In the ultimate analysis there is unquestionably no hue, tone, quality, condition nor any imaginable posture of life, being or manifestation that is absolved from every other one of its class or from the totality. All these are relational and interdependent. There is no room for the absolute. In fact, it is a quality which cannot in any way be ascribed to any aspect of kosmic manifestation. It has existence only in the mind and has been devised for the purpose of marking the limits of its scope. All being is relative; all life is relative and is destined to change its qualities as it evolves. All knowledge is also relative and what is true of one state may not be true of another; what is true of one life may not be true of another life; the limitations of one degree of knowledge may not have any bearings upon another degree. The norms of one will not satisfy the conditions of another stage of manifestation. It is always within limits that the criterion of knowledge will be found to satisfy a given set of conditions. Hence within certain limits mathematical conclusions will maintain their validity. Error is committed by pushing the validity of these limits to a position without the sphere of limitations. This seems to be the crux of the whole matter. Mathematicians, notably non-Euclideans, have sought to extend the comparatively small sphere of limits of congruence between mathematic and perceptual space to such an extent as to cause it to encroach upon forbidden territory. In doing this they have erred grievously, causing serious offense to the more sensitive spirit of the high-caste mathematicians among whom are none more truly conservative than PAUL CARUS,[12] who says: "Metageometricians are a hot-headed race and display sometimes all the characteristics of sectarian fanatics. To them it is quite clear there may be two straight lines through one and the same point which do not coincide and yet are both parallel to a third line." [12] Vide _Monist_, Vol. XIX, p. 402 (1909).