 One important motivation, possibly the main one, behind attempts at analysis such as the ones we have just seen is the worry to avoid the so-called Bradley’s regress regarding exemplification (Baxter 2001: 449; Mumford 2007: 185), which goes as follows. Suppose that the individual \(a\) has the property \(F\). For \(a\) to instantiate \(F\) it must be linked to \(F\) by a (dyadic) relation of instantiation, \(I_1\). But this requires a further (triadic) relation of instantiation, \(I_2\), that connects \(I_1, F\) and \(a\), and so on without end. At each stage a further connecting relation is required, and thus it seems that nothing ever gets connected to anything else (it is not clear to what extent Bradley had this version in mind; for references to analogous regresses prior to Bradley’s, see Gaskin 2008: ch. 5, §70).