Again.  We have distinguished between apparent space and real space (section 34).  We have seen that, when we deny that a mental image can occupy any portion of space, we need not think of it as losing its parts and shrivelling to a point.  We may still attribute to it apparent space; may affirm that it seems extended.  Let us mark the same distinction when we consider time.  The psychologist speaks of the duration of a sensation.  Has it real duration?  It is not in time at all, and, of course, it cannot, strictly speaking, occupy a portion of time.  But we can try to measure the duration of the physical concomitant, and call this the real duration of the sensation.

We all distinguish between the real time of mental phenomena, in the sense indicated just above, and the apparent time.  We know very well that the one may give us no true measure of the other.  A sermon seems long; was it really long?  There is only one way of measuring its real length.  We must refer to the clock, to the sun, to some change in the physical world.  We seem to live years in a dream; was the dream really a long one?  The real length can only be determined, if at all, by a physical reference.  Those apparent years of the dream have no place in the real time which is measured by the clock.  We do not have to cut it and insert them somewhere.  They belong to a different order, and cannot be inserted any more than the thought of a patch can be inserted in a rent in a real coat.

We see, thus, when we reflect upon the matter, that mental phenomena cannot, strictly speaking, be said to have a time and place.  He who attributes these to them materializes them.  But their physical concomitants have a time and place, and mental phenomena can be ordered by a reference to these.  They can be assigned a time and place of existing in a special sense of the words not to be confounded with the sense in which we use them when we speak of the time and place of material things.  This makes it possible to relate every mental phenomenon to the world system in a definite way, and to distinguish it clearly from every other, however similar.

We need not, when we come to understand this, change our usual modes of speech.  We may still say:  The pain I had two years ago is like the pain I have to-day; my sensation came into being at such a moment; my regret lasted two days.  We speak that we may be understood; and such phrases express a truth, even if they are rather loose and inaccurate.  But we must not be deceived by such phrases, and assume that they mean what they have no right to mean.

39.  OBJECTIONS TO PARALLELISM.—­What objections can be brought against parallelism?  It is sometimes objected by the interactionist that it abandons the plain man’s notion of the mind as a substance with its attributes, and makes of it a mere collection of mental phenomena.  It must be admitted that the parallelist usually holds a view which differs rather widely from that of the unlearned.