A sharp line of demarkation should be drawn between the reality which is life and consciousness and that which belongs to the realm of phantasy. For it is the prerogative of the intellect to create, out of the remains and deposits which it finds in the pathway of life, whatsoever it wills. This it does continuously; but it scarcely can be expected that such creations shall be endowed with the same dynamic character as that which life bestows upon its creations. The creations of the one are merely dead carcasses while those of the other are vital and real. Between them the same marked difference exists as between the growing tree and the lumber which the builder converts into a house. The organization which we witness when we look upon a building made of the dead body of a tree is not the same kind of organization as that which we see when we view the living, growing, vital tree. The dead tree is a deposit of life cast off by it when it passed on. Whatever the intellect can do in disposing of the remains of the tree-life is conventional and artificial. If it convert it into an edifice it will then bestow upon it a sort of consistency which is quite sufficient for all purposes. But the consistency which holds the organization of an edifice together is not the kind of consistency which holds a living tree together. In fact, there is a consistency that is not consistent. Such is the consistency of metageometry. It is self-consistent and yet inconsistent with the consistency of the kosmos and its norm of being which is consciousness.