A more serious hindrance to the acceptance of Froebelianism has arisen from his peculiar mysticism and symbolism. Since all things live and have their being in and through God and the divine principle in each is the essence of its life, everything is liable to be considered by Froebel as symbolic in its very nature, and he often resorts to fantastic and strained interpretations. Thus with Froebel the cube becomes the symbol of diversity in unity, the faces and edges of crystals all have mystic meanings, and the numbers three and five reveal an inner significance. At times this symbolism descends into a literal and verbal pun, where it seems to a modern that Froebel can hardly be in earnest. Further, he holds that general conceptions are implicit in the child, and each of these can be awakened by ‘adumbration,’ that is, by presenting something that will symbolically represent that particular ‘innate idea.’ Thus, in treating the gifts and games, he maintains that from a ball the pupils gather an abstract notion of ‘unity.’ Moreover, because God is the self-conscious spirit that originated both man and nature, and everything is interconnected, he believes that each part of the universe may throw light on every other part, and constantly holds that a knowledge of external nature,--such as the formation of crystals, will enable one to comprehend the laws of the mind and of society. [Sidenote: Most essential to conservatives.] [Sidenote: Effect upon pupils.] Unfortunately, this mystic symbolism, vague and extreme as it is, is regarded by the strict constructionists among the kindergartners as the most essential feature in Froebelianism, and they expect the innocents in their charge to reveal the symbolic effect of the material upon their minds. There is no real evidence for supposing that such associations between common objects and abstract conceptions exist for children. But such an imaginary symbolic meaning may be forced upon an object by the teacher, and pupils in conservative kindergartens soon learn to adopt certain phrases and attitudes that imply such mystic meaning. This often tends to foster insincerity and sentimentalism rather than to inculcate abstract truth through symbols. Had Froebel possessed the enlarged knowledge of biology, physiology, and psychology that is available for one living in the twentieth century, it is unlikely that he would have insisted upon the symbolic foundations for his pedagogy. His excellent practice is heavily handicapped by these interpretations, and might as easily have been inferred from very different positions in modern psychology. [Sidenote: Borrowed from others,] [Sidenote: but unique in motor expression, social participation and informal school.]