Berashith

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”?