CHAP. III.] THE EXTERNAL WORLD. 75 



jectivity of extension which are brought against the objecti 

 vity of &quot; difference.&quot; Moreover, if a subjective relation of 

 difference cannot exist without the momentary co-existence 

 of its terms, the objectivity of difference is most true on this 

 very account, because an objective relation cannot exist 

 without this momentary existence of its terms. 



He then (p. 224, 94) tries to show that physiology har 

 monises with his doctrine, saying that all relations M r.s P encer S 

 are composed of nervous elements, not &quot; intrinsically nervous reia- 

 differeut,&quot; and therefore cannot resemble &quot; intrin- tlons 

 sically-different objective connections.&quot; But what, then, is 

 meant by using the term &quot; intrinsically different ?&quot; Moreover, 

 a set of apparently similar nerves may be as truly organized 

 for revealing a variety of objective conditions as any one set. 

 Mr. Spencer has fallen into the fallacy that the effect as 

 such must resemble its cause. 



He tells us that &quot; it needs but to think of a brain as a 

 seat of nervous discharges, intermediate between actions in 

 the outer world and actions in the world of thought, to be 

 impressed with the absurdity of supposing that the connections 

 among outer actions, after being transferred through the me 

 dium of nervous discharges, can reappear in the world of 

 thought in the forms they originally had.&quot; But where is the 

 &quot; absurdity ? &quot; It is indeed true that it is most mysterious 

 how the nervous system gives us even any one symbolical 

 message from objectivity such as Mr. Spencer allows that it 

 does give. It is not really a bit more mysterious how it can 

 reveal to us the objective relations which the realist believes 

 it does reveal than how it reveals what Mr. Spencer allows 

 it does reveal. Even he must admit that it can never be 

 disproved that the universe has been so ordered that real ob 

 jective relations become known to us through these &quot;sensible 

 symbols,&quot; provided we are adult, healthy, and use all our 

 organs and faculties, sensible and intelligent. For what can 

 be more absurd, when God has given us five senses to make 

 use of, to complain that the use of one by itself leads into 

 error ? The truthfulness of the intellect s report as to the 



