The four-space is one of the curiosities of analytics; yet it need not be a menace to the sane contemplation of the variegated products of analysis. Safety here abides in the restraint which should characterize all discussion and application of the concept. If enthusiasts would be content not to transport the so-called fourth dimensional space out of the sphere of hyperspace and cease trying to speculate upon the results of its interposal into three space conditions, which is in every way a constructual impossibility, there could not be any possible objection to its due consideration. This would obviate the danger of calling into question either the sincerity or perspicacity of those whose enthusiasm tempts them to transgress the limits of propriety in their behavior towards the inquiry. There is but one life, one mind, one extension, one quantity, one quality, one being, one state, one condition, one mood, one affection, one desire, one feeling, one consciousness. There is also but one number and that is unity. All so-called integers are but fractional parts of this kosmic unity. The idea represented by the word _two_ really connotates two parts of unity and the same is true of a decillion, or any number of parts. These are merely the infinitesimals of unity and they grow less in size and consequence as the divisions increase in number. The analysis of unity into an infinity of parts is purely an _a posteriori_ procedure. That it is an inherent mind-process is a fallacy. All our common quantities, as the mile, kilometer, yard, foot, inch, gallon, quart, are conventional and arbitrary and susceptible of wide variations. As the basis of all physical phenomena is unity; it is only in the ephemeral manifestations of sensuous objects that they appear as separate and distinct quantities. We see on a tree many leaves, many apples or cherries; on a cob many grains of corn. We have learned to assign to each of these quantities in their summation a sequence value. But this is an empirical notion and cannot be said to inhere in the mind itself. Let us take, for instance, the mustard seed. If it were true that in one of these seeds there existed all the subsequent seeds which appear in the mustard plant as separate and identifiable quantities, and not in essence, then there would perhaps be warrant for the notion that diversity, as the calculable element, is an _a priori_ conception. But, as this is not the case and since diversity is purely empirical and pertains only to the efflorescence of the one life it is manifestly absurd to take that view.