In case (1), on the contrary, the representative experience does transcend itself in knowing the other experience that is its object.  No one can talk of the knowledge of the one by the other without seeing them as numerically distinct entities, of which the one lies beyond the other and away from it, along some direction and with some interval, that can be definitely named.  But, if the talker be a humanist, he must also see this distance-interval concretely and pragmatically, and confess it to consist of other intervening experiences—­of possible ones, at all events, if not of actual.  To call my present idea of my dog, for example, cognitive of the real dog means that, as the actual tissue of experience is constituted, the idea is capable of leading into a chain of other experiences on my part that go from next to next and terminate at last in vivid sense-perceptions of a jumping, barking, hairy body.  Those are the real dog, the dog’s full presence, for my common sense.  If the supposed talker is a profound philosopher, altho they may not be the real dog for him, they mean the real dog, are practical substitutes for the real dog, as the representation was a practical substitute for them, that real dog being a lot of atoms, say, or of mind-stuff, that lie where the sense-perceptions lie in his experience as well as in my own.

 III

The philosopher here stands for the stage of thought that goes beyond the stage of common sense; and the difference is simply that he ‘interpolates’ and ‘extrapolates,’ where common sense does not.  For common sense, two men see the same identical real dog.  Philosophy, noting actual differences in their perceptions points out the duality of these latter, and interpolates something between them as a more real terminus—­first, organs, viscera, etc.; next, cells; then, ultimate atoms; lastly, mind-stuff perhaps.  The original sense-termini of the two men, instead of coalescing with each other and with the real dog-object, as at first supposed, are thus held by philosophers to be separated by invisible realities with which, at most, they are conterminous.

Abolish, now, one of the percipients, and the interpolation changes into ‘extrapolation.’  The sense-terminus of the remaining percipient is regarded by the philosopher as not quite reaching reality.  He has only carried the procession of experiences, the philosopher thinks, to a definite, because practical, halting-place somewhere on the way towards an absolute truth that lies beyond.

The humanist sees all the time, however, that there is no absolute transcendency even about the more absolute realities thus conjectured or believed in.  The viscera and cells are only possible percepts following upon that of the outer body.  The atoms again, tho we may never attain to human means of perceiving them, are still defined perceptually.  The mind-stuff itself is conceived as a kind of experience; and it