tion of C. Let this series be observed to be endless, that is, to be such that, consistently with its nature, it can possess no last term. Then, as I assert, we shall see, in a special instance, how the endless series M, M’, M’’ . . . , just as a series of many ideally constructed facts, is developed by the one purpose, C, when once applied to any suitable material, M; and is developed, moreover, by internal necessity, as the very meaning of the objects M, M’, etc., and also as the meaning of the operation C itself, and not as a bare conjunction given from “without the intellect.” Now in such a case, I insist, we see how the One produces, out of itself, the Many.
Nor let one, objecting, interpose that since an “operation” is a case of activity, and since activity has been riddled by Mr. Bradley’s critical fire, the nature of every operation of thought must always remain mysterious. Let no one insist that since the supposed operation C is one fact, and its material M is another fact, in our world of ideal objects, the relation of C to M is as opaque as any other relation, so that we do not understand how C operates at all, nor yet how it changes M into M’, nor how the same operation C can persist, and be applied to M’ after it had been applied to M. Let no one further point out that since all the foregoing account of C, and of the endless series M, M’, M’’, involves Time as a factor in the “operation,” and since Time has been shown by Mr. Bradley to be a mysterious conjunction of infinite complexity, and so to be mere Appearance, therefore all the foregoing remains mysterious. For to all such objections I shall reply that I so far pretend to find “self-evident” about the iterative processes of thought, only so much as, in his own chosen instances, Mr. Bradley finds self-evident, namely, so much as constitutes the very meaning and ground of his condemnation of the mysterious and baffling Appearances. That the endless process is implied in a certain way of thinking, namely, in a “relational way,” Mr. Bradley reflectively observes. I accept the observation, so far as it goes, in the cases stated. But I ask why this is true. The answer lies in seeing that the endlessness of the
