Philosophy has always turned on grammatical
particles. With, near, next, like, from,
towards, against, because, for, through, my --
these words designate types of conjunctive
relation arranged in a roughly ascending order
of intimacy and inclusiveness. _A_priori, we can
imagine a universe of withness but no nextness;
or one of nextness but no likeness, or of likeness
with no activity, or of activity with no purpose,
or of purpose with no ego. These would
be universes, each with its own grade of unity.
The universe of human experience is, by one or
another of its parts, of each and all these grades.
46
Whether or not it possibly enjoys some still
more absolute grade of union does not appear
upon the surface.
Taken as it does appear, our universe is to a
large extent chaotic. No one single type of connection
runs through all the experiences that
compose it. If we take space-relations, they
fail to connect minds into any regular system.
Causes and purposes obtain only among special
series of facts. The self-relation seems
extremely limited and does not link two different
selves together. _Prima_facie, if you should
liken the universe of absolute idealism to an
aquarium, a crystal globe in which goldfish
are swimming, you would have to compare the
empiricist universe to something more like one
of those dried human heads with which the
Dyaks of Borneo deck their lodges.
Pages:
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51