conditions accompany the act, I can never be sure that they hâve 
always been, or ever will again be, identical. (In fact, it is certain 
that an event can never occur twice in precisely the same circum- 
stances.) 1 
“Further, my ‘laws’ must always take nearly ail the more 
important éléments of knowledge for granted. I cannot say — 
finally — how an electric current is generated. I cannot be sure 
that some totally unsuspected force is not at work in some entirely 
arbitrary way. For example, it was formerly supposed that 
Hydrogen and Chlorine would unité when an electric spark was 
passed through the mixture ; now we “knowJ that the presence of a 
minute quantity of aqueous vapour (or some tertium quid) is 
essential to the reaction. We formulated before the days of Ross 
the ‘laws’ of malarial fever, without reference to the mosquitoj 
we might discover one day that the germ is only active when 
certain events are transpiring in some nebula2, or when so 
apparently inert a substance as Argon is présent in the air in certain 
proportions. 
“We may therefore admit quite cheerfully that Magick is as 
mysterious as mathematics, as empirical as poetry, as uncertain as 
golf, and as dépendent on the personal équation as Love. 
“That is no reason why we should not study, practice and enjoy 
it • for it is a Science in exactly the same sense as biology; it is no 
less an Art than Sculpture 5 and it is a Sport as much as Moun- 
taineering. 
“Indeed, there seems to be no undue presumption in urging that 
no Science possesses equal possibilities of deep and important 
Knowledge ; 3 that no Art offers such opportunités to the ambi- 
1. If it did so, how could we call it duplex? 
2. The history of the Earth is included in the period of some such 
relation; so that we cannot possibly be sure that we may deny: Malarial 
fever is a function of the présent precession of the Equinoxes”. 
3. Magick is less liable to lead to error than any other Science, 
because its terms are interchangeable, by définition, so that it is based on 
relativity from the start. We run no risk of asserting absolute propo¬ 
sitions. Furthermore we make our measurements in terms of the object 
measured, thus avoiding the absurdity of defining metaphysical ideas by 
mutable standards, (Cf. Eddington “Space, Time, and Gravitation . 
— 77