body of reality itself. It must appear also that along the journey interior-ward there are many apparent levels or planes, each of which requires a new focus. It is unreasonable, then, to suppose that the conclusions arrived at as a result of purely logical processes, confined to the lowest levels of reality, are pertinent and valid for the entirety of realism which is neither of mathematical nor logical import. For instance, if we take the purely axiomatic assertion: x equals x, the intellect is at once certain that this is so, and cannot be otherwise, and yet a proposition of this kind is purely conceptual, conventional and arbitrary. x may also equal 1, 2, 3, 4, or any other quantity. Then, if each x in the above equation be replaced, by say, a horse, there immediately arises a difficulty. For it is not possible to find two horses which are in all respects mutually equal. So that as soon as we pass from the conceptual into the actual, whether on the side of objective reality or that of absolute reality, the validity of the axiom is immediately exposed to serious questioning. The truth of the matter is that on both sides of the conceptual it is always found that there is a variance from the standards set up by the conceptual, this variance being more marked on the side nearest to absolute reality than on the side of objectivism. Objectively, the conformity of the sensible with the conceptual is of such approximation as to lend trustworthy utility to the conceptual in its application to the sensuous. Thus by simply eliminating the vital factors from our equations we are enabled to proceed in a reasonably safe manner with our judgments. Really, however, no such approximate congruence can be found; for on the side of reality we are dealing with an indivisible something—something that is eternally and absolutely unitary in its constitution while when we transfer the scene of our observations to the objective world we discover a contrary situation. Here we are everywhere beset by diversities, multiplicities and dissimilarities. This is so because the intellect naturally tends toward the objective where it finds a most comfortable atmosphere for its operations. The conceptual is related to the objective as a train of cars is related to the railway. That is to say, the constitution of the intellect is such that it finds its most facile expression in the objective world and is about as comfortable in the domain of realism as the same train of cars would be on the ocean.

The intellectuality is designed to deal with facets of truth; it is made to manipulate segments, parts, fractions, and cannot chart its way through a continuum such as reality. Being constitutionally a conventionality of the Thinker's own contrivance, and arising out of the subtle adaptation of his vehicles to the environment afforded by the sensuous world, it can only find congruence in that conventionality which is the instrumentality of a higher intellectuality expressed in a diversity of forms, into which reality divides itself for manifestation. The human intellect is, therefore, the bridge over which is made the passage from the individual consciousness to the All-Consciousness; simultaneously, the medium whereby the physics of the brain are converted into the psychics of unconsciousness. It may be likened to a pair of specially constructed tongs which are so formed as to fit exactly the objects which a higher intellectuality has made. It is without the province of the intellect to take note of what intervenes between physics and psychics; it is always oblivious of interstices while taking cognizance of objects or things. In this respect, the intellect is much like a steerage passenger on board an ocean liner who sees only his port of departure and port of arrival, knowing nothing in the meantime of what happens during the voyage, nothing of what the other passengers on the upper decks may experience and taking no part in any of the passing show until he lands. So that the passage of the intellect from fact to fact is an altogether uninteresting voyage; it may as well be made unconsciously, and to all intents and purposes, is so made.

Accordingly, the advocates of n-dimensionality find it quite impossible to predicate anything whatsoever of the passage, say, from tridimensionality to quartodimensionality. They find themselves at ease in tridimensionality and have even contrived to find pleasant environs in the four-space having made therein such idealized constructions as will afford ample hospitality to the intellect. But the questions as to how the passage from the three-space to the four-space is to be made and how the intellect shall demean itself during the passage have been completely ignored and, therefore, left unanswered. What, then, shall be said of an explorer who says he has found a new land and yet can give no intimation as to how one may proceed to arrive at the new land, what changes are to be made en route, nor the slightest suggestion as to the direction one should take in setting out for it? It is not likely that the report of such an explorer, in practical life, would be taken seriously; and yet, there are those who, relying utterly upon similar reports made by certain enthusiastic analysts, dare to place credence in their asseverations. Not only have they given wide credence to these reports, but have, indeed, sought to rehabilitate their own territory in accordance with the strange descriptions given by unhappy analytical explorers. Now the question of greatest concern, granting for the nonce that there is such a domain as hyperspace, is the passage. How shall we make the passage? Or, is the passage possible? In vain do we interrogate the analyst; for he does not know, nor does he confess to know. Evidently it is impossible for him to know by means of the intellect alone; for the intellect not being fitted to take cognizance of the "passage," but only the starts and stops, has no aptitude for such questions. Hence, what seems to be the most important phase of the entire question will have to remain utterly inscrutable until the intellect nourished by the intuition shall be aroused from its lethargy and brought to a certain high point of illumination where it, too, may take note of the passage.

Space is the path which life makes in its downward sweep through all the stages of pyknosis or kosmic condensation by virtue of which it accomplishes the engenderment of materiality as also the path marked out by it in its upward swing whereby it accomplishes the spiritualization of matter. It is the kosmic order which life establishes by means of its outgoings and incomings. When we look out into space we perceive that which is a dynamic appearance of life itself, and not a pure form. Nothing that is a pure form can exist in nature and in as much as space is not only indissoluble from nature but partakes of its very essence it cannot be said to be a pure form. The intellect, however, prone to follow the grooves laid out by pure logic, never fails to seek to make everything that it contacts conform to these logical necessities. But, if the analyst were to make careful discrimination as to the respective categories—that into which life falls and that in which the intellect is forced by its nature to proceed—he not so easily would be led into the fault of attempting to shape realities upon models which being strictly conventional were not meant for such uses. But neither the logician nor the mathematician can be condemned for such generosity if such condemnation were justifiable. For they everywhere and at all times insist upon realizing abstractions and abstractionizing realities, and they do this with an insouciance that is at times surprising. Yet it is in this very vagary that is discovered the true nature of the intellect. There is a sort of dual tendence observed in the method of the intellect's operation. A polarity is maintained throughout: the abstractive and the concretional. It vacillates continually between the abstract and the concrete and no sooner has it found a concrete than it begins to set up an abstract for it; and vice versa—as soon as it is has constructed an abstract it immediately seeks either its concrete or sets out to hew some other concrete into such shape as will fit it. And between these two extremes numerous excuses are found for exercising this peculiar characteristic, and that too, without regard to consequences. It would seem that the intellect, in thus functioning, was really engaged at a sort of sensuous play out of which it derived an intense and not altogether unselfish pleasure.

Of course, it must be granted that diversity has its specific and withal necessary uses in that it affords a field for the operation of human intellectuality and represents the adaptation of the kosmic intellect to the human for the purposes of evolution. This adaptation while necessary for the intellectual development is, however, not an end in itself. It is merely a means to a higher purpose. In fact, if we regard materiality as a deposit of life, carried by it as a kind of impedimentum, and consciousness, which is life, as being identical with the intellectuality which makes these adaptations, there should be no grounds for the statement that the one is adaptable to the other at all. And as this is really the view which we assume it would perhaps be more strict to regard the adaptation as subsisting between the human intellect and materiality both of which having been constructed by kosmic intellectuality. Pursuant to the diversity of uses to which materiality lends itself there arises in the intellect a supreme tendency to segment, to break up into separate parts, to multiply and diversify. It is not content unless it is at this favorite and natural pastime. It delights in taking a whole and dividing it into innumerable parts. This it will do again and again; because all its muscles, sinews and nerves are molded in that mold and can no more cease in their tendency to fragmentation than can the muscles of a dancing mouse cease in their circular twirling of the mouse's body. Yet, in this it is but creating a well-nigh endless task for itself—which task must be performed to the uttermost. But in its performance, that is, in the intellect's complete understanding of the diversity of parts, in the knowledge of their relations and inter-relations and in their synthesis, it may arrive at that one ineluctable something which is called unity. And so doing, become ultimately free.

In view of the foregoing, it is not surprising that the intellect should have, finally, fallen upon the notion of n-dimensionality. It has come to that as naturally as it has performed its most common task. Left alone and unhampered in its movements, it has simply followed the lead of the Great Highway through the domain of materiality. And now it has arrived at a stage where it thinks it has succeeded in fractionalizing space. Time has long ago yielded to fragmentation, been divided into minute parts and each part carefully measured. Space, not having a visible indicator like time to denote its passage or parts, suffered a long and tedious delay before it could boast of a measurer. As the sun-dial measured time in the past and became the forerunner of the modern clock so n-dimensionality measures space for the mathematician. What more practical instrument for this purpose may yet be devised is not ours to prophesy; yet it is not to be despaired of that some one shall find a suitable means for this purpose. Seriously, however, it is not without possibility that should some subtle mind devise an instrument for marking the passage of space as we have for denoting the passage of time a great stride forward would be accomplished in the evolution of the human intellect. For the general outcome of the intellect's attention being turned to the passage of space would undoubtedly be to recognize not only its dynamism but its becoming-ness, as a process of kosmogenesis. Because such an instrument would have to be so constructed as to take note of the movement of life, and for this reason, it would have to be extremely sensitive necessarily and keyed to the subtleties of vitality and not to materiality. Mathematics shall have failed utterly in the utilitarian aspects of this phase of its latest diversion if it do not justify its claims by crowning its work in the field of hyperspace with a "Kosmometer," an instrument devised for the measurement of the movement of space or a "Zoometer," an instrument devised for the measurement of the passage of life. We should like to encourage inventive minds to turn their attention life-ward and space-ward with the end in view of constructing such an instrument. When once we have learned accurately to measure life we shall then be able to dispose of it—to create. It is not doubted that if ever humanity is to arrive at that point in its evolution where it can understand life; if ever it is to attain unto the supreme mastery both of vitality and materiality and to come to the ultimate attainment of divine consciousness (all of which we confidently believe to be in store for humanity) it must be accomplished after this manner: first, by syncretizing materiality with vitality, and then, by intuitionally recognizing the truth of the implications of the syncretism.

The history of consciousness in the human family is identical with the history of man's conquest over matter and physical forces. And this is clearly indicated in the incidentals contingent upon the toilsome rise of the genus homo from the earliest caveman whose status denoted a comparatively negligible transcendence of material forces, to the present-day man who has gained a markedly notable conquest over these forces. Always consciousness seeks the means of adequately expressing itself in the sensible world. And to this end it engenders faculties, organs and processes in the bodily mechanism, and, in matter, devises instruments of application whereupon and wherewith it may test, analyze, combine and recombine the forces and materials it finds. The unlimited range of expressions lying open to the consciousness makes it necessary continually to devise higher and higher grades of appliances to meet its needs as it expands. It will not be gainsaid that the telescope has served actually to lay bare to the consciousness an immeasurable realm of knowledge nor that the microscope, turning its attention in an opposite direction, marvelously has enlarged and enrichened our knowledge of the world about us. And similar declaration may be made anent almost every invention, discovery and conquest which man has made over natural phenomena. Thus, by externally applying mechanical implements to the subject of his consciousness, man has extended actually his consciousness, his sphere of knowledge; has greatly enhanced its quality, and, in the process, has urged the intellect to endeavors that have wrought its present unequaled mastery of things. Nor have the spiritual aspects of our advance along these lines been the least notable. For these have enjoyed the essence of all that has been gained in the process and have, therefore, kept pace with the onward movement of the intellectual consciousness. But heretofore no advance has been made as a result of methodic or reflexive determinations. That is, men did not set out from the beginning, equipped with foreknowledge of what their efforts would bring, to develop the present quality of human consciousness. They simply worked on, their attention being absorbed by the problems that lay nearest and demanded earliest consideration. So the advance has come as a resultant of man's close application to his ever-present needs—shelter, clothing, food, protection and other preservative measures—and it has come naturally and inevitably and without prepense. Nevertheless, if man, knowing what to expect from the syncretization of matter and mind, after this fashion, should set out deliberately to accelerate the intensification, expansion and growth of his consciousness, there is no doubt but that the consequence would be most far-reaching and satisfactory.

But the path that leads to this grand consummation does not lie in the direction of diversity; it lies in the opposite direction. In vain, then, does the intellect fractionalize in the hope that by doing so it shall come to the solid substructure of life; in vain does the analyst segment space into any number of parts or orders; in vain does he ask how many and how much; for by answering none of these queries will he find the satisfaction which he vaguely seeks.

If it be true that it is not by analysis but by synthesis that the true norm of life, and therefore, of reality shall be found it is futile to entertain serious hope of finding it in any other way. As a perisophism or near-truth, then, n-dimensionality takes foremost rank. And this is so for the reason that when we proceed in the direction of multiple dimensions, that is, one dimension piled upon another dimension or inserted between two others we are traveling in a direction which, the more we multiply our dimensions, leads us farther and farther away from the truth. This is a simple truism. If we take, for instance, a wooden ball and cut it up into four quarters, and divide each one of these quarters into eighths, into sixteenths, thirty-seconds, sixty-fourths, etc., indefinitely, we shall have a multiplicity of parts, each one unlike the original ball. But from no examination of the multipartite segments can we derive anything like an adequate conception of the original ball. Something, of course, can be learned, but not enough to enable the rendering of a correct judgment as to the nature, size, shape and general appearance of the ball. But this is precisely what happens when the analyst divides space into many dimensions. He cuts it up into n-dimensional parts and the more minutely he divides it into parts the more remote will each part be in its similarity to the original shape and form of space, and the farther away from the true conception of the nature of space he is led thereby.

Now, n-dimensionality or that phase of metageometry which regards space as being divisible into any number of dimensions or systems of coÖrdinates is a direct and inevitable product of that tendency of the intellect to individuate and to singularize phenomena. Biologically speaking, it is a peculiarity which harks back to the time when life was manifested through the cell-colony and when the individual cells began, because of increasing consciousness, to detach themselves from the colony and set out for themselves, and thus each intellect recapitulates in its modus vivendi the salient tendencies of phylogenesis. Let it suffice, then, to point out that this universal tendency to segment and fragmentate which rigorously characterizes intellectual operations upon every phenomenon with which it deals is a culmination of the primordial tendency among cells to divide, inasmuch as this phase of cell life must be the work of the kosmic intellect. The natural inference is that from the extreme of individualization there shall be a gradual turning, whether of the intellect per se or of the intellect joined to the intuition does not matter, towards that other extreme of communalization. And from this latter shall grow up, as one of the inevitable and ineluctable tendencies of the Thinker's consciousness a torrentious movement in human society towards coÖperation, brotherhood, mutuality and union in everything. So that whereas in the past and at the present time the intellect has been developing under the dominant note of individuality it will then be coming gradually under another dominant note—communality. The result of this development will be the unification of all things, and instead of many dimensions of space, many measures of time, and a general diversification of all phenomena, we shall come to the only true notion of these things and realize pragmatically the true value and extent of unity in the universe.

It is admitted that the intellect, in treating objects singly and dealing only with the starts and stops of a movement, is withal loyal to the kosmic order, design and purpose which have priorly characterized manifested phenomena by segmentation. And in this loyalty it has been following merely a natural lead which, while admitting of the widest development and experience, nevertheless at the same time beneficently obscures the underlying reality in order that in its adaptation to the sensuous world the intellect might have the greatest freedom for the development suited to the given stage of its evolution. But in thus admitting the natural congruence between the intellectuality and the phenomenal or sensuous we do not thereby unite with those who already believe that this kosmic agreement is the ne plus ultra of psychogenesis. On the other hand, it is maintained that this is merely a phase of psychogenesis which shall be outgrown in just the same measure as other phases have been outgrown. And notwithstanding the fact that judgments of the intellect with respect to inter-factual relations or the ens of facts themselves are as valid as its judicial determination of self-consciousness, no more and no less, we are, by the very rigor and exclusiveness of this logical necessity and inherent limitation, led to view the intellect's interpretation of phenomena as partial and fragmentary; for the reason that the necessitous confinement of its understanding and interpretative powers to fact-relations quite effectively inhibits the use of these powers for the contemplation of the deeper causative agencies which have operated to produce the phenomena. But it is apparent that just as the transmuted results of other phases of psychogenesis are now being utilized as a basis for the efficient operation of the intellect in the sensuous world, thereby enabling the attainment of a very high mastery over matter, so will the functional dynamism acquired by it in the pursuit and comprehension of diversity serve well when, in later days, it has acquired the power to deal directly with reality, to create and dispose of life just as the kosmic intellect has and is now using it in the execution of the infinite process of becoming through which creation is proceeding. It would seem that the necessary prerequisite to the development of any higher functional capability is that the intellect should be capable of disposing of innumerable details, indeed the totality of kosmic detail, before it can come wholly into the power and capacity to understand and manipulate life. Furthermore, it appears that the acquirement of this power quite necessarily has been delayed awaiting that time when, dominated by the intuition, the intellect shall have attained the requisite managerial ability for marshaling an exceedingly large number of details.

The supreme tendency of life is expression. And this expression, singularly enough, reaches its most perfect phenomenalization by means of that movement which results in the multiplication of forms. Despite the fact, therefore, that the comprehension of reality involves a gradual turning away from the exclusive occupation of organizing a multitude of separate and apparently unrelated facts to a monistic view which at once recognizes the unitariness and co-originality of all things, of life, mind and form, the intellect will need the training and development which come from the mastery of diversity. It is, then, not difficult to perceive the wise utilitarianism of the present schematism of things as shown in the universal tendency in the intellect to devote itself exclusively to parts or segments of truth.

Whenever an individual intellectuality, on account of prolonged thought and the consequent inurement of the mind to higher and higher vibrations of the kosmic intellect, brings itself to such a high point of sensitiveness that it can receive so much as an intimation of some great truth, it begins to sense, in a more or less vague way, something of the substance and general tendence of the underlying reality of that which foreshadows its appearance. Then, confounded by the multiformal characteristics of kosmic truth because of the fact that it presents itself in such numerous ways and forms, men often are induced to attempt the reformation of all facts, or a great mass of kindred facts, in accordance with the newly-found fact or principle. They forget evidently that no fact in the universe can be at variance with any other fact and still be a fact. So that in the totality of facts every separate and distinct fact must be congruent with every other fact forming a beautiful, harmonious and symmetrical whole; but often the whole is made to suffer in the attempt at making it conform to the substance of a mere intimation. Moreover, it is conceivable that even the totality of facts may lack a rigid conformity with reality in all its parts and that having compassed the entire mass of facts one may fall short of the understanding of realism.

This is practically what has happened in the mind of the metageometrician who having received an intimation as to the real nature of space as that whose center is everywhere and yet nowhere and whose nature is psychological and vital rather than mathematical and logical, misses the great outstanding facts and clings to the intimations which he experiences as to the nature of space. He, therefore, concludes that the form of space is that of a flexure or curve. There is a valid element in the notion of the curvature of space but not enough of truth wholly to validate the notion. Since the very reality of space is a matter which can be determined only by the conformance of the consciousness with it in such a manner as to render the conception of it entirely unintelligible to the intellect except in so far as it may be able to identify itself with the space-process, there is much room for the serious questioning of the mathematic conclusion upon the grounds of its fragmentariness if not entirely upon the basis of its invalidity. Wherefore it may be seen that any search for either the center or the extreme outer limits which proceeds in a manner conformable to the external indications of the intellectual order is vain, indeed. Although it is undoubtedly true that the attainment of a central or frontier position in space does not involve any lineal progression whatsoever, the same being attainable, not by progression nor by overcoming distances, but by a subtle adjustment, yea, a sort of attachment of the consciousness to the order of becoming which binds the appearance of space, wherever one may be, it is nevertheless difficult and painful for the intellect to grasp the totality of this truth at one sweep. Indeed, it is not possible for it, alone and unaided by the intuition, to grasp it at all. Hence, the mathematician who depends entirely upon the deliveries of the intellect which conform, in their passage from the conceptual to the written or spoken word, to all the rigors of mathetic requirements, fails utterly in perceiving the magnitude of this conception and all its connotations; he fails because his prejudices and the woof and warp of his intellectual habits prevent his assuming a sympathetic attitude toward it and thereby precluding at the start any calm consideration of it. And not only is this true of the mathematician but of all those whose endeavors are confined to the plane of purely sensuous and logical data. It would, therefore, appear that our entire attitude towards things spatial must be changed before we can even begin to perceive the reality which is really the object of all researches in this domain. But, on the surface, there is after all little difference between the ultimate facts involved in these two totally different conceptions. Mathematically speaking, all progression eastward would terminate at the west, and vice versa; and the same would be true regardless of the point from which progression might originate. Always the terminus would be the opposite of the starting point. Then, too, it might be said that if we sought the space-center we should arrive at the circumference. The difficulty with this view is that there is a very remote, though important, connection between it and the truth of the matter. But the partiality of this view, and the absence of either experience or intuition to intimate a more reasonable view, serve effectively to buttress it as a hypothesis acceptable to many. Thus it is ever more difficult to supplant a near-truth than it is to gain credence for the whole truth. On the other hand, according to the view which we maintain here, it is quite true that the seeking of the kosmic space-center will reveal the circumference; that the search for the nadir will uncover the zenith; the east effloresces as the west, and a northward journey will wind up at the south, etc., but in quite a different manner from that which the mathematician has in mind when he postulates the curvature of space. Our view involves no space curvature nor any other spatial distortion. It deals with space as reality, as a dynamic process, a flux which, like the sea, is continually casting itself upon the shores of chaos and falling back upon itself only to be recast against the rock-bound coast of its chaotic limits. Now, that which falls back upon itself and rolls in a recurrent movement upon its own surface is life which, in its recession is the natural and kosmic limitations of itself, generates matter in all its varied expressions. Space, in its extensity, cannot transcend life; for it is the path which life makes in its out-coming, its manifestation. Of the chaotic fringe which circumscribes the manifested universe it is absurd to say that it is vital or psychological in any sense of these terms. For notwithstanding the fact that out of its very substance are engendered life, intellectuality, spatiality and materiality, it is nevertheless none of these in its primary essence. It is Chaos-Kosmos; because from its content the kosmos is evolved, and it still remains; it is chaos-spatiality; chaos-materiality; chaos-intellectuality; chaos-geometricity; because these are engendered by the movement of life in chaos while at the same time there remains a residuum of the chaogenetic substance which constitutes the limitations of all these subsequent processes. In this sense, the chaogenetic fringe becomes the limits of the manifested universe so that it would appear that all those major processes outlined above are finite manifestations of the eternal chaos. But none of those possibilities of motion which are found in these major movements of the kosmos can be logically said to exist in chaos. It is the embodiment of everything that is the opposite of those qualities which may be found in them, that is, in materiality, vitality, spatiality, intellectuality and geometricity.

Apropos to this phase of the discussion let us examine briefly one of its most significant implications, both mathematical and kosmic, which arises out of the fact that space is an engendered product of life that is bound by the fringe of chaos which sustains and limits it. The chaotic fringe plus manifesting kosmos constitute the absolute magnitude of the kosmos. The manifestation factor is complemented by the chaos factor and together the two define the full universe. Kosmogony is the universal movement of all kosmic elements or factors in diminishing the chaotic complement and reducing it to kosmic order or geometrism. It is undoubtedly impossible to determine mathematically the exact volume of either complement or the ratio of the one to the other; yet it is conceivable that the chaotic fringe is greater in extent than the ordered portion of the kosmic uni-circle or universe. It is even conceivable that the difference, upon the basis of the meaning of the Pythagorean Tetragrammaton and the view outlined in the Chapter on the "Mystery of Space," is as seven to three wherefrom the conclusion might be drawn that the universe has yet seven complete stages more or less of evolution before the close of the Great Cycle of Manifestation when the fringe of chaos shall have been totally used up in the work of creation. But for those who may experience impatience at the infinitude of the process when viewed in this light the terms may be reversed and the difference may be conceived as the ratio of three to seven wherefrom the conclusion would follow that the kosmogonic process is seven-tenths complete, as it will not vary the seeming infinitude either way it may be determined. The notion, despite its speculative character, offers an explanation of otherwise inexplicable conditions, and, on account of its profound connotations, may even be found to be productive of the highest good in its equilibrating influence upon our mode of thinking.

In any event, there does appear to be a subtle relation subsisting between true numbers and kosmogony. Number is a phase of the kosmogonic movement, a measurer of the intellect and the establisher of the geometrism of space, answering tentatively to the numericity of pure being. In fact, being actually expresses number and number itself is an evolution and not a thing posited once for all as a pure, invariable form in the universe. It is, like the kosmos, in a state of becoming and there may yet appear to our cognitive powers a whole series of new numbers pure in itself and altogether conformable to the conditions reigning at the time.

The symbology of the circle, in all times recognized as the true symbol of the kosmos in eternity, of eternity itself, of the archetypal, of space, duration and Ultimate Perfection, is replete with profound significations. But it should be understood that the circle is a symbol of the perfected universe and not the universe in a state of evolution. It symbolizes perfection, completion and the ultimate union of the manifesting with the archetypal which results in the crowning deed of Perfection. The circle is, therefore, not a symbol of the universe as it now stands; it does not represent a snapshot view of the kosmos but the universe as a full. It cannot be a full until it has attained the ne plus ultra of completion; for a kosmic full is that state to be attained by the manifested kosmos upon the termination of all the fundamental processes now in operation. But it is this state that the circle really represents, and by virtue of which it possesses its intrinsic qualities and also in virtue of which the intellect recognizes these qualities. The properties of understanding and recognizance in the intellect are veritably fixed by the status quo of the universe during every stage. That is, the focus of the intellect, like the focus of a chromatic lens, is adjusted by the fiat of the nature and eternal fitness of things to correspond exactly with every state through which the kosmos itself passes. This is one of the obvious implications of the phanerobiogenic behavior of the kosmos and is necessarily resident in the notion of the genesis of space and intellectuality as consubstantial and coÖrdinate factors.

Wherefore the more cogent is the reason for the belief that the inherent qualities of the kosmogonic fundamentals; as, vitality, materiality, spatiality, intellectuality and geometricity, are true variants, and that their variability is proportional to the progress of these major movements toward the ultimate satisfaction of the original creative impulse. May it not be, therefore, that the indeterminate character of the ratio of the diameter to the circumference (3.1415926 ...), is due to causes far more profound than the crudity of our micrometers or the mere supposed fact of the circle's peculiarity? May it not also be true that the pi proportion shall become a whole number, and in its integration, keep apace with the perfecting process of the kosmos, diminishing, by retrogression to one or increasing, by progression, to ten which, after all, is essentially unity, being the perfect numeral? It is not without the utmost assurance that these queries will be categorically questioned by the orthodox, creed-loyal, strictly intellectual type that we sketch these implications, but it is felt to be an urgent duty to remind all such that the most effective barrier to realization in the field of philosophy is an intolerant attitude towards all lines of thought which suggest the impermanence of conditions as we find them in the kosmos at the present time. The fact is that our lives are so distressingly short that we have neither time nor opportunity to watch the changing moods of the kosmos nor discern the gradual reduction of mere appearance to the firm basis of reality, and accordingly, the intellect tenaciously clings to those notions which it derives from the instant-exposure which the lens of intellectual conceivability allots to it. Once the view is taken it is immediately invested with everlastingness. This everlastingness is then imputed to the kosmos in that particular pose, attitude or state. Always the intellect beholds in that passing view, snatched from the fleeting panorama of eternal duration, a picture of itself which it mistakes for the reality of the not-self.

The inclination of the axis of the earth toward the plane of its orbit is approximately twenty-three and one-half degrees. No well-informed astronomer, however, doubts now the fact that this ecliptic angle is being gradually lessened; because, as a result of centuries of observation, it has been found to be decreasing at the rate of about 46.3 seconds per century. Yet no intellect is able to perceive in any given lifetime the actual decrement of this angle. It is only by careful measurements after centuries of waiting that a difference can be discovered at all. Thus it may even be so with the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, the only difference being that it has not yet been determined whether there is a decrement or an increase in the size of the ratio.

The pi proportion is, then, a register or measurer of the slow, measured approach of the manifesting kosmos to the standard of ultimate perfection. Therefore, and in view of these considerations, we may not hesitate to confirm our belief in the validity of the notion that it actually and literally expresses the key to the evolutionary status of kosmogony. The mathematical determination which limits it as an unchangeable, inelastic quantity is, consequently, only partially true and leads to the inclusion of this quantity under the category of mathematical near-truths, for such it appears to be in spite of its rigorous establishment.

The formal topography into which the intellect spreads when seeking the ideal and the abstract is not a condition which is derivable from the real essence of life or matter, but, on the other hand, is a product of the intellect itself partaking of its nature rather than of the nature of reality. There is, therefore, a very important distinction to be made between all deliveries of the intellect and the realism both of the objects and conditions to which the intellectual deliveries pertain. One of the most marked peculiarities of the human intellect is the fact that it always unavoidably stamps its own nature and features upon every datum which passes through it to the consciousness. The utmost importance attaches to this phenomenon, for the reason that it points to the necessity of carefully scrutinizing intellectual deliveries and the making of allowances for those ever-present characteristics which the intellect superimposes upon its data. Perhaps the inherent colorific quality which it imposes upon our knowledge would be better understood if a similitude were indulged at this juncture. The intellect may be likened to a color-bearing instrument which, when it has once handled an object, leaves forever its own color transfused into every cell and fiber of the object so that when the same object is presented to the consciousness for purposes of cognition it bears always the same peculiar marks and colorations which the intellect, in its manipulation of it, places thereon. In this respect the intellect may also be said to be like a potter who has but one mold and that of a peculiar formation. Hence, whatever wares it presents to the consciousness will invariably be found to be molded in conformity with that particular mold. If it were possible to view reality or the essential nature of things the difficulty which now the intellect lays in the path of direct and uncolored cognition would be obviated; for then there no longer would be any necessity of viewing things as they are colored or molded by the intellect. The intuition, being a process of pure consciousness, will, when it has arisen to a position where it may dominate the intellect as the intellect now dominates it, so modify this tendency which we see so ineradicably bound up in the very nature of the intellect that the apparently insurmountable difficulties which it has interposed between mere perception and a direct cognitive operation will be quite completely overcome. Thus, in the above, is discovered another obstacle which posits itself between the notion of space as reality and the intellectual determination of it which the mathematician examines and to which his consciousness is necessarily limited. Furthermore, it may be perceived also how easily the mind may be deluded into thinking that the intellectual notion which it entertains of space is necessarily correct, when obversely, it is simply examining a concept which has been remade by the intellect into a form which is not at all unlike its own peculiar nature, and therefore, as much short of reality as the intellect itself is. Similarly, if the mathematical mind succeed in catching a glimpse of the reality of space in the form of an intimation, which, in itself though fragmentary, is nevertheless true, its consciousness is finally deprived of the true validity thereof simply because of the behavior of the intellect in its manipulation of it. The importance of these intellectual difficulties cannot be over-estimated for they furnish the grounds for the ineptitude of intellectual determinations made in a sphere of motility to which the intellect is a stranger. And this fact will appear more evident when it is perceived that quite the entire content of human knowledge has been thoroughly vitiated by them. So that only in those very rare moments which (in a highly sensitive mentality) enable the intuition to gain a momentary ascendancy over the intellect is it possible for the Thinker to catch hold of realism itself, and project the truth of what he sees into the lower, intellectual consciousness. But so small is that portion of our knowledge which owes its origin to the intuition that when compared with the totality of that which we seem to understand it is well-nigh negligible. And then, when it is considered that at present there is no way of conceptualizing adequately the intuitograph so as to make it propagable the insignificance of this form of knowledge is even more notable. It can now be seen in how large a measure the notion of the curvature of space is merely an intellectual translation of a true intuition into the terms of the intellect which, in the very nature of the case, can only approximate the truth because of its colorific habits.

A similar declaration may be made of that other datum of metageometrical knowledge which postulates the ultimate convergence of parallel lines. In fact, what has been said as to the perisophical nature of the notion of space-curvature will apply with equal force to the idea of parallel convergence since the latter is a derivative of the former. But there is yet another consideration, apart from the colorific influence of the intellect, which, although it partakes of the nature of this quality, is nevertheless a near-truth of quite a different order. This may be better understood by referring to the graph showing the inverse ratio of objective space to the consciousness.[28] Let us suppose that the graph may also represent the Thinker's outlook into the world of spatiality. It then appears that, because of that movement of consciousness in its pursuit of life which, as it expands, makes the objective world to appear to be diminished in proportion to the extent of its expansion, it is quite natural, under such circumstances, that parallel lines drawn anywhere in the limits of the objective world should seem to come to a point in the ultimate extension of themselves. While this graph is not meant to depict such a view, it may be found nevertheless, to be a true delineation of the topography of that state of mind into which the metageometrician brings himself when he visualizes space as curved; for there is no doubt but that a state of intellectual ecstasy, such as that in which the mind of the metageometrician must be functioning in order to perceive space in that form, is quite different from the normal and, therefore, in need of a different topographical survey. But, if we grant that in the creational aspects of space there is conceivable an ever-present tendency to convolution, or a rolling back upon itself, it is imaginable that parallel lines inscribed either upon its surface or in its texture need not necessarily meet but maintain their parallelism regardless of the complexity of the convolutions. The convergence of parallel lines is much like a tangent in the outgrowth of the idea from the notion of space-curvature. The more a tangential line is extended the farther away from the circumference it becomes and consequently less in agreement therewith. The more subsidiary propositions or corollaries are multiplied the more remote from the truth the determinations become and especially is this true of the hypothesis of space curvature.

In the notion of the manifoldness of space, by virtue of which it is conceived as existing in a series of superimposable and generable manifolds of varying degrees of complexity, are discernible traces of that intuitional intimation which underlies the assertion that because of the necessary phenomenalization of reality for the purpose of manifestation to the intellect it appears to exist in a series of separate degrees, each one more refined and subtle than the preceding one and requiring a more highly developed species of consciousness for its comprehension. In other words, that intuitional glimpse of the essential character of reality, as viewed by the human consciousness, which impinged upon the minds of Riemann and Beltrami leading them to postulate as a corollary proposition to space-curvature, its manifoldness, is nothing more nor less than the intuition that the universum of spatiality cannot otherwise present itself to the intellect, owing to its peculiar adaptation to the sensuous, except by a series of continuous degrees which are perceptible only in proportion as the understanding is magnified to conform with it. After all, however, it is not improbable that the very objectivism of the universe in manifestation subsists in just the manner in which this intuitive glimpse implies and that the wisdom and utilitariness of the kosmogonic process which engendered spatiality are clearly demonstrated in that arrangement of the contents of the kosmos which presents the grossest elements of phenomena first to the intellect in its most impotent state while reserving the less crass for that time when the Thinker shall have evolved a cognitive organ adaptable to its presentations. Those metageometricians who cling to the idea of the manifoldness of space, based as we have shown upon the pseudo-interpretation of a rather vague hint arising out of an unquestionably true intuition, have allowed themselves to fall into the unconscious error of magnifying the importance of the mere insinuation as to the space-nature to such an extent as wholly to obscure in their own minds and in the minds of those who think after them whatever of the true vision that may have been grasped by them. Furthermore, it is indubitably true that that same peculiarity of arrangement by which impalpable and invisible forces really subtend gross matter producing that subtle schematism in virtue of which the visible is subjoined to the invisible, the sensuous to the non-sensuous, spirit to matter, etc., also characterizes the appearance of spatiality to the human understanding. While there is a superficial semblance of separate and discrete manifolds into which space may be divided there are, in reality, no such sharp lines of demarkation between the subtle and the gross, between the visible and the invisible or between spirit and matter, each of these being capable of reduction, by insensible degrees, into the other regardless as to whether the reductional process originates on the side of the most refined or on that of the grossest. Accordingly, there are no reasonable grounds upon which the notion of a space-manifold may be justified except as a metageometrical near-truth.

In addition to the foregoing, there are yet other very fundamental considerations which would seem to debar the totality of analytical conclusions as to the nature of space from any claim to ultimate reliability and trustworthiness. These are first: the fact that analyses are absolutely incapable of dealing with life; that being the direct product of a sort of mechanical consistency which marks the intellectual operations it has adaptability only for dealing with fragments or disconnected parts, and that without any reference whatsoever to the current of life or the flow of reality which has produced the parts. This fact is clearly shown in that attitude of the understanding which inevitably leads it to the declaration that a line is an infinite series of points, a plane an infinite series of lines, and a cube, an infinite series of planes, and so on, indefinitely. To do this, to look upon all phenomena as a series of parts similar to each other and piled, one upon the other, or juxtaposed in the manner which they are discovered in the sensible world, is the natural tendency of the intellect and this tendency finds its most facile expression in analytics. Inadaptability of this sort is especially observable in all problems of arithmetical analysis in which the vital element is a factor. When these analyses are carried to their logical conclusion, as has been shown in the chapter on "The Fourth Dimension," invariably they end in an evident absurdity. But it is at their very conclusion where the life-element is encountered, where reality is approached, that they break down. The failure of analysis, then, to encompass life, to fit into its requirements and to satisfy its natural outcome seems clearly to establish the basis of the perisophical nature of the entirety of analytical claims, especially that species of analysis which seeks the remoter fields of the conceptual for its determinations. Second: the close connection which has been seen to subsist between space and life as joint products of the same movement makes it obvious that the same ultimate rule of interpretation must be applied to both in order to insure correct and dependable judgments regarding them. How different would be the intellectual attitude towards space if it were considered in the same light as vitality, provided one really understood anything about vitality! Moreover, as it appears certain that the path of the intellect does not run in the same direction as the path which life makes, but in an inverse direction, it is clear that the judgments of the former, as to the action and essence of the latter, must necessarily be ultimately unreliable. It can readily be seen, however, that should the intellect be focused so as to follow the path of life, to attach itself to the very stream of life, it would have necessarily to neglect materiality. And such an adjustment would, of course, obviate the need of a material life at all for humanity. In fact, a physical life with an intellect would be impossible under such conditions. It is well to recognize the suitability of the present schematism and not to become unwisely restive because of it; but it is also fitting that we should discriminate between that which is possible for the intellect chained to materiality and that which is impossible for it, in such a state, when foraying in a territory foreign to its nature, and beyond its powers to master.

The predominating tendency in the intellect to account for the universe of life, mind and matter upon a strictly mechanical basis is undoubtedly due to the constitution of the intellect which does not admit of its direct consideration of the vital essence of things. We are bound ineluctably to the surface of things. All our knowledge is therefore superficial. We are even bound to the surface of ideas, and cannot penetrate to the interior of these realities. Our art is the reproductions of superfices; our philosophies are the husks of eternalities; our religions, the habiliments of relations, and while it cannot be doubted that this arrangement is pre-eminently the best possible one for the present stage of man's evolution, it is nevertheless worth while to note that it is this very restricted activity of the intellect which shuts out from man's consciousness those very elements about which he is most concerned when he goes into the field of philosophy in search of a solution to his unanswerable queries. But some progress most surely is made when the mind is enabled to see its plight and recognize what are the difficulties and limitations that lie in its path of ultimate attainment.

It is believed that the mechanistic, or true, character of the intellect reached its zenith in the mind of Lagrange when he succeeded in reducing the entirety of physics to certain mechanical laws and formulÆ which he embodied in his "Mecanique Analytique" This work is undoubtedly the capstone of intellectual endeavors and stands as a monument which marks the culmination of the present stage of intellectual development. In thus placing the Mecanique at the apex of intellectual endeavors it is not thereby meant to be implied that the intellect shall not make more progress nor that other formulÆ, equally as marvelous as those which Lagrange discovered, may be devised, nor that other laws, heretofore undreamed of, may be found; but what is maintained is the fact that while there will be growth and development these will run along other channels, perhaps in the realm of the intuitable, and not any longer, especially so notably as now, in an opposite direction against the current of life and reality; and further, that there will be a gradual turning away from mechanics to biogenetics, from diversity to unity, from the purely intellectual to the intuitional, and withal a final getting rid of the bonds of illusion, of that thralldom of mechanics, whereupon will slowly arise the obsolescence of all those disparities which may now be recognized in our knowledge and in the applications of the intellect to the data of the objective world.

Because the intellect is unsuited to deal with reality, and because of its peculiar adaptation for diversity, for multiplicity, due to its mechanistic modus vivendi, there has grown up a voluminous catalogue of systems of philosophy. These embody such a multitudinous array of beliefs, ideas, conceptions, theories and conjectures and constitute a movement in human thought which oscillates between the empiricist on the one hand and the transcendentalist on the other; between the idealist and the realist, leaning sometimes towards the Platonic, the Cartesian and the Kantian and at other times towards Spinoza, Aristotle, Spencer and Socrates, always terminating by multiplying the number of diverse beliefs rather than unifying them that the conclusion is unavoidable that so marked a lack of unanimity is indicative of a profound mental prestriction. It was, therefore, inevitable that mathematics should fall under the same spell and brook no let nor hindrance until it had succeeded in devising several diverse systems of geometry which it has done for the mere joy of doing something, of following its instinctive aptitudes. There is no other basis for the heterogeneity of our philosophies, our mathematics, indeed our beliefs than this mechanical, and hence, radically illusionary character of the intellect in consequence of which we have had to be satisfied with mere glimpses, hints, intimations and faint glimmerings of reality, of life, and of those kosmic movements which, if we had the ability to trace them from their source outward, would lead us unerringly to a truer and deeper knowledge of those things that under the present schematism must remain for us a closed book.

The criterion of truth for us, constituted as we are and wedged in between the stream of life and its shore of materiality, must be that which relates our knowledge both to the stream and to the shore. It must be so that all predicates which purport to approach it shall exhibit a dual reference—one that relates to materiality and another that relates to vitality, and yet a third that shall combine these two relations into one. All assertions, therefore, which pertain exclusively to either of these elements—to materiality or to life—are necessarily partial, fragmentary and perisophical in nature. Mathematics, because it relates to matter and the mechanical forces set up by matter acting against matter cannot be said to agree with such a criterion; art, because it relates to snapshots or static views of matter is even more remote in its agreement; philosophy, as it has been known in the past and is known to-day, because it seeks to deal with a vitality fashioned after the image of materiality has failed when posited alongside of this criterion; and thus, the intellectual toil of millions of years has been in vain in so far as it has not succeeded even in raising a corner of the cover which hides reality from our view.

A near-truth is any variation from this standard, this norm or criterion. It may be either logical, cognitive, scientific or even metaphysical. To define: a logical truth is a predicate based upon and involving the coherency and consistency of thoughts themselves; a cognitive truth is the conformity of knowledge with so much of reality as is known; scientific truth is the conformity of thoughts to things and conditions. All of these are obviously near-truths. Then, too, a near-truth may be defined as an assertion based upon the criterion of truth but falling within the category of cognitive truths owing to insufficiency of data or vision. Such indeed are those metageometrical predicates—n-dimensionality, space-flexure, space-manifoldness and all other assertions based upon these in general and specifically. Any recognition of truth must clearly embrace both the vital and material aspects of its subject in order to be adequately inclusive, that is, it should include the causative, the sustentative, the relational and the developmental factors. These four factors are considered necessary and sufficient to determine the conformity of any view to the criterion of truth for when we are cognizant of the cause of a subject, understand the sustentative factors which keep it in existence, are conversant with its relations to other subjects and can follow its developmental variations until we come to its final status, why then, our knowledge is both sufficient and ultimate so far as that subject is concerned. Is it asking too much of mathematics or of philosophy or any system of thought that it conform to these standards or to this criterion before we shall accept it as final? Or shall we be satisfied with less than this? Let us hope not.

In the foregoing presentation stress has been placed upon the fragmentary, and therefore, illusionary character of the intellect in order to arrive at an understanding of the difficulties under which real knowledge has to be acquired and to indicate the inanity of all attempts to resolve the riddle of space by means of mathematics though regarded as the most typical exemplification of the mechanistic nature of the intellect. And further, to show that, on account of the radical incongruity which estranges life, the producer of spatiality, from the intellect which returns again to scrutinize the passage of life in its outward expressions, no hope of ever gaining the true viewpoint by means of the intellect need be entertained. But in doing so, it is deemed fitting that a note of warning should be sounded against any abortive attempts that may be made to obscure or distort the results of such a close discrimination lest the true import of the examination be lost for, if we emphasize the vanity of the intellect in the pursuit of that which it is by nature unsuited to attain we also equally stress the wise utilitarianism which limits it to the performance of the tasks assigned while at the same time reserving for the function of more highly evolved powers, and indeed, for the intuition itself, the solution of the riddle of spatiality. And if we declare the futility of the mathematical method in all endeavors aimed at unveiling the mysteries of life and mind, and of that movement which has its roots set in eternal duration from which it proceeds in an endless continuity of purpose and promise, we do also recognize that in the science of mathematics the intellect shall, as in no other method of cognition, most fully fulfill the kosmic intent of its existence; and moreover, in the pursuit thereof it shall push the frontiers of its possibilities outward until it can be said almost to be able to make disposition of life itself—at least to that point where, when the intuition shall have come into its own, the passage from the mechanics of matter to the dynamics of life, shall be comparatively easy and natural.