COSMIC PHILOSOPHY 



in relation to the questions of phenomenality, 

 of causation and deanthropomorphization, of 

 the persistence of force, and of the evolution 

 of the phenomenal world. But now, having 

 obtained definite conclusions upon these points, 

 we are at last enabled to present the case as a 

 whole. Having seen that in certain senses the 

 Deity and the Cosmos are alike inscrutable, let 

 us now see if there is any sense in which it may 

 be legitimately said that the Unknowable con- 

 tained in our first theorem is identical with the 

 Unknowable contained in our second theorem. 

 Upon what grounds did we assert the un- 

 knowableness of Deity ? We were driven to the 

 conclusion that Deity is unknowable, because 

 that which exists independently of intelligence 

 and out of relation to it, which presents neither 

 likeness y difference, nor relation, cannot be cog- 

 nized. Now by precisely the same process, we 

 were driven to the conclusion that the Cosmos 

 is unknowable, only in so far as it is absolute. 

 It is only as existing independently of our in- 

 telligence and out of relation to it, that we can 

 predicate unknowableness of the Cosmos. As 

 manifested to our intelligence, the Cosmos is 

 the world of phenomena, — the realm of the 

 knowable. We know stars and planets, we know 

 the surface of our earth, we know life and mind 

 in their various manifestations, individual und 

 social. But as we have seen, this vast aggregate 

 234 



