I use recognition for the non-intellectual relation of sense-awareness which connects the mind with a factor of nature without passage.

On the intellectual side of the mind's experience there are comparisons of things recognised and consequent judgments of sameness or diversity.
Probably 'sense-recognition' would be a better term for what I mean by 'recognition.' I have chosen the simpler term because I think that I shall be able to avoid the use of 'recognition' in any other meaning than that of 'sense-recognition.' I am quite willing to believe that recognition, in my sense of the term, is merely an ideal limit, and that there is in fact no recognition without intellectual accompaniments of comparison and judgment.

But recognition is that relation of the mind to nature which provides the material for the intellectual activity.
An object is an ingredient in the character of some event.

In fact the character of an event is nothing but the objects which are ingredient in it and the ways in which those objects make their ingression into the event.

Thus the theory of objects is the theory of the comparison of events.