{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3328", "width": "1998", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.*\\nChap Copyright No\\nShelBIkA I (q\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA.", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "Digitized by the Internet Archive\\nin 2011 with funding from\\nThe Library of Congress\\nhttp://www.archive.org/details/hypothesisforcepOOtaft", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "HYPOTHESIS FOR A\\nCEPTACLE THEORY", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "HYPOTHESIS FOR A\\nCEPTACLE THEORY\\nBY\\nOREN B. TAFT\\nCHICAGO\\nPRINTED AT THE LAKESIDE PRESS\\n1900", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "TWO COPIES RECEIVED,\\nLibrary of Cengraf^\\nOffice o f t|||\\nAPR 1 81900\\nKeglsttr of Copyrlgfcffc\\n61184\\nCopyrighted, iqoo\\nBY\\nOREN B. TAFT\\n6EG0N0 COPY,", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "If the hypothesis here advanced is sustained,\\nand a ceptacle, so named, be a nature-fact, then\\nit must follow that no more of this hypothesis,\\nor theory, as human knowledge, can be new\\nthan is the measure of the latest development of\\nsuch ceptacle. For if Antecedent is having its\\nBeing in its own expression, where atom, proto-\\nplasm and ceptacle follow each other, in one\\nevolution, in, what may be, one scientific-philo-\\nsophical classification, then knowledge itself,\\nwhich appears with human life in that evolu-\\ntion, is correlative of this ceptacle development,\\nand any individual person has little relative\\nimportance in so large a movement.\\nIt is believed the propositions, together with\\nthe definitions, are stated with sufficient clear-\\nness to indicate the principle involved. There-\\nfore, the brief argument added must be taken\\nonly as the method of their application in the\\nthoughts of the writer, and not as supposedly\\nconclusive evidence either for or against their\\nvalidity. O. B. T.\\nChicago, February, /goo.", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "DEFINITIONS.\\nCEPTACLE.\\nCeptacle differs from either con-\\nceptacle, re-ceptacle or concept in that it\\nhas no relative, or relatives, or conceivable\\nrelation outside of itself. The Infinite\\nand Absolute inhere in its Nature. Its\\nessence is a state of ceaseless change.\\nIts phenomenon is a realization of itself\\nas motion. Its parts are a sequence of\\nthis realization as a movement of its\\nrelated self within itself. Its substance\\nis a coherence measurable by time and\\nspace.\\nBEING.\\nBeing is the immediacy of ceaseless\\nchange, which objectifies itself in a con-\\nscious phenomenon, whereby it reveals\\nitself to itself as the relationing subject\\nand object accounting for its own activity.\\n9", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "Definitions.\\nRELATIONING.\\nRelationing implies activity in a plu-\\nrality, where the ratio of relatives being\\ngreater or less than any assignable differ-\\nence makes it an activity occurring\\nwithin a separate or separable thing,\\nI NTELLIGENCE-MATTER.\\nIntelligence-Matter is substance hav-\\ning coherence, measurable by terms of\\ndimension in Space, possessing motion\\noccurring in an order which, describable in\\nterms of Time, will account for the coher-\\nence.\\nNATURE.\\nNature means the sum of all phe-\\nnomena, together with the causes which\\nproduce them, including not only all that\\nhappens, but all that is capable of hap-\\npening; the unused capabilities of causes\\nbeing as much a part of this idea of\\nnature as those which take effect. J. S.\\nMill.\\n10", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nPRINCIPLE.\\nAny separate or separable thing, when\\na Ceptacle, is being the consciously insep-\\narable likeness and difference of itself to\\nitself within itself.\\nPROPOSITIONS.\\nI.\\nWhatever exists, whether of intension\\nor extension, animate or inanimate, as a\\nseparate being or thing, or any separable\\nor distinguishable object or subject that\\nis conceived to exist, is a Relationing of\\nitself to itself within itself.\\nII.\\nThis Relationing at a given point is a\\ncohesive, individual, recognizable, de-\\nscribable, conscious Ceptacle, in being its\\nown Identity of itself within itself.", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nIII.\\nIn any separate or separable thought,\\nconception or perception, the subject and\\nobject thought are in the same Ceptacle,\\nand the Relationing therein is a realiza-\\ntion of their one identity as itself to itself\\nwithin itself. In any Ceptacle the ratio\\nof the relatives to each other is greater or\\nless than any assignable difference.\\nIV.\\nWhen in any Ceptacle the nature of the\\nratio of its relatives in its unassignable\\ndifference becomes Conscious Identity,\\nthen its Antecedent Unused Capabilities\\nare an inseparable present in such Cep-\\ntacle, thereby furnishing to Identity the\\nproof that the Infinite and Absolute is\\nItself.\\n12", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nARGUMENT.\\nProposition I. is based upon the assump-\\ntion that in all effort, without exception,\\nboth philosophy and science have failed\\nto abstract or eliminate from any ultimate\\nor unit, whether an idea, a thing or an\\nideal-thing, so much that the remainder\\ndoes not contain or cannot be conceived\\nto contain, does not consist of or cannot\\nbe conceived to consist of, is not of the\\nnature of or cannot be conceived to be of\\nthe nature of a plurality.\\nMathematics, resorted to for the\\ndemonstration of truths, fortifies this\\nproposition of the Universality of the\\nLaw of Relativity, when its Ultimate in\\ngeometrical symbolism a point, though\\ndefined as without length, breadth, or\\nthickness by a limping terminology,\\nproves itself a plurality in its failure to\\nsquare a circle. The mathematical unit,\\nalso, like the geometrical point, proved\\nan inexhaustible plurality, in which Kep-\\nT 3", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory,\\nler found it necessary to indicate any\\nultimate unknown, not by the X sign\\nalone, but by X\\nIn describing il whatever exists as a\\nseparate being or thing, in Proposition L,\\nit is intended to be all comprehensive in\\nits application, whether the being or\\nthing is ideal, real or an ideal-realism,\\nas these actually are or are defined to\\nbe, in the usage of words. If mind and\\nmatter can be differentiated in creative\\nexpression, neither precedes the other in\\nthat expression, but is co-existent in the\\nsame being or thing. If the difference\\nof their ratio in such expression is such\\nthat either would fail to appear, the ex-\\npression itself disappears.\\nIn its essence, whatever exists is a\\nplurality from which science and philos-\\nophy do and must utterly fail to abstract\\nor eliminate its relatives, so that at least\\ntwo do not always remain as the content\\nof such being or thing. With these, a\\nRelationing (Def.) of themselves to them-\\ni 4", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nselves within itself evidences the fact that\\nthe fundamental principle in any human\\nconsideration of it is that of a plurality.\\nThis Universal flux, found to be the\\nessence of whatever exists in the lower\\norder of creative expression, is likewise the\\nessence of its Being (Def.) when the human\\nappears. From this conclusion there can\\nbe no escape if Proposition I. is to hold\\ntrue. It is the law, not only of any sep-\\narate or separable inanimate atom, or\\nanimate cell, but also of any separate or\\nseparable idea. If atom is at the bottom,\\nEgo is only further along in a movement\\nof one evolution, in which Soul is the\\nIdentity at the top of that which has\\npreceded. This may be but a re-state-\\nment of the known Law of Relativity, but\\nit must be with the difference of this inex-\\norable insistence; that if this Law is found\\nsufficient to hold together the inseparable\\nrelatives Intelligence and Matter, as atom\\nor protoplasm, and out of these to build\\na Universe, this same Law is sufficient to\\n15", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory,\\ncompel human Identity in its Ego to asso-\\nciate itself with its objective in an insep-\\narable Oneness which forbids the possibil-\\nity of subject and object ever being other\\nthan inseparable relatives. So long as\\nthe opinion was held that the earth was\\nexempt from the law of the universal\\nmovement of the planets, chiefly for the\\nreason that it was necessary for it to be\\nso in order that the solar system might\\nrevolve about it, astronomy was an inex-\\ntricable tangle. So the point of view\\ntaken by Ego in all its considerations of\\nobjectivity, whether of the Antecedent of\\nits being or of the least of things, has\\nplaced that objectivity always in the sec-\\nond or third person. This is not a mere\\nincident in the immature growth of lan-\\nguage; it is the immature expression of a\\nPrinciple, which has as yet evolved from\\nitself, from out its own domain, an Ego\\nthat is a realization of a small portion\\nonly of itself. When Ego shall under all\\ncircumstances conceive the law of its\\n16", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nBeing (Def.) to include it also within, and\\nto be a part of, Universal creative expres-\\nsion, so that ?w point of view can remove\\nthis Ego outside the pale of such creative\\nexpression, much of the tangle in our\\nlives will disappear, as did the tangle in\\nastronomy. To do this, Ego cannot\\nignore a Oneness with the least of things\\nin an inseparable relationing, if it would\\nfind a Oneness with the Infinite and Abso-\\nlute in what it conceives a sublime\\nrelation.\\nRelationing (Def.) in the order of its\\nBeing (Def.) in its unfolding must be true\\nwith unrelenting persistence throughout\\nthe evolution of that Being, from its low-\\nest to its highest. This law of relativity\\nmust be followed through Propositions II.,\\nIII. and IV., with a courage which, if ad-\\nhered to, will in the minds of many rank\\nthe statement as born of presumptuous\\nfoolishness. Thus, in Proposition I., it is\\nsaid that whatever exists is a Relation-\\n17", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ning of itself to itself within itself.\\nProposition II. adds that this Relationing\\nis its own Being as this whatever exists\\nand further, that at a given point in cre-\\native expression, Relationing, as its own\\nBeing, is a cohesive, individual, recogniz-\\nable, describable, and conscious Ceptacle\\n(Def.), the content of which is its own\\nIdentity of itself within itself. At this\\npoint, the purpose must be to define this\\nCeptacle and make it stand out for dis-\\ncernment as atom or protoplasm may\\nsupposably be discerned and defined.\\nCeptacle, in a classification with atom and\\nprotoplasm, is but a creative expression,\\nand must be prepared for like treatment.\\nIt is not necessary for this purpose that\\nwe should give to the definition of Intel-\\nligence and Matter more or less than is\\ngranted by common acceptation. What-\\never definition will describe such Intelli-\\ngence-Matter (Def.) will, when applied to\\natom or protoplasm, describe that atom\\nor protoplasm itself; for without a descrip-\\n18", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ntion of such Intelligence-Matter, such\\natom or protoplasm cannot be known.\\nThis is their substance as each exists or\\nis conceived to exist. Now a description\\nof this Activity, as the Relationing of\\nthis Intelligence-Matter with itself within\\nitself, will describe its Ceptacle; for Cep-\\ntacle is the Self-Realized Identity of that\\nIntelligence-Matter (Def.) as its definite,\\ncoherent, and creative expression, the\\nproduct of Evolution. Therefore, to de-\\nscribe the Being of this Intelligence-Mat-\\nter as Itself conscious of itself, will be to\\ndescribe its Ceptacle.\\nA drop of water, its expansion by heat,\\nits energy as steam, in a world which has\\nnot yet evolved humanity, is an atom-fact,\\nbut a conscious one unevolved. This\\nsame drop of water, its expansion and\\nenergy when the human does come, has\\nnot changed one iota; the human fact\\nhas not added or taken from that inani-\\nmate its slightest particle, or changed its\\ncharacter. But what has been and is\\n19", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nnow, through and with this human, con-\\nsciously knows that it has been and is.\\nAny description of this human phenome-\\nnon in its knowing, at the given point of\\nknowing this particular drop of expand-\\ning water, will be a description of the\\nsubstance of that drop as Intelligence-\\nMatter, in a relationing activity of these\\nas its relatives; and, also, a description\\nof the contents of a Ceptacle, which is\\ntheir evolution in a higher phenomenon.\\nAt all times and in all places the Law of\\nthe Being of this drop of water has not\\nbeen changed. For as out of the inani-\\nmate evolves the animate, so that that\\nwhich before has expressed no life be-\\ncomes alive, in or through this human,\\nthis drop of water, in the order of its\\nBeing, has become conscious Intelligence-\\nMatter itself, whose humanity appears in\\na Ceptacle of conscious existence. A\\ndescription of this is made possible, in\\nconsciousness, by the fact that its con-\\ntents will be a description of that cohe-", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nsive, individual, recognizable and describ-\\nable Intelligence-Matter, as its own\\nactivity, in a relationing of itself, when it\\nevolves this Ceptacle.\\nProfessor Huxley, in his essay on\\nSensations and the Sensiferous Organs,\\nsays: In ultimate analysis, then, it ap-\\npears that the sensation is the equivalent\\nin terms of consciousness for a mode of\\nmotion of the matter of the sensorium.\\nBut if inquiry is pushed a stage further,\\nand the question is asked, What do we\\nknow about matter and motion? there is\\nbut one reply possible. All we know\\nabout motion is that it is a name for cer-\\ntain changes in the relations of our visual,\\ntactile, and muscular sensations; and all\\nthat we know about matter is that it is\\nthe hypothetical substance of physical\\nphenomena the assumption of the exist-\\nence of which is as pure a piece of meta-\\nphysical speculation as is that of the\\nexistence of the substance of mind.\\nAll of which is an inevitable conclusion", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nfrom these assumed premises. Are we\\nsure, however, that in the ultimate\\nanalysis a sensation is the equivalent in\\nterms of consciousness for a mode of mo-\\ntion of the matter of the sensorium\\nonly, as limited by Mr. Huxley? Change\\nthe premise; assume this Hypothetical\\nCeptacle in the ultimate analysis. Then\\nit will appear that a sensation is the\\nequivalent, in terms of consciousness, of\\nwhatever is the mode of motion of the\\nsubstance, as physical phenomenon, that\\npervades the entire Ceptacle, including\\nnot only this subjective sensorium of Mr.\\nHuxley s, but that exterior substance. Is\\nthere any fundamental reason in science\\nthat shall make it less possible for that\\nobjective substance in this relation to\\nevolve a sensorium than for the physical\\nsubjective? If not, will it not, then,\\nbe a proper field for science at least to\\ninquire into the possibility that that which\\noccurs in mind, conventionally so called\\nin this instance, occurs also in a sen-", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory,\\nsorium in its relative objective matter as\\nwell, and pervades the entire Ceptacle?\\nThat if sensation, feeling, perception,\\nknowledge, understanding, consciousness\\nare of the mind, they are not segregated\\nas abstractions by the mind from either\\nthe subject or object matter in that Cep-\\ntacle, though in the evolution of Ceptacle\\nthis may appear to be the case, because\\nthe proportions vary in greater or less\\ndegree, as acute faculties, at which these\\nseveral phases of sensate phenomena of\\nIntelligence-Matter have arrived. It is\\npossible, therefore, that after all, these phe-\\nnomena may not have their limitations to\\nwhat we know about motion, as a name\\nfor certain changes in the relation of our\\nvisual, tactile, and muscular sensations\\nalone. But rather, they are what Intel-\\nligence-Matter, as both subject and\\nobject, realizes as certain Changes in rela-\\ntives, which are itself, that pervade the\\nentire domain to which such knowledge\\nmay reach. That the phenomena appear\\n2 3", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nby virtue of substance, sufficient at every\\npart for the development of a sensorium\\nthat shall account for sensation, feeling,\\nperception, understanding or conscious-\\nness, throughout the whole, as they shall\\nunfold themselves through evolution.\\nIt is no longer difficult for the under-\\nstanding to comprehend the existence of\\ninorganic matter, or to follow it as molec-\\nular activity even to the limits of the\\nSolar system, though vast changes have\\ncome to this understanding since Grecian\\nphilosophy held in its mind a proper\\ncognition of such elementary facts as air\\nand earth. The study of protoplasmic\\nlife has not yet graduated even its first\\nclass in what must be known before the\\norganic can be positively differentiated\\nas, for instance, vegetable from animal\\nlife. If there is a third fundamental cre-\\native expression following these atomic\\nand protoplasmic ones itself a nature-\\ngrowth in the same sense that they are\\nit is a development to be followed in the\\n24", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nmanner of an unfolding, and not by any\\noutreach of miraculous conception. Fur-\\nther, these three are not to be lost sight\\nof in any demonstration in one evolution;\\nall have been equally co-existent in fact,\\nvarying only in the time of their expres-\\nsion as phenomena. In such demonstra-\\ntion, protoplasmic life, when it appears,\\nexplains itself as the inorganic atom\\norganized, while this third expression,\\nconscious Being as Ceptacle, explains all\\nthree where it knows itself as inorganic,\\norganic, and its own Antecedent, in one\\nclassification.\\nHeterogeneity, as it precedes the\\nhomogeneous in the development of the\\ninorganic and organic, holds true in\\nthe evolution of Ceptacle, apparently un-\\nfolding itself as Individuality from out of\\nan impersonality which appears through a\\ngradually dawning consciousness of per-\\nsonality. From where this Appearance\\nbecomes conscious Individual, it acquires\\na development by extending this con-\\n25", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nsciousness back upon itself, first to its per-\\nsonality, then to its impersonality, but at\\nall times in its growth these constitute\\nthis Appearance. It must be for this\\nreason that human Identity knows itself\\nfirst as that individual body that holds\\nwhat Mr. Huxley finds to be its only Sen-\\nsorium, where human Being reaches its\\nfirst consciousness. A study of Being,\\nin its human stage as Ceptacle, must be\\nthat of the change from the heterogeneity\\nof impersonality and personality not a\\nmaterial part of the human body, through\\nthat body, to where it is a homogeneous\\nindividuality which shall be a conscious\\nIdentity, including impersonality, per-\\nsonality, and individuality that are with-\\nout and within that body, in one Ego.\\nSuch a growth, in its very nature, would\\nbegin with a consciousness that excluded\\nthat objective impersonal and personal\\nfrom its individuality. While a later\\ndevelopment would bring this Ego and\\nNon-Ego into the same Ceptacle as Ego\\n26", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nand Alter Ego, from no change of a fun-\\ndamental principle, but from a higher\\nexpression of that Principle in a later\\nphenomenon. Upon this basis the study\\nof Man can proceed with a scientific phi-\\nlosophy which has broken down his limi-\\ntations of Individual Egoism, making him\\nCo-existent with his every possible Con-\\nsciousness without limitation, save in his\\nown Being. The progress, however, of\\nthis human Ceptacle and its multiple, as\\nMan, must be as varied as are the indi-\\nviduals who make up humanity, with\\ninstinct, reason, and faith marking the\\ngrowth; but an instinct, reason, faith all\\nfounded upon what is and always has\\nbeen Intelligence-Matter.\\nCeptacle, as a nature-fact, does not\\ncontrovert the statement that Knowl-\\nedge is the knowing man or his view of\\nthings, but demonstrates that this\\nview has held but half the truth. In\\nCeptacle the Content knows itself as a\\nplurality. The view is a conjunction\\n27", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nof Intelligence and Matter in and through\\nman and his objective. That which\\nproves to be a scientific nature-fact comes\\nthrough a cohesive, describable conscious-\\nness by that Fact itself, as Itself.\\nThought-Phenomenon appears through\\nconsciousness, but this Thought-Phenom-\\nenon comes through a Ceptacle whose\\ncontents are the Subjective and Objective\\nin an inseparable relation. In any sep-\\narate or separable thought, conception\\nor perception, the subject and object are\\nbeing thought of in the one Ceptacle\\n(Prop. III.). There must be no evasion of\\nthe conclusion of or compromise with this\\nstatement, radical as it may seem. The\\nwords, subject and object, may be\\naccepted as commonly defined; but when\\nit is said, the subject and object in any\\nseparate or separable thought are one\\nIdentity, it is meant that the Identity is\\nthat Ego whose subject and object, in\\ntheir Relationing, are a realization of an\\n28", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory,\\nEgo that is the Being of their Identity as\\nitself to itself within itself. What is said\\nof any Ceptacle is as if we were treating of\\natom or protoplasm, in this, that whether\\nwe can trace either scientifically to one\\nsingle entity separate and distinct from\\nevery other or not, is not known. Cepta-\\ncles combine to form an aggregate, as\\natoms and protoplasms to form bodies.\\nThe law of the aggregate must, however,\\nin a given way be the law of its atom,\\nprotoplasm, or Ceptacle. Therefore,\\nwhere a Ceptacle is described that must,\\nself-evidently, be a multiple of such, it is\\ndescribing that which at the time has for\\nits immediate consideration, the relatives\\nwhich make it a separate being or thing\\nin that particular Identity; while at the\\nsame time, were the relationing to change,\\nthe content might be made the subject\\nand object of innumerable Identities.\\nAnd whether it be a Relationing of the\\ndistance between the earth and a fixed\\nstar, or the microscopic difference in the\\n29", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nlength and breadth of a point, or not, in\\neither case subject and object, regardless\\nof the magnitude of the Ceptacle, are in\\nan Identity which is their Ego-Identity.\\nEgo-Identity is Thing-Thinking and\\nThought Thinging in itself, when\\nthing-thought and thought-thing have\\nbecome conscious Self through an evolu-\\ntion, whereby that which before was not\\nSelf-conscious, has become so in its con-\\ntact with human anatomy. Through this\\ncontact it has been broken or severed, as\\nit were, into relatives of itself, in such a\\nmanner that quantity, quality, relation\\nand modality appear in a conscious\\nspectrum. These in turn become de-\\nscribable and recognizable to such con-\\nsciousness as either sight, sound, feeling,\\ntaste or smell.\\nThese, the contents of Ceptacle, Ego-\\nIdentity assimilates as relatives in Time\\nand Space, in the same Universal Law of\\nRelativity. Ego-Identity thus becomes\\na Nature-Fact through an evolution which\\n30", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nincludes the human anatomy, called man,\\nand his objectivity, not as two distinct\\nentities, but in an inseparable Identity.\\nTo describe Ego will be to describe Ego\\nand alter Ego in one relation, not an\\nimpossible Ego and non-Ego.\\nA true philosophy as a Thinking view\\nof Things will be a true Science, because\\nthis same philosophy as a Nature-Fact\\nwill be Things conscious of their own\\nthinking. The demonstration of this\\nCeptacle Theory that is here outlined,\\nmust proceed with philosophy and sci-\\nence, relatives in one relationing, with\\nsomething of the following method in its\\nconcrete application: First, let the ex-\\nample which is to serve at the time as the\\nconscious consideration, include both the\\nsensorium conventionally assumed in the\\nsubject, Man, and also the object, Thing.\\nLet consciousness have ample time to\\nbring into the consideration all possible\\nIntelligence-Matter pertaining to this sub-\\nject and object. Second, eliminate every\\n31", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nirrelevant, leaving only the subject and\\nobject in the analysis that bear a relation\\nto each other. Then it will probably be\\nfound, as in the case of atom and proto-\\nplasm, exceedingly doubtful whether the\\ncontents can be reduced to a single Cep-\\ntacle, or not; but when, by elimination,\\nthere remains what, in this conscious con-\\nsideration, appears to be a separate being\\nor thing, then this remainder should be\\nsubjected to the test of the Propositions\\nas laid down in this theory.\\nThe fundamental idea in these propo-\\nsitions is, that beginning with the lowest\\norders of creative expression a stage is\\nreached in their development where In-\\ntelligence-Matter is phenomenon, having\\nits expression in a Nature-Fact as Cep-\\ntacle. This phenomenon in any single\\nexpression includes both the objective\\nand subjective within itself that is, it\\ncannot be confined or limited to either\\nrelative. The interlacing of these com-\\nbined relatives of Intelligence-Matter, as\\n32", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ntheir activity, is their Being and the\\nmeasure of the development.\\nWe use another illustration as an aid\\ntoward enabling us to discern a Cep-\\ntacle. Let an outlined tree be the Object\\nof a perception. Confined to its simple\\noutlines, apart from its environments,\\nthese outlines and such of their contents\\nas are perceived or seen, may be said to\\nbe crude matter relative to an evolving\\nCeptacle. The human subject, perceiv-\\ning this tree and separated from it by\\nintervening space, we will say, has on his\\npart evolved no more, in a relation to this\\nobject, than merely enables him to\\ninclude the tree within his function of\\nvision. Thus it is a crude matter relative\\nto the evolution of this same Ceptacle.\\nThese relative conceptions, vision and\\ntree, are at one and the same time in a\\nco-relating, active relationing, which, as\\nactivity, will be the product of the natural\\nlaw accounting for that phenomenon as\\nit shall be discerned to be, which is neces-\\n33", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nsarily the order of their Being, or what\\nthey are in that particular relation as sci-\\nentific facts. Subject and Object in this\\nhypothesis (Prop. III.) are in the same\\nCeptacle, however large or small. So in\\nthis case are Tree, Man, and intervening\\nrelative Space in one Ceptacle. We do\\nnot need to say that intervening Space in\\nany Ceptacle is a filled space, not a\\nvacuum. In this example it will aid us,\\nin a way, to consider this spatial fact as\\nwe do the visible one, as a tangible\\nthing, if we note that it is occupied by\\nthat which, when exposed to the sensitized\\nplate of a camera at any point in this\\nCeptacle space where the vision fails, will\\nreveal either the Man-Subject or Tree-\\nObject as an actual existent relation in\\nthis space; thus indicating that there is a\\nrelationing of Intelligence-Matter at all\\npoints within the domain of this Ceptacle,\\nwhich consists of a tangible medium\\namply sufficient to form its contents.\\nThe evolution of this particular Man-\\n34", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nTree-Relationing from its assumed crude\\nbeginning will be the gradual Realization\\nof its own Being as its own Identity,\\nthrough the quantity, quality, relation\\nand modality of this content as it becomes\\na cohesive, recognizable and describ-\\nable consciousness. While this is only\\nanother way of describing that which is\\nconventionally called a knowledge of\\nthese same facts, it is, nevertheless, with\\na vital and fundamental difference in the\\npoint of view of related Subject and\\nObject, whereby such facts become\\nKnowledge. The conventional accepta-\\ntion of such Knowledge, of this Man-Tree\\nfact, places conscious knowledge onty at\\nthe point of the man or subject; yet a\\ncommon but unexplained acceptance of\\nan equally well-known fact is that the\\nMan is positive in his consciousness of\\nthe tree as at its place in that objectivity.\\nMay it not be a fact that Consciousness\\nis possible development in Ceptacle at the\\npoint of its Tree-Relative, as it is con-\\n35", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nscious at the point of its Man-Relative?\\nThe Tree-Relative not being as highly\\nevolved a phenomenon in the Ceptacle as\\nthe Man-Relative, the latter apparently\\ntakes all consciousness to itself. That\\nwhich makes consciousness a phenome-\\nnon at all in this particular case, is prob-\\nably due largely to molecular activity in\\nthe Tree, the Atmosphere, and the Man,\\nby which all are in one and the same\\nnatural law of active relationing.\\nIn this contact with the Man as a rela-\\ntive of a higher order, the phenomenon\\nConsciousness, is making its appearance\\nthrough the Man-relative, and from this\\npoint of the contact it proceeds to per-\\nvade the whole Ceptacle, according to its\\nmeasure of development. There was no\\nevolved Consciousness in the intervening\\nSpace until the phenomenon of molecular\\nmovement of light and air had become an\\nevolved Knowledge as part of the Cep-\\ntacle. Then it was that Identity, through\\nthis Consciousness, Knew itself in this\\n36", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nintervening space, as well as at Man\\nand Tree, and began to Realize that Self\\nunder certain conditions, which it discov-\\nered through a sensitized Camera plate,\\nas well as in other ways, as a relative\\nbrought into the Ceptacle. The fullness\\nof the Being, not of man or tree or inter-\\nvening space, but of their Ego-Identity,\\nin this Ceptacle, will be the measure of\\nthe development of the Contents until\\nthis Being will, by contact, thrill with a\\nConsciousness of all its relatives in every\\npart.\\nIn the evolution of this particular Cep-\\ntacle, we will assume, what is generally\\naccepted to be true, that the Tree as\\nSpecies preceded Man in the order of\\ncreative expression; that is, before man\\nthe tree was. It may be asked, How\\nwas this Tree-Identity preserved? The\\nreply is, That Oak-Identity was always\\nretained in the Acorn. The quantity,\\nquality, relation, and modality of the\\nOak, as a tree in its full growth, was\\n37", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nalways preserved in the Acorn as an un-\\nevolved Conscious-Oak-Identity, having\\nTime and Space for its relatives. The\\nratio of these Time and Space relatives,\\nas will be found true when Ceptacle ap-\\npears, is greater or less than any assign-\\nable difference (Prop. III.), and therefore in\\nthe Acorn, the Oak continues in its Time\\nrelative its future extension or growth\\nconstrained and intensioned in its Space\\nrelative while waiting for that extension.\\nThe conditions being in accord, the ratio\\nof relatives being greater or less than any\\nassignable difference, no Time can be so\\nextended or Space so intensioned as to\\ndestroy this Oak-Identity. How much\\nof this Identity other relatives outside\\n.this Acorn held, in what had been or\\nshould be the quantity, quality, relation\\nand modality of its expression as Oak,\\nmust be for the present speculative. If,\\nhowever, we thus see where the Oak is,\\nwhen the Acorn is its only residuum, it\\nmay help us to trace Ceptacle, where, in\\n38", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nour example, Tree and Intervening Space\\nhave ceased in their objective reality, and\\nman or some part of man, through which\\nCeptacle evolves, is the only residuum.\\nThis Man-Tree-Ceptacle from the full-\\nness of its realism in its extension, where\\nit included the Subjective and Objective,\\nrecedes as that objective relative experi-\\nence recedes, to where it becomes an\\nideal-realism in an intension, which idea as\\nIdentity, is still Intelligence-Matter (Def.),\\nan impression now of what it was in\\nthat experience as expression. The Oak,\\nfrom the fullness of its growth as a tree,\\nin its recession, became in the Acorn the\\nimpression as intension of what had been\\nOak-Expression. So this Man-Tree-Cep-\\ntacle preserves for renewed expression its\\nEgo-Identity as impression in some part\\nof the Intelligence-Matter of its human\\nAnatomy-Relative, with at least this\\ndifference between Oak-Identity pre-\\nserved in the Acorn, and Man-Tree-Iden-\\ntity preserved in or through the human\\n39", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nbody, that the Ego-Identity of the latter,\\nin Ceptacle, is evolved consciousness of\\nitself within Itself, which it retains or\\ncan energize in its extension; whereas\\nOak-Identity is at a stage in the evolu-\\ntion of an unevolved consciousness, either\\nin its intension or extension.\\nSubconsciousness, Memory, Experi-\\nence, Idea, and such terms must find\\ntheir scientific explanation as the Ego-\\nIdentity of a Ceptacle which is being pre-\\nserved in some part of the Intelligence-\\nMatter constituting the human anatomy.\\nThere is a wide realm for speculation\\nregarding possible Intelligence-Matter\\noutside of that anatomy, through, in or\\nby which this Ego-Identity may also be\\npreserving itself as its past experience for\\na future expression. At present, how-\\never, it is only possible to trace this Cep-\\ntacle through what has already evolved.\\nMind and Matter, when this Ceptacle has\\nreceded to an impression, confined, so far\\nas we can discern it, to the human anat-\\n4 o", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nomy, is as inseparable as Subconscious-\\nness, Memory, Experience, or Idea as\\nwhen it included its original material ob-\\njective Tree; the difference being, as we\\nnow discern it, that the material part of the\\nCeptacle containing the Identity is now in\\nthe human body, as the Oak was in the\\nAcorn. We need hardly say that any\\nCeptacle which had for its original sub-\\njective and objective expression no more\\nthan the human body itself as for\\ninstance, a Man thinking of the pain in\\nhis own foot is to be treated by the\\nsame method as this Man-Tree example.\\nBut there is something more to be said\\nin following this Man-Tree Ceptacle from\\nwhere we have traced it to an Ego-Iden-\\ntity preserved in the human anatomy. In\\nthis same anatomy is being preserved\\nevery other Ego-Identity of its past ex-\\nperience, which experience is not neces-\\nsarily confined to this particular anatomy,\\nfor the Natural Law of Heredity will find\\nin the ovum that transmits itself as its pos-\\n4 1", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nterity, Time and Space relatives sufficient\\nas Intelligence-Matter to contain the sum\\nof all its line of Ego-Identities in all its\\nown or its transmitted experiences. This\\nfact is, we believe, now accepted without\\nquestion. While what is called hereditary\\ncharacter thus requires the law of an\\ninexhaustible ratio of relatives to account\\nfor its transmission as the residuum of\\ninnumerable past experiences in the\\nspace allotted to the formative cell of the\\nhuman body, it demands quite as much\\nthe law for the formative structure of a\\nCeptacle accounting for Ego-Identity\\nwhich is that transmitted character itself.\\nThe Man-Tree is Intelligence-Matter\\nfurnishing structure, as it were, for its\\nCeptacle, in a like manner with this Ana-\\ntomical cell furnishing structure for its\\nEgo-Identity, which, as character, is being\\nretained preparatory to a new expression.\\nWhether any Individual or Personal Ego-\\nIdentity, as the Being of Thought and\\nThing that is, of Intelligence-Matter\\n42", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nis limited in its transmission to a direct\\nline of descent through an anatomical\\novum from human body to human body,\\nor not, is exceedingly doubtful. Why\\nthis Being of Identity should be confined\\nto the human body-relative in the Cep-\\ntacle for its preservation is not clear, yet\\nthe evidence is not at hand which enables\\nus to follow it at this time save through\\nthat relative; probably for the reason be-\\nfore remarked, that in the evolution of\\nCeptacle at its present stage the human\\nrelative dominates the development in\\nconsciousness.\\nThe contention here outlined (Prop.\\nIII.) is, that in any separate or separable\\nthought the subject and object thought\\nare in the same Ceptacle. If this be true,\\nwhat we call Thought as a phenomenon\\nof Mind, with Mind something entirely\\napart and capable of being differentiated\\nfrom Matter, is an impossibility, and\\nnever was and never can be. Thought-\\nCeptacle has its relatives in a material\\n43", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nobjective outside, together with some part\\nof the human body, or in a material ob-\\njective confined in that body, as the case\\nmay be. If the Ceptacle, as in the case\\nof the Man-Tree, has not one of its rela-\\ntives in an objective material tree, then\\nit has that relative in an equally material\\nobjective within the human body, which\\nis Intelligence-Matter sufficient for such\\nCeptacle. Thus we may have a Man-\\nTree-Ceptacle where there is no material\\ntree, save as it is in the Imagination; but\\nImagination is not pure Mind, but Mind\\nand Matter, for it is Ego-Identity, know-\\ning itself in and through a Ceptacle\\nformed from Intelligence-Matter solely\\nin the human anatomy. The Being of\\nthat Man-Tree experience which occurred\\nin that original Ceptacle, where Man and\\nTree were both material relatives and\\nwhere its Man-Tree-Identity was Realized,\\npreserves that Identity in the Intelligence-\\nMatter which the human body furnishes,\\njust as the Oak-Identity preserved itself\\n44", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nin the Intelligence-Matter which the\\nAcorn furnished. There are innumerable\\nways in which this Identity stored in this\\nhuman body may be aroused to a Con-\\nsciousness of Itself; and the cell structure\\nof this human body may be made to fur-\\nnish its material for a re-Realization of\\nthat Ceptacle in this form of Conscious-\\nness. For this is only another way of\\ndescribing a thought of a past experience,\\nbut with this difference, that Thought-\\nPhenomenon is a Ceptacle with a structure\\nof Intelligence Matter, and not pure\\nMind.\\nAuto-Suggestion forms its Ceptacle out\\nof Intelligence-Matter. In an experi-\\nment which I have just seen quoted, a\\nprofessor tells his audience that he is\\ngoing to open the bottle which he is hold-\\ning, and that he wishes them to note care-\\nfully the exceedingly volatile and pungent\\nodor as it escapes from the bottle and\\ngoes out through the room, and asks\\nthem to tell him how quickly they smell\\n45", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nit. Slowly he removes the cork, and at\\nthe same time dwells, in words as well as\\nactions, upon its odoriferous nature. Im-\\nmediately upon its supposed escape, the\\nspectators begin to lift their hands, those\\nnearest the stage being the first to indi-\\ncate that they had noticed the odor. As\\na fact, there was no odor to escape, and\\nit had been a case of imagination from\\nauto-suggestion. The explanation is, that\\nthe first Ceptacle is the one in which the\\ndominating relative is the subject, Man\\nwith bottle; the other relative, objective\\nspectators. This Ceptacle includes a\\nquantity, quality, relation and modality\\nthat, at a point in that Ceptacle, is either\\nseeing or hearing, or both, as a function,\\non the part of the spectators. This has\\naroused or put into activity an Ego-\\nIdentity of some one or more past odor\\nexperiences preserved in the minds of the\\nspectators, and this Identity forms an\\nentirely separate smell Ceptacle out of\\nIntelligence-Matter in those minds, which\\n4 6", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nis a re-Realization of some past smell\\nexperience not in any way a part of\\nthat first material subjective, Man with\\nbottle. Fecundation of Ceptacle, and\\nthe development of growth therefrom, is\\nin the same classification with atom and\\nprotoplasm, proceeding along similar\\nlines. Auto-Suggestion is probably but\\na term expressing this fact. This is also\\nthe explanation of the statement that\\nBeauty is constituted by the objectifica-\\ntion of pleasure. But the thing objecti-\\nfied in this succeeding Beauty-Ceptacle\\nis in the human mind which is having this\\nsense of pleasure, though it comes as\\nFecundation or Auto-Suggestion from or\\nthrough a contact which has one of its\\nrelatives outside of that body. Ceptacle\\nnot only lives on its past, but grows or\\ndevelops on its present in an objectifica-\\ntion of this past and present, but only\\nwhere Intelligence-Matter is present, and\\nnot, according to so much philososphical\\nteaching, where there is Mind to the ex-\\n47", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nelusion of Matter or Matter to the exclu-\\nsion of Mind, or where, in this sense, there\\nis such a condition as Mind over Matter\\nor Matter over Mind. This teaching and\\nthese expressions grow out of the fact\\nthat Realization of their joint Being, as\\ntheir Identity, does indicate in the devel-\\nopment, the varying stages of that devel-\\nopment, in a dominance of one over the\\nother, which is the measure of their evo-\\nlution. In this instance consciousness is\\nmore largely realized in a particular Cep-\\ntacle, but in no case can that dominance\\nreach a point where either relative alto-\\ngether disappears in the ratio, except with\\nthe simultaneous disappearance of the\\nCeptacle itself from all possible conscious-\\nness. The order of the development\\nwhich is outlined in Propositions I. and II.\\nreaches Conscious-Thought-Phenomenon\\nonly at Proposition III., where, for the\\nfirst, it has produced itself in a measure\\nby which it can describe itself to itself as\\nindicated in Proposition II. it must do.\\n4 8", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nThis Ego-Identity, which becomes\\nThought-Phenomenon, in its conscious\\nexpression to or of Itself, has that ex-\\npression to or of itself in words which\\nwould seem to have their roots in the\\nlaw of its being as natural law. The Prin-\\nciple of Being puts forth the verb, ex-\\npressive of existence, as in English, for\\ninstance, the words, To be or I am\\nand just as this Being is, in all its varia-\\ntions, but some phase of its one Being, so\\nevery Verb-Word is but some phase of\\nthe verb expressing existence. In a sim-\\nilar manner, Relationing puts forth the\\nqualifying words of language, which are\\nin fact only descriptive of the quantity,\\nquality, relation and modality of Intelli-\\ngence-Matter. These have been broken\\ninto this category by a contact with the\\nhuman relative, acting as a spectrum,\\nwhere in the Ceptacle they become sight,\\nhearing, smell, taste and touch.\\nThe structure of Language is not a\\nmere convenience, adopted by mankind,\\n49", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nas if it might or might not have been, but\\nis the product of profound principles,\\nhaving their foundation in natural laws\\nthat will account for such product, as the\\nlaws of vegetation account for plant\\ngrowth, or any other law for its species.\\nOut of these laws, not through the mere\\nvolition or whim of man, does Thought\\nPhenomenon clothe itself for its own ex-\\npression. It is no poetic fancy to call\\nLanguage the brightest flower in life.\\nIt is a natural phenomenon, and its ex-\\npression as its brightest flower is con-\\nfined to man because in its evolution the\\nphenomenon apparently gives birth to\\nthe verb only through the human anat-\\nomy. Without the verb it is not improb-\\nable that language would reach a cer-\\ntain limited development in the animals\\nbelow man. In man alone does the verb\\nobtain growth, the reason being that in\\nman alone does Being reach a relation-\\ning that Knows itself in the expressions\\nI am, To be or their equivalent.\\n50", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nSubject and Object have their relation in\\nthe lower orders, but they are at a stage\\nwhere the Ceptacle has not evolved suffi-\\nciently to start that Tap-Root of language,\\nthe verb To Be, which is to be the ex-\\npression of the Being of that subject and\\nobject relationing, where they thus realize\\ntheir Identity, and can express that Iden-\\ntity, just as that subject and object have\\nbeen expressing themselves in their Intel-\\nligence-Matter in their preceding stages.\\nIt is by no chance of grammatical rules\\nthat subject and object have their process\\nin this verb. It is not the result of\\nscholasticism that adjectives and qualify-\\ning words cannot be Thought except in\\nan inseparable relation of comparison, in\\none word expressive of one relationing\\nidea. It is so because the word and its\\nbehavior are effects of natural law, and\\nnot the arbitrary result of scholastic con-\\nstruction of language. There is yet to\\nbe evolved a verb-word describing the\\nactivity of plurality in a conscious ulti-\\n5i", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nmate, the need of which is shown in the\\nconstruction of this hypothesis. Wipe out\\nall language, and it will construct itself as\\ntrees obtain their growth, all effort of man\\nto the contrary, and along the same lines\\nas now, where one set of words will be the\\nexpression for the Being of its Iden-\\ntity, as the process going on within it, and\\nall other words will be the expression of\\nthe relationing of the ratio of the rela-\\ntives occurring in the Ceptacle-phenome-\\nnon. Take the verb out of language,\\nand subject and object, as Ceptacle, will\\nrevert in the same manner and for the\\nsame reason that if we take life out of the\\nplant it will revert to a lower order of\\nexpression.\\nUpon the principle of Evolution and\\nmathematical demonstration may depend\\nthe verification for the Fourth Proposi-\\ntion, That when in any Ceptacle the\\nNature of the ratio of its relatives, in its\\nunassignable difference, becomes con-\\n52\\nn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nscious Identity, then its unused capabilities\\nbecome an inseparable present in such\\nCeptacle. The contents of Ceptacle as\\na creative expression in their substance\\nas coherence, measurable by Time and\\nSpace, may have for that expression Con-\\nstants that are fixed quantities expressed\\nin terms, as 1,2, 3, 4; pound, yard, hour,\\netc., finite measures as given definites.\\nBut these are not subjects that have their\\nconsideration in Proposition IV.; instead\\nhere are considered Ceptacles whose\\ndefinite quantity is the given value of a\\nquantity essentially variable, or an indefi-\\nnite quantity which is a quantity essen-\\ntially variable, through all degrees of\\ndiminution or augmentation short of ab-\\nsolute Nothingness or Infinitude. In a\\nCeptacle, expressed in the word line,\\ndefined as a succession of points, the value\\nis of a quantity essentially variable, which\\nmay also be an Indefinite quantity capable\\nof every degree of augmentation or\\ndiminution. In such Ceptacle is realized,\\n53", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nfirst, a Ratio of Quantity, then the Nature\\nof the ratio itself. But Substance, Ratio,\\nand Nature are, alike, an Evolution.\\nUltimate Ratio, Ultimate Quantity and\\nthe Absolute or Infinite Nature appear and\\ndisappear with the Ceptacle in a law of\\none evolution, and the appearance is\\nneither a phantom nor the disappearance\\nan evanescence. The Infinite, together\\nwith the Unconditioned, appear and dis-\\nappear in and with the phenomenon itself.\\nFor if Proposition I. be true, any separate\\nor separable quantity is a thing of rela-\\ntives, a plurality. Once this is proven,\\nthen quantity, as a separate or separable\\nthing, the content of a Ceptacle, is sub-\\nject logically and mathematically to a\\nconsideration heretofore applied only to\\nquantities, and not to qua?itity.\\nIf we will refer to the known method\\nrelating to Quantities and the Ratio of\\nQuantities, the method will be equally\\ntrue in its application to Quantity and to\\nthe Ratio of its Relatives. For the pur-\\n54\\nI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ITTTfTTTT m 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\npose of proving the Nature of the Ratio set\\nforth in Proposition IV., let us follow the\\nmethod taken by Professor Wright, in his\\nCommentary on Newton s Principia,\\nsubstituting, as we assume our Hypothesis\\nwarrants, Quantity and the Ratio of its\\nRelatives, for Quantities and the Ratio\\nof Quantities.\\nLEMMA I.\\nQuantities and the Ratios of Quanti-\\nties. Hereby Newton would infer the\\ntruth of the Lemma, not only for quanti-\\nties measurable by Integers, but also for\\nsuch as may be denoted by Vulgar Frac-\\ntions. The necessity or use of the dis-\\ntinction is none, there being just as much\\nreason for specifying all other sorts of\\nquantities. The truth of the Lemma\\ndoes not depend upon the Species of\\nquantities, but upon their conformity with\\nthe following conditions, viz:\\nThat they (Relatives in Quantity, our\\n*Wright, A. B., Commentary on Newton s Principia,\\nSec. i, Book I.\\n55", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nhypothesis assumed) tend continually to\\nequality, and approach nearer to each other\\nthan by a?iy give?i difference. They must\\ntend co?iti?iually to equality that is, every\\nRatio of their successive corresponding\\nvalues must be nearer and nearer a Ratio\\nof Equality, the number of these converg-\\nences being without end. By given dif-\\nference is merely meant any that can be\\nassigned or proposed.\\nFinite Time. Newton obviously intro-\\nduces the idea of time in this enunciation\\nto show illustratively that he supposes\\nthe quantities to converge continually\\nto equality, without ever actually reach-\\ning or passing that state; and since to\\nfix such an idea, he says, Before the\\nend of that time. It was, moreover,\\nnecessary to consider the time Finite.\\nHence, our author would avoid the charge\\nof Fallacia Suppositions, or of Shift-\\ning the Hypothesis For it is contended\\nthat if you frame certain relations be-\\ntween actual quantities, and afterwards\\n56\\nffrmm 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 nTniiiiiiiiiiiiiirmrmiiiiiiiiiimiiiin", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ndeduce conclusions from such relations\\non the supposition of the quantities hav-\\ning vanished, such conclusions are illogic-\\nally deduced, and ought no more to sub-\\nsist than the quantities themselves.\\n1 In the Scholium, at the end of the sec-\\ntion, he is more explicit. He says: The\\nUltimate Ratios, in zvhich quantities vanish\\nare not in reality the Ratios of Ultimate\\nquantities but the Limits to which the Ratios\\nof quantities, continually decreasing, always\\napproach; which they never can pass beyond or\\narrive at, unless the quantities are continually\\nand indefi?utely diminished. After all, how-\\never, neither our author himself nor any\\nof his commentators, though much has\\nbeen advanced upon the subject, has\\nobviated this objection. Bishop Berke-\\nley s ingenious criticisms in the Analyst\\nremain to this day unanswered. He\\ntherein facetiously denominates the\\nresult obtained from the supposition\\nthat the quantities before considered\\nfinite and real have vanished, the Ghosts\\n57", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nof Departed Quantities? And it must be\\nadmitted there is reason as well as wit in\\nthe appellation. The fact is, Newton\\nhimself, if we may judge from his own\\nwords in the above cited Scholium, where\\nhe says, If two quantities whose Differ-\\nence Is Given are augmented continually,\\ntheir Ultimate Ratio will be a Ratio of\\nEquality, had no knowledge of the true\\nnature of his Method of Prime and Ulti-\\nmate Ratios. If there be meaning in\\nwords, he plainly supposes in this pas-\\nsage a mere approximation to be the same\\nwith an Ultimate Ratio. He loses sight\\nof the condition expressed in Lemma\\nI. namely, that the quantities tend to equal-\\nity nearer than by any assignable difference\\nby supposing the difference of the quan-\\ntities continually augmented to be given,\\nor always the same. In this sense the\\nwhole Earth, compared with the whole\\nEarth minus a grain of sand, would con-\\nstitute an Ultimate Ratio of equality;\\nwhereas so long as any, the minutest dif-\\n53\\nfriTTM 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \u00e2\u0096\u00a0TrTfTTTlTTTfTlTITmillllllllllllllirillllllllllllllUJLU^", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nference, exists between two quantities,\\nthey cannot be said to be more than nearly\\nequal. But it is now to be shown, that if\\ntwo quaiitities tend continually to equality, and\\napproach to one another nearer than by any\\nassignable difference, their Ratio is Ultimately\\na Ratio of Absolute equality. This may be\\ndemonstrated as follows, even without\\nsupposing the quantities ultimately\\nevanescent:\\nIt is acknowledged by all writers on\\nAlgebra, and, indeed, self-evident, that if\\nin any equation put =0, there be quantities\\nabsolutely different in kind, the aggre-\\ngate of each species is separately equal\\nto o. For example, if\\nA a+B v /2 bv 2 CV-i=o,\\nsince A a is rational, (B b) V 2 surd\\nand CV i imaginary, they cannot in\\nany way destroy one another by the op-\\nposition of signs, and therefore\\nA a o, B b o, C o.\\nIn the same manner, if logarithms,\\n59", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nexponentials, or any other quantities dif-\\nfering essentially from one another con-\\nstitute an equation like the above, they\\nmust separately be equal to o. This\\nbeing premised, let L, \\\\J denote the\\nLimits, whatever they are, towards which\\nthe quantities L 1, L V continually\\nconverge, and suppose their difference,\\nin any state of the convergence, to be D.\\nThen\\nL 1-L -1 =D,\\nor L-L +l-l -D=o,\\nand since L, L are fixed and definite, and\\n1, V and D always variable, the former\\nare independent of the latter, and we have\\nL\\nL L o, or L 1, accurately.\\nThis way of considering the question,\\nit is presumed, will be deemed free from\\nevery objection. The principle upon\\nwhich it rests depending upon the Nature\\nof the variable quantities, and not upon\\ntheir evanescence, as it is equally true\\n6o\\niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmiix^", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\neven for constant quantities, provided\\nthey be of different natures, it is hoped\\nwe have at length hit upon the true and\\nlogical method of expounding the doc-\\ntrine of Prime and Ultimate Ratios, or of\\nFluxions, or of the Differential Calcu-\\nlus, etc.\\nIt may be here remarked, in passing,\\nthat the method of Indeterminate Coefficients,\\nwhich is at bottom the same as that of\\nPrime and Ultimate Ratios, is treated\\nillogically in most books of Algebra.\\nInstead of Shifting the hypothesis, as\\nis done in Wood, Bonnycastle, and\\nothers, by making x o, in the equation,\\na bx ex 2 dx 3 o,\\nit is sufficient to know that each term x\\nbeing indefinitely variable, is heterogene-\\nous compared with the rest, and conse-\\nquently that each term must equal o.\\nThe Logical test of this Theory is\\nreached when it is to be shown, that,\\nwhatever may be their given definition,\\n61", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nin human consciousness the Infinite and\\nAbsolute have their Identity within a\\nfinite Ceptacle by virtue of its Nature as\\na variable quantity. The unfolding of the\\npropositions in this hypothesis, if sus-\\ntained in truth, leads to the inevitable\\nconclusion that any conscious Ego and\\nwhat has been termed Non-Ego, as sepa-\\nrable entities in that consciousness, is\\nneither philosophic nor scientific. That\\nthis so termed Non-Ego is in fact some\\ndegree of Ego itself as its relative Alter\\nEgo. Should this latter position prove\\ntenable, then the conclusion continues that\\nthat Primitive dualism of consciousness\\nfrom which the explanations of philos-\\nophy must take their start, and which\\nincludes the fundamental condition to all\\nconsciousness the antithesis of subject and\\nobject will find its consistent explana-\\ntion in the Nature of Ego, as set forth in\\nthis Ceptacle Theory.\\nIt is the dualism of the phenomenon\\nthat is conscious, without which dualism\\n62\\n1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nthe phenomenon is not. It is expressing\\nitself, in its own Identity, as or with this\\ndualism. The immediacy of this dualism\\nis change, while the immediacy of this\\nchange is the phenomenon as its own\\nBeing.\\nWhen the phenomenon is an evolved\\nconscious one, it is the consciousness of\\nBeing. When it has reached a stage in its\\nevolution where it is Being in conscious-\\nness, the Identity of that phenomenon, it is\\nits Ego-Identity, the identity of that dual-\\nism as relationing, of relatives without\\nwhich the phenomenon is not. Ego, and\\nBeing that reaches Ego-Identity as phe-\\nnomenon in consciousness, are equivalents.\\nWhile the terms descriptive of the rela-\\ntives, in their variety as evolving phe-\\nnomena from the lowest to the highest\\norder of expression, vary as the varieties\\nvary, the principle remains unchanged.\\nSo that when Ego-Identity appears, the\\nterms, subject and object, are in one clas-\\nsification with all others as descriptive of\\n63", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nthe relatives in this Ego-Identity, as\\ninseparable likeness and difference, the\\nBeing of one Identity.\\nThe law of one evolution, accounting\\nfor the various successive changes occur-\\nring in phenomena, holds in the case of\\nthe human Ego. As now being consid-\\nered, this Ego has reached the stage indi-\\ncated in Proposition IV. It is held that\\nthe activity of this dualism is continuous,\\nceaseless; that when this activity, or\\nmotion, appears in its immediacy as Being\\nconscious of itself, it is a consciousness\\nof its ceaselessness, its continuity, in a\\nratio of its relatives, the Nature of which\\nratio is greater or less than any differ-\\nence assignable in that consciousness. The\\nantithesis of the relatives constituting the\\nphenomenon thus finds its synthesis in\\nthe same phenomenon, when the Nature\\nof its cause appears.\\nNature, denned by J. S. Mill,\\nmeans the sum of all phenomena, to-\\ngether with the causes which produce\\n6 4\\nIHtllltlllliniininiiiiiniiiiinnnn..", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nthem, including not only all that happens,\\nbut all that is capable of happening, the\\nunused capabilities of causes being as\\nmuch a part of this idea of nature as those\\nwhich take effect.\\nShould the continuous activity of this\\ndualism cease for an instant, this Being\\nitself, which is its immediacy, would cease.\\nIt is, therefore, the Nature of the activity\\nthat is the Cause of that Being. But\\nhere it is to be shown that when this\\nBeing, which is the being of the phe-\\nnomenon, has ceased in consciousness, as\\nit does, it is not the annihilation of the\\nphenomenon, but the limitation of that\\nphenomenon in its Ultimate at the point\\nof an unassignable difference in conscious-\\nness where the ratio with its relatives dis-\\nappears in that Nature. If the cause of\\nthis phenomenon has been realized in the\\nphenomenon itself, as appears to be true\\nwhen the Nature of that phenomenon in\\nits continuity as motion is a conscious\\nIdentity as its own Being, then this Cause\\n65", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nis an inseparable present at every point\\nin the phenomenon. Therefore, it is\\npresent at the point where, in conscious-\\nness, it has reached its Limiting- Ratio as\\nsuch continuity. But at this point it\\ncannot be an annihilation of those rela-\\ntives where consciousness disappears, for\\nthat would be the annihilation of the\\nCause itself, which is in the phenomenon,\\na conclusion that would be a logical ab-\\nsurdity. It is this fact which Ego-Iden-\\ntity realizes as its Absolute and Infinite\\nNature, when it realizes its Being as Self-\\nExistent and Self-Sufficient, and inde-\\npendent in nature and action as the Cause\\nof existent phenomenon. No definition\\nof the Absolute or Infinite can be in the\\nsense of completion or finality. For the\\nend or completion of this ceaseless change\\nwould be the annihilation of the very Being\\nitself as the Self- Existent, again a logical\\nabsurdity. The Absolute and Infinite are\\na realized completeness and finality. But\\nonly in the sense that they are all inclusive\\n66\\nn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n i tti nil\\niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinimiiiui^^^^", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nof Cause and Effect, as each appears in\\nthe dualism of consciousness. The sum\\nof the phenomena in Ego-Identity,\\nincluding not only the phenomenon, but\\nits Antecedent unused capabilities as\\nCause, in the highest development of a\\nCeptacle, reaches a consciousness of itself\\nin its evolution when one of its relatives\\nis the Antecedent of its Being, the other\\nis the phenomenon itself, the expressed of\\nthat Antecedent, as Subject and Object in\\nan inseparable Present. Proof that in this\\nCeptacle the Absolute and Infinite is\\nItself.\\nDEDUCTIONS.\\nShould this Theory attain an accepted\\nplace in a scientific philosophy, or be\\nsuggestive of one that will, it will be\\nbecause Ceptacle is a thing of life. As\\nsuch it unfolds in a natural development,\\nindicating a correlation between inorganic\\nand organic nature facts and forces upon\\none side, and human development upon\\n67", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nthe other, where the latter becomes\\nwhat is known as physics, metaphysics,\\naesthetics, ethics, and theology. If it lives,\\nit lives the Identity of each one of these\\nscientifically.\\nIn Physics, instinct, which controls as\\nintelligence the behavior of the undevel-\\noped physical, is Metaphysics when that\\nphysical has evolved man and his con-\\nscious reason in Ceptacle. It should fol-\\nlow, therefore, that in their correlation\\nthe physical instinctively directs that\\nmetaphysical, though the opposite is held\\ngenerally, for metaphysics can be but\\ninstinctive-physics become conscious of\\nits method. If this be true, the welfare\\nof the higher development will come with\\na more comprehensive knowledge of the\\nlower. The study of micro-organism in\\nthe human body will be an education of\\nthe metaphysical for a proper cultivation\\nof the growth of that body, not as a\\nphysical organism only, but in its meta-\\nphysical development as well, which in\\n68\\nliimiimmilljminTm m", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ntheir correlation is the individualism\\nthrough which each is evolving as Cep-\\ntacle. The psychology of nutrition and\\nelimination, recognized by scientists, pre-\\nserving the micro-organism of the physical\\nbody, is forming the psychology recog-\\nnized by metaphysicists, preserving the\\nmentality of that body. For the truth\\nof this, will physicists note the in-\\nseparable correlation of physics and\\nmetaphysics in the failure to sever in\\nmicro-organism its intelligence from its\\nmatter-side, following this with the further\\neffort to separate this same intelligence in\\nthis lower order of expression from the\\nbehavior which governs as law that larger\\nhuman intelligence in man, and which\\nPropositions II. and III. hold to be the law\\nof its Ceptacle-Expression. The psychol-\\nogy which physicists accord to micro-\\norganism in connection with the sense of\\ntouch, sight, nutrition, and fecundation in\\ncell life, is a life of relationing, though it\\nbe called instinctive. It is this psychic-\\n69", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nrelationing that these propositions hold\\nthat becomes Ceptacle, and to do this they\\nmust also hold that it is the same micro-\\norganic sense of touch, sight, nutrition,\\nand fecundation that becomes human\\ntouch, sight, nutrition, and fecundation.\\nWhich also accounts for human activity\\nwhere that activity becomes art, science,\\nsociety, and government.\\nAtom, microbe and idea are in one\\nclassification as intelligence-matter, the\\nhabits of the first being the intelligent\\nactivity of the last in the human body.\\nThey live as physical expressions, as the\\nvarious functions of this body, as the\\ntotality accounting for this body s Ego-\\nIdentity. Following this view, it is at\\nonce seen what a field is opened, for\\nevery micro-organism entering into that\\nbody is accountable to its individu-\\nality under the guidance of self-conscious\\nidea. Every sensibility, every passion,\\nevery ambition has its roots embedded\\nin the habits of a tissue or a cell. Yet\\n70\\nllllllinillllllllllllllllllllliiiiiMMiiiininiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiun^^^^\u00e2\u0080\u0094", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nits sacredness has been in no whit de-\\nstroyed; it is more than ever the temple\\nof the ever-living Antecedent of its\\nBeing, now made manifest by this meta-\\nphysical.\\nMetaphysics, so closely allied to\\nphysics, we have already outlined in con-\\nnection with this hypothesis. The Iden-\\ntity of the idea, which has revealed itself\\nto itself in Ceptacle, the argument has\\nalready endeavored to show, reveals itself\\nto itself as its own Antecedent, where the\\nembedded roots of this metaphysical,\\nbeyond the physical expression, is con-\\nnected with and expressed in that phys-\\nical in its very Nature.\\nIn Esthetics, Ceptacle-Identity becomes\\nthe sole measure of its own pleasure and\\npain. It is not meant by this that it may\\nbe exempt from either at will, but that\\nthere is no responsibility within limita-\\ntions, beyond itself for the measure of\\n71", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory,\\neither as a part of itself. In yEsthetic-\\nCeptacle-Identity should be disclosed the\\nreason of pleasure and pain. Esthetics\\nis the conscious relationing of Ceptacle\\nto itself in being its Identity as its own\\nquality. The Identity is the consciousness\\nof its varying quality as its relatives.\\nThe positive and negative of anv attrac-\\ntion, affinity or passion, are not a com-\\nparison of two differing things, but the\\nvarying degree of the same thing in a\\nrelation with itself. An aesthetic Cep-\\ntacle is an expression where the relatives\\nare desires or aversions, as the qualitative\\nphases of whatever intelligence-matter is\\nhaving conscious knowledge of itself, in\\nthe varying degrees of Identity possible\\nto the range of such desire or aversion\\nto the point where either changes to the\\nother. This Identity extends and con-\\ntrasts in consciouness, as itself, over the\\nfield of this varying ratio, in a limited\\nvolition, as its will of what shall constitute\\nthat conscious Identity. If it extends this\\n72\\nrillllllHIHllllllllllllllllllimmmm", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nas desire or pleasure to where the ratio\\nwould be an excess of that conscious desire\\nor pleasure, and where it would become\\nin any degree an aversion, it is itself the\\ncreator of that aversion in a new Ceptacle.\\nDesire and pleasure, aversion and pain, are\\nsynonymous in this sense. ^Esthetics is\\nthe being of the psychic-relations in Intel-\\nligence-Matter, animate or inanimate,\\nwhen these reach the human develop-\\nment. Gravitation, Affinity, and Affection\\nare in one classification. A strained, over-\\ntensioned gravitation, or chemical affinity,\\nchanges its characteristic, and an Identity\\nof overstrained or oversustained affection\\nwill produce a similar result, and for the\\nsame fundamental reason. As /Esthetics,\\nCeptacle absorbs and retains, as its Identity,\\nin the intelligence-matter of the human\\nanatomy its qualitative experiences, which\\nare the gravitations and affinities of its en-\\nvironment, in their positive and negative\\nphases. The beautiful and repulsive of\\nnature furnish the materials of this Iden-\\n73", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ntity thus held. These are its pleasures\\nand its pains, and this Identity is what it\\nobjectifies again in subsequent combina-\\ntions of itself, in future relations with\\nenvironment. Identity obtains these as\\nthat original molecular activity which\\ncomes into its larger development where\\nit knows itself in Ceptacle in a relation\\nwith itself. The Artist is more of Art as\\nhe is more of a nature Ceptacle, as, for\\ninstance, in sound as more tones come\\ninto that Identity, or in sight more color.\\nIn either, it is but more molecular activ-\\nity coming into that Identity s spectrum,\\nwhere the musical scale of eight notes, or\\nthe seven colors of the rainbow, are the\\nconventional beginning common to almost\\nall sound and sight Ceptacles. Discord,\\nsevered relation, begins where the rela-\\ntive tones or colors constituting a single\\nCeptacle end. Thus will one Ceptacle\\ncontinue true to itself, in the blending of\\na desirable tone with its finer subdivisions,\\nafter a less developed one will have lost\\n74\\nliiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiHiiiiiiiniiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiimiuinmijiiiiiuiignii", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nthat tone in an undeveloped Identity\\nof it.\\nAs evidence that the human voice must\\nlook to some law more profound than any\\nwritten one supposedly conceived by the\\nmusical profession for the basis of its\\ndevelopment, it would only seem neces-\\nsary to note this fact. That any given tone\\nis produced, through the vocal organs,\\nby an exact number of vibrating undula-\\ntions, reaching into the thousands, and\\nthat the instantaneous change from this\\ntone, as a desire of Identity, to another\\nand different, but equally exact, number of\\nvibrations constituting another tone, could\\nonly be accomplished by an Identity that\\nhas its relationing of such infinite activity\\nby virtue of being a nature-fact, in the\\nsame sense that whatever as instinct is\\nguiding accurately that incalculable mo-\\nlecular activity, is the same intelligence\\nguiding any human artist as his art in his\\nconscious desires and aversions produced\\nas human chords and discords.\\n75", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nEthics, in the order of the development\\nof Ceptacle, should follow ^Esthetics, as\\nlater and more exact in accounting to its\\nconscious self for the method of its activ-\\nity. Con-science should, therefore, be\\nwhat the word indicates, more exact,\\npossibly scientific, to the extent of a\\nmathematical demonstration, more than\\nmere aesthetic consciousness. It is not,\\ntherefore, unreasonable at least to attempt\\nto subject it to mathematical formulae,\\nespecially where, as already noted, any\\nmathematical symbol can be but an ap-\\nproximate exactitude of a unit, where\\nthe ratio of the relatives can only be re-\\nduced to a minimum, not to the elimina-\\ntion of either. If, therefore, ethics can\\nbe mathematically applied, it does not\\nfollow that it must thereby furnish a solu-\\ntion for a perfect morality, but an approx-\\nimating one. In /Esthetics, desires or\\naversions have already been noted in their\\nrelation in Ceptacle. Language names\\nthese to consciousness, whereby the Cep-\\n76\\nI M m 1 1 m i 1 m n 1 1 1 1 n 1 m 1 1 1 1 lliiti jjxij-Ixlijllajlli 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^u-.^ j ^_ lj _ ^m", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ntacle knows its desires or aversions as\\nsuch. These it also knows with more or\\nless certainty in a positive or negative\\nsense, in a greater or less degree, accord-\\ning to the development of the sensibility\\nor keenness of its con-science. That is,\\nthe word expressive of desire is also, at\\none and the same time, as expressive of\\naffirmation, or, on the contrary, aversion\\nthat of negation. In a Ceptacle, where\\nthe ratio of its qualitatives is greater or\\nless than any assignable difference, per-\\nfect symbolism, either mathematically or\\nethically, is not possible, and for precisely\\nthe same reason. But if it be true that\\nthere is found in the same Ceptacle, quality\\nthat can be expressed both ethically and\\nmathematically, then is opened an inter-\\nesting field for investigation. Ceptacle\\nis a thing of inseparable relatives. It\\nknows these in their qualitative signifi-\\ncance by words indicating to its conscious\\nIdentity a ratio of desire or aversion, hav-\\ning the further significance at the same\\n77", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\ntime, of indicating, in such Identity, these\\nas the attractions and affinities or their\\nnegatives, that are the natural laws gov-\\nerning the activity of intelligence-matter.\\nMay not ethical desire, then, be mathe-\\nmatically expressed by the -f- sign, and\\naversion with the sign, in a formula\\nthat is logically correct, leading to a valid\\ndemonstration? It must not be over-\\nlooked that Ceptacle is the conscious\\nIdentity of what is occurring within itself\\nin a relationing of its own relatives, the\\nmathematical formula being:\\nadded to\\nadded to\\nadded to\\nIn this formula, if desire in Con-Science\\nbe as well represented by the -f sign, and\\naversion by the sign, it will be ethically\\nas well as mathematically true, that in\\nany conscious Ceptacle, if desire adds\\ndesire to its Identity in that Ceptacle, in\\nan expression of its consciousness as fur-\\nther desire (which is adding like quality\\n78\\niiuuiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiilHlllUTiuiJiULTLiimLiiiiiUTninnngg", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nto like quality) the result is -J-, and like-\\nwise moral good; or, so long as aversion\\nin like manner increases as conscious\\nIdentity its aversion-quality in the rela-\\ntion, by adding aversion to aversion as\\nits conscious self, the result is or like-\\nwise good. But the instant either desire\\nor aversion in that conscious Identity\\npasses over to where it would be the\\nopposite, or unlike what it would be if it\\ncould be included in this Identity, it is its\\nown disintegration, which to this Ceptacle\\nis a negative product. Ethical conscious-\\nness evolved as Con-Science thus indi-\\ncates how Identity with more exactitude\\nmay realize the equilibrium of forces in\\ntheir relationing. This, in the law of\\nEvolution, accounts for the Integration\\nand Disintegration going on in intelli-\\ngence-matter, by which it may direct the\\nIdentity of its being as this same intelli-\\ngence-matter, in the morale of this evolu-\\ntion. Observe further this mathematical\\nformula applied to ethics. Either affini-\\n79", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nties and desires, or negatives and aver-\\nsions, work for integration physically,\\nand for good morally. And it must not\\nbe forgotten that while desires and aver-\\nsions are expressed to consciousness in\\ndiversely opposite ideas, as moral and\\nimmoral, where desires are good and\\naversions bad, either, working with itself\\nin its relation with itself, is for good,\\nor And either, in its excess in that\\nrelationing, eventually throws off an\\nIdentity, which, related to itself, is bad,\\nor But note this important fact: that\\nthis product, which in that relation would\\nbe disintegration or moral wrong, is in\\nthis new Ceptacle at once in itself good.\\nOnce taken up by this same mathematical\\nand ethical formula, it will be found work-\\ning together with itself as its own rela-\\ntives, an integration and a moral good.\\nThus would it appear that in atom,\\nprotoplasm and idea the Antithesis\\nevolves its own avoidable, where, in the\\nSynthesis, it becomes its own attainable.\\n80\\niiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiuiij\\niimimiHmmimimiti", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nTheology must also account to and for\\nitself in this Ceptacle theory. If the theory\\nbe scientific, and all that is known makes\\nits appearance through this Nature-Fact,\\nthen any consciousness as or of a divine\\nidea is in a classification with conscious-\\nness of material facts, in that both appear\\nin such consciousnesss through Ceptacle\\nonly. Relationing, that plurality shown\\nto be an inexhaustible in the ultimate of\\nScience, must likewise be an inexhaust-\\nible in the ultimate of Theology. It must\\nand does contain, as the Divine idea and\\nas an inseparable Relationing, Deity in\\nman, man in Deity. Furthermore, when\\nthis idea is that of Faith, it must not loose\\nits hold upon the scientific fact that it is\\nthe expression of an intelligence-matter\\nthat is in the same classification and in an\\nunbroken evolution with atom and proto-\\nplasm. In this evolution, in its turn, the\\nheterogeneous becomes homogeneous in\\nan order that is from the impersonality of\\nintelligence-matter through its personality", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nto its individuality, at which latter point\\nthis homogeneous reveals itself according\\nto its development as the three in one\\nconscious Ego-Identity. At any stage in\\nhuman history, its divine idea will be its\\nCeptacle or Ceptacles, having the capacity\\nof largest expression within it s conscious-\\nness, before its disappearance or disinte-\\ngration of, in and with itself. There\\nappears to be no valid reason against that\\nidea being an expansion, as desire plus\\ndesire, or aversion plus aversion, for the\\nGod of peace and the God of war appear\\nalike at all human stages. In the brief\\napplication which is here made of this\\ntheory to Christian theology, it is not\\nbecause it does not apply equally to any\\nother, but because that theology is the\\none we best know; and in this connection\\nit must also hold that whatever Christian\\ntheology derives as its knowledge of God\\nfrom Revelation, it will require that it.\\ntrace this revelation through this same\\nNature-Fact-Ceptacle.\\n82\\n1 1 H H HI M 1 H H I M |T| BT i^i i iiTTTTnrTTTTriTiTirizijijjjmg\\nmm", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nThe Divine Idea of this theology in\\nany Ceptacle of Ego-Identity must be\\nsufficient to comprehend Deity as that\\nwhich is Everlasting to Everlasting. As\\nCeptacle, this idea must be as capable of\\nexpansion upon its objective or material\\nside as upon its subjective or spiritual\\nside, and in this expansion, in either\\ndirection, this spiritual and material as\\nIntelligence-Matter must remain in an\\ninseparable relation to the point of simul-\\ntaneous disappearance of that Ceptacle\\nfrom all consciousness. Upon the mate-\\nrial side we have already stated our posi-\\ntion in Proposition I. Upon the spiritual\\nside the hypothesis is contained in Propo-\\nsition IV. It will probably be agreed that\\nthe most satisfactory theological test of\\nthis last proposition is the teaching found\\nin the Bible, and especially in the New\\nTestament, as the culmination of those\\nteachings.\\nThe first eighteen verses of the first\\nchapter of the Gospel of St. John, we take\\n83", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nit, is a fundamental statement, from the\\nChristian point of view, of the Spiritual\\nIdea God in man. From this Ceptacle\\npoint of view it will accord equally well\\nas a statement of Antecedent, realizing\\nItself to Itself in its own expression where\\nIdea is Flesh as Intelligence-Matter in\\nevolved human body. The Idea in both\\nis that in Intelligence-Matter it real-\\nizes its Being as its everlasting Self.\\nHere it is embodied in the individuality\\nof Jesus Christ. In the fullness of this\\ndevelopment in this individual Ego-Iden-\\ntity, it knows its Being in an At-One-\\nNess with itself, as its own Antecedent or\\nFather. In Chapter V, verses 19 to 47,\\ninclusive, Jesus emphasizes this One-Ness\\nas a thing of evolving conscious develop-\\nment in mankind, and not His exclusive\\nprivilege, indicating that whatever Idea\\nof the Everlasting He embodied, the hu-\\nman race was in a like line with its devel-\\nopment. In Chapter VI, verses 29 to 65,\\ninclusive, the inseparable character of\\n84\\n1H11 1 11 TiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiTnnnnuumiEmi", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nspirit in matter and matter in spirit is\\ntreated. In Chapter VIII, verses 12 to\\n59, inclusive, the imperishable character\\nof this idea, the Everlasting, the spirit of\\nthis Intelligence-Matter which He says is\\nindividualized as the personality of Him-\\nself as Jesus Christ, He amplifies and\\nholds out to those who in their lesser\\ndevelopment do not yet comprehend it.\\nAnd so on through this Gospel of St.\\nJohn, from the statement in verses 1 to\\n4, Chapter I, to the end, the doctrine is\\nthat Logos was in the beginning and was\\nGod. It is Antecedent that is in Things\\nand is Things, that knows Itself in its\\nexpression, in human flesh, when it\\nreaches an Ego-Identity that calls itself\\nJesus Christ. It comprehends itself as\\nAntecedent and human thing in One\\nIdentity. This is accomplished only\\nwhen Antecedent and Expression are in\\nthat Identity an inseparable relation.\\nBut the Gospel statement that this insep-\\narable, that God is in man, man in God,\\n85", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nis in the expression Jesus Christ, is by no\\nmeans an unquestioned one. Nor will it\\nbe until it is also proved an unavoidable\\nconclusion, conceded by science and phi-\\nlosophy where they meet and solve the\\nsame problem in physics and metaphysics.\\nEvolution, as physics, metaphysics, aes-\\nthetics, ethics and theology would appear\\nto be unfolding consciousness in an order\\nwhere the direction of the movement of\\nthe relatives is from the material toward\\nthe ratio-mX. From out the physical\\ncomes the first glimmer of Intelligence-\\nMatter. While out of the meta-physical\\nhas evolved a conscious Ratio that is the\\nIdentity of these Intelligence Matter-\\nrelatives, as Itself. This Ratio is what\\nbecomes known to science and philos-\\nophy as Life, which last, as idea, is repre-\\nsentative of the Nature of the Being, of\\nthis Intelligence-Matter. That this is so\\nmust have the effect of an unavoidable\\nconclusion, if neither science nor philos-\\nophy can separate their idea, Ratio-nal,\\n86\\niiiniiiiuiMiiiiiiiM\\n1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 III I III I M II 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H IU-L LJ", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nas that which holds together this Intelli-\\ngence-Matter, from that other idea, Life,\\nwhich is the Being of this Intelligence-\\nMatter, and it matters not whether life is\\ngravitation in atom or affection in proto-\\nplasm. But while this Ratio, or Life\\nCeptacle, may serve as the Ultimate of\\nscience and philosophy which treat only\\nof Intelligence-Matter, it will not answer\\nfor theology, which must look beyond\\nthe substance of which these treat and\\nwhich must still be in the same classifica-\\ntion with that substance. Theology can\\nrest upon no Ceptacle as its ultimate\\nwhich is an idea of Deity, that can have\\nits limitations bounded by any Intelli-\\ngence-Matter known to the present stage\\nof evolved consciousness, however sublime\\nthat comprehension. But it must treat\\nof a God that has a Ratio-nal Being with\\nthat consciousness capable of having such\\nBeing beyond this consciousness. If it\\ndoes this, it is in a line of reasoning with\\nscience and philosophy where their known\\n87", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "Hypothesis for a Ceptacle Theory.\\nis inseparably bound up with their un-\\nknown in evolution.\\nLife of Intelligence-Matter becomes\\nconscious of its own Ratio Nature, as\\ngreater or less than any given difference\\nbetween these relatives, intelligence-mat-\\nter, where it realizes its ceaseless conti-\\nnuity throughout the entire movement in\\nevolution from physics to theology. The\\nNature of this Ratio in its latest develop-\\nment is a Ceptacle of Ever-Lasting-Life,\\nwhen in its conscious Identity its unused\\ncapabilities form an inseparable, present re-\\nlation with its used capabilities. A con-\\nclusion as valid as any furnished by\\nscience or philosophy. And one which\\ngives to Theology the Faith-Identity of\\nJesus Christ where He confides His soul s\\nEgo-Identity to a Ratio-nalism that con-\\ntinues Antecedent and Its expression\\ninseparable, when all intelligence, all\\nmatter, and all ratio conceivable to this\\nstage of conscious being, in any Ceptacle, pass\\nout of that consciousness.\\n88\\nL. of o.\\niilliiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiJ\\nii mmnm", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "PRINTED BY R. R. DONNELLEY\\nSONS CO. AT THE LAKESIDE\\nPRESS, CHICAGO, ILL. MDCCCC", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "liimmiiiiiiiiiimii\\nlllllllllllllllllllLLLliLliLSiliiii:", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "Tiiriiniiiimiiiiiiiii\\niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiliiliiimi^^^", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "APR 18 1900\\n1llllllllllllllllliili imiT1limTllinillTimmlTTTTTTTTT,TTini\\nJ il l I ILL 1 1J U ,c rjL", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3286", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3324", "width": "1980", "jp2-path": "hypothesisforcep00taft_0100.jp2"}}