will find that while the image has its existence, and being, solely
within his own mind, yet he, the student, author, dramatist, painter, or
sculptor, is, in a sense, immanent in; remaining within; or abiding
within, the mental image also. In other words, the entire virtue, life,
spirit, of reality in the mental image is derived from the "immanent
mind" of the thinker. Consider this for a moment, until the idea is
grasped.

To take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear,
Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of
their conception or creation. And yet, Shakespeare also existed within
each of these characters, giving them their vitality, spirit, and
action. Whose is the "spirit" of the characters that we know as
Micawber, Oliver Twist, Uriah Heep--is it Dickens, or have each of these
characters a personal spirit, independent of their creator? Have the
Venus of Medici, the Sistine Madonna, the Apollo Belvidere, spirits and
reality of their own, or do they represent the spiritual and mental
power of their creators? The Law of Paradox explains that both
propositions are true, viewed from the proper viewpoints. Micawber is
both Micawber, and yet Dickens. And, again, while Micawber may be said
to be Dickens, yet Dickens is not identical with Micawber. Man, like
Micawber, may exclaim: "The Spirit of my Creator is inherent within me--
and yet I am not HE!" How different this from the shocking half-truth so
vociferously announced by certain of the half-wise, who fill the air
with their raucous cries of: "I am God!" Imagine poor Micawber, or the
sneaky Uriah Heep, crying: "I Am Dickens"; or some of the lowly clods in
one of Shakespeare's plays, eloquently announcing that: "I Am
Shakespeare!" THE ALL is in the earthworm, and yet the earth-worm is far
from being THE ALL. And still the wonder remains, that though the
earth-worm exists merely as a lowly thing, created and having its being