The form in which the metaphysical quality appears most definitely is in the character of matter that cannot be experienced itself and yet is regarded without question by the scientist as there. There is an illustration of a possible metaphysical inquiry, in a study of the matter and form of electrons. We can set up models of them but we know that no model we set up can have the character that the electrons themselves have; yet these electrons themselves are (...) the conditions for the experience that we do have, and they can be presented to us in terms of that experience of which they are the condition. Such a field of investigation, as to their reality, their nature, would be a metaphysical field. It is a field of reality that cannot be brought inside of experience itself, because it is a condition of that experience, and yet it is a field which the experience itself implies. That would be, I presume, that which would appear in our own thought as the most evident example of a metaphysical discipline. Of course if it is approached from metaphysics as distinct from the physical standpoint, we are not distinguishing what the scientist is particularly interested in. He postulates something that is there, and is able to determine relations of uniformity, logical patterns, as appearing in that field, and he is liable to set up apparatus of the experiential type to occupy the field and to serve as relata. But he is not himself particularly interested in distinguishing what the matter of those relata is in itself. He is interested in relations, in laws of matter, in uniformities, in the mathematical functions that can be made use of for expressing those laws. These logical patterns are what he is seeking and he constructs the models which will enable him to grasp them. The metaphysical investigation would ask what the natures of these forms are that constitute the relata between which these relations obtain. (shrink)

The picture which one naturally presents of the situation is that which would arise before an observer placed outside the earth, who could watch the light wave starting from the central mirror and pursuing the distant mirror, catching up with it at some distance beyond the point at which it was when the light wave started. In this case the observer is able to locate the points at which the parts of the apparatus were at different moments and to measure (...) the distances between. We could simulate this situation on the earth by assuming an enclosed square car, from some point in which two balls were shot out in directions at right angles to each other to the walls of the car, bounding back to the point at which they started. We will assume that the balls move with uniform velocity going and coming, and we will assume that the car is moving. An observer outside the car who marked the point on the rail directly over the starting point and the points reached by the balls when they struck the sides of the car, and then measured the distances which the balls travelled, would find that the ball which travelled with the car covered a greater distance than that traversed by the ball which went at right angles to the direction of the train, and yet the balls would return to the starting point at the same moment, provided they travelled over both their paths at the same velocity during their entire trajects, i.e., the same velocity measured within the car. The observer would be at no difficulty to explain this, for he would see that the velocity in the direction of its motion of the car had to be added to that of balls within the car. That is not the case of the light wave. The velocity of a moving shining body is not added to that of the light wave. The wave motion being set up in ether travels with its own uniform velocity of approximately 300,000 kilometers a second. The light waves then, from the standpoint of the observer outside the earth, traverse through the stagnant ether different distances at a uniform velocity and yet the ether waves exhibit on their return none of the evidence which they should exhibit in the interferometer. (shrink)

G. H. Mead left the following heretofore unpublished material in his desk at the University of Chicago, and it was first discovered by Charles W. Morris in the Summer of 1931. Mr. Morris, who was one of Mead's students in the 1920's, had been teaching at Rice University, but was appointed as a full-time staff member in the department of philosophy at Chicago in 1931; he was given the same office that Mead had occupied for many years prior to his (...) death in April of that year. Due to severely strained relations between the then newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, Robert Maynard Hutchins, and the regular staff members in the philosophy department, several of the latter left Chicago and were employed elsewhere in the fall of 1931. Consequently it seemed appropriate that Mr. Morris and some of Mead's other students should deal with the many unpublished typewritten conjectures that Mead left in his office. The entire book, The Philosophy of the Act, is a collection of items found by Mr. Morris, and the following material is from the same source. It came to my hands twenty-seven years ago because I was one of the collaborators in editing The Philosophy of the Act. If there is a slight over-lapping of the following material and subjects discussed in The Philosophy of the Act, it is for the sake of continuity and clarity. I have corrected the material for spelling and punctuation, and I have tried to give it a systematic arrangement. (shrink)