142 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
they are implicated. Elow “something’s eating me” is under¬ 
stood to stand for an occurrence which I may correctly also 
call “my being-eaten by something;” and for this last expres¬ 
sion I may substitute the pregnant “Being-eaten.” What is 
true of “Eating (2)” may therefore equally be true of “Being- 
eaten.” It appears accordingly that, while there is a striking 
difference between the occurrence indicated as a whole by “Eat¬ 
ing (1)” and the occurrence indicated as a whole by “Being- 
eaten,” the action-eZemen,£-of-one-occurrence may not differ from 
the action-eZemenf-of-the-other. More generally speaking, I am 
thus far not obliged to think of action doubly—as sometimes a 
“doing” and at other times a different “being-done.” 
It might be expected that, when action and those implicated 
in it—say the actor and actee—are all distinctly named, the 
differentiation of a “being-done” from “doing” would not be 
attempted. But suppose for illustration “I shall be glad if 
Brown kills Jones” and “I shall be sorry if Brown is killed 
by Jones.” What I’m glad of plainly should not be the same 
as what I’m sorry for. Accordingly again I’m ready for a 
dangerous assumption—that “being-killed” is different from 
“killing.” Yet before adopting this assumption I’m again in¬ 
clined to look about a little. 
A brief, examination of a simpler case may help me. Thus 
I note that “Brown killed Jones” exhibits Brown and Jones in 
the relation of slayer to victim; “Jones was killed by Brown” 
no doubt invites me to conceive the two in changed relation. In 
sensing this relation I am aided by the striking change in order* 
of the terms. The thought itself has plainly been reversed. In¬ 
evitably also the relation has been modified. Some relation 
not expressed by “Brown killed Jones” is surely now expressed 
by “Jones Was killed by Brown.” That relation-difference is 
enough to adequately differentiate the passive sentence from 
the active. I am not very strongly tempted to imagine that 
their difference in total value must consist of difference be¬ 
tween a killing and a being-killed. 
In juxtaposing “Brown killed Jones” and “Brown was killed 
by Jones” I hardly fare so well. In the latter the persistence 
