Page:The Realm of Ends or Pluralism and Theism (1911).djvu/244

 M = φ(ABR) or φ(ABR) = M, for the mere equation gives no priority to one side over the other; if it can be shown that M is more than the name we give to a plurality of reals A, B, C,. . ., whose functional relation is symbolised by φ — that M is in fact itself the one absolute reality, and φ the relation which ‘its individuality as a self-conserving unity’ imposes upon its several differentiations or modes A, B, C. . . — all well and good. But the mere formula will not accomplish this. Taken as an abstract formula it may suggest either alternative, but taken as a description of the universe or mundus, M, regarded empirically or a posteriori, it is no longer equally ambiguous. From this immanent standpoint M does not resolve the wonder, it merely names it. If we are to get any further we must assume that M is transcendent, an ens extramundanum, to use Kant’s phrase; and this all theism does that is worthy of the name. Then, however, A, B, R will no longer be merely modes or states of this M. But to express the relation of this transcendent Being to the world of experience no equational formula seems either appropriate or adequate. Theism, however, promises to effect much in resolving the difficulties of pluralism, and to the careful discussion of theism I propose to devote the second part of these lectures. Meanwhile I think we must insist that the way cannot be cleared in any summary fashion by convicting the pluralist’s Weltanschauung not merely of incompleteness but of actual contradictions. In fact, if it were radically infected with contradictions, we have seen, I trust, that the way to theism would be hopelessly barred; for from pluralism speculation really always has and always must begin.