[Illustration: Fig. 5] [Illustration: Fig. 6] [Illustration: Fig. 7] The theory of Monism, then, teaches that _x_ is _z_ _plus_ something more than _z_; and therefore it becomes a matter of great moment to consider the probable nature of the overplus. For it obviously does not follow that because _x_ is greater than _z_ in a logical sense, therefore _x_ must be greater than _z_ in a psychological sense. Save upon the theory of Idealism (with which Monism is not specially concerned) the amount (whatever it may be) wherein _x_ is greater than _z_, may not present any psychological signification at all. We may find that the surface of our globe is considerably larger than that of the dry land, and yet it may not follow that the mental-life to be met with in the sea is psychologically superior to that which occurs on dry land. If, therefore, we represent by comparative shading degrees of psychological excellence, it is evident that the theory of Monism must entertain the three possibilities indicated diagrammatically in Figs. 5, 6, and 7. It makes no difference what the comparative areas of _x_ and _z_ may be, or whether _x_ be uniformly shaded throughout its extent. All we have so far to notice is that the fact of logical inclusion does not necessarily carry with it the implication of psychological superiority. Next we must notice that besides our own subjectivities, we have cognizance of being surrounded by many other inferred subjectivities more or less like in kind (i. e. other human minds); and also yet many other inferred subjectivities more or less unlike, but all inferior (i. e. the minds of lower animals, young children, and idiots). Following Clifford, I will call these inferred subjectivities by the name of ejects, and assign to them the symbol _y_. Thus, in the following discussion, _x_ = the objective world, _y_ = the ejective world, and _z_ = subjective world. Now, the theory of Monism supposes that _x_, _y_, and _z_ are all alike in kind, but present no definite teaching as to how far they may differ in degree. We may, however, at once allow that between the psychological value of _z_ and that of _y_ there is a wide difference of degree; and also that, while the value of _z_ is a fixed quantity, that of _y_ varies greatly in the different parts of the area _y_. Our scheme, therefore, will now adopt this form-- [Illustration]