[24] Like consciousness, this word must be taken here in its very widest, metaphorical sense, as of a human ego “looking out” upon the world through the windows of memory, recognition, the senses, etc., and of the cosmos which it “sees” through those windows. It is obvious that the outlook of every individual will be slightly different from that of every other, also that there will be a great difference between the average outlook of broad contemporary classes, such, for instance, as learned and ignorant, artist and scientist, agnostic and Roman Catholic. The widest gulf of all is likely to be that between the average outlooks of different historical periods, and this will be increased if we are dealing with different races—such as, for example, ancient Egyptians and modern Americans—for in this case the dissimilarity will extend over nearly every experience of which the human outlook is composed.
[25] We may compare, unless we are enthusiastic naturalists, the enormously different impression made upon ourselves by two such outwardly similar creatures as a cockroach and a ladybird.
[26] [P. 109]. The Temple scenes in Mozart’s Magic Flute are a Freemason’s attempt to depict the proceedings within an Egyptian Mystery School, and the opera itself is plainly a fanciful treatment of the drama of initiation. (Incidentally, the noises made by Papageno when he attempts to sing with the padlock on his lips are an excellent illustration of the possibly natural origin of the root ‘mu-’ in ‘mu-ein’.)
[27] This word has been used by English writers in various ways—generally as a synonym for universe. Of late, however, there has perhaps been a slight tendency to differentiate it by making it mean the universe as seen and felt by a particular individual or body of individuals—‘the cosmos of our experience.’ This distinction appears to be a fruitful one and will be adopted here. As the words are used in this book, therefore, we should say that there is only one universe, but as many cosmoses as there are individuals. In this way the word cosmos becomes a sort of tool with which we can detach, and objectify for the purpose of inspection, the purely subjective consciousness or outlook (see [pp. 72] and [73], notes).
[29] It is curious how many of these would-be precise terms have since reversed their meanings. For the adjective derived from subject see [p. 159]; virtual, which was once allied with potential as the opposite of actual, is now practically a synonym for the latter term; and the Greek word from which instance is taken was originally an objection to an argument, not an example of it.
[30] The striking exception is the fifth-century philosopher, Democritus, who definitely foreshadowed the Atomic Theory and, in fact, gave to the word atom its modern meaning. With his exclusively quantitative explanation of all phenomena, he was far more “scientific,” in the now accepted sense of the word than Aristotle.
[31] Matchless.
[32] Chose.