370 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
My mental status is roughly indicated by the children’s formula: 
“John goes with man” or “John and man go together,” etc. 
If now I accept this vagueness as final, I can go no further in the 
study of the “is.” But I do not so accept the vagueness; for more was 
doubtless in my mind, and more intended, than was at the outset fully 
apparent, even to my own observation. For suppose I put together 
“John is walking” and “Walking is good exercise,” endeavoring to 
reach the deduction customary with proposition-couples of these forms. 
I perceive at once that I did not mean by “is,” in one case, what I 
meant by it in the other. Indeed, as I review my illustrations with 
more care, I am very sure that they differ as follows: In “John is my 
father,” the relation to which I invite your attention is essentially that 
of equivalence. The person distinguished by the symbol “John” is, 
in a merely different aspect, the person distinguished by paternal rela¬ 
tion to myself. In “John is honest,” relation is that of object to its 
own quality. In “John is walking,” it is that of actor to his action. 
In “Walking is good exercise,” and more distinctly in “Men are ani¬ 
mals,” it is that of species to genus or class to larger class, a relation 
conveniently distinguished as that of inclusion. 
My initial carelessness with these relations may better be understood, 
perhaps, by the aid of an objective illustration. Let relations be re¬ 
placed by Christmas gifts. As each relation belongs with a particular 
pair of terms, let each gift be intended for a particular pair of persons: 
for Brown and his chum a chafing-dish; for the Robinson twins a 
Noah’s ark; for my servant and wife a five dollar gold-piece. All of 
these objects lie on the dining-room table. I ring for my servant and 
his wife; and, as they enter, I say “You will find a present on the table 
in the dining-room.” For the moment “present” stands to me for no 
particular gift. At a former time I did some careful plan¬ 
ning, and distinctly sensed the individuality of each particular 
gift. In the future I am likely to repeat the process. Just 
now, however, I am busy with other matters, and do not think of any 
particular object, as I utter the symbol “present.” I am all the more 
willing to be indefinite in my mental picturing, because I know that 
“present” stands for something suitable to my servant and his wife. 
Moreover, I am confident that my servant’s sense of fitness will pre¬ 
clude his making any error. In short, I am indisposed to the effort of 
making a detailed mental picture; and, being assured that a less oner¬ 
ous rough-sketch is all that the occasion requires, I let it go at that. 
Moreover my servant, knowing my mental methods, though momenta¬ 
rily somewhat baffled by the numerous possibilities offered by the word 
“present,” is confident that when occasion requires he will be able to 
make a right selection among them. On reaching the objects indis¬ 
criminately suggested by “present,” he appreciates the unsuitableness, 
to himself and wife, of the chafing-dish or the Noah’s ark, and pre- 
