The complexes of colors, sounds, and so forth, that are commonly called bodies, we shall designate for the sake of simplicity by _A B C_ ...; the complex that is known as our own body, and which constitutes a part of the former, we shall call _K L M_ ...; the complex composed of volitions, memory-images, and the like, we shall represent by α β γ. Usually, now, the complex α β γ ... _K L M_ ... is opposed as ego, to the complex _A B C_ ... regarded as world of substance; sometimes, too, α β γ ... is comprehended as ego, and _K L M_ ... _A B C_ ... comprehended as world of substance. Now _A B C_ ... first appears as independent of the ego. But this independence is only relative, and gives way before closer inspection. Much, it is true, may change in the complex α β γ ... without much becoming noticeable in _A B C_ ...; and so _vice versa_. But many changes in α β γ ... pass, by way of changes in _K L M_ ..., over to _A B C_ ...; and _vice versa_. (As, for example, when vivid ideas break forth into acts, or our environment brings about perceptible changes in our body.) At the same time _K L M_ ... appears to be more closely connected with α β γ ... and _A B C_ ... respectively, than the latter do with one another; relations that find their commonest expression in thought and speech. Closely examined, however, it appears that _A B C_ ... is _always_ determined with and by _K L M_. A die, when seen close at hand, looks large; when seen at a distance, small; it looks different with the right eye from what it does with the left; sometimes it appears double; with closed eyes it is invisible. The properties of the same body, therefore, appear as modified by our own body; they appear as conditioned by it. But where, pray, is this _same_ body that phenomenally appears so _different_? All that can be said is, that different _A B C_ ... are annexed to different _K L M_.[18]