CHAPTER VI. Conclusion

CONCLUSION

§ 1. Can our Absolute Experience be properly called the “union of Thought and Will”? The Absolute is certainly the final realisation of our intellectual and our practical ideals. But (1) it includes aspects, such as, e.g. æsthetic feeling, pleasure, and pain, which are neither Thought nor Will. (2) And it cannot possess either Thought or Will as such. Both Thought and Will, in their own nature, presuppose a Reality which transcends mere Thought and mere Will. § 2. Our conclusion may in a sense be said to involve an element of Agnosticism, and again of Mysticism. But it is only agnostic in holding that we do not know the precise nature of the Absolute Experience. It implies no distrust of the validity of knowledge, so far as it goes, and bases its apparently agnostic result on the witness of knowledge itself. Similarly, it is mystical in transcending, not in refusing to recognise, the constructions of understanding and will. § 3. Metaphysics adds nothing to our information, and yields no fresh springs of action. It is finally only justified by the persistency of the impulse to speculate on the nature of things as a whole.

§ 1. It seems advisable, in bringing this work to a conclusion, to bring together by way of recapitulation a few important consequences of our general principle which could not receive all the notice they deserve in the course of our previous exposition. Our main contention, which it may be hoped our discussion of special problems has now confirmed, was that the whole of Reality ultimately forms a single infinite individual system, of which the material is psychical matter of fact, and that the individuality of this system lies ultimately in a teleological unity of subjective interest. Further, we saw that all subordinate reality is again in its degree individual, and that the contents of the Absolute thus form a hierarchy of ascending orders of reality and individuality, and that in this way, while all finite individual existence is, as finite, appearance and not ultimate Reality, appearances, themselves are of varied degrees of worth, and that, apart from the appearances, there is no reality at all. And finally, we learned that all the aspirations of finite individuals must be somehow met and made good in the ultimate Reality, though not necessarily in the form in which they are consciously entertained by the finite aspirant.

This last conclusion naturally suggests the question, whether it would be a correct description of the ultimate Reality to call it the “union of Thought and Will.” I will briefly indicate the reasons why such a description appears to be misleading. (1) The Absolute may no doubt be called the “union of Thought and Will,” in the sense that its complete individual structure corresponds at once to our logical ideal of systematic interconnection, and our ethico-religious ideal of realised individual purpose. But it must be added that the Absolute appears to possess aspects which cannot fairly be brought under either of these heads. Æsthetic feeling, for instance, and the æsthetic judgments based upon it, must somehow be included as an integral aspect in the absolute whole of experience; yet æsthetic feeling cannot properly be regarded either as thought or as will. And the same objection might be raised in the case of pleasure. However closely pleasure may be connected with conative efforts towards the retention or renewal of the pleasant experience, it seems quite clear that the “pure” pleasures are not forms of conscious “conation,” and that even in those “mixed” pleasures, which depend in part for their pleasantness upon relief from the tension of precedent craving or desire, analysis enables us to distinguish two elements, that of direct pleasure in the new experience, and that of the feeling of relief from the craving. Hence, if it be admitted that the Absolute contains pleasure, it must also be admitted that it contains something which is neither thought nor will. The same argument would hold good, I think, even if we held with the pessimists, that the Absolute contains a balance of pain over pleasure. For, intimate as the connection is between pain and thwarted conation, it seems a psychological monstrosity to maintain that felt pain is always and everywhere an experience of the frustration of actual conscious effort; and unless this monstrosity can be maintained, we must recognise in pain too a fundamental experience-quality irreducible to thought or will. Thus, at best, the description of the Absolute, as the union of thought and will, would be incomplete.

(2) But, further, the description, if taken to mean that the Absolute itself has thought and will, as such, would be not only incomplete but false. For actual thought and actual will can easily be shown to be essentially finite functions, neither of which could ever reach its goal and become finally self-consistent, without ceasing to be mere thought or mere will. Thus actual thought always involves an aspect of discrepancy between its content and reference. It is always thought about a reality which falls, in part, outside the thought itself, is only imperfectly represented by the thought’s content, and for that very reason is a not-self to the thought for which it is an object. And the whole process of thinking may be described as a series of attempts on the part of thought to transcend this limitation. So long as the content of the thought is not adequate to the reality which it thinks, so long, that is, as there is anything left to know about the reality, thought restlessly presses forward towards an unreached consummation. But if the correspondence ideae cum ideato ever became perfect, thought’s object would cease to contain anything which went beyond thought’s own content. It would no longer be an “other” or “not-self” to the thought which knew it, and thus thought and its object would have become a single thing. But in this consummation thought would have lost its special character as an actual process, just as the object would have lost its character of a something, partly at least, “given” from without. Both mere thought and mere existence, in becoming one, would cease to have the character which belongs to them in finite experience precisely in virtue of our failure completely to transcend the chasm between them.

The same is the case with will. If, indeed, by will we mean a genuine actual process of volition, this result is already included in our criticism of the claim of thought as such to persist unchanged in the Absolute. For all genuine will implies possession of and actuation by an idea which is entertained explicitly as an unrealised idea, and is thus inseparable from thought. (This, I may incidentally observe once more, is why we carefully avoided speaking of the “subjective interest” we found in all experience-processes as “will.”) But even if we improperly widen the interpretation of the term “will” to include all conative process, the general conclusion will remain the same. For all such processes imply the contrast between existence as it comes to us in the here and now of actual feeling, and existence as it should be, and as we seek to make it, for the satisfaction of our various impulses, cravings, and desires. It is the felt, even when not explicitly understood, discrepancy between these two aspects of a reality, which is ultimately one and harmonious under the discrepancy, that supplies all actual conative process with its motive force. And hence we seem driven to hold that conation as such, i.e. as actual striving or effort, can find no place in an experience in which the aspects of ideality and real existence are once for all finally united.

If we cannot avoid speaking of such an experience in terms of our own intellectual, and again of our own volitional processes, we must at least remember that while such language is true in the sense that the all-embracing harmonious experience of the Absolute is the unattainable goal towards which finite intellect and finite volition are alike striving, yet each in attaining its consummation, if it ever could attain it, would cease to be itself as we know it, and pass into a higher and directer form of apprehension, in which it could no longer be distinguished from the other. In the old mediæval terminology, the Absolute must be said to contain actual intellect and actual volition, not formaliter but eminenter.

§ 2. It follows from all this that, just because the absolute whole is neither mere thought nor mere will, nor an artificial synthesis of the two, mere truth for the intellect can never be quite the same thing as ultimate Reality. For in mere truth we get Reality only in its intellectual aspect as that which affords the highest satisfaction to thought’s demand for consistency and systematic unity in its object. And, as we have seen, this demand can never be quite satisfied by thought itself. For thought, to remain thought, must always be something less than the whole reality which it knows. The reality must always contain a further aspect which is not itself thought, and is not capable of being apprehended in the form of a thought-content. Or, what is the same thing, while all reality is individual, all the thought-constructions through which we know its character must remain general. We are always trying in our thought to grasp the individual as such, and always failing. As individual, the reality never becomes the actual content of our thought, but remains a “transcendent” object to which thought refers, or which it means. And hence our truest thought can at best give us but an imperfect satisfaction for its own demand of congruence, between thought’s content and its object. The reality can never be ultimately merely what it is for our thought. And this conclusion obviously lends a certain justification both to the agnostic and to the mystic. It is important to understand how far that justification extends.

First, then, a word as to the limits of justifiable Agnosticism. Our conclusion warranted us in asserting that Reality must contain aspects which are not thought, and again must combine thought with these other aspects in a unity which is not itself merely intellectual. In other words, we had to confess that we cannot understand the concrete character of the Infinite Experience, or, to put it in a more homely way, we do not know how it would feel to be “God.” And if this is Agnosticism, we clearly shall have to own that we too are agnostics. But our result gave us no ground for doubting our own general conviction as to the place which intellect and truth hold in the Absolute. On the other hand, it left us with every reason for trusting that conviction. For our conclusion that mere truth cannot be the same thing as ultimate Reality was itself based upon the principle that only harmonious individuality is finally real, and this is the very principle employed by the intellect itself whenever it judges one thought-construction relatively higher and truer than another.

Thus our Agnosticism, if it is to be called so, neither discredits our human estimate of the relative truth of different theories about the real, nor lends any support to the notion that “Knowledge is relative” in the sense that there may conceivably be no correspondence between Reality and the scheme of human knowledge as a whole. It is based not on the distrust of human reason, but upon the determination to trust that reason implicitly, and it claims, in declaring mere truth to fall short of Reality, to be expressing reason’s own verdict upon itself. Hence it does not, like vulgar Agnosticism, leave us in the end in pure uncertainty as to the ultimate structure and upshot, so to say, of the world, but definitely holds that we have genuine and trustworthy knowledge of the type of that structure and the nature of its materials. And it is upon this positive knowledge, and not upon an uncritical appeal to unknown possibilities, that it rests its denial of the simple identity of Reality with thought itself. For all we know, says the common Agnosticism, our thought is sheer illusion, and therefore we must confess that we have in the end no notion what the reality of the world may be. Thought is not illusory, says our systematic Idealism, and therefore its own witness that Reality is an individual whole of experience which is more than thought is a positive contribution to our knowledge. Between these two positions there may be a superficial resemblance, but there is an essential difference in principle.

So again with the mystical element in our result. In holding that all genuine individuality, finite or infinite, involves a type of immediate felt unity which transcends reduction to the relational categories of thought and will, we may fairly be said to have reached a conclusion which, in a sense, is mystical. But our result is not Mysticism, if by Mysticism is meant a doctrine which seeks ultimate Reality in mere unanalysed immediate feeling as such. The results of intellectual and volitional construction have not been treated by us as illusory and as a sort of intellectual and moral mistake. On the other hand, we urged that the ultimate unity of the real must transcend, and not merely fall short of, the rational scheme of thought and will. And we consequently insisted that our result, so far as it is a mystical one, can only be justified by following out the constructions of the logical intellect and the ethical will to their final consequence, and showing that each of them itself demands completion in an individual Reality which includes and transcends both. To quote the admirable words of Dr. McTaggart: “A Mysticism which ignored the claims of the understanding would no doubt be doomed. None ever went about to break logic, but in the end logic broke him. But there is a Mysticism which starts from the standpoint of the understanding, and only departs from it in so far as that standpoint shows itself not to be ultimate, but to postulate something beyond itself. To transcend the lower is not to ignore it.” And it is only in this sense that philosophy is justified in asserting “above all knowledge and volition one all-embracing unity, which is only not true, only not good, because all truth and all goodness are but shadows of its absolute perfection.”

§ 3. The reader who has persevered to the conclusion of this volume may perhaps, on laying it down, experience a certain feeling of dissatisfaction. Our investigations, it might be complained, have added nothing to our stock of scientific information about the contents of the world, and have supplied no fresh practical incentives towards the strenuous pursuit of an elevated moral or religious ideal. I must at once admit the justice of this hypothetical criticism, and dispute its relevancy. Quite apart from the defects due to personal shortcomings and confusions, it is inherent in the nature of metaphysical study that it can make no positive addition to our information, and can of itself supply no motives for practical endeavour. And the student who turns to our science as a substitute for empirical Physics or Psychology, or for practical morality, is bound to go away disappointed. The reason of this we have already had occasion to see. Metaphysics has to presuppose the general principles of the various sciences and the general forms of practical experience as the materials upon which it works. Its object as a study is not to add to or to modify these materials, but to afford some coherent and systematic satisfaction for the intellectual curiosity which we all feel at times as to the general nature of the whole to which these various materials belong, and the relative truth and clearness with which that general nature is expressed in the different departments of experience. Its aim is the organisation, not the enlargement of knowledge. Hence for the student whose interests lie more in the enlargement of human knowledge by the discovery of new facts and laws, than in its organisation into a coherent whole, Metaphysics is probably undesirable, or desirable only as a protection against the intrusion of unrecognised and uncriticised metaphysical assumptions into the domain of empirical service. And similarly for the practical man whose interests in life are predominantly ethical, the main, if not the sole, value of metaphysical study lies in its critical function of exposing false metaphysical assumptions, which, if acted upon, might impair the vigour of spontaneous moral effort.

But for those in whom the speculative desire to form some coherent conception of the scheme of things to which we belong as a whole is strong, Metaphysics has a higher importance. In such minds the impulse to reflect on the nature of existence as a whole, if debarred from systematic and thorough gratification, is certain to find its outlet in unsystematic and uncriticised imaginative construction. Metaphysics they will certainly have, and if not conscious and coherent, then unconscious and incoherent Metaphysics. The soul that is not at rest in itself without some “sight of that immortal sea which brought it hither,” if hindered from beholding the object of its quest through the clear glass of rational reflection, will none the less seek to discern it amid the distorting hazes and mists of superstition. It is in such seekers after the Infinite that Metaphysics has its natural and proper followers, and for them the study is its own justification and its own reward. If a work like the present should prove of any help to such students, whether by offering positive suggestions which they can accept, or by assisting them to know definitely why they reject its conclusions, it will perhaps have achieved as much as its writer could reasonably expect.

Consult further:—F. H. Bradley, Appearance and Reality, chap. 27; J. E. McTaggart, Studies m Hegelian Cosmology, chap. 9.

-----

-----

Footnote 235:

I use the epithet in its familiar Platonic sense. The “pure” pleasure is that which is not dependent, in whole or in part, for its pleasantness upon a previous ἔνδεια, or actual experience of craving or desire. I do not mean, as Plato possibly did, that a “mixed” pleasure, preceded by such ἔνδεια, is a contrast-effect without positive quality of its own.

Footnote 236:

Compare the argument of Appearance and Reality, chap. 26, pp. 469-485 (1st ed.), and the famous scholium to Prop. 17 of part 1 of Spinoza’s Ethics, where it is contended that “if intellect and volition belong to the eternal essence of God, each of these attributes must at least be understood in a different sense from the current.”

Footnote 237:

I say “finite or infinite” advisedly. The mystic’s condemnation of the relational scheme as inadequate to express the full nature of the real, holds good just as much in application to actual finite experience as in application to the ultimate whole. We may say not only of “God,” but of human persons, that they are much more than the “union of thought and will” as such. And in personal human love, no less than in the saint’s “beatific vision” or the philosopher’s “intellectual love of God,” we have a type of experience which may for some psychological purposes be analysed into a combination of ideational and volitional processes, but emphatically does not, in its concrete existence, consist of a synthesis of actual ideas and actual volitions. See ante, p. 152.

Footnote 238:

Studies in Hegelian Cosmology, p. 292.

-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX

Absolute, meaning of, 53 ff.; general character of, 60 ff.; not unknowable, 71 ff.; not a “self,” 343 ff.; is it a society? 100, 347 ff.; a spiritual individual, 98 ff.; not necessarily the same as “God,” 399 ff.; not “union of thought and will,” 409 ff. Activity not identical with conation, 55; and causation, 169; empirical nature of, 189. Agnosticism, 68, 69, 71, 72; how far justifiable, 412. Appearance and Reality, connection between, 105 ff. Aristotle, 6, 42, 97, 266, 361, 386. Attention, selective, 55, 66, 80; “span” of, 226, 244. Avenarius, 35, 45, 80, 121, 174, 298 ff. 315.

Baldwin, J. M., 206. Berkeley, 26, 64 ff., 75, 184, 185, 201 ff. Body, my own, as describable object, 282. Body, my own, and others, 203 ff. Body and Soul, theories of, 313 ff.; in what sense the same, 332. Bosanquet, B., 19, 26, 164. Bradley, F. H., 9, 11, 23, 26, 55, 67, 88, 90, 131, 146, 199, 227, 243, 259, 289, 318, 326, 335, 338, 355, 364, 370, 384, 411.

Causation, 165 ff.; cause not identical with ground, 166; causation a postulate, 167 ff.; popular as distinguished from scientific sense, 169; causation and the indefinite regress, 177 ff.; continuity of causation, 171 ff.; Immanent and Transeunt Causality, 183 ff.; psychophysical causation, 322 ff. Causes, Plurality of, 180 ff. Chance, “pure,” meaning of, 231, 232; chance and “free-will,” 378. Change, 158-164. Character and freedom, 374. Choice and motives, 373. Consciousness, a misleading term, 79. Consequence (see Ground). Continuity, nature of, 171 (see Causation); continuity of space and time, 244, 250. Contradiction, principle of, 19 ff. Cosmology Rational, nature of, 43-49, 192-197. Couturat, L., 149, 260.

Dedekind, 116, 149, 171. Degrees of Reality, 108 ff. Descartes, 128, 185, 318, 400 ff. Description, as scientific ideal, 174; in physical Science, 280 ff.; in Psychology, 308 ff. Determinism, 370-376. Discontinuity of teleological series, 311. Distance in space and time, 250.

Ends in Nature, 272, 405, 406. Energy, conservation of, 292; kinetic and non-kinetic, 291; doctrine of, and psychophysical interaction, 322 ff. Epiphenomenalism, 317, 318-320. Epistemology and Metaphysics, 16. Evil, problem of, 391 ff., 395 ff. Evolution, not identical with mere change, 267; implies real ends, 268 ff.; is of finite beings only, 274 ff.; implies real progress and degeneration, 275; originates new individuals, 276. Experience, what, 23 ff., 33 ff.; “pure,” 35, 54.

Feeling, 23 ff., 55; in the Absolute, 467 ff. Freedom, meaning of, 359 ff. Free-will, origins of belief in, 361 ff.

Geulincx, 184, 185, 186, 317. Gibson, W. R. B., 288, 329, 366. God, proofs of being of, 400 ff. Ground and Consequence, meaning of principle of, 164, 165.

Harmony, Pre-established, 187, 317. Hegel, 40 ff., 42 ff., 391, 401. Herbart, 39, 42, 68. Hobhouse, L. T., 74, 137, 138, 199. Hume, 29, 7, 133, 169, 172, 183, 400 ff.

Identity, Psychophysical, doctrine of, 102, 321, 331, 332. Identity, a teleological concept, 335. (See also Unity of Thing). Imitation, significance of, for personality, 206. Immanent Causality, 183 ff. Immediacy, 32. “Immortality,” 354 ff. Indeterminism, 376-379. Individuality, nature of, 57, 98 ff.; degrees of, 109 ff.; infinite and finite, 115 ff. Infinite Regress, 148 ff., 156; in space and time, 255 ff., 259; in causal relation, 177. Infinity, meaning of, 116. Interaction, Psychophysical, 317, 329-331. Introjection, meaning of, 81; origin of, 81, 299 ff.; justification of, 301 ff.

James, W., 53, 91, 318, 370, 383, 390, 400.

Kant, 11, 24, 39, 43, 69, 134, 188, 242 ff., 259, 359, 366, 387, 400 ff.

Law, meaning of, 218 ff. Laws in Nature, 196, 229. Leibnitz, 68, 82, 86, 91 ff., 117, 187 ff., 317, 366, 401, 404. Locke, 128, 136, 200, 318, 353, 365, 366. Lotze, 41, 42, 133, 224, 289.

Mach, E., 174, 175, 192, 223, 228, 283, 290. Machine, nature of a, 236, 237. McTaggart, J. E., 345, 357, 391, 398, 413. Malebranche, 184, 185, 317. Mass, definition of, 289; conservation of, 290; a relative concept, 290, 291. Matter, meaning of, 198 ff. Mechanical view of Nature, 233 ff., 237 ff., 283 ff.; postulates of, 284, 292 ff. Mechanism, meaning of, 196, 237 ff. Method of Metaphysics, 38 ff. Mill, J. S., 24, 180 ff., 370. Monadism, 86, 91, 94. Monism, 85. Münsterberg, H., 45, 67, 198, 283, 303 ff., 315, 318, 321, 324, 329. Mysticism, 14, 33, 153; in what sense justifiable, 413.

Necessity and causal relation, 183. Newton, 128, 200. Nietzsche, 276. Number-series, 151 ff., 248-250, 259.

Occasionalism, 184, 317. Ontology, character of, 42. Order, a teleological concept, 118; order in space and time, 251. Organism, nature of a, 96.

Parallelism, Psychophysical, 317, 320-329. Pearson, K., 75, 290. Phenomenalism, 10, 136. Physical order, nature of the, 194 ff., 198, 208, 282. Plato, 3, 55, 77, 95, 276, 366, 386, 393, 398, 409. Pleasure-pain, 55, 344. Plotinus, 398. Pluralism, 86 ff. Position not a principle of individuation, 58; relativity of, 253. Pragmatism, 317. Prediction in science, 219 ff. Progress not infinite, 387-389. Psychical order, nature of the, 298 ff. Psychology, character of, as a science, 296 ff. Psychology and Physiology, 303 ff. Psychology, Rational, nature of, 43 ff. Purpose, nature of, 55 ff.

Qualities, primary and secondary, 128 ff. Quality and relation, 140 ff. Quality and substance, 128 ff. Quality, spatial and temporal, 244.

Rashdall, H., 347, 393, 400. Realism, Agnostic, 68, 71, 72; Dogmatic, 69, 72-75. Relation and quality, 140 ff. Relations and relatedness, 155. Religion, metaphysical presuppositions of, 389 ff. Responsibility and the self, 335. Royce, J., 13, 33, 51, 56, 76, 116, 145, 148 ff., 206, 226, 239, 263, 270, 277, 307, 398. Russell, B., 36, 58, 91, 142, 189, 243, 250, 253, 404.

Self, 98, 107; nature of, 334-340; a teleological concept, 335; temporal character of, 341, 342. Self-consciousness, genuine and fictitious, 79. Sidgwick, H., 130, 359, 370. Space, perceptual, 243-245; conceptual genesis of, 245-249; infinity of, 247; divisibility of, 248; continuity of, 248, 250; homogeneity of, 251; relativity of, 251; is it one or many? 253, 257; is not ultimate, 254-257; antinomies of, 259 ff.; of what is it phenomenal? 260. Spencer, H., 40, 68. Spinoza, 62, 101 ff., 318, 399, 411. Stout, G. F., 33, 67, 135, 154 ff., 208, 247, 318, 324, 332, 378. Subjectivism, what, 75; fallacy of, 76-81, 204 ff. Substance, concept of, 128 ff.; and quality, 128-140. Sufficient Reason, principle of, 164.

Teleological description not impossible, 309. Teleological series, discontinuity of, 311. Teleology, nature of, 55, 99, 125, 287, 371 ff.; in Psychology, 305 ff.; in Biology, 308; and Psychophysical Parallelism, 326 ff. Thought and the Absolute, 61; not ultimate, 409. Time, perceptual, 243-245; conceptual, genesis of, 245-249; infinity of, 247; divisibility of, 248; continuity of, 248, 250; homogeneity of, 251; relativity of, 251; is it one or many? 253, 257; not ultimate, 254-257; antinomies of, 259 ff.; of what is it phenomenal? 262; time and the self, 341, 344. Truth, degrees of, 214.

Uniformities, statistical, 220 ff. Uniformity in physical nature, 222, 227. Unity of things teleological, 123-128.

Ward, J., 45, 64, 174, 225, 228, 289 318, 324, 326-328. Whole and Part, category of, 96. Will, nature of, 61, 118; not ultimate, 410.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note

Two words on the first line of p. 70 of this edition (noted below) were missing (blank). They have been supplied from the 5th edition, published in 1920.

On p. 226, a footnote at (226.42) refers to Mr. H. G. Wells’s tale, The New Accumulator, which is certainly a reference to his 1901 tale “The New Accelerator”.

On p. 340, the first paragraph refers to ‘two points’, and prefaces the first with ‘(a)’. But there is no ‘(b)’ to denote the second point. It seems likely that ‘(b)’ should precede the next paragraph, or perhaps following the introductory ‘Further’.

The Index reference to p. 467 for ‘Feeling in the Absolute’ cannot be verified. The page does not exist, and no other page can be identified with certainty.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.

The most common error is missing punctuation: 6.14 purpose[.], 38.29 inquiry[.], 44.12 periphery[.], 44.41 other[.], 56.47 failure[.], 58.27 theory[.], 62.39 “purposive[”], 67.17 life[.], 67.19 subject[.], 79.46 “matter[”], 82.13 it[.], 88.40 exclusive[.], 89.41 facts[.], 99.13 purpose[.], 108.24 admitted[.], 128.23 [“]substance”, 143.19 arisen[.], 215.10 [“]Nature, 224.22 purpose[.], 236.14 based[.], 251.45 series[.], 274.16 advance[.], 320.32 fatum[.], 361.22 considerations[.], 390.5 “temperament[”], 410.22 thing[.]

The name of Professor Hugo Münsterberg is spelled variably as Münsterberg, Munsterberg, and occasionally with a partial umlaut. The spelling has been rendered as Münsterberg to facilitate text searches at 215.5, 305.15, 315.8, 329.40, 418.3.

Other corrected errors are:

xviii.11 to acertain Inserted. xxiii.12 The concept of volution Restored. 37.9 carry out ou[t/r] programme Replaced. 46.46 Grundz[u/ü]ge der Psychologie Replaced. 66.44 on which it “works.[’/”] Replaced. 70.1.1 a modification of your [experience]. Restored. 70.1.2 to ask what mean Restored. 82.22 to know your own meaning[./,] Replaced. 134.42 too diffuse and technical[,/.] Replaced. 136.24 does no destroy Restored. 149.12 in our illustration 1^2, [2^3/2^2], 3^2 ... Replaced. 180.46 increases indefinitely[)]. Removed. 215.6 Grundz[u/ü]ge der Psychologie Replaced. 215.12 [“]J. Ward Removed. 229.16 deal only with the problem[,/.] Replaced. 306.4 the physical order was constucted Inserted. 318.8 H[o/ö]ffding Replaced.