13
perfect and absolute parallel in logic. Thus: let us
convert twice the proposition “some books are on the
table”. By negativing both terms we get “Absence-of-
book is not on the table”, which is precisely my equation
backwards, and a thinkable
thing, To reverse. the
process, what do I mean when I say “some pigs, but not
the black pig, are not in the sty"? I imply that the
black pig is im the sty. All I have done is to represent
the conversion as a change, rather than as merely another
way of expressing the same thing. And “change” is
really not my meaning either; for change, to our minds,
involves the idea of time. But the whole thing is incon-
ceivable — to ratiocination, though not to thought. Note
well too that ifI say “Absence-of-book is not on the
table” I cannot convert it into “All books are on the
table” but only to “some books are on the table”. The
proposition is an “E” and not an “*A” proposition. It
is
the Advaita blunder to make it so; and many a school-
boy has fed off the mantelpiece for less.
There is yet another proof—the proof by exclusion. I
have shown, and metaphycians practically admit, the
falsity alike of Dvaitism and Advaitism. The third, the
only remaining theory, this theory, must, however
antecedently improbable, however difficult to assimilate,
be true.
” “My friend, my young friend,” I think I hear some
Christian cleric say, with an air of profound wisdom, not
untinged with pity, condescending to pose beardless and
brainless\ impertinence : “where is the C a us e for this
truly remarkable change”?