^{page 73 note 1} Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations, trans. Anscombe, G. E. M., I (New York: Macmillan, 1953), xii, 193e–198e.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} For example, Hick, John, ‘Religious Faith as Experiencing-As’, in Talk of God, Royal Inst. of Phil. Lectures, vol. 2 (London: Macmillan, 1967–1968), pp. 20–35Google Scholar; and Richmond, James, Theology and Metaphysics (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} At least he suggests: ‘“Seeing as…” is not part of perception. And for that reason it is like seeing and again not like.’ Op. cit. p. 797e.

^{page 74 note 1} As Smart, Ninian says (The Concept of Worship, Macmillan: St Martin's Press, 1972, p. 15): ‘Let fire be brought into being and Fire is there.’CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Indeed, what we have called the reversion to a simpler form is probably what Wittgenstein meant by perception. If seeing-as is not part of perception, perception must be the seeing of the yellow, the dapple of brown and green, the green in our examples, and the configuration of line relationships in the examples and in his duck-rabbit instance.

^{page 75 note 1} Black, Max, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} The notion of ‘colouring’ is left vague deliberately as a place marker for an absent analysis. Perhaps, what happens is that I in some sense superimpose the image of an orange on the image of the sun so that I do have a superimposed double image.

^{page 78 note 1} Ricoeur, Paul relates this term to myth in Finitud y culpabilidad, trans. Gil, Cecilie Sánchez (Madrid: Taurus Ediciones, S/A, 1969), pp. 255–6Google Scholar (original title), Finitud et culpabilité (Paris: Editions Montaigne, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} Evans-Pritchard, ‘Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande’, p. 64Google Scholar, quoted by Peter Winch in ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, in Religion and Understanding, ed. Phillips, D.Z. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} Malinowski, Bronislaw, Magic, Science and Religion (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} Q.v. Cassirer, Ernst, Language and Myth (N.Y., London: Harper, 1946)Google Scholar, and Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 2} Cassirer, , op. cit. p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 3} Q.v. Frazer, , The Golden Bough (London: Macmillan, 1963), part I, vol. 2, ch. 10, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Smart, Ninian, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 1} Adams, Henry, The Education of Henry Adams: An Autobiography (Boston: Houghton Miffin Co., 1961), p. 209Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 2} Adams, Henry, to be sure, termed the spiritual dimension illusory, and the naturalistic dimension real, but that is his evaluation. Our interest is in Adams' case, not in his evaluation of it.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} The rule being that, as intension increases, extension decreases.

^{page 85 note 1} Weiss, Paul, ‘God and the World’, Science Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium (New York: Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion, 1941), p. 426.Google Scholar