is and
reasoning at once becomes very slippery. Mathematicians, physicists, etc.,
may feel that the expression is just a "well adapted one," and they may
not be very much inclined to look closer into it or attentively to analyse
it. Theologians and metaphysicians probably will speculate a great deal
about it vaguely, with undefined terms and incoherent ideas with
incoherent results; which will not lead us toward a scientific or true
solution, but will keep us away from the discovery of truth.

In the meantime two facts remain facts: namely, mathematicians and
physicists have almost all agreed with Minkowski "that space by itself and
time by itself, are mere shadows, and only a kind of blend of the two
exists in its own right." The other fact--psychological fact--is that _time_
exists psychologically by itself, undefined and not understood. One chief
difficulty is always that humans have to sit in judgment upon their own
case. The psychological time as such, is our own human time; scientific
time as such, is also our own human time. Which one of them is the best
concept--which one more nearly corresponds to the truth about "time"? What
is time (if any) anyway? Until now we have gone from "Cosmos" to "Bios,"
from "Bios" to "Logos," now we are confronted with the fact that
"Logos"--Intelligence--and Time-binding are dangerously near to akin to each
other, or may be identical. Do we in this way approach or go back to
"Cosmos"? Such are the crucial questions which arise out of this new
concept of Man. One fact must be borne in mind, that "the principles of
dynamics appeared first to us, as experimental truths; but we have been
obliged to use them as definitions. It is by definition that force is
equal to the product of mass by acceleration, or that action is equal to
reaction." (_The Foundation of Science_, by Henri Poincare); and
mathematics also has its whole foundation in a few axioms, "self evident,"
but _psychological facts_. It must be noted that the time-binding
energy--the higher or highest energies of man (one of its branches anyway,
for sake of discrimination let us call it "_M_") when it works properly,
that is, mathematically, does _not_ work _psychologically_ but works
ABSTRACTLY: the higher the abstraction the less there is of the
psychological element and the more there is, so to say, of the pure,
impersonal time-binding energy (_M_). The definition of a man as a
time-binder--a definition based on facts--sugges