Vlll PREFACE. 



planted or posited uninjured in time. Man is the object in the self- 

 consciousness of God; the creatures below man are, however, the 

 objects only of the consciousness of God. Thus if God places before 

 and from himself only single qualities, there are worldly things ; if, 

 however, God in this crowd of representations attains to his own 

 entire representation then arises Man. God is = -f — , Man 

 = 4- oo — qd, the animal is = -f n — n. The animals are only 

 represented in part. The subject of self-consciousness is = + — ; 

 the objects, however, are the numbers which are equivalent to this, 

 being = ao + 3 + 2+l + 0-l-2-3 — oo. Thus if all numbers, 

 all world-elements, together with their perfections, occur in conscious- 

 ness = 4- — , there is a Man ; if only single, and perhaps but few 

 things, such as food, stones, &c. (with the entire exception of the ce- 

 lestial bodies), enter consciousness, there is an animal. They are 

 represented only partly, or in a portion of the universe, but Man is 

 represented wholly on in all its parts. Animals are fragments of 

 man." — p. 25. 



Forty-seven pages of this matter bring us to the following summary 

 or retrospect, with which the mathesis or introductory chapter of the 

 work terminates. 



" RETROSPECT. 



" 208. The Triplicity of the primary act in the universe has now 

 been completely demonstrated. The first manifestation of God is 

 mouas; to this corresponds Gravity, JEther, darkness, the cold of 

 chaos. The second manifestation of God is the dyas ; to this corre- 

 sponds the aether in a state of tension, the Light. The third mani- 

 festation of God is the trias ; to this corresponds the want of form, 

 Heat. God being in himself is Gravity; acting, self-emergent, 

 Light ; both together, or returning into himself, Heat. These are the 

 three Primals in the world, and equal to the three which were prior 

 to the world. They are manifested tri-unity = Fire." — p. 48. 



I am unaccustomed to use strong expressions, but this either has 

 or has not a meaning.; it is either senseless twaddle or downright 

 blasphemy. I incline to the first definition, but I confess myself one 

 of those to whom the author alludes as having " neither the capacity " 



