be suggested that it is allowable, under the rules of logic, to make any assumption whatsoever so long as care is taken to see that the conclusions embody in themselves the characteristics of the original premise. For instance, it is permissible to assume that space is curved. Under such an assumption, it is only necessary that the constructions which follow shall be self-consistent. But the case is different when we come to deal with spatiality and vitality. These are quantities which cannot, in the last analysis, be made to conform to the rules of the game of logic. Thus, when it is intimated that realism lends itself to an apparent division into degrees, and that each degree has a corresponding state of consciousness, it is by no means to be inferred that such apparent divisions are of mathematical import. For, in reality, i.e., when the consciousness has expanded so as to become congruent with the limits of even the space mind (vide Fig. 20), there appear to be no divisions in realism. It is only because of the fragmentariness of our outlook upon the kosmos that realism appears to be divided into various planes; for all of these planes are one. The divisions exist for relative knowledge, but not for complete knowledge; they exist for a finite intelligence, but not for a transfinite intelligence. That is why we view realism as a series of planes. It is because we discover that, as we proceed, as our consciousness expands and we take in more and more of the vital activities of the kosmos and understand better the causes underlying that which we contact, we have passed from a state of lesser knowledge to one of greater knowledge. And so we say we have passed from one degree of realism to another, whereas, really we have not passed from one degree of realism to another degree. Instead, it is our consciousness that has expanded.