ese concepts are basic and impersonal; arrived at
mathematically, they are mathematically correct.

It does not matter at all _how_ the first man, the first time-binder, was
produced; the fact remains that he was somewhere, somehow produced. To
know anything that is to-day of fundamental interest about man, we have to
analyse man in three coordinates--in three capacities; namely, his
chemistry, his activities in space, and especially his activities in time;
whereas in the study of animals we have to consider only two factors:
their chemistry and their activities in space.

Let us imagine that the aboriginal--original human specimen was one of two
brother apes, _A_ and _B_; they were alike in every respect; both were
animal space-binders; but something strange happened to _B_; he became the
first time-binder, a human. No matter how, this "something" made the
change in him that lifted him to a higher dimension; it is enough that in
some-wise, over and above his animal capacity for binding space, there was
superadded the marvelous new capacity for binding-time. He had thus a new
faculty, he belonged to a new dimension; but, of course, he did not
realize it; and because he had this new capacity he was able to analyze
his brother "_A_"; he observed "_A_ is my brother; he is an animal; but he
is my brother; therefore, _I_ AM AN ANIMAL." This fatal first conclusion,
reached by false analogy, by neglecting a fact, has been the chief source
of human woe for half a million years and it still survives. The
time-binding capacity, first manifest in _B_, increased more and more,
with the days and each generation, until in the course of centuries man
felt himself increasingly somehow different from the animal, but he could
not explain. He said to himself, "If I am an animal there is also in me
something higher, a spark of some thing _super_natural."

With this conclusion he estranged himself, as something apart from nature,
and formulated the impasse, which put him in a cul-de-sac of a double
life. He was neither true to the "supernatural" which he could not know
and therefore, could not emulate, nor was he true to the "animal" which he
scorned. Having put himself outside the "natural laws," he was not really
true to any law and condemned himself to a life of hypocrisy, and
established speculative, artificial, unnatural laws.

"How blind our familiar assumptions make us! Among the animals, man, at
least, has long been wont to regard