Self-consistency is one thing and kosmic consistency is quite another. It does not necessarily follow that because a given scheme of thought is consistent in all its parts that it is also consistent with universal truth or with life. This very vital fact was overlooked by GAUSS and all those who followed in his wake when he discovered that his _Astral Geometry_ was consistent throughout in all its parts. There is only one norm of truth and that is kosmic consistency. It matters little that a thing shall be self-consistent; it matters much whether it is consistent with the universal standard. It has been shown to be logically possible to elaborate at least two different systems of geometry, namely, the geometry of the acute angle and that of the obtuse, which, while each of them is self-consistent throughout, are nevertheless inconsistent with each other and with the geometry of the right angle (Euclidean). This, it would seem, appears to be sufficient for the invalidation of either one or both of the non-Euclidean systems of geometric thought. Indeed, if it can be shown that the Euclidean geometry is more representative of the true approach to the norm of space-genesis and of creation so far as its mode of manifestation is concerned, and consequently true of the norm set up by consciousness, the rejection of both systems of non-Euclidean geometry seems to be thoroughly warranted. But this is obvious and requires no demonstration nor comment to make it clear. We have only to ask ourselves whether it has ever occurred to us that consciousness has either a tendency to or adaptability for action in a curvilinear manner; or, if when we contemplate ideas or idea-relations we have the impression of perceiving a curvilinear or manifold tendence in them either of a positive or negative nature, and also whether it has been observed that our thought processes naturally assume four-dimensional attitudes. If we find that such a query must be answered negatively, and indeed we must so find, then, we have no basis for the assumption that any one of the systems of non-Euclidean geometry is valid either for the present status of consciousness or for a future existence, since it is true that the future is but an elongation of the present. Evolution is to bring no radical changes in the norms of reality; it has merely to deepen and widen and make more intense, efficient and comprehensive the present scope of our consciousness and thereby, while the Thinker is passing from one degree of realism to another, to bring him into a clearer conception of what his own limited scope of motility means to the whole.