Some words enter the language with an uncommon aptitude both for uniting things already observed but formerly severed by separate terms and for fostering the recognition of things unnoticed before. Indeed, they often unite things that ought still to be left discrete; and even among those properly united, clarity may require the acknowledgment of many distinctions. I shall here consider such a term and the various kinds of things to which it can and cannot refer: projection.

Doing of some sort, undeniably, may have a connection of some kind with knowing in some sense. Take the slogan, "learning by doing." It points to the fact that one can acquire knowledge of how to do something--in the sense, at any rate, of acquiring the ability to do it--in the course of the doing. But, if undeniable, this fact seems also trifling. Nor would it mean much more to say that one can acquire such knowledge or ability only by (...) the doing, though this is probably true if we grant that actions can be performed in the imagination. (shrink)

Interpretation strives, for one thing, toward unification. One means of unifying is the category I call "repetition"; and reflection is one of its types. In order to identify the concept of reflection, I shall outline the various types of repetition and add some comments on this type in particular. I shall then consider several of the philosophical problems raised by the supposition that the reflective relationships do exist in the materials interpreted.