Article December 2, 1911 Issue

ADAPTATION

MIRIAM ADEE.

NOT long ago it became necessary for me to review various problems in mathematics, in order to pass an examination which was pending. I had always found this branch of study difficult of comprehension, so much so that only by memorizing and sticking steadfastly to given rules was there any hope of arriving at the correct solution of a problem. Even when the desired result had been demonstrated, there was very often an inability to explain satisfactorily the method of operation. During this period of preparation, however, I not infrequently was able to work out intricate problems by two or more different ways, apparently getting the right answer each time without regard to the method used, and so absorbed did I become finally in my pursuit of new methods of working, that I very nearly lost sight of the primary object of study.

One day, just after an experience similar the above, and when slightly chagrined because of a feeling of inability to explain which of two operations bearing equally correct results was preeminently accurate as to method, the opportunity came to effect a final differentiation. A man who is noted as being an expert mathematician came into the office, and I told him the situation. I was eager to show him the figures used and to explain how I had done the work; but to this he gave little heed, merely asking to see the problem and then proceeding to set it out paper in a simple, direct way. When the work was completed it was clear and concise, a perfect demonstration of correct fundamentals and easily understood. I exclaimed at its unlikeness to my work, which certainly had the result called for, but he dismissed the matter by saying, "There is never but one correct way to work out a problem. You may dodge and hedge about, and apparently get the answer; but if you search closely, you will in time discover the flaw."

Mrs. Eddy has quoted De Quincey as saying that "mathematics has not a foot to stand upon which is not purely metaphysical" (Science and Health, p. 113). Formerly I was unable to reconcile this statement and its connections with Christian Science, for the reason that mathematics had seemed to combine so many principles and rules, all equally good and correct and merely necessitating the individual's choice of some one of them. What possible difference could it make which ones were used, just so the answer was obtained as given in the book? Owing to this very illogical reasoning, and the awakening consequent to the above incident, I very soon discovered that for more than a year past I had been employing personality in my effort to demonstrate a given problem successfully, my understanding of Principle apparently lying idle in the mean while. With vision clarified, a most subtle error was revealed at work in the premise, the reason for inaccuracies and only partial results was made manifest, so that, with Principle once more established in consciousness and set at work, there was an almost instantaneous elimination of its counterfeit.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

ADAPTATION

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access