consider the nature of the results of meditation, our conceptions of the 
backgrounds of thought are decided in quite a different manner; not by 
intellectual analysis, which, as we have seen, carries no conviction, but by 
illumination, which does carry conviction. Let us, therefore, proceed to 
examine the elements of our normal thinking. 
     5. I need hardly recapitulate the mathematical theorem which you all 
doubtless laid to heart when you were criticising Einstein's theory of 
relativity. I only want to recall to your minds the simplest element of that 
theorem; the fact that in order to describe anything at all, you must have 
four measurements. It must be so far east or west, so far north or south, 
so far up or down, from a standard point, and it must be after or before a 
standard moment. There are three dimensions of space and one of time. 
     6. Now what do we mean by space? Henri Poincaré, one of the 
greatest mathematicians of the last generation, thought that the idea of 
space was invented by a lunatic, in a fantastic (and evidently senseless 
and aimless) endeavour to explain to himself his experience of his 
muscular movements. Long before that, Kant had told us that space was 
subjective, a necessary condition of thinking; and while every one must 
agree with this, it is obvious that it does not tell us much about it. 
     7. Now let us look into our minds and see what idea, if any, we can 
form about space. Space is evidently a continuum. There cannot be any 
difference between any parts of it because it is wholly where. It is pure 
background, the area of possibilities, a condition of quality and so of all 
consciousness. It is therefore in itself completely void. Is that right, sir? 
     8. Now suppose we want to fulfil one of these possibilities. The 
simplest thing we can take is a point, and we are told that a point has 
neither parts nor magnitude, but only position. But, as long as there is 
only one point, position means nothing. No possibility has yet been 
created of any positive statement. We will therefore take two points, and 
from these we get the idea of a line. Our Euclid tells us that a line has 
length but no breadth. But, as long as there are only two points, length 
itself means nothing; or, at the most, it means separateness. All we can 
say about two points is that there are two of them. 
     9. Now we take a third point, and at last we come to a more positive 
idea. In the first place, we have a plane surface, though that in itself still 
means nothing, in the same way as length means nothing when there are 
only two points there. But the introduction of the third point has given a 
meaning to our idea of length. We can say that the line AB is longer than 
the line BC, and we can also introduce the idea of an angle. 
     10. A fourth point, provided that it is not in the original plane, gives us 
the idea of a solid body. But, as before, it tells us nothing about the solid 
body as such, because there is no other solid body with which to compare 
it. We find also that it is not really a solid body at all as it stands, because 
it is merely an instantaneous kind of illusion. We cannot observe, or even 
imagine, anything, unless we have time for the purpose. 
     11. What, then is time? It is a phantasm, exactly as tenuous as space, 
but the possibilities of differentiation between one thing and another can