the indetermination, in the midst of a great variety of possible responses made by B to A. In still closer relations, indetermination yet remains a feature of the ordinary world of moral relationships. For instance, if the relationship between A and B be defined thus: that A asks B a direct question, and that B gives what answer he can, then, to speak metaphorically, the equation expressing this relationship admits of three roots. B may say “Yes,” or may say “No,” or may express uncertainty. If uncertainty is excluded as being no answer, two roots of the equation still remain. In this way, quite apart from any question of metaphysical free-will, we may define the relationships of the moral world as such that, in the most exact of these relationships, any individual case that is capable of being taken as one of the terms of such a relationship does not in general determine, without ambiguity, the other term of the relationship, but in general leaves open not merely two or three, but even an indefinite number of possible other terms. Preserve the integrity of the relationship, choose your individual embodiment of one of its terms, and you are still free to choose one of several, often of many, — in some cases an infinite number of individual embodiments of the other terms. It follows, then, from the nature of moral relationships, such as in their highest form are exemplified by the relationship of Selves, that if there is to be a universe in which they are found, not one simple act of free choice, but an act involving many relatively independent acts, is involved in the individuation of such a world, — if the fore-
