[343] “Thus there is nothing in mind _which the physical counterpart cannot represent_.” (Italics mine.) [344] “What we call the individual, then, is not a fixed essence, but a living world of content representing a certain range of externality.” P. 289. [345] “The _system of the universe_, as was said in an earlier Lecture, might be described as _a representative system_. Nature, or externality[!] lives in the lives of conscious beings. (Italics mine.) [346] “Spirit is a light, a focus, a significance[!] which can only be by contact with a ‘nature’ an external world.” [347] “For, on the other hand, it has been urged and we feel, that it is _thought which constructs and sustains the fabric of experience_, and that it is thought-determinations which invest even sense-experience _with its value_ and _its meaning_. . . . The ultimate tendency of thought, we have seen, is not to generalise, but to _constitute a world_,” p. 55. Again, “the true office of thought, we begin to see, _is to build up_, _to inspire with meaning_, _to intensify_, _to vivify_. The object which thought, in the true sense, has worked upon, is not a relic of decaying sense, _but is a living world_, analogous to a perception of the beautiful, in which every thought-determination adds fresh point and deeper bearing to every element of the whole,” p. 58. And on p. 178 he says that he sees no objection to an idealist recognising the “use made of” “laws” and “_dispositions_” in recent psychology. [How one wishes that Dr. Bosanquet had really worked into his philosophy the idea that every mental “element” is in a sense a “disposition” to _activity_!] Some of these statements of Dr. Bosanquet’s have almost a pragmatist ring about them, a suggestion of a _living_ and dynamic (rather than a merely intellectualistic) conception of thought. They may therefore be associated by the reader with the concessions to Pragmatism by other rationalists of which we spoke in an early chapter (see p. 74). [348] See Chapter III. p. 90. [349] I must say that apart from any questions in detail about this rejection of teleology by Dr. Bosanquet, there is something inexplicable about it to me. He cannot retain his own great notion of “wholeness” without the idea of “end,” because “wholeness” is a demand of thought that is guided by some idea of purpose or end. [350] See p. 90. [351] Italics mine. [352] P. 225. [353] See p. 90.