These introspections, therefore, and the confessions on the part of both that there was a feeling of something more which they could not hold long enough to describe, suggested that both types were but opposite ends of a series of possible apperceptive types, and that in both cases certain essential features were emphasized at the expense of the others.
After these experiments, the next step was to find how a series of groups was apperceived when the lines in each group were arranged symmetrically about a centre, as distinguished from their arrangement at invariable distances apart. The same number and size of groups were taken, but the arrangement of lines in each varied as stated above.
Spatial subjects: J. felt a different kind of pleasure from that felt with Fig. 19. Here the enjoyment was in each unit for itself, a certain repose in its symmetry. Although he fixated on the centre of the groups, and in going across the field moved from centre to centre, there was no feeling of rhythm whatever, merely enjoyment of the unit itself. Moreover, although he had detected no rhythm in the previous experience, this one seemed distinctly different in having lost a feature that the other had. He felt by comparison that the other had had a temporal character, some movement in the groups, which was wholly lacking in this. This was more beautiful and restful, the other more exciting and rich.
H. and S. both enjoyed this series better on account of possibility of greater repose in the unit-groups. The pleasure was solely in each unit for itself, not in their repetition, so the group which offered most balance and equilibrium in itself was pleasantest. S. also found enjoyment in slight variations in the groups (trifling difference in distance, different light effect, etc.). It is noticeable that when repetition alone was the main feature of the series, any variation was either ignored or found unpleasant. But when the unit for itself is the object of enjoyment, variation if slight is another element of pleasure.
There is also pleasure in the mere repeating of symmetrical groups, although, when the attention is turned to this feature, the feeling of symmetry is less felt. Even when attending chiefly to the repetition of the groups, the symmetry of each is felt somewhat, which makes the whole experience better than Fig. 19, but the two attitudes seem to hinder, rather than help each other.
This introspection was suggestive, giving rise to two more questions: (1) When is variation allowable, and when not? Is it adapted only to objects when taken, as ends-in-themselves, and not when considered as means to something else, i. e., as means to make a series or border, or anything which takes attention from themselves as unities with individual meaning? (2) Is a distinctly symmetrical group as adapted to repetition, as such, as one with merely equal divisions? Does it not tend more to repose in itself, instead of to the motion necessary for the apperception of a repeated series? These questions will be considered later.
Temporal type: R. felt a difference in the movement across, in that in Fig. 20 it was from the centre of one unit to the next, while in Fig. 19 there was no regularity in the movement.
L. felt the difference between the two apperceptions very strongly. In Fig. 20 the movements seemed organized. He felt as if his attention (if not his eyes) went back and forth from edge to edge of the unit, finally settling in the centre; while in Fig. 19 the very essence of the apperception was that every line was compared with every other, meaning a great number of movements in both directions, not stopping in the centre. If he did rest finally in the centre, in the unit of Fig. 19, instead of seeming evenly repeated, it too became symmetrically perceived, but the usual way to get from one such unit to the next was to move from and to any point in the next adjacent, other than the central one. In either case the pleasure came in identification of the second figure with the first, and the feeling, "I have seen it before." The pleasure lay in the process of recurrence of sameness.
V. also, who had not felt much motion in Fig. 19 at first, felt it strongly now in comparison with Fig. 20. He said in the former, although he did not make actual movements across (in fact his eyes were plainly at rest), he was sure he felt "dispositions to do so" which were lacking in Fig. 20. The pleasure came in the first moment of repose after finding the new unit was the same as the old.