It is believed that we may go a step further and unqualifiedly assert that _space is finite_, even denying its infinity as a "general mode of the activity of the whole." Yet it is transfinite in the sense that it transcends the comprehension of finite minds or processes. It is _finite_ because it is in _manifestation_. Everything that is in manifestation is finite. The infinite is not in manifestation. Infinity has to be limited always to become manifest. The Deity has limited His being in order that there may be a manifested universe. All things, all appearances are finite; because they are phenomena connected with manifestation. This question may be viewed from another standpoint. All things in manifestation or existence are polar in their constitution. For instance: there cannot be a "here" without a "there." There cannot be an "upper" without a "lower." Right is copolar with wrong; good is copolar with evil; night with day; manifestation with non-manifestation; truth with falsity; infinity with finity and so on, throughout the whole gamut of the pairs of opposites. What is the logical inference? Space is paired with a lack of space. There cannot be what we call _space_ without there being at the same time the possibility, at least, of the _lack of space or spacelessness_. This is a conclusion that is rigorously logical and incontrovertible. But it has been urged that it is impossible for the mind to imagine a condition where there is no space. It even has been asserted that it is contrary to the constitution of the mind itself to imagine "no space." But whether imaginable or not has no effect whatever upon the validity of the conception. Neither, it is said, can we imagine a fourth dimension but the mind has come dangerously near to imagining it. The distance from excogitating upon, discussing and describing the properties of four-space to imagining it is not so great after all. Truly it is difficult indeed, it seems, to be able to describe a thing yet not be able to imagine or make a mental image of it. There is an evident fallacy here. Either the description of four-space is no description at all or it is a true delineation of an idealized construction which is well within the mind's powers of imagination. Indeed the question of imaginability is not determinative in itself; for what the mind may now be unable to imagine, because of its more or less nebulous character, and owing to its infancy may in the course of time be easily accomplished.