(50) In a preceding chapter of this book we have called your attention to the fact that the activities of the electrons, the atoms, and the corpuscles of which matter is composed, are purely sexual activities—that all attraction is sex-attraction, and that as all Cosmic activity results from Attraction, therefore Sex is the Motive Power behind the activities of the Cosmos. A careful examination of the discoveries of modern science which are being announced from year to year will convince the student that all are explainable under the Rosicrucian theory of the Principle of Sex, and are explainable under no other hypothesis.

(8) The best teachings of modern science is that there is a stimulating or fertilizing activity in nature which acts upon a generative force, the latter reacting upon the former. And, at the other end of the material scale, we find the teaching that the atom (once supposed to be the ultimate form of matter) is now discovered to be composed of a multitude of electrons, corpuscles, or ions (different names for the same thing) revolving around each other at a tremendous rate of motion. It was formerly supposed that the electrons simply revolved one around another, and that all were alike in character and nature; but the later discoveries show that the formation of the atom is due rather to the action of numerous circling positive (or "male") electrons around a central negative (or "female") electron, the positive (or "male") electrons seemingly exerting a peculiar effect upon the negative (or "female") electron, causing her to put forth certain energies which result in the "generation" of the atomic structure.

(10) Modern science also teaches that the electrons which are "composed of negative (female) electricity," frequently becomes detached from its male companion corpuscles, and starts on an independent career. It seeks a union with a masculine corpuscle, and gaining it a new set of creative activity is begun. When the female corpuscle unites with the new masculine one a strange phenomenon occurs; the corpuscles began vibrating and circling around each other, and the result is the birth of a new atom in which is combined the masculine and feminine energies in some particular proportion. The atom, thus formed, does not manifest the properties of free electricity but manifests an entirely new set of properties. The process of detachment of the feminine electrons is called "ionization;" and arising from such detachments and the formation of new unions result the varied phenomena of heat, light, electricity, magnetism, etc.

(11) In the same way, the varied phenomena of "chemical attraction" and "chemical affinity" arise from the manifestation of Sex on the atomic plane, though science has not as yet perceived this to be the truth. Science teaches that there are "marriages, divorces, and re-marriages" among the atoms, but it hesitates to go further and assert that this is a part of the universal Sex manifestation—but this announcement must come in time for the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. The explosive properties of certain substances really result from a "divorce" of the atomic and molecular parties—the detachment of the male and female particles under the influence of a stronger attraction; and the formation of the different substances result from the attractive unions of certain male and female elements of matter. Alchemy has always known this to be a fact; it remains for modern science to corroborate and reaffirm the "vagaries" of the old alchemists regarding this important fact of nature.

(9) This is in perfect accordance with the old Rosicrucian doctrine that the "positive" pole of magnetism and electricity (for both were well known to the ancient alchemists) was "masculine," and that the "negative" pole of the same was "feminine." But, unfortunately, the terms "positive" and "negative," respectively are used with the wrong implication and much confusion results therefrom. For instance, the term "positive" is used to indicate strength and reality, as opposed to weaknesses and unreality of the "negative." But the real facts of physical science show us the falsity of such an interpretation of these terms. The so-called "negative" pole of the battery is really the pole of generation or the production of new forms and energies—the best authorities now prefer to use the term "the cathode pole" in place of "the negative;" the word "cathode" being derived from the Greek word meaning "descent; the path of generation," etc. From the "cathode" pole of the battery emerge the great swarms of electrons, ions, or corpuscles; and from the same pole also emerge the wonderful "rays" which have played such an important part in modern physics. The "cathode" pole of the battery is the Mother of all that strange brood of new forms of matter which have appeared to confute the old materialistic theories, and to destroy the old conceptions of science. The "cathode" pole should, in reality and truth, be called the "female" pole; and the "positive" the "male," for such terms truly represent their true respective offices.

(6) These four things, they say, are male, and these female: the sky, metal, wind, and fire are male, and are never otherwise; the water, earth, plants, and fish are female, and are never otherwise; the remaining creation consists of male and female.

(7) The ancient teachings, which were later embodied in the early Rosicrucian teachings, held that in order that there might be Becoming, Change, or Creation, there must be Re-action following Action—the play of one force on another. And the best teachings of the ancients were that these two opposing forces in Nature were Masculine, and Feminine, respectively—dual aspects of the Universal Being. And Modern Science is fast coming to recognize and teach the same great truth.

(12) It has always been admitted by science that there was Sex manifest in plant-life as well as by animal-life, but the mineral-life was not given the benefit of the manifestation of the universal principle of Sex. But recent discoveries have forced upon scientists the fact that in the crystallization of minerals there is an unmistakable evidence of the presence and activity of Sex, and in the near future it will be found that all the other changes in minerals are the result of Sex-attraction or repulsion. And, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter of this book, there is present the activity of Sex on the mental planes of life.

(7) I. The Plane of the Elements On this Plane of Consciousness is manifested the actions and reactions between the subtle elements of which all material forms are composed. Here occurs the play between the atoms, the electrons, the ions, the corpuscles, and the still more tenuous particles of substance of which science has as yet no knowledge. And, going still further back, it may be said that on this plane occurs the play of phases of substance as much more tenuous and subtle than the electrons as the latter are more tenuous than the atoms. Little can be said concerning these practically unknown forms and phases of matter, although the occult teachings are quite full of them.

(13) In short, on each and every plane of Life, physical, mental, or spiritual there is found present and active the Universal Principle of Sex, in some of its phases and forms. Sex cannot be escaped in Nature—the Universe is Bi-Sexual, and all Creation, on every plane, is caused by Sex and Sex only. A full understanding of this important fact would revolutionize the conceptions of modern science, and render practicable many important ideas which now exist merely as dreams in the minds of the advanced scientists. To those who cannot see this plainly, we would say: It is admitted that all physical and mental phenomena depend for activity upon the Law of Attraction. When it is discovered that the law of Attraction proceeds along the lines of Sex, and Sex alone, then it is seen that all activity is Sex-Activity.

(9) Since the postulation of the atomic theory by Democritus, many efforts have been made to determine the structure of atoms and the method by which they unite to form various elements, Even science has not refrained from entering this field of speculation and presents for consideration most detailed and elaborate representations of these minute bodies. By far the most remarkable conception of the atom evolved during the last century is that produced by the genius of Dr. Edwin D. Babbitt and which is reproduced herewith. The diagram is self-explanatory. It must be borne in mind that this apparently massive structure is actually s minute as to defy analysis. Not only did Dr. Babbitt create this form of the atom but he also contrived a method whereby these particles could be grouped together in an orderly manner and thus result in the formation of molecular bodies.

(14) Had the World-Soul remained Neuter, there would have been no Universal Manifestation or Creation. It was necessary that the Principle of Sex should appear, in order that Creation should begin. It is only by the constant and continuous action and reaction of the Two Sex Principles in Nature that Creation, Process, Becoming, and Change is possible—and as all Things are but the products of Change, Process, Becoming, and Creation, it follows that without Sex there would have been to Things in the Universe—and in that even the World Soul would have abided apart, alone, and single until the end of its days. With the introduction of Sex came the beginning of Generation and Creation, under which the One became the Many and Sameness became Variety and Diversity. The ancient teachings furnish the only logical explanation of Creation. The One becomes the Two, and from the Two proceed the Many.

(6) The above statement of the Universality of Sex may seem somewhat surprising to the person who has not acquainted himself, or herself, with the Ancient Wisdom of the Esoteric Schools; or who is not familiar with the daring conceptions of advanced modern science. But to that one who has mastered the ancient wisdom-teachings, and who has likewise become acquainted with the best of modern advanced scientific thought, there will seem nothing strange about these statements. The ancient teachings taught positively that there was present and active Sex in all Manifested Creation; and Modern Science is beginning to teach that the evidence of the presence of Sex in every Thing is conclusive.

(10) Crystals, as you know, are born, grow, live, and may be killed by chemicals or electricity. Some investigators have discovered indications of elementary sex functions in certain crystals. A scientific writer has said: "Crystallization, as we are to learn now, is not a mere mechanical grouping of dead atoms—it is a birth." The crystal forms from the mother liquor, and its body is built up systematically, regularly, and according to a well-defined pattern, plan, or design—as true to the pattern as are the bodies of plants and animals. The certainty is present in the crystal creative life activity. And, not only does the crystal grow in this way, like a plant or an animal, but it also reproduces itself by separation and division, just as do the individuals of the lower forms of plant-life and animal-life. The distinguishing point between the growth and reproduction of crystal forms and that of the higher forms of life has, heretofore, been held to be as follows: the crystal takes its nourishment from the outside and builds up its bodily structure on its outer surface, while the lowly forms of plant-life and animal-life takes its nourishment from the outside but builds up its bodily structure from within. If the crystal had a soft-centre and took its nourishment in the way of the low form of plant-life or animal-life (building from within) it would be almost identical with the diatom; or if the diatom grew from the outside, and had a hard centre, it would be considered a true crystal; so, as you see there is very little real difference between them. And, now, lo! even this distinction is apparently to be wiped out by the discovery of artificial living crystals, evolved in the laboratory.

(2) Our first observations must be directed to what passes in the Sensible realm for Substance. It is, we shall agree, only by analogy that the nature manifested in bodies is designated as Substance, and by no means because such terms as Substance or Being tally with the notion of bodies in flux; the proper term would be Becoming.

But Becoming is not a uniform nature; bodies comprise under the single head simples and composites, together with accidentals or consequents, these last themselves capable of separate classification.

Alternatively, Becoming may be divided into Matter and the Form imposed upon Matter. These may be regarded each as a separate genus, or else both may be brought under a single category and receive alike the name of Substance.

But what, we may ask, have Matter and Form in common? In what sense can Matter be conceived as a genus, and what will be its species? What is the differentia of Matter? In which genus, Matter or Form, are we to rank the composite of both? It may be this very composite which constitutes the Substance manifested in bodies, neither of the components by itself answering to the conception of Body: how, then, can we rank them in one and the same genus as the composite? How can the elements of a thing be brought within the same genus as the thing itself? Yet if we begin with bodies, our first-principles will be compounds.

Why not resort to analogy? Admitted that the classification of the Sensible cannot proceed along the identical lines marked out for the Intellectual: is there any reason why we should not for Intellectual-Being substitute Matter, and for Intellectual Motion substitute Sensible Form, which is in a sense the life and consummation of Matter? The inertia of Matter would correspond with Stability, while the Identity and Difference of the Intellectual would find their counterparts in the similarity and diversity which obtain in the Sensible realm.

But, in the first place, Matter does not possess or acquire Form as its life or its Act; Form enters it from without, and remains foreign to its nature. Secondly, Form in the Intellectual is an Act and a motion; in the Sensible Motion is different from Form and accidental to it: Form in relation to Matter approximates rather to Stability than to Motion; for by determining Matter's indetermination it confers upon it a sort of repose.

In the higher realm Identity and Difference presuppose a unity at once identical and different: a thing in the lower is different only by participation in Difference and in relation to some other thing; Identity and Difference are here predicated of the particular, which is not, as in that realm, a posterior.

As for Stability, how can it belong to Matter, which is distorted into every variety of mass, receiving its forms from without, and even with the aid of these forms incapable of offspring.

This mode of division must accordingly be abandoned.

(25) There are those who lay down four categories and make a fourfold division into Substrates, Qualities, States, and Relative States, and find in these a common Something, and so include everything in one genus.

Against this theory there is much to be urged, but particularly against this posing of a common Something and a single all-embracing genus. This Something, it may be submitted, is unintelligible to themselves, is indefinable, and does not account either for bodies or for the bodiless. Moreover, no room is left for a differentia by which this Something may be distinguished. Besides, this common Something is either existent or non-existent: if existent, it must be one or other of its species;- if non-existent, the existent is classed under the non-existent. But the objections are countless; we must leave them for the present and consider the several heads of the division.

To the first genus are assigned Substrates, including Matter, to which is given a priority over the others; so that what is ranked as the first principle comes under the same head with things which must be posterior to it since it is their principle.

First, then: the prior is made homogeneous with the subsequent. Now this is impossible: in this relation the subsequent owes its existence to the prior, whereas among things belonging to one same genus each must have, essentially, the equality implied by the genus; for the very meaning of genus is to be predicated of the species in respect of their essential character. And that Matter is the basic source of all the rest of things, this school, we may suppose, would hardly deny.

Secondly: since they treat the Substrate as one thing, they do not enumerate the Existents; they look instead for principles of the Existents. There is however a difference between speaking of the actual Existents and of their principles.

If Matter is taken to be the only Existent, and all other things as modifications of Matter, it is not legitimate to set up a single genus to embrace both the Existent and the other things; consistency requires that Being be distinguished from its modifications and that these modifications be duly classified.

Even the distinction which this theory makes between Substrates and the rest of things is questionable. The Substrate is one thing and admits of no differentia- except perhaps in so far as it is split up like one mass into its various parts; and yet not even so, since the notion of Being implies continuity: it would be better, therefore, to speak of the Substrate, in the singular.

(10) Another method of division is possible: substances may be classed as hot-dry, dry-cold, cold-moist, or however we choose to make the coupling. We may then proceed to the combination and blending of these couples, either halting at that point and going no further than the compound, or else subdividing by habitation- on the earth, in the earth- or by form and by the differences exhibited by living beings, not qua living, but in their bodies viewed as instruments of life.

Differentiation by form or shape is no more out of place than a division based on qualities- heat, cold and the like. If it be objected that qualities go to make bodies what they are, then, we reply, so do blendings, colours, shapes. Since our discussion is concerned with Sensible Substance, it is not strange that it should turn upon distinctions related to sense-perception: this Substance is not Being pure and simple, but the Sensible Being which we call the Universe.

We have remarked that its apparent subsistence is in fact an assemblage of Sensibles, their existence guaranteed to us by sense-perception. But since their combination is unlimited, our division must be guided by the Form-Ideas of living beings, as for example the Form-Idea of Man implanted in Body; the particular Form acts as a qualification of Body, but there is nothing unreasonable in using qualities as a basis of division.

We may be told that we have distinguished between simple and composite bodies, even ranking them as opposites. But our distinction, we reply, was between material and organic bodies and raised no question of the composite. In fact, there exists no means of opposing the composite to the simple; it is necessary to determine the simples in the first stage of division, and then, combining them on the basis of a distinct underlying principle, to differentiate the composites in virtue of their places and shapes, distinguishing for example the heavenly from the earthly.

These observations will suffice for the Being , or rather the Becoming, which obtains in the Sensible realm.

(36) "The pseudo-Clement of Rome, writes: 'God made man male and female. The male is Christ: the female, the Church.' The Qabbalists called the Holy Spirit, the mother, and the Church of Israel, the Daughter. Solomon engraved on the walls of his Temple, likenesses of the male and female principles, to adumbrate this mystery; such, it is said, were the figures of the cherubim. This was, however, not in obedience to the words of the Thorah. They were symbolical of the Upper, the spiritual, the former or maker, positive or male, and the Lower, the passive, the negative or female, formed or made by the first."

(3) How then do we go to work?

Let us begin by distinguishing Matter, Form, the Mixture of both, and the Attributes of the Mixture. The Attributes may be subdivided into those which are mere predicates, and those serving also as accidents. The accidents may be either inclusive or included; they may, further, be classified as activities, experiences, consequents.

Matter will be found common to all substances, not however as a genus, since it has no differentiae- unless indeed differentiae be ascribed to it on the ground of its taking such various forms as fire and air.

It may be held that Matter is sufficiently constituted a genus by the fact that the things in which it appears hold it in common, or in that it presents itself as a whole of parts. In this sense Matter will indeed be a genus, though not in the accepted sense of the term. Matter, we may remark, is also a single element, if the element as such is able to constitute a genus.

Further, if to a Form be added the qualification "bound up with, involved in Matter," Matter separates that Form from other Forms: it does not however embrace the whole of Substantial Form .

We may, again, regard Form as the creator of Substance and make the Reason-Principle of Substance dependent upon Form: yet we do not come thereby to an understanding of the nature of Substance.

We may, also, restrict Substance to the Composite. Matter and Form then cease to be substances. If they are Substance equally with the Composite, it remains to enquire what there is common to all three.

The "mere predicates" fall under the category of Relation: such are cause and element. The accidents included in the composite substances ire found to be either Quality or Quantity; those which are inclusive are of the nature of Space and Time. Activities and experiences comprise Motions; consequents Space and Time, which are consequents respectively of the Composites and of Motion.

The first three entities go, as we have discovered, to make a single common genus, the Sensible counterpart of Substance. Then follow in order Relation, Quantity, Quality, Time-during-which, Place-in-which, Motion; though, with Time and Space already included , Time-during-which and Place-in-which become superfluous.

Thus we have five genera, counting the first three entities as one. If the first three are not massed into a unity, the series will be Matter, Form, Composite, Relation, Quantity, Quality, Motion. The last three may, again, be included in Relation, which is capable of bearing this wider extension.