﻿THE 
  UNFATHOMED 
  UNIVERSE 
  31 
  

  

  no 
  mental 
  picture 
  of 
  the 
  remoteness 
  of 
  the 
  sun, 
  which 
  is 
  

   the 
  earth's 
  ' 
  mother-country 
  ', 
  but 
  if 
  the 
  sun 
  were 
  repre- 
  

   sented 
  in 
  a 
  model 
  by 
  a 
  grain 
  of 
  sand 
  one-hundredth 
  of 
  an 
  

   inch 
  in 
  diameter, 
  and 
  the 
  earth 
  by 
  a 
  quite 
  invisible 
  speck 
  

   one 
  inch 
  away, 
  the 
  nearest 
  star 
  would 
  be 
  represented 
  on 
  

   this 
  scale 
  by 
  another 
  grain 
  of 
  sand 
  some 
  four 
  miles 
  off. 
  

   One 
  knows 
  indeed 
  that 
  size 
  and 
  distance 
  are 
  in 
  a 
  way 
  the 
  

   least 
  important 
  distinctions 
  in 
  the 
  world, 
  but 
  just 
  as 
  men 
  

   often 
  lose 
  their 
  littleness 
  in 
  sojourning 
  among 
  the 
  great 
  

   mountains, 
  so 
  it 
  is 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  significance 
  of 
  things 
  to 
  us 
  

   that 
  we 
  belong 
  to 
  a 
  system 
  cast 
  on 
  big 
  lines. 
  We 
  are 
  citizens 
  

   of 
  no 
  mean 
  city. 
  

  

  No 
  one 
  supposes 
  that 
  we 
  are 
  divided 
  into 
  scientific, 
  

   aesthetic, 
  and 
  other 
  parts, 
  and 
  function 
  in 
  bits 
  as 
  it 
  were; 
  

   or 
  that 
  there 
  is 
  an 
  antithesis, 
  like 
  good 
  and 
  evil, 
  between 
  

   science 
  and 
  feeling; 
  or 
  that 
  there 
  is 
  any 
  such 
  thing 
  as 
  ' 
  pure 
  

   perception 
  '. 
  As 
  a 
  matter 
  of 
  fact, 
  as 
  Professor 
  Hitter 
  says, 
  

   " 
  We 
  know-and-feel, 
  all 
  in 
  one 
  breath, 
  whenever 
  we 
  respond 
  

   in 
  an 
  unsophisticated, 
  natural 
  manner 
  to 
  contacts 
  with 
  men 
  

   and 
  things' 
  (1911, 
  p. 
  126). 
  Deeper 
  science 
  may 
  deepen 
  

   feeling, 
  and 
  deeper 
  feeling 
  may 
  lead 
  to 
  deeper 
  science. 
  We 
  

   are 
  inclined 
  to 
  agree 
  with 
  Hitter 
  that 
  " 
  we 
  cannot 
  interpret 
  

   plant 
  and 
  animal 
  life 
  broadly 
  and 
  soundly 
  either 
  in 
  technical 
  

   science 
  or 
  in 
  common 
  intelligence 
  unless 
  the 
  aesthetic 
  side 
  

   of 
  our 
  nature 
  joins 
  with 
  the 
  intellectual 
  side 
  in 
  determining 
  

   our 
  attitude 
  toward 
  the 
  beings 
  we 
  deal 
  with." 
  Progress 
  is 
  

   to 
  be 
  looked 
  for 
  in 
  correlated, 
  not 
  dissociated 
  development. 
  

   There 
  is 
  no 
  question 
  of 
  allowing 
  feeling 
  to 
  influence 
  our 
  cal- 
  

   culations 
  or 
  measurements, 
  for 
  the 
  scientific 
  accounts 
  an- 
  

   open 
  to 
  public 
  inspection 
  and 
  are 
  fortunately 
  audited 
  with 
  

   severity. 
  But 
  we 
  need 
  not 
  think 
  that 
  the 
  ark 
  of 
  science 
  IKH 
  

   such 
  an 
  unstable 
  equilibrium 
  that 
  a 
  touch 
  of 
  imaginative 
  

  

  