Page Content (OCR)
[p. 228] interests us: | haven't read what he said, but it seems to have been a little coarse. Russell says that Proctor "freely used" his name in the Echo, of March 14, 1879, ridiculing this observation which had been made by Russell as well as Hirst. If it hadn't been Proctor, it would have been someone else--but one notes that the attack came out in a newspaper. There is no discussion of this remarkable subject, no mention in any other astronomic journal. The disregard was almost complete--but we do note that the columns of the Observatory were open to Russell to answer Proctor. In the answer, | note considerable intermediateness. Far back in 1879, it would have been a beautiful positivism, if Russell had said-- "There was a shadow on the moon. Absolutely it was cast by an unknown body." According to our religion, if he had then given all his time to the maintaining of this one stand, of course breaking all friendships, all ties with his fellow astronomers, his apotheosis would have occurred, greatly assisted by means well known to quasi-existence when its compromises and evasions, and phenomena that are partly this and partly that, are flouted by the definite and uncompromising. It would be impossible in a real existence, but Mr. Russell, of quasi-existence, says that he did resist the conviction; that he had said that one could "hardly resist"; and most of his resentment is against Mr. Proctor's thinking that he had not resisted. It seems too bad--if apotheosis be desirable. The point in Intermediatism here is: Not that to adapt to the conditions of quasi-existence is to have what is called success in quasi- existence, but is to lose one's soul-- But is to lose "one's" chance of attaining soul, self, or entity. One indignation quoted from Proctor "What happens on the moon may at any time happen to this earth."