Among the most easily analysed of such relations are the space relations. Again the red object is in immediate perception nothing else than a red object. It is better termed an "object of redness." Thus a better approximation to an immediate perceptive judgment is, "Hullo, object of redness there!" But, of course, in this formulation other more complex relations are omitted. This tendency towards a false simplicity in scientific analysis, to an excessive abstraction, to an over-universalising of universals, is derived from the earlier metaphysical stage. It arises from the implicit belief that we are endeavouring to qualify the real with appropriate adjectives. In conformity with this tendency we think, "this real thing is red." Whereas our true goal is to make explicit our perception of the apparent in terms of its relations. What we perceive is redness related to other apparents. Our object is the analysis of the relations. One aim of science is the harmony of thought, that is, to secure that judgments which are logical contraries should not be thought-expressions of consciousness. Another aim is the extension of such harmonised thought. Some thoughts arise directly from sense-presentation, and are part of the state of consciousness which is perception. Such a thought is, "An object of redness is there." But in general the thought is not verbal, but is a direct apprehension of qualities and relations within the content of consciousness. Amid such thoughts there can be no lack of harmony. For direct apprehension is in its essence unique, and it is impossible to apprehend an object as both red and blue. Subsequently it may be judged that if other elements of the consciousness had been different, the apprehension would have been of a blue object. Then--under certain circumstances--the original apprehension will be called an error. But for all that the fact remains, there was an apprehension of a red object. When we speak of sense-presentation, we mean these primary thoughts essentially involved in its perception. But there are thoughts about thoughts, and thoughts derived from other thoughts. These are secondary thoughts. At this point it is well explicitly to discriminate between an actual thought-expression, namely, a judgment actually made, and a mere proposition which is a hypothetical thought-expression, namely, an imagined possibility of thought-expression. Note that the actual complete thought-content of the consciousness is explicitly neither affirmed or denied. It is just what _is_ thought. Thus, to think "two and two make four" is distinct from affirming that two and two make four. In the first case the proposition is the thought-expression, in the second case the affirmation of the proposition is the thought-expression, and the proposition has been degraded to a mere proposition, namely, to a hypothetical thought-expression which is reflected upon.