Part I. MATHESIS.—_Pneumatogeny_: Primary Act, Primary Consciousness, {10} God, Primary Rest, Time, Polarity, Motion, Man, Space, Point, Line, Surface, Globe, Rotation.—_Hylogeny_: Gravity, Matter, Ether, Heavenly Bodies, Light, Heat, Fire. (He explains that MATHESIS is the doctrine of the whole; _Pneumatogeny_ being the doctrine of immaterial totalities, and _Hylogeny_ that of material totalities.) Part II. ONTOLOGY.—_Cosmogeny_: Rest, Centre, Motion, Line, Planets, Form, Planetary System, Comets.—_Stöchiogeny_: Condensation, Simple Matter, Elements, Air, Water, Earth.—_Stöchiology_: Functions of the Elements, &c. &c.—_Kingdoms of Nature_: Individuals. (He says in explanation that ‘ONTOLOGY teaches us the phenomena of matter. The first of these are the heavenly bodies comprehended by _Cosmogeny_. These divide into elements.—_Stöchiogeny._ The earth element divides into minerals—_Mineralogy_. These unite into one collective body—_Geogeny_. The whole in singulars is the living, or _Organic_, which again divides into plants and animals. _Biology_, therefore, divides into _Organogeny_, _Phytosophy_, _Zoosophy_.’) FIRST KINGDOM.—MINERALS. _Mineralogy_, _Geology_. Part III. BIOLOGY.—_Organosophy_, _Phytogeny_, _Phyto-physiology_, _Phytology_, _Zoogeny_, _Physiology_, _Zoology_, _Psychology_. A glance over this confused scheme shows that it is an attempt to classify knowledge, not after the order in which it has been, or may be, built up in the human consciousness; but after an assumed order of creation. It is a pseudo-scientific cosmogony, akin to those which men have enunciated from the earliest times downwards; and only a little more respectable. As such it will not be thought worthy of much consideration by those who, like ourselves, hold that experience is the sole origin of knowledge. Otherwise, it might have been needful to dwell on the incongruities of the arrangement—to ask how motion can be treated of before space? how there can be rotation without matter to rotate? how polarity can be dealt with without involving points and lines? But it will serve our present purpose just to indicate a few of the absurdities resulting from the doctrine which Oken seems to hold in common with Hegel, that “to philosophize on Nature is to re-think the great thought of Creation.” Here is a sample:― “Mathematics is the universal science; so also is {11} Physio-philosophy, although it is only a part, or rather but a condition of the universe; both are one, or mutually congruent. “Mathematics is, however, a science of mere forms without substance. Physio-philosophy is, therefore, _mathematics endowed with substance_.”