part II

(Selby-Bigge's edition, p. 74); James Mill: _Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind_, ch. VIII; J. S. Mill: _An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy_, ch. XI, XII; W. K. Clifford: _Lectures and Essays_, pp. 274 ff.]

[27] [See "The Experience of Activity," below, pp. 155-189.]

[28] The psychology books have of late described the facts here with approximate adequacy. I may refer to the chapters on 'The Stream of Thought' and on the Self in my own _Principles of Psychology_, as well as to S. H. Hodgson's _Metaphysic of Experience_, vol. I, ch. VII and VIII.

[29] [See "The Thing and its Relations," below, pp. 92-122.]

[30] For brevity's sake I altogether omit mention of the type constituted by knowledge of the truth of general propositions. This type has been thoroughly and, so far as I can see, satisfactorily, elucidated in Dewey's _Studies in Logical Theory_. Such propositions are reducible to the _S_-is-_P_ form; and the 'terminus' that verifies and fulfils is the _SP_ in combination. Of course percepts may be involved in the mediating experiences, or in the 'satisfactoriness' of the _P_ in its new position.

[31] [See above, pp. 9-15.]

[32] ["On the Function of Cognition," _Mind_, vol. X, 1885, and "The Knowing of Things Together," _Psychological Review_, vol. II, 1895. These articles are reprinted, the former in full, the latter in part, in _The Meaning of Truth_, pp. 1-50. ED.] These articles and their doctrine, unnoticed apparently by any one else, have lately gained favorable comment from Professor Strong. ["A Naturalistic Theory of the Reference of Thought to Reality," _Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, vol. I, 1904.] Dr. Dickinson S. Miller has independently thought out the same results ["The Meaning of Truth and Error," _Philosophical Review_, vol. II, 1893; "The Confusion of Function and Content in Mental Analysis," _Psychological Review_, vol. II, 1895], which Strong accordingly dubs the James-Miller theory of cognition.

[33] [Cf. H. Lotze: _Metaphysik_, §§ 37-39, 97, 98, 243.]

[34] Mr. Bradley, not professing to know his absolute _aliunde_, nevertheless derealizes Experience by alleging it to be everywhere infected with self-contradiction. His arguments seem almost purely verbal, but this is no place for arguing that point out. [Cf. F. H. Bradley; _Appearance and Reality, passim;_ and below, pp. 106-122.]

[35] Of which all that need be said in this essay is that it also can be conceived as functional, and defined in terms of transitions, or of the possibility of such. [Cf. _Principles of Psychology_, vol. I, pp. 473-480, vol. II, pp. 337-340; _Pragmatism_, p. 265; _Some Problems of Philosophy_, pp. 63-74; _Meaning of Truth_, pp. 246-247, etc. ED.]

[36] [Cf. below, pp. 93 ff.]

[37] [Cf. "How Two Minds Can Know One Thing," below, pp. 123-136.]

[38] The notion that our objects are inside of our respective heads is not seriously defensible, so I pass it by.

[39] [The argument is resumed below, pp. 101 sq. ED.]

[40] Our minds and these ejective realities would still have space (or pseudo-space, as I believe Professor Strong calls the medium of interaction between 'things-in-themselves') in common. These would exist _where_, and begin to act _where_, we locate the molecules, etc., and _where_ we perceive the sensible phenomena explained thereby. [Cf. Morton Prince: _The Nature of Mind, and Human Automatism_,