There are roughly two rival explanations. One is to assert the world as a postulate. The other way is to obtain it as a deduction, not a deduction through a chain of reasoning, but a deduction through a chain of definitions which, in fact, lifts thought on to a more abstract level in which the logical ideas are more complex, and their relations are more universal. In this way the broken limited experiences sustain that connected infinite world in which in our thoughts we live. There are three more remarks while on this point I wish to make-- (i) The fact that immediate experience is capable of this deductive superstructive must mean that it itself has a certain uniformity of texture. So this great fact still remains. (ii) I do not wish to deny the world as a postulate. Speaking without prejudice, I do not see how in our present elementary state of philosophical advance we can get on without middle axioms, which, in fact, we habitually assume. My position is, that by careful scrutiny we should extrude such postulates from every part of our organised knowledge in which it is possible to do without them. Now, physical science organises our knowledge of the relations between the deliverances of our various senses. I hold that in this department of knowledge such postulates, though not entirely to be extruded, can be reduced to a minimum in the way which I have described. I have not the slightest knowledge of theories respecting our emotions, affections, and moral sentiments, and I can well believe that in dealing with them further postulates are required. And in practice I recognise that we all make such postulates, uncritically. (iii) The next paragraphs on pp. 193 and 194 are as follows-- "The opposed philosophical method ... physical science." It will be noted that, in the light of what has just been stated, the first of these paragraphs (which, I hope, faithfully expresses the experimental way of approaching the problem) really obscures the point which I have been endeavouring to make. The phrase, "If we form the exact concepts of points, etc.," is fatally ambiguous as between the method of postulating entities with assigned relations, and the method of forming logical constructions, and thus reaching points, etc., as the result of a chain of definitions. Turning now to pp. 194-195, we come to the following paragraphs-- "The other theory ... eighteenth century."