The formal is symbolic. It signifies an informing quantity. Pure form itself is but a negation of that which formerly filled it. Then, too, the formal is purely artificial because it is a mental construction. Essentially there is as much difference between the purely formal and the _a priori_ as between creator and creature, as between potter and clay. The one is the builder, the other is the material; the one the knower and the other the known. Thus, the only reason that the formal is found to be answerable to the _a priori_ at all is due to the fact that it is construable only upon the basis of the _a priori_. But being so is not sufficient warrant for its identification with the _a priori_. The formal merely represents the totality of possibilities in the universe as viewed by the mind; but as the number of possibilities open to the mind is, on account of its nature and purpose limited, it is not to be supposed that it (the mind) shall measure up to all the possibilities offered by the formal. Moreover, it is certain that no sane mind cherishes the hope that there shall ever be found in the universe of life and form a congruence for all of the possibilities held out by the purely formal. As an eternal principle of mind, the _a priori_ is in agreement with the divine mind of the kosmos. In its _aposteriority_ the mind is of diverse tendences, qualities and characteristics. Apriorily, it acts in unison with the eternal purpose of life and the universal mind. In its aposteriority, it often goes awry. In its _apriority_ it can never be insane; insanity is a symptom of the morbid _a posteriori_. The mind in man acts the same as mind in the vegetal and lower animal kingdoms. Metabolism and katabolism, indeed all cell-activity, are _a priori_ performances of the mind. Growth and all its phenomena, the cyclicism of natural processes, and every activity connected therewith belong to the category of the _a priori_. Cells multiply, divide, build up and tear down tissues and they do it intuitively. Most certainly these functions are performed without any assistance from the intellect. All the myriad activities in nature with which the intellect in man has not the slightest concern, truly acting in accord with some primordial impetus, are activities _a priori_. Now what is the attitude of the intellect, in the light of the _a priori_, towards space and the question of dimensionality? It is evident that no matter what this attitude may be it is in agreement with the constitution of things and of the universe. And if so, it is right and without illusion. It is also evident that whatever notion _a posteriori_ the intellect may entertain with respect to these questions is unavoidably liable to the illusionary drawbacks common to conclusions based upon limited experience. The geometric view of space belongs to the category of the _a posteriori_. Hence it is subject to the usual imposition of error.