The mind's method of apprehending objective phenomena is not a direct process but an indirect process by virtue of which neurograms or nerve-impacts registered in the brain are interpreted. External sense-impressions are, of course, conveyed to the cortical area by means of appropriate vibrations which traverse the lines of the neural mechanism. These are recorded in the brain areas just as a telegraphic communication is registered in the apparatus of the receiving end, and in being so, they make terminal registrations which man, the Thinker, interprets after a psychic code which has been built up empirically. That is, he comes to know that certain rates of vibration and certain peculiarities therein mean certain things when referred to the sensorium. He then interprets according to this experience the symbolism of all neurographical impressions. But it is obvious that under such circumstances, where the interpreter is far removed from the thing itself and finds it necessary to interpret rates of vibration or symbols in order to arrive at a knowledge of the intelligence which is conveyed to him, the chances of inadequate conception are very great indeed. In fact, it is not possible through the use of neurographical symbols alone to get any complete notion of the phenomena considered. And thus there stands between the Thinker and absolute knowledge a barrier which prevents his arriving at a state of certitude in his knowledge of the world of sensible objects. It is, however, a barrier which will always remain, checking ever his approach to finality in his understanding of the universum of appearances.
A markedly different condition obtains in the realm of the _a priori_ or intuitional for the reason that the barriers which inhere in the neurographical or _a posterioristic_ method are absent and the Thinker has a more direct approach to the objects of cognition. Hence the chance for error is very small indeed. This will account, therefore, for the superiority of the intuitional over the rational or the perceptual. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the purely rational possesses any value whatsoever when its _modus vivendi_ is unsanctioned by the intuitional.
Else why can we not be certain that the results of our rational processes are correct at all times? Is it not because we lack the power to perceive whether our premises are correct in the first place? Quite truly. For if the Thinker can intuit the necessity and certitude of any given premise it follows that the consequences of that premise are true. It would, therefore, appear that the more the intuitional faculty is developed the clearer will be our perceptions not alone of abstract values but of objective things themselves. Further, it is doubtlessly true that the more the space-mind is developed in the human race the deeper will become our perceptions of the essential _be-ness_ of things so that whatever may be the presentations of the space-mind to the brain-mind they will be by far more accurate than the impressions we receive through the latter as a medium of apprehension. It is but natural, however, that in the present more or less chaotic condition in which the faculty of the intuitional is found it should be difficult even to interpret its presentations accurately. It is perhaps due to the fact that we are unused to its deliveries and mode of registration as well as to the fact that it has been overshadowed by the intellectual or rational faculty. But the mere fact that it is present and functioning, even if but rudimentarily, is evidence of its potentiality and the possibility of its future development to a still higher degree of efficiency.