APPENDIX I. PHILOSOPHICAL.

Existence is not

mentally affirmable=Nothing.

And this, as

there is violated

the Condition of Relativity, is II.) Nihil cogitabile, The Impossible to thought.

i.) Identity.

A law of things, is I.) NON-CONTRADICTION; giving ii.) Contradiction. The Not-impossible in reality, under its rules of (iii.) Excluded Middle.

THINKING (employing that term as comprehending all our cognitive energies) is of two kinds. It is either A) Negative or B) Positive.

A.) Thinking is NEGATIVE (in propriety, a negation of thought), when Existence is not attributed to an object. It is of two kinds; in as much as the one or the other of the conditions of positive thinking is violated. In either case, the result is Nothing.

I.) If the condition of Non-contradiction be not fulfilled, there emerges The really Impossible, what has been called in the schools, Nihil purum.

II.) If the condition of Relativity be not purified, there results The Impossible to thought; that is, what may exist, but what we are unable to conceive existing. This impossible, the schools have not contemplated; we are, therefore, compelled, for the sake of symmetry and precision, to give it a scholastic appellation in the Nihil cogitabile.

B.) Thinking is POSITIVE (and this in propriety is the only real thought), when Existence is predicated of an object. By existence is not, however, here meant real or objective existence, but only existence subjective or ideal. Thus imagining a Centaur or a Hippogryph, we do not suppose that the phantasm has any being beyond our imagination; but still we attribute to it an actual existence in thought. Nay, we attribute to it a possible existence in creation; for we can represent nothing, which we do not think, as within the limits of Almighty power to realize.-Positive thinking can be brought to bear only under two conditions; the condition of I.) Non-contradiction, and the condition of II.) Relativity. If both are fulfilled, we think Something.

I.) NON-CONTRADICTION. This condition is insuperable. We think it, not only as a law of thought, but as a law of things; and while we suppose its violation to determine an absolute impossibility, we suppose its fulfillment to afford only the Not-impossible. Thought is, under this condition, merely explicative or analytic; and the condition itself is brought to bear under three phases, constituting three laws: i.)-the law of Identity; ii.)—— the law of Contradiction; iii.)-the law of Excluded Middle. The science of these laws is Logic; and as the laws are only explicative, Logic is only formal. (The principle of Sufficient Reason should be excluded from Logic. For, in as much as this principle is not material (material-non-formal) it is only a deri

vation of the three formal laws; and in as much as it is material, it coincides with the principle of Causality, and is extra-logical),

Though necessary to state the condition of Non-contradiction, there is no dispute about its effect, no danger of its violation. When I, therefore, speak of the Conditioned, I use the term in special reference to Relativity. By existence conditioned, is meant, emphatically, existence relative, existence thought under relation. Relation may thus be understood to contain all the categories and forms of positive thought.

II.) RELATIVITY. This condition (by which, be it observed, is meant the relatively or conditionally relative, and, therefore, not even the relative, absolutely or infinitely)-this condition is not insuperable. We should not think it as a law of things, but merely as a law of thought; for we find that there are contradictory opposites, one of which, by the rule of Excluded Middle, must be true, but neither of which can by us be positively thought, as possible. Thinking, under this condition, is ampliative or synthetic. Its science Metaphysic (using that term in a comprehensive meaning), is therefore material, in the sense of non-formal. The condition of Relativity, in so far as it is necessary, is brought to bear under three principal relations; the first of which springs from the subject of knowledge-the mind thinking (the relation of Knowledge); the second and third from the object of knowledge -the thing thought about (the relations of Existence.)

(Besides these necessary and original relations, of which alone it is requisite to speak in an alphabet of human thought, there are many relations, contingent and derivative, which we frequently employ in the actual applications of our cognitive energies. Such for example (without arrangement) as-True and False, Good and Bad, Perfect and Imperfect, Easy and Difficult, Desire and Aversion, Simple and Complex, Uniform and Various, Singular and Universal, Whole and Part, Similar and Dissimilar, Congruent and Incongruent, Equal and Unequal, Orderly and Disorderly, Beautiful and Deformed, Material and Immaterial, Natural and Artificial, Organized and Inorganized, Young and Old, Male and Female, Parent and Child, &c. &c. These admit of classification from different points of view; but to attempt their arrangement at all, far less on any exclusive principle, would here be manifestly out of place).

i.) The relations of Knowledge are those which arise from the reciprocal dependence of the subject and of the object of thought,

SELF AND NOT-SELF (Ego and Non-ego-Subjective and Objective.) Whatever comes into consciousness, is thought by us, either as belonging to the mental self, exclusively (subjectivo-subjective), or as belonging to the not-self, exclusively (objectivo-objective), or as belonging partly to both (subjectivo-objective.) It is difficult, however, to find words to express precisely all the complex correlations of knowledge. For in cognizing a mere affection of self, we objectify it; it forms a subject-object or subjective object or subjectivo-subjective object: and how shall we name and dis criminate a mode of mind, representative of and relative to a mode of matter? This difficulty is, however, strictly psychological. In so far as we are at present concerned, it is manifest that all these cognitions exist for us, only as terms of a correlation.

The relations of Existence, arising from the object of knowledge, are twofold; in as much as the relation is either Intrinsic or Extrinsic.

ii.) As the relation of Existence is Intrinsic, it is that of SUBSTANCE AND QUALITY (form, accident, property, mode, affection, phenomenon, appearance, attribute, predicate, &c.) It may be called qualitative.

Substance and Quality are, manifestly, only thought as mutual relatives. We can not think a quality existing absolutely, in or of itself. We are constrained to think it, as inhering in some basis, substratum, hypostasis, or substance; but this substance can not be conceived by us, except negatively, that is, as the unapparent-the inconceivable correlative of certain appearing qualities. If we attempt to think it positively, we can think it only by transforming it into a quality or bundle of qualities, which, again, we are compelled to refer to an unknown substance, now supposed for their incogitable basis. Every thing, in fact, may be conceived as the quality, or as the substance of something else. But absolute substance and absolute quality, these are both inconceivable, as more than negations of the conceivable. It is hardly requisite to observe, that the term Substance is vulgarly applied, in the abusive signification, to a congeries of quali ties, denoting those especially which are more permanent, in contrast to those which are more transitory. (See the treatise De Mundo, attributed to Aristotle, c. iv.)

What has now been said, applies equally to Mind and Matter. As the relation of Existence is Extrinsic, it is threefold; and