some of what we already know in a vague sort of way, but this
insignificant loss is compensated by the clarity of what remains, and
is, in any case, only temporary. For as the analysis proceeds we
gradually replace the whole of the original mere muddle by clear and
definite things and qualities. At first we may be able to distinguish
only a few qualities here and there, and our preoccupation with these
may possibly lead us, for a time, to pay insufficient attention to the
rest of the muddle which we know directly but have not yet succeeded
in analysing. But when the analysis is completed the distinct things
and qualities which we shall then know will contain all that we
originally knew, and more besides, since the analysis will have
revealed much that was originally concealed or only implicit in the
original unanalysed fact. If, for instance, you look at a very modern
painting, at first what you are directly aware of may be little more
than a confused sight: bye and bye, as you go on looking, you will be
able to distinguish colours and shapes, one by one objects may be
recognised until finally you may be able to see the whole picture at a
glance as composed of four or five different colours arranged in
definite shapes and positions. You may even be able to make out that
it represents a human figure, or a landscape. Common sense would tell
you that if your analysis is complete these colours and shapes will
exhaust the whole of what you originally knew and moreover that in the
course of it much will have been discovered which originally you could
hardly be said to have known at all, so that analysis, far from
limiting your direct knowledge, will have added to it considerably.
Starting, then, originally, from a very meagre stock of direct
knowledge, analysis, according to the common sense view, by
discovering more and more qualities, builds up for us more and more
direct knowledge.