There is ever a marked difference between a symbol and the thing which it symbolizes. Words are the symbols of ideas; ideas, as they exist in the mind, are the symbols of eternal verities as they exist in the consciousness of the Logos of the universe. There may be a wide diversity of symbolic forms which represent one single idea; as, for instance, the variety of word forms which represent the idea of deity in the various languages. Likewise there may be a multiplicity of ideas which represent a single verity. But neither is the idea nor the word the real thing in itself. That quality of a life-aspect which we call its _thingness_ has an essential nature which cannot become the object of consciousness except by virtue of its representation through ideas and their symbolisms, and even then, the thing which we conceive is not the nature of a quality of the life-aspect but an idea of it--a symbol which stands for that idea. In order, therefore, for the mind to arrive at an understanding of an eternal verity, such as space, it must first be able to synthesize all of the representative ideas and then abstract from their compositeness a notion of its essential nature. But this can be done only by identifying the consciousness with the essential being of the object considered. In other words, the consciousness and the intrinsic being of forms, principles, forces and processes must embrace each other in the intimacies of direct cognition; the life which is consciousness and that life which is essential being, being coeval, coördinate and mutually responsive, must in so close a contact as here intimated reach an understanding of the realism shared by both. That is, the human consciousness, following in the wake of life and consisting of a specialized aspect of life itself, will, by such an intimate approach to the life-principle of forms, readily understand; for it has only to recognize a replica of itself in rendering its judgment. But it is not claimed that such a state of recognition by the consciousness of life itself can be attained at all by ordinary means, neither is it believed that it is the next stage in conscious evolution. However, it is not doubted but that such an exaltation of the consciousness is possible, yea practical; but the difficulties which beset the path of attainment in this direction are so great that it may as well be considered unattainable. The mere fact of these difficulties, however, only re-emphasizes the insufficiency of the intellectual method. The identification of consciousness with essential being is a procedure which cannot be accomplished by an act of will directly and immediately. Because it is a process, a series of unfoldments, an adjustment of the focus of consciousness to the kosmic essentialities which constitute the substructure of the manifested universe. In the very nature of things, a kosmic essentiality cannot be viewed as being in manifestation especially in the same degree