If, now, we designate the Soul—that is, the Soul as it is felt, not as it is reasonably pictured—as the _possible_ and the World on the other hand as the _actual_ (the meaning of these expressions is unmistakable to man’s inner sense), we see life as _the form in which the actualizing of the possible is accomplished_. With respect to the property of Direction, the possible is called the _Future_ and the actualized the _Past_. The actualizing itself, the centre-of-gravity and the centre-of- meaning of life, we call the _Present_. “Soul” is the still-to-be- accomplished, “World” the accomplished, “life” the accomplishing. In this way we are enabled to assign to expressions like moment, duration, development, life-content, vocation, scope, aim, fullness and emptiness of life, the definite meanings which we shall need for all that follows and especially for the understanding of historical phenomena. Lastly, the words _History_ and _Nature_ are here employed, as the reader will have observed already, in a quite definite and hitherto unusual sense. These words comprise _possible_ modes of understanding, of comprehending the totality of knowledge—becoming as well as things- become, life as well as things-lived—as a homogeneous, spiritualized, well-ordered _world-picture_ fashioned out of an indivisible mass- impression in this way or in that according as the becoming or the become, direction (“time”) or extension (“space”) is the dominant factor. And it is not a question of one factor being alternative to the other. The possibilities that we have of possessing an “outer world” that reflects and attests our proper existence are infinitely numerous and exceedingly heterogeneous, and the purely organic and the purely mechanical world-view (in the precise literal sense of that familiar term[42]) are only the extreme members of the series. Primitive man (so far as we can imagine his waking-consciousness) and the child (as we can remember) cannot fully see or grasp these possibilities. One condition of this higher world-consciousness is the possession of _language_, meaning thereby not mere human utterance but a culture-language, and such is non-existent for primitive man and existent but not accessible in the case of the child. In other words, neither possesses any clear and distinct notion of the world. They have an inkling but no real knowledge of history and nature, being too intimately incorporated with the ensemble of these. _They have no Culture._