The Interpretation of Experieyice 73 



it could be applied to all "A " situations. But it is not the ele- 

 ment of similarity, the common "A" in these situations that 

 causes me trouble. It is the new, the accidental elements, the 

 unexpected variations, the overtones of significance which pre- 

 vent me from seeing the similar points and from applying the 

 formula prescribed for situation A. Further, the very fact that 

 there are these new elements in the situation make it a new 

 situation, for there is no reason why the elements of difference 

 from situation A represented by A^ and A^ should not be the 

 determining factors in my reaction to these latter situations. As 

 far as my graphic representation of these experiences is con- 

 cerned there is no justification for representing them simply as 



A, A\ A^ etc. They are more adequately represented as: lAB, 

 2AC, 3AD, 4AE, 5AF, in which the numbers represent the 

 sequence of situations and A, one common element in all, while 



B, C, D, E, and F represent symbolically and in summarized form 

 the totality of differing concomitants of A. Further, suppose 

 that I do have a rule for "A " situations and apply it conscien- 

 tiously whenever I recognise such a situation. Three difficulties 

 arise : 



(i) The element A may be so insignificant in the situation 

 3XAC in comparison with the elements represented by CX that 

 I fail to recognise it as an "A " situation and take it instead as 

 a C situation in which the elements are more complex — C (17A) 

 PQRZ. 



(2) I am bound by the rule to react in a prescribed, author- 

 ised, predestined manner to a situation, only one of whose ele- 

 ments is regarded as definitely fixed. As a result of this a mul- 

 tiplicity of other reactions are deliberately rejected and one 

 chosen as the necessary one. I say my experiential creed, " I 

 believe this situation to be thus and so." I have, therefore, not re- 

 acted to the actual situation, but have created an artificial situation 

 to which my formula will give me a solution of some sort. But 

 I am distinctly shutting my eyes to some of the elements in- 

 volved. I am considering situation "x\," because I have a " rule 

 for situation A ''—but I am not considering the actual situation 

 AXC because I have no rule for so complicated a situation, and 

 still less so for an experience whose elements may be represented 

 as CAPQRZ. 



