158 



SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 



of the unconscious. From sundry evolutionary imaginations on 

 p. 134 (assertions without proof), those investigators who hold the 

 hypothesis of Evolution to be unscientific and false will emphatically 

 dissent. The author seems here to fall into a self-contradiction, 

 since the Physical Ego appears pre-existent to that Transcendental 

 Ego of which we are told repeatedly it is "the shadow." It is 

 difficult to understand how a "shadow" can be pre-existent to the 

 thing of which it is the shadow (p. 134). 



Xowithstanding these blemishes, the paper is marked by much 

 that is true and beautiful and of practical value. The idea of the 

 Spiritual as the Eternal, the idea of Love as the Summum Bonum, 

 the idea of God as Infinite Love ever seeking to reveal Himself to us 

 in order that, through sympathy resulting from knowledge, we may 

 come to resemble Him and have Everlasting Life, the idea of 

 successful Prayer as that which is in Avill-sympathy with Him — these 

 are living thoughts for which all readers of this paper may unite in 

 warmly thanking the gifted author. 



The Chairman said : This is a very important and interesting 

 paper. It is well to learn to realize the limitations of our nature 

 and, if it may be, to see to go beyond them. 



It is no new problem, it has been well said — 



" I gaze aloof at the tess and roof 

 Of which time and space are the warp and the woof, 

 A tapestried tent to shade us meant 

 From the brave everlasting Firmament." 



But how far is it possible, and still more how far can we find words 

 to express it. 



I think it is Dean Inge who has warned us that most of our words 

 which we use to express deep thought are drawn from imperfect 

 analogies. 



Now take the word " real," as modern as it is common, borrowed 

 from Roman Law by the Schoolman : it is used to express anything 

 from the material to the Platonic ideal, according to the conception 

 of the speaker of what "res " is. 



Again Kant seems to mean by " objective " exactly what the 

 Schoolman meant by "subjective," and there is the grave danger of 

 such words being taken in a widely difi"erent sense from what is 

 intended. 



Evil is the negation of good, to a mathematician minus is as much 



