Chapter II (part 5)

But if I should prove that a house, i.e., a physical fact, may exist, it does not at all mean that it exists really. If I prove that a man may own the house it is no proof that he owns it. Our relation to an idea and to a house are quite different, It is possible by a certain effort to destroy a house—to burn, to wreck it. The house will cease to exist. But suppose you attempt to destroy, by an effort, an idea. The more you try to contest, argue, refute, ridicule, the more the idea is likely to spread, grow, strengthen. And contrariwise, silence, oblivion, non-action , "non-resistance" will exterminate, or in any case will weaken the idea. Silence, oblivion, will not wreck a house, will not hurt a stone. p. 30 [paragraph continues] It is clear that the existence of a house and that of an idea are quite different existences. Of such different existences we know very many. A book exists, and also the contents of a book . Notes exist, and so does the music that the notes combine to make . A coin exists, and so does the purchasing value of a coin . A word exists, and the energy which it contains. We discern on the one hand, a whole series of physical facts , and on the other hand, a series of metaphysical facts . As facts of the first kind exist, so also do facts of the second kind exist, but differently. From the usual positivist point of view it will seem naive in the highest degree to speak of the purchasing value of a coin separately from the coin; of the energy of a word separately from the word; of the contents of a book separately from the book, and so on. We all know that these are only "what people say," that in reality purchasing value , energy of a word , and contents of a book do not exist, that by these conceptions we only denote a series of phenomena in some way linked with coin, word, book, but in substance quite separate from them. But is it so? We decided to accept nothing as given, consequently we shall not negate anything as given. We see in things, in addition to what is external, something internal. We know that this internal element in things constitutes a continuous part of things, usually their principal substance . And quite naturally we ask ourselves, where is this internal element, and what does it represent in and by itself. We see that it is not embraced within our space. We begin to conceive of the idea of a "higher space" possessing more dimensions than ours. Our space then appears to be somehow a part of higher space, i.e., we begin to believe that we know, feel, and measure only part of space, that part which is measurable in terms of length, width and height. ______ As was said before, we usually regard space as a form of the universe, or as a form of the matter of the universe. To make this p. 31 clear it is possible to say that a "cube" is the form of the matter in a cube; a "sphere" is the form of the matter in a sphere; "space"—an infinite sphere—is the form of the entire matter of the universe. H. P. Blavatsky, in The Secret Doctrine , has this to say about space: The superficial absurdity of assuming that Space itself is measurable in any direction is of little consequence. The familiar phrase (the fourth dimension of space) can only be an abbreviation of the fuller form—the " Fourth dimension of Matter in Space .". . . The progress of evolution may be destined to introduce us to new characteristics of matter. . .