We are still in the dark as to psychological details. We have evidence that there is no psychological difference between an affirmative and a negative judgement; but we do not even know whether the judgement, affirmative and negative, implies a specific mental pattern of its own, as the idea implies the pattern of core and context, or whether it may express a variety of patterns. On the whole, the latter alternative seems the more probable; _if there is any stable characteristic of the judgement, it is not a definite pattern or arrangement of mental processes, but rather a definite mental attitude_, the ‘feeling of validity’; and this attitude seems to be allied to the feeling of familiarity in recognition, and so to be remotely akin to the emotion of relief. As far as our evidence goes, it appears to accompany every true judgement, that is to say, every judgement which is formed in the state of secondary attention. A ‘feeling of relation’ need not accompany the final judgement, but is likely to crop up here and there in the course of a train of thought, assuring us that certain things go together, belong to the same ‘circle’ of ideas, and that certain other things are contradictory, and cannot go together. These =relational feelings or attitudes= are contextual affairs, deriving probably from the kinæsthesis of bodily attitude; they are, however, very difficult to analyse, and their precise psychological nature is still in dispute. In conclusion, let us revert for a moment to the comparison of thought with constructive imagination. We have said that the two are broadly similar; and we may now add that judgements occur in imagination, and fetches of imagination in a train of thought. The differences are, nevertheless, great enough to justify the popular distinction of the two mental modes; for _thought advances by repeated dissections of a situation which is taken as real, while imagination realises in the work of art a situation which at first was vague or fragmentary_. § 66. =Abstraction and Generalisation.=—We have spoken of the abstract or general idea, as if the two adjectives were interchangeable; and _abstraction and generalisation are, in fact, only two phases of the same procedure_. When we abstract, we pick out the features of a situation that are relevant to our present determination, and neglect the other features. When we generalise, we bring to light resemblances that have been merged with differences; but this statement implies that we neglect the differences, as irrelevant, and pick out the likenesses, as relevant; generalisation is thus only a special case of abstraction. We have seen that every suggestion is double-faced, positive as well as negative; and we may perhaps say that in thinking of abstraction we emphasise the negative face, the discarding of the irrelevant, while in thinking of generalisation we emphasise the positive face, the bringing together of the similars which are relevant.