cognition either added to it or taken away.  The function is accidental; synthetic, not analytic; and falls outside and not inside its being. [Footnote:  It seems odd to call so important a function accidental, but I do not see how we can mend the matter.  Just as, if we start with the reality and ask how it may come to be known, we can only reply by invoking a feeling which shall reconstruct it in its own more private fashion; so, if we start with the feeling and ask how it may come to know, we can only reply by invoking a reality which shall reconstruct it in its own more public fashion.  In either case, however, the datum we start with remains just what it was.  One may easily get lost in verbal mysteries about the difference between quality of feeling and feeling of quality, between receiving and reconstructing the knowledge of a reality.  But at the end we must confess that the notion of real cognition involves an unmediated dualism of the knower and the known.  See Bowne’s Metaphysics, New York, 1882, pp. 403-412, and various passages in Lotze, e.g., Logic, Sec. 308. [’Unmediated’ is a bad word to have used.—­1909.]]

A feeling feels as a gun shoots.  If there be nothing to be felt or hit, they discharge themselves ins blaue hinein.  If, however, something starts up opposite them, they no longer simply shoot or feel, they hit and know.

But with this arises a worse objection than any yet made.  We the critics look on and see a real q and a feeling of q; and because the two resemble each other, we say the one knows the other.  But what right have we to say this until we know that the feeling of q means to stand for or represent just that same other q?  Suppose, instead of one q, a number of real q’s in the field.  If the gun shoots and hits, we can easily see which one of them it hits.  But how can we distinguish which one the feeling knows?  It knows the one it stands for.  But which one does it stand for?  It declares no intention in this respect.  It merely resembles; it resembles all indifferently; and resembling, per se, is not necessarily representing or standing-for at all.  Eggs resemble each other, but do not on that account represent, stand for, or know each other.  And if you say this is because neither of them is a feeling, then imagine the world to consist of nothing but toothaches, which are feelings, feelings resembling each other exactly,—­would they know each other the better for all that?

The case of q being a bare quality like that of toothache-pain is quite different from that of its being a concrete individual thing.  There is practically no test for deciding whether the feeling of a bare quality means to represent it or not.  It can do nothing to the quality beyond resembling it, simply because an abstract quality is a thing to which nothing can be done.  Being without context or environment or principium individuationis, a quiddity with no haecceity, a platonic idea, even duplicate editions of such a quality (were they possible), would be indiscernible, and no sign could be given, no result altered, whether the feeling I meant to stand for this edition or for that, or whether it simply resembled the quality without meaning to stand for it at all.