When I say that I feel the table, there is a considerable complexity of meaning. Dr. Reid, and his followers, maintain, that I have not one point of {33} consciousness only, but two; that I feel the sensation, and that I feel the table; that the sensation is one thing, the feeling of the table another. Expositions which will be given hereafter are necessary to the complete elucidation of what takes place. But the explanations which have been already afforded will enable us to state the facts with considerable clearness. In what is called feeling the table, my organ of touch, and an object of touch, in the appropriate position, are the antecedent; of this antecedent, sensation is the consequent. The expression, "I feel the table," includes both the antecedent and the consequent. It does not mark the sensation alone; it marks the sensation, and, along with the sensation, its antecedent, namely, the organ, and its object in conjunction. The phrase, sense of touch, or the word feeling, often synonymous, has the same complexity of meaning, which we have observed in the phrases, sense of hearing, sense of sight, and the rest of the senses. When I say that I touch, or have the sense of touch, I mean to say, that I have a certain feeling, consequent upon a certain antecedent. The phrase, therefore, _notes_ the sensation, and at the same time _connotes_[4*] the following things: 1st, the organ; 2dly, {34} the object of the organ; 3dly, the synchronous order of the organ and object; 4thly, the successive order of the sensation; the synchronous order being, as usual, the antecedent of the successive order.[5*] [12] [Mill's footnote 4: The use, which I shall make, of the term _connotation_, needs to be explained. There is a large class of words, which denote two things, both together; but the one perfectly distinguishable from the other. Of these two things, also, it is observable, that such words express the one, _primarily_, as it were; the other, in a way which may be called _secondary_. Thus, _white_, in the phrase _white horse_, denotes two things, the colour, and the horse; but it denotes the colour _primarily_, the horse _secondarily_. We shall find it very convenient, to say, therefore, that it _notes_ the primary, _connotes_ the secondary, signification.--(_Author's Note_.) [Reasons will be assigned further on, why the words _to connote_ and _connotation_ had better be employed, not as here indicated, but in a different and more special sense.--ED.]]