the nature of mind as living in the contents, and then you have abandoned the doctrine of petrified or extra-mental universals. To recognise the universal as real, while killing and stuffing it, is to admit a claim which you refuse to satisfy. The reality of the universal is a sufficient proof that the objects of mind may be alive with its vitality.
The second point is that of the tertiary qualities, to which we referred above. It is a feather in the cap of recent realism to have given the secondary qualities their due. But here its achievement must end. It is impossible on the same principle to do justice to the tertiary qualities, say, beauty or delightfulness. If you reserve anything for a mind stripped of objective contents, you must, as realism admits, reserve pleasure and pain. But if so, all qualities involving pleasure and pain are mind-dependent, and no physical realism can recognise them as real. And yet, in truth, they are the most actual, most profoundly inherent, most objectively characteristic qualities of all. And whether pain
