and that other birds under the murky skies are gray and brown,
while in the Arctic regions they bleach.

In sleep we see, without being awakened, the angry lightning rend
the midnight clouds, and hear the explosive thunder hurl its fury at us;
but can we explain it any more than our scientist can explain the natural
forces of thought, of love and hate, or the subtle intuition of woman?

What of the silhouette or the anthelion of the Scandinavian Alps,
and the aerial cities so often seen by explorers and travelers?
Do not they defy the law of optics? Must we understand the intricacies
of articulation and the forces back of it before we can appropriate speech?
Must we discard all belief in an infinite mind because we cannot
understand it, and therefore say we are not a part of it because there
is no Infinite? Should we discard the belief in the infinitude of number,
because we cannot understand it, and therefore say that finite number
is not a part of the infinite?

No scientist or naturalist is so grossly stupid as to deny
the infinite expansion of numbers? If this be so, it establishes
the infinite of number, of which every finite number is a part,
and thus we have a parallel in mathematics, the very cornerstone
of the exact sciences, for a finite and an infinite mind.
It is from the prototype of this infinite of number, namely,
the infinite of intelligence, that spiritual dreams proceed.
They are, therefore, the reflection of truth upon the dream mind
and occur with less frequency than do dreams of the other two classes.

There are also mixed dreams, due to a multitude of incidents
arising from one or more sources, which being reflected upon