,x in t r o d u c t io n t o the second e d it io n

uIly because of the ^

,tedo L of th e ^ e f f e c t i v e of these methods is the use olpMgUd
etc., a n d u ltim ately m a y kill to defendM iim self. Unfor
tunately a t p re se n t only p sy c h ia trists, fam iliar w ith v e rb a l d.storfons and
r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s of p atien ts in h o sp itals, c an fully understand these

problems. , . .
A m en tally ill person is n o t necessarily a g e n iu s, but it is well
known to p sy ch iatrists th a t som e m e n ta lly ill a re o fte n very cunning and
will outw it any doctor o r n u rse . A t p re se n t th e p eo p le of the world do
not realize th a t th ey are being tr a in e d in psychopathological uses of their
nervous system s, and a fu tu re g e n e ra tio n or tw o will becom e semantically
crippled because train ed in such d isto rtio n s.
The violation, thro u g h ig n o ra n c e a n d /o r -sa n ity , of the similarity
of stru c tu re in th e m a p -te rrito ry rela tio n sh ip (see p . 58 ff. and p. 750
ff.), a n d /o r deliberate, p ro fessio n ally p lan n ed d isto rtio n of it, abolishes
predictability, p ro p er evaluation, tr u s t, etc. T h is re s u lts only in breeding
fears, an x ieties, hates, etc., w h ic h d iso rg an ize in d iv id u a ls and even
nations. T h e re m ust be a c o rre sp o n d e n c e a n d sim ila rity of structure
between lan g u ag e and facts, a n d so co n seq u en t thalatno-cortical integra
tion, if w e a re to survive as a s a n e civilized race.
In a few y ears history will ju d g e th e se d y in g sp a sm s of the aristotelian
system, a system which w as th e b est of its k in d 2 ,3 0 0 y ears ago, as for
m ulated b y a g re a t m an u n d e r th e co n d itio n s of th e v ery few scientific
facts know n at th a t date. I t is n o t so today, 1941. M o st of the knowl
edge of scientific facts a n d m e th o d s of A risto tle are o b so lete today, and in
the m ain h arm fu l, like th e M a g in o t lin e o rien tatio n .
By n ecessity the a risto te lia n sy ste m w as based o n macroscopic or
animal sen se, levels, w hich e v e n n o w p re d o m in a n tly guide the masses.
t^ e 'n " deration sense' data, etc., but cannot deal adc-
S t d aS We" as sanky
conditions which, as we know
today are resultants of sub-microscopic, electro-colloidal processes.
the anim alrX 1St0te an S?S' em "'6 are stressi"S he differences between

flexibilitv r, WWCh
h u m an sy m b o l dreactio
^ inV0' Ve,,1ftheir
n s, with
hardly be c o ^ h aH '" f T *
T h e P sych o lo g y o f T o Z t l s tu d y,n g T h e K<>P* of the M u m ;
(Alliance Book C n L ! T ProPa9anda. by D r. Serge (Matin,
Book Corporat.on, N ew York, 1940). A former sh.dent of
 INTRODUCTION TO TH E SECOND EDITION lxi

Professor Pavlov, D r. C h a k o tin bases h is a n aly sis of totalitarian m ethods

on Pavlovs fundam ental re se a rc h es of co n d itio n al reactions in dogs.

3. HITLER AND P SY C H O -L O G IC A L F A C T O R S IN H I S LIFE

The groping d issatisfactio n w ith th e old sy ste m w as so general th at
only a catalyst w as n e e d e d to p recip itate th e crisis. This catalyst was
found in the son of A lo is S ch ick lg ru b er (a ls o spelled S chucklgruber)
who later changed his n a m e to H itle r. T h e re w as a history of illegiti
macy in the family. R u d o lf O ld e n in h is b io g rap h y of H itler says, H itle r
has given the sim plest a n d clearest p ictu re p o ssib le of conditions in his
fathers home. B ut we h a v e only to look at th e facts to see that, far from
being simple, th e m a rrie d life of his fa th e r w as u n u su al and tem pestuous.
Three wives, seven c h ild re n , one divorce, one b irth before m arriage, two
shortly after the w edding, o ne w ife fourteen y e a rs older than himself and
another twenty-three y e a r s y o u n g er th a t is say in g a good deal fo r a
Customs officer.
There were other im p o rta n t circum stances in Adolf H itlers life
which were influential a n d fo u n d th eir fulfillm ent in totalitarian system s,
(a) He was born from a p e a sa n t stock, by tra d itio n prepared to c a rry a
heavy load of w ork w ith persisten cy . ( b ) H e w as baptized in the C a th
olic Church, an in stitu tio n w ell know n to h av e to talitarian orientations,
and which up to this d a y in principle proclaim s authority over all the
Catholics in the w orld. H a v in g absorbed th a t totalitarian orientation
from childhood up, w h ich ap p lies also to M ussolini, Stalin, etc., it was
simple for those so tra in e d to sw itch to state totalitarianism , where such
leaders could find a le b e n s ra u m for them selves as individuals, th u s en
hancing their ow n egos, a n d incidentally filling th e ir pockets. N o one
who has actually stu d ie d th e public ap p earan ces of various totalitarian
fiihrers can m iss the u t t e r sim ilarity betw een th eir reactions and the
reactions of the mobs to th em . T hey act like little gods on wheels, and
the mobs react with u n re a s o n e d , blind, fanatical subjection, which the
fiihrers and their aides k n o w ho w to m an u factu re.
(c) Hitler was b o rn in to A u stria n b u reaucracy, one of the m ost in
efficient, dishonest, h y p o critical, etc., bureau cracies in the world, p erm e
ated with the H a p sb u rg m o tto , D ivide et im p e r a . T he older Schickl
gruber wanted his son a ls o to becom e a H a p sb u rg bureaucrat. Schickl
gruber, Jr. had a n a tu ra l rep u lsio n fo r them , an d so deliberately boy
cotted any education, to disqualify him self f o r such a fate. T his lack
of education ostracized h im fro m th e class o f so-called intelligentsia,
to which a H apsburg b u re a u c ra t eventually belonged. Through living
necessities he had to becom e a plain labour h an d , yet because of his p a ra
Ixii IN T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E SECOND EDITION

noia tendencies, delusions of g r a n d e u r based on u n h e a lth y worship of

historical h ero es, etc., h e w as a lso n o t acceptable to th e plain workers,
who are g en erally sane an d d o n o t look at life a s a W a g n e r,a n opera. &,
r reality h e found th a t h e w a s n o t acceptable an yw here, belonged
n o w h e r e a m isfit ev eryw here, u n til h e ad h ered to totalitarianism as a
religion w hich h e and h is c lo se st associates m odified to suit the Prussian
character, selected by them a s a sta n d a rd o f G e rm a n perfection, to be
imposed o n th e rest of th e w o rld .
(d) W h e n he joined th e G e rm a n arm y w ith its orderly efficiency,
etc., he fo u n d a n ideal fo r h im self as a n escape from H a p sb u rg decadence.
N o m a tte r how he h ated the H a p s b u r g polite p erfid y , he was too much
of an A u s tria n not to utilize to th e lim it th e H a p s b u rg methods. Ulti
mately th ro u g h this co m b in atio n of m ethods h e out-Prussianed the
P ru ssian s, w hose p articu lar a r r o g a n t, b ru ta l m e th o d s w ere never ap
proved a n d often disliked th ro u g h o u t the w o rld a n d even in Germany.
I give these data as p a rtia l e x p la n a tio n s of how th ro u g h life and other
circum stances th e whole life o f H itle r , as well as h is political program,
was based on hate, revenge a n d d e stru c tio n of w h a t h e feared and hated
as a p erso n , driv en by his d e lu sio n s of persecution a n d grandeur. It was
only n a tu ra l in his chosen p e o p le d elusion th a t h e should hate and try
to d estro y o th e r chosen p eo p le ; obviously th e re is n o place in this world
for tw o o r m o re chosen p e o p le . T h e a b su rd ity of H itle rs ignorant
anthropological theories has b een definitely estab lish ed by science and
history, a n d in fact a re n o t ta k e n serio u sly b y m any o f the informed Nazi
leaders them selves.
S m e such analysis of a fe w of th e m ore im p o rta n t factors in Hitlers
i e indicates how his m e n ta l illn e ss developed, involving inferiority
an persecution^ com plexes, e tc., a n d ex p lain s w hy for his own comfort
e su rro u n d ed him self p e rso n a lly w ith m ostly psvchopathological people,
although th e ir psychiatric c la ssific atio n s m ay be d iffe re n t.
n W e r y cf 00.n P sycllJatric tr e a tis e s w ill be w ritte n o n the Jehovah com-
illustratp h 11C etC" P e r haps th e follow ing quotations will
copied todayT ' reC rded in Exodus 19 a"d * is ^

nant, th e n y T sta U be ^ Wl11 ljey m y ice !n(ieed. and keep my cove-

all the e a rth i<? min nilne o w n p ossession from a m o n g all peoples: for
holy n ^ n / X e T r e T ^ .1 ** P ^ S
children of Israel [N azis] G ^ r d s w hlch thou sh a lt unt0 **
^ Tehovah thv (~* ri t~
of bondage I E n g lan d ) b ro u g h t thee . . . out of the house
 INTRODUCTION TO TH E SECOND EDITION lxiii

Or, for I Jehovah th y G o d am a jealous G od, visiting the iniquity

of the fathers upon th e ch ild re n , upon the th ir d an d upon the fo u rth
generation of them th a t h a te m e, and show ing m ercy unto thousands of
them that love m e an d k e e p m y com m andm ents.
Or, An a lta r of e a r th th o u shalt m ake u n to m e, and shalt sacrifice'
thereon thy b u rn t-o fte rin g s, a n d thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine
oxen, in every place w h e re I reco rd m y nam e I will come unto thee and
I will bless thee. E tc ., etc.
These suggestions a r e g iv en only to in d icate how psychiatrists can
help future historians.

4. EDUCATION F O R IN TE LLIG E N C E A N D DEMOCRACY

It may become c le a re r w hy I speak of a d y in g , aristotelian, two-valued
system by giving ex am p les of ho w this type of evalu ation is a t the founda
tion of present day co n fu sio n s a n d te rro rs. T h u s , fo r instance, the N azi
militant delusion of c h o se n people gives us a n excellent illustration of
a two-valued, eith e r-o r o rien tatio n . T h e tw o -v alu ed semantic tw isting
of real neutrality is a n o th e r significant exam ple. T his distortion has
kept the neutrals in te r r o r s , disorganizing th e ir national and political
life to the point of co m p lete collapse, which to d ay is a historical fact.
The Nazi two-valued e v a lu a tio n of n e u tra lity w a s: either be really
neutral and endorse a n d fight fo r the N azis, o r be n ot really neutral and
not help them. A cco rd in g to th is orientation a really neutral Belgium,
Holland, Denmark, N o rw a y , etc., should fight ag ain st England, F rance,
etc., to prove th a t they a r e really n e u tra l !
A similar analysis a p p lie s to the ag g ressio n of China against Jap an ,
Czechoslovakia against G erm any, P oland against Germany, P oland
against Russia, F in lan d a g a in st R ussia, G reece against Italy, etc., a n d so
on endlessly, which sh o w s only the pathological application of the tw o
valued, either-or p a tte rn s in action. T his an aly sis applies also to the
first W orld W a r and th e w a r g u ilt. In a n o n-aristotelian orientation we
ask for actual facts, a n d do n o t accept m ere verbalism . W ho invaded
whom? The historical fa c ts a re simple. W e know by now w/io
whom, and never m ind v e rb a l definitions.
When analysed fr o m a non-aristotelian p o in t of view, such orien ta
tions appear pathologically tw isted . Y et they p ro d u ced results, as history
shows. It is not accid en tal th a t some years ago H itler in one of his
speeches took a definite sta n d for th e prev ailin g aristotelianism, tw o
valued orientations, etc., a n d against m odern science, which naturally
develops in a n o n -aristo telian direction. Q u ite soon whole volumes will
Ixvi in t r o d u c t io n t o the se c o n d e d it io n

essfufly a n d devastatin g ly u p o n th e un lu ck y a t o m s w hom the short-

h t e d u n s c i e n t i f i c , etc., g o v e rn m e n ts n ev er g u .d ed to w a rd the proper
eir n e rv o u s system s, o r s a fe -g u a rd e d fro m th e abuses.*
ap s a t p resent, 1941, a f te r som e irre p a ra b le h a r m has been done,
srn m en ts of the w orld w ill a w ak en a n d re aliz e th a t the proper
functioning of th e n erv o u s sy ste m s of th e ir citizens is in m any ways more
im portant th a n a n y gun, b a ttle sh ip o r a ero p lan e , etc., co u ld possibly be,
as th ere m u st be a S m ithi b eh in d th e g u n !
N o m a tte r w ho is finally v ic to rio u s in the p re se n t w o rld struggle, no
m atter w hich w ay we look a t it, th e r e tu r n to th e old c o n d itio n s is impos
sible. A com plete n e u ro -sem an tic a n d n e u ro -lin g u istic revision is inevi
table, and th is revision is bound to lead aw ay fro m aristotelianism . For
this revision w e a re p re p a rin g th e fo u n d a tio n s in the fo rm u latio n s of gen
eral sem antics. B efore an y la s tin g a d ju s tm e n ts in th e future social,
economic, p olitical, ethical, etc., fields a re acco m p lish ed we have to be
able to evaluate p roperly and ta lk se n se. O th e rw is e th e situation is
hopeless.
O bviously, reg ard less of w h a t th e p o liticia n s m ay say , in ever)' coun
try we n ecessarily have som e k in d of g u id an ce by th e government and
executive p o w er, no m a tte r in w h a t d irec tio n . E v en com plete lack of
guidance m u s t be considered g u id a n c e of som e so rt, in th e direction, say,
ru gged indiv id u alism , etc., w h ic h , if c a rrie d to th e lim it, becomes the
unw orkable ideal of anarchy. I n p ra c tic a l life such a ttitu d e s ultimately
engender an im al com petition in s te a d of h u m an co -o p e ra tio n , and the very
opposite of w h at w e consider a s th e social feeling im p erativ e for democ
racy.
T h e re a l qu estio n is w h e th e r th e e x istin g g o v e rn m e n ts are informed
enough a b o u t h u m an n eu ro lo g ical p ro b lem s, san ity , e tc ., and are intelli-
gen enoug , o n est enough, e tc ., to g u id e a n d a d v ise th e ir people con-
We y ^ .e^ ien tiy in c o n s ta n tly e m e rg in g neurological situations

affairs,Setc!^ Unfortunately^ the^00' HVeS- nati"aI

there i* c u rtu n a te ly th e a n s w e r is in th e n eg a tiv e. A t present
Z
other hanrl W
Vice J S S j T , . 1 knO W
" f - ^1 nee NiNazi
a z i fgovernm
o v e ^ ent,
o non the
uic
for destructive purpose's U i d f Ch ! , f kn o w led S e available to them
the rest of the governments of ti -, trol essw nally counteracted b;
------------ the civilized world, if sanity is to prevail
* T a y lo r, E dm o n d . The i ^
g y f Terror. Houghton-Mifflin, Bostoa 1N0.
 INTRODUCTION TO TH E SECOND EDITION lxvii

Depending on science fo r m o re an d b etter k illin g machines is certainly

not the solution ior h u m a n problem s, cu ltu re an d civilization. W ithout
being sentimental, in a h u m a n civilization h u m an s m atter more than
machines, or symbols su c h as a d o llar, a p o u n d sterling, a pound of
flesh, a scalp, etc., o r su ch v erbal g en eralizatio n s as liberty, equality,
etc. The living reactions of S m ith i a re m ore im p o rtan t than the verb al
isms of Smithi, who n e v e rth e le ss can shake th e a ir w ith his verbal tricks,
as many of us too often do, affecting th e n e rv o u s system s of others.
At present th e to ta lita ria n s have exploited neuro-sem antic and n e u ro
linguistic mechanisms to th e ir destru ctiv e lim it, the best they knew how,
to date. Counteraction, reco n stru ctio n , a n d /o r prevention are impossible
unless such m echanism s a re utilized c o n stru ctively u n der the guidance of
governmental specialists in th e fields of an th ro p o logy, neuro-psychiatry,
general semantics, etc., w ho w ould u n d e rsta n d th e language of their
fellow workers in re la te d scientific fields, and w ould be f r e e t o d e v o t e
THEIR E NT IR E T I M E A N D E F F O R T S TO T H I S T A S K , A N D TO F U R T H E R I N V E S
TIGATIONS.
Although p ractically all civilized states em ploy psychiatrists in their
governmental hospitals fo r m entally ill, these physicians are necessarily
preoccupied w ith th eir p a tie n ts and cannot u n d e rta k e the special duties
of the board I suggest. S u ch a board w ould re q u ire the full time and
attention of its m em bers, a s th e y w ould be called upon for consultation
by various other g o v ern m en tal dep artm en ts su ch as interior, state, labour,
commerce, health, a rm y , n avy, etc., an d so special studies and co-ordi
nating knowledge in re la te d branches of science w ould be essential.
It seems extrem ely sh o rt-sig h te d in 1941 th a t governm ents should
employ perm anently sp e c ia lists in chem istry, physics, engineering, etc.;
other specialists who a d v ise h o w to elim inate lice from poultry, raise pigs,
conserve wild life, etc. a n d y e t have no perm a n en t consulting board of
specialists who would a d v is e h o w to conserve a n d prevent the abuse of
human nervous system s. E v e n a C ham berlain w ould have intelligence
and/or honesty enough to p ass a problem of a m agnetic mine to ph y si
cists and engineers, and n o t to p a rty politicians, w ho know nothing a b o u t
such mechanisms, but w o u ld nevertheless be re a d y to debate politically
on the subject.
For example, if co n su lte d , such a suggested body of governm ental
specialists would have stu d ie d M ein K a m p f a n d various speeches of
Hitler, Goebbels, etc., a s a p a r t of their duties, lo n g ago, and would have
advised their g o v ern m en ts th a t psychopathological people are getting in
control of world affairs a n d th a t their w ords cannot be trusted at all.
 P R E L IM IN A R IE S

I X . T h e fallacy t h a t s h o w in g a c h a ra c te ris tic to b e a lte re d b y the en

v iro n m e n t p ro v es t h a t it is n o t h e r e d ita r y . . . .
I t a p p e a rs in d eed p ro b a b le , fro m t h e preb en t s ta te o f kno w led g e and the
tre n d o f d isc o v ery , t h a t th e fo llo w in g sw ee p in g s t a te m e n t s will ultimately
tu rn o u t t o b e ju stifie d :
(1) A ll c h a ra c te ris tic s o f o r g a n is m s m ay b e a lt e r e d b y changing the
gen es; p ro v id e d we c a n lea rn h o w to c h a n g e t h e p ro p e r g en es.
(2) A ll c h a ra c te ris tic s m a y b e a lte re d b y c h a n g in g t h e environm ental
c o n d itio n s u n d e r w hich th e o rg a n is m d e v e lo p s; p ro v id e d t h a t we learn
w h a t c o n d itio n s to c h a n g e a n d h o w t o c h a n g e th e m .
(3) A n y k in d of c h an g e o f c h a r a c te ris tic s th at c a n b e in d u c e d by alter
ing g e n es, c an likew ise be in d u c e d (if w e know h o w ) b y a lte rin g conditions.
(T h is s ta te m e n t is o p e n to m o re d o u b t th a n t h e o th e r t w o ; b u t it is likely
e v e n tu a lly to b e found c o rre c t.) . . .

, X \ . T1?e fall.acy t h a t sin ce a ll h u m a n c h a r a c te ris tic s a re hereditary

h e re d ity is a ll-im p o rta n t in h u m a n a ffa irs, e n v ir o n m e n t th e re fo re unim
p o r ta n t. . . .

X I. T h e fallacy t h a t sin c e a ll im p o r ta n t h u m a n c h a ra c te ris tic s are

e n v iro n m e n ta l, th ere fo re e n v ir o n m e n t is a ll- im p o r ta n t, h e re d ity unim
p o r ta n t, in h u m a n affairs. <247, ^ H> s>
 CHAPTER I

A IM S , M E A N S A N D C O N S E Q U E N C E S O F A
N O N -A R I S T O T E L IA N R E V IS IO N

T he process of in te lle c tu a lis m is not th e s u h ip rf T * * r

to speak of science, a n d a b o u t i t th e re is 1 W,sh
speak, it will be intellectualistic or it w ill not be at all. ^ re c iL ly 1? ^ ques
tion is, whether it will be. (4i7> rcciseiy cne ques-
H. PO IN C A R E

T c L u m- f f-ci-!nce J *?. seek sim p lest e x p la n a tio n s o f com plex facts

. . . Seek sim plicity a n d d i s t r u s t it. (573, H a. n. X te h e a d

The present enquiry o rig in a te d in m y atte m p t to build a scier

man. The first task was to define m an scientifically in non-element;
functional terms. I accom plished that in m y book M anhood o f H u m a n
ity (New York, E . P. D u tto n & C o .), and in it I called the special
characteristic w hich s h a rp ly distinguishes m an fro m animal the tim e-
binding characteristic.
In the present volum e I u n d ertak e th e investigation of the m echan
ism of time-binding. T h e re su lts are quite u n ex p ected. W e discover
that there is a sh arp d ifferen ce betw een the n erv o u s reactions of anim al
and man, and th at ju d g in g b y th is criterion, n e a rly all of us, even now ,
copy* animals in o u r n e rv o u s responses, w hich copying leads to th e
general state of u n -san ity reflected in o u r p riv a te an d public lives, in sti
tutions and systems. By th is discovery the w hole situation is radically
changed. I f we copy a n im a ls in o u r nervous resp o n ses through the lack
of knowledge of w hat th e a p p ro p ria te responses o f th e human nervous
system should be, we can sto p d o in g so, both individually and collectively,
and we are thus led to th e fo rm u la tio n o f a first p o sitive theory of sanity.
The old dictum th a t w e are anim als leaves us hopeless, but if w e
merely copy animals in o u r n e rv o u s responses, w e can stop it, and th e
hopeless becomes very h o p e fu l, p rovided w e can d iscover a physiological
difference in these reactio n s. T h u s we a re p ro v id ed w ith a definite an d
promising program fo r a n in v estigation.
Such an investigation is u n d e rta k e n in the p re se n t volume.
The result o f this e n q u iry tu rn e d o u t to b e a non-aristotelian sy s
tem, the first to be fo rm u la te d , as fa r as I know , a n d the first to express
the very scientific te n d e n c y o f o u r epoch, w h ic h produced the non-
euclidean and no n -n ew to n ian (E in s te in s an d the n e w e r quantum theories)
systems. I t seems th a t th e s e th re e , the n o n -aristo telian , non-euclidean
and non-newtonian sy stem s a re a s m uch in terw o v en and interdependent

*The use of the te rm c o p y is ex p la in ed in C h a p te r I I .

7
 I. P R E L I M I N A R I E S
8
were th e corresp o n d in g o ld er sy ste m s. T h e a risto te lia n a n d the non-
as
aristotelian system s are th e m o re g e n e ra l, th e o th ers b ein g only special
and technical consequences a ris in g fro m them .
Both th e aristo telian and th e n o n -aristo telian sy ste m s affcct our
lives deeply, because of psycho-logical fa cto rs a n d th e im m ed iacy of their
application. E ach is the e x p re ssio n o f th e psycho-logical tendencies of
its period. E ach in its perio d m u s t p ro d u ce in th e y o u n g e r generations
a psycho-logical back g ro u n d w h ic h m ak es the u n d e rsta n d in g o f its ap*
propriate d isciplines natural* a n d sim ple. I n an a risto te lia n human
world the euclidean and n ew to n ian system s are n a tu ra l, w hile the youth
educated in th e non -aristo telian h a b its will find the non-euclidean and
non-new tonian system s sim pler, m o re n a tu ra l, and th e o ld er systems
unthinkable.
T he fu n c tio n in g of th e h u m an n e rv o u s system is a m o re generalized
affair than th a t o f the anim al, w ith m o re possibilities. T h e latter is a
special case o f th e form er, but n o t v ice versa. Jo h n S m ith , through
ignorance o f th e m echanism , m ay u se his nervous sy stem as a Fido; but
Fido cannot copy Sm ith. H ence, th e d a n g e r fo r S m ith, b u t not fo r Fido.
Fido has m a n y o f his ow n difficulties fo r survival, b u t, a t least, he has
no self-im p o sed conditions, m ostly silly a n d h a rm fu l, su c h as Smith has
ignorantly im posed on him self a n d o th e rs. T h e field covered by this
enquiry is v e ry w ide and involves u n ex pectedly special suggestive con
tributions in d iv erse branches of science. T o list a few f o r orientation:
1. T he fo rm u latio n o f G eneral S em antics, re su ltin g fro m a General
T heory of T im e-b in d in g , supplies th e scientists and th e laym en with a
general m o d ern y n e th o d ^ F m lenTaHon^ w hich elim inates th e older psycho
logical blockages a n d reveals the m ech an ism s of a d ju s tm e n t;
2. T h e d e p a rtu re from a risto te lia n ism will allow biologists, physiol
ogists, e tc , a n d particu larly m edical m en to th in k in m o d e rn colloidal
an quantum term s, instead o f th e inadequate, a n tiq u a te d chemical and
physiological te rm s. M edicine m ay th e n become a science in the 1933
sen se:
p sy c h ia try it indicates o n colloidal g ro u n d s th e solution of the
body-mind p r o b le m ;
rlpfi > 1 show s clearly th a t d esirab le hum an c h aracteristics have a
u J , e P w to p h y s ta h g ic a l m echanism w hich, up till now , h as been mis
used, to the d e trim e n t of all o f u s ;

c h e m L l t a m s V 116 ^ definiti n o f c n sciousness in sim p le r p h y sio

therapy inclnHirf t^ 0 r'V san ity lead s to a general th e o ry o f psycho-

g a such existing m edical schools, as th e y all deal with
 AIMS, MEANS AND CONSEQUENCES

disturbances of the s e m a n tic reactions (psycho-logical responses to words

and other stimuli in co nnection w ith their m ean in g s) ;
7. It form ulates a physiological fo u n d atio n for m ental hygiene,
which turns out to b e a m o st general p reventive psychophysiological ex
perimental m eth o d ;
8. It shows th e psychophysiological fo u n d atio n of the childhood of
humanity as indicated by th e infantilism in o u r present private, public,
and international liv e s ;
9. In biology it gives a sem antic a n d structural solution o f the
organism-as-a-whole p ro b le m ;
10. In physiology a n d neurology it re fo rm u la te s to hum an levels the
Pavlov theory of c o n d itio n a l reflexes, su g g estin g a new scientific field
of psychophysiology f o r e x p e rim e n ts ;
11. In epistem ology a n d sem antics it establishes a definite non-
elementalistic theory o f m eanings based not only o n definitions b u t also
on undefined te rm s ;
12. It introduces a new developm ent a n d use o f stru c tu re ';
13. It establishes stru c tu re as the only possible content of
knowledge;
14. It discovers th e m ultiordinality o f th e m ost important term s
we have, thus rem o v in g th e psycho-logical blockage of semantic origin
and helping th e av erag e m a n o r scientist to becom e a genius, e tc .;
15. It form ulates a n ew and physiological theory of m athematical
types of extrem e sim p licity a n d very wide ap plication ;
16. It offers a n o n -a risto te lia n solution o f th e problem of m athe
matical infinity ;
17. It offers a n e w non-aristotelian, sem antic (fro m Greek, to sig
nify) definition of m a th e m a tic s and num ber, w hich clarifies the m ysteries
about the seemingly u n c a n n y im portance o f n u m b er and m easurem ent
and throws a new lig h t on th e role, stru c tu ra l significance, meaning, and
methods of m athem atics a n d its teaching;
18. In physics, th e e n q u iry explains som e fundam ental, but as yet
disregarded, sem antic a sp e c ts o f physics in g eneral, and of E insteins
and the new q uantum th e o rie s in p a rtic u la r;
19. It resolves sim p ly th e problem of indeterm inism of the n ew er
quantum mechanics, etc.
I realize th a t th e th o u g h tfu l read er m a y be staggered by such a
partial list. I am in fu ll sy m p ath y w ith him in th is. I also was staggered.
As this enquiry c la im s to be scientific, in th e 1933 sense, I m ust
explain how, in spite o f g re a t difficulties an d handicaps, I was able to
accomplish th e w ork. A s m y w ork progressed, it turned out to be
 I. p r e l i m i n a r i e s
10
speaking a b o u t speaking. N ow a ll scientific w o rk s in all fields are
w ritten o r spoken, a n d so a re u ltim ate ly verbal. I n o rd e r to speak about
speaking, in a n y satisfacto ry a n d fu n d a m e n ta l 1933 se n se , I had to
become acqu ain ted w ith th e special lan g u ag es u se d by sc ien tists in all
fields. I did n o t realize b efo reh an d w h a t a very serious u n d e rta k in g this
was. I t took m an y y ears an d m uch h a r d lab o u r to acco m p lish it, but, once
accomplished, th e re s t w as sim ple. S cien tists d o not d iffe r f r om the
rest o f us. T h e y usually d isre g a rd e n tire ly s tru c tu ra l, linguistic, and
semantic issues, sim ply because n o one has, as yet, fo rm u la te d these
problems o r sh o w n th eir im p o rtan ce. T h e stru c tu ra l re v isio n o f their
language led autom atically to n ew re su lts and new su g g estio n s, and
hence the su rp risin g list.
T h e p re se n t enquiry is lim ited a n d p a rtial, b u t because it deals with
linguistic and sem antic issues and th e ir physiological a n d psycho-logical
aspects, it is, as f a r as it goes, u n u s u a lly general. I fo u n d that, in
w riting, it is ex trem ely difficult a n d im practicable alwra y s to state ex
plicitly the lim itatio n s of a sta te m e n t. I t seem s m ost p ra c tic a l to say
here th at, in g en eral, all sta te m e n ts here m ade are lim ite d by further
considerations o f th e actualities o f a n analysed problem .
T h u s, f o r instance, a theory o f s a n ity deals w ith th e m ost im
portant sem antic issues from lim ited sem an tic aspects, a n d has nothing
to do w ith fo rm s o f insanity a risin g fro m d ifferent o rg a n ic, or toxic,
o r other d isturbances, which rem ain a s serio u s as ever. T h e statements
made cover ju s t as m uch as f u r th e r in v estigations will allo w them to
cover and no m ore.
T h e read er should be w arned a g a in s t u n due g e n eraliz atio n s, as they
may be u n justified. I t is im possible, a t th is stage, to fo re see all the rami
fications of th e p re se n t w ork. T h e v erb al issues, w hich correspond
roughly to the o ld e r m ental issues, seem to pervade all h u m a n problems
to some exten t, a n d so the field of a p p lic a tio n and influence o f any such
enquiry m ust b e v ery large. M ost o f th e results o f the p re se n t work
involve factors o f unusual security o f conclusion, th o u g h th e y m ay vio
late canons o f o u r philosophical creed s.
T h e explan atio n is astonishingly sim ple and easily verified. The
present non -aristo telian system is b a se d on fundam ental n eg a tive prem
is e s ; namely, th e com plete denial o f id e n tity , w hich den ial cannot be
whlT rl W' t 10Uu bllrden o f im possible p ro o f o n the person
t h a t a I T , dT \ I f We S ta rt f o r ir" > - itH a statement
that r u n\ 0t t C ^ect sPken a b o u t, and som e one trie s to denv
bTt'he lZ
be the w ord,
t n PrtdUCC a " actUal Ph >'sfcal w hich would
im possible of p e rfo rm a n c e, even in asylum s f o r the 'men-
 AIMS, MEANS AND CONSEQUENCES 11

tally ill. Hence m y secu rity , often blasphem ously cheerful, as one of
my friends calls it.
This general d e n ia l o f the is of id en tity gives the main funda
mental non-aristotelian prem ise, which necessitates a structural trea t
ment. The status o f negative prem ises is m uch more im portant and
secure to start w ith th a n th a t of th e positive is of identity, found in the
aristotelian system, b u t easily show n to b e false to fact, and involving
important delusional facto rs.
Any m ap or la n g u a g e , to be of m axim um usefulness, should, in
structure, be sim ilar to th e s tr u c tu r e ^ F th e empirical w orld. L ikew ise.
from the p o in t of v ie w o f a theory of sa n ity, any system or lan g u age
should, in stru c tu re, b e sim ilar to t he stru c tu re o f our nervous system .
It is easily shown th a t th e aristotelian system differs structurally from
these minimal req u irem en ts, and th a t the non-aristotelian system is in
accordance w ith th em .
This fact tu rn s o u t to be of psychophysiological importance. T he
above considerations, an d others im possible to mention in this chapter,
have suggested to m e th e fo rm and stru c tu re of th e whole work. I have
spared no effort to m ak e th e presentation as connected, simple, and,
particularly, as w o rk a b le as I could. A s I deal w ith structure, and sim i
larity of structure, o f languages and the em pirical world, a definite selec
tion of topics is im m ed iately suggested. I m u st give enough structural
data about languages in general, and enough structural data about the
empirical w orld, a n d th e n select, or, if necessary, build, my term inology
and system of sim ilar stru c tu re .
The read er sh o u ld n o t be afraid if som e p a rts of the book look
technical and m athem atical. In reality, they a re not so. Speaking o f the
language called m ath em atics, from a stru ctu ral point of view, I have had
to illustrate w hat w a s said, and the few sym bols o r diagrams are used
only for th a t p u rp o se. M an y of th e stru ctu ral points are of genuine
importance and in te re st to professional scientists, teachers, and others,
who seldom, if ever, deal w ith such stru ctu ral, linguistic, and sem antic
problems as are h e re analysed. T h e laym an wfio will read the book
diligently an d repeated ly , w ithout skipping any p a rt of it, will get at
least a feeling or v a g u e n o tio n that such p roblem s do exist, w hich will
produce a very im p o rta n t psycho-logical effect or release from th e old
animalistic u n co n d itio n ality o f responses, w hether o r not he feels that
he has understood th e m fu lly .
My earnest su g g estio n , backed by experience, to the reader is to
read the book th ro u g h several tim es, but n o t to dwell on points which
are not clear to him . A t each reading the issues will become clearer,
14 x. P R E L I M I N A R I E S

given in this book, w hich a re n o n -a risto te lia n a n d non-elem entalistic as

f t T t o abandon en tirely th e 'is' o f id e n tity and some o f th e elemental-
istic p rim itive term s. . . . f f .
T h e re a d e r should be w arn ed fro m th e b eg.nnm g o f a v ery funda
mental sem antic innovation n a m e l y , o f th e discovery o f th e multiordm-
altiy o f the m o st im p o rtan t te rm s w e h ave. T h is leads to a conscious
use o f these te rm s in th e m u ltio rd in a l, ex trem ely flexible, full-of-con-
ditionality sen se. T e rm s lik e y e s, n o , tru e ', false|, f a c t1 reality,
cause/ effect, ag reem en t, d isa g re e m e n t, proposition , n u m b e r , rela
tion, o rd er, stru c tu re , a b s tra c tio n , c h a ra c te ris tic , lo v e , hate,
doubt, etc., a r e such th at if they c a n be applied to a sta te m e n t they can
also be applied to a statem en t about th e first statem ent, a n d so, ultimately,
to all statem ents, no m atter w h at th e ir o r d e r of a b stra c tio n is. Term s of
such a ch aracter I call m ultio rd inal te rm s. T he m ain ch aracteristic of
these term s co n sists o f the fact th a t on d iffe re n t levels o f o rd e rs of ab
stractions th e y m ay have d ifferen t m ea n in g s, w ith the re s u lt th at they
have no general m ean in g ; fo r th eir m e a n in g s are d e te rm in e d solely by the
given context, w hich establishes th e d iffe re n t o rd e rs o f abstractions.
Psycho-logically, in th e realization o f th e m u ltio rd in a lity o f th e most im
portant term s, w e have paved th e w a y f o r the specifically hum an full
conditionality o f o u r sem antic resp o n ses. T h is allow s us g re a t freedom
in the handling o f m u ltiordinal te rm s a n d elim inates very se rio u s psycho
logical fixities a n d blockages, w h ich a n a ly sis show s to be anim alistic in
their nature, a n d , consequently, p ath o lo g ical for m an. O n c e the reader
understands th is m ultiordinal c h a rac teristic , this sem antic freedom does
not result in c o n fu sio n .
A ccidentally, o u r vocabulary is e n o rm o u sly enriched w ith o u t becom
ing cum bersom e, an d is m ade v ery ex a ct. T h u s a yes m ay have an
indefinite n u m b er o f m eanings, d e p e n d in g on the co n tex t to w hich it is
applied. Such a blank yes re p re sen ts, in reality, y e s * , b u t th is includes
y e s i, yes 2 , y e s 3 , etc., all o f w hich a re , o r m ay be, d ifferen t. A ll specu
lations about su c h te rm s in general ,a s, f o r instance, w h a t a fact or
reality is? a re futile, and, in g e n e ra l, illegitim ate, as th e only correct
answ er is that th e te rm s are m u ltio rd in a l a n d devoid o f m ean in g outside
o a c o n te x t. T h is settles m an y k n o tty epistem ological a n d semantic
questions, and giv es us a m ost p o w e rfu l m ethod f o r p ro m o tin g human
m utua reedom o f expression, th u s elim in a tin g m isu n d erstan d in g s and
blockages and u ltim ately leading to a g re e m e n t.
I suspect th a t w ith o u t th e d iscovery o f th e m u ltio rd in ality of terms
e present w o rk could not have been w ritte n , as I needed a m o re flexible
language, a la rg e r vocabulary, an d y e t I h a d to avoid confusion. W ith
 AIMS, MEANS AND CONSEQUENCES

the introduction of th e m u ltio rd in ality of te rm s, which is a natural but,

as yet, an unnoticed fact, o u r o rdinary v o cabulary is enormously en
riched, in fact, the n u m b e r o f w ords in su c h a vocabulary natural fo r
man is infinite. The m u ltio rd in ality of term s is the fundamental t
ism of the fu ll conditio n a lity o f hum an sem antic reactions it eli
an unbelievable n u m b er o f th e old anim alistic blockages, and is
mental for sanity.
A number of sta te m e n ts in the present w o rk have definite m eanings
for different specialists, o fte n run n in g en tirely counter to the accepted
scientific creeds. As th e y follow ed natu rally fro m the context, I inserted
them for the specialist, w ith o u t w arning, f o r w hich I have to apologize
to the general reader, a lth o u g h they will be u sefu l to him also.
To make issues sh a rp e r, some w ords w ill be repeated so often that
I abbreviate them as f o llo w s :

Abbreviation S ta n d s fo r A b b re v iatio n Stands for

A aristo telian n non-newtonian

A n o n -aristo telian el elementalistic

E euclidean non-el non-elementalistic

E no n -euclidean m.o or ( m .o ) multiordinal

N n ew to n ian s.r or (s .r ) semantic reactions,

both singular and
plural

In some instances, fo r special em phasis, the w ords will be spelled

in full.
A ^ -sy stem , b e in g extensional, requires the enum eration of long
lists of names, w hich, in principle, cannot be exhausted. U nder such
conditions, I have to lis t a few representatives followed by an etc., or
its equivalents. A s th e extensional m ethod is characteristic o f a
A treatment, th e e x p re ssio n e tc / occurs so o ften as to necessitate a
special A extensional p u n c tu a tio n w henever th e period does not indicate
another abbreviation, a s f o llo w s :
18 I. p r e l i m i n a r i e s

science of m an in all aspects o f his b e h a v io u r, science, m athem atics, and

mental ills included. . .
It is to be hoped th at, in th e n o t-to o -d ista n t fu tu re , som e individuals
and universities will aw aken to the fa c t th a t language is a fundam ental
psycho physiological function of m an, a n d th a t a scientific investigation
of man in all h is activities, is a necessary, pressing, very p ro m isin g , and
practical u ndertaking. T hen, p erh aps, special chairs will b e established
in universities, an d som e such research es in sem antic reactions and san
ity will com m and as m uch in terest a n d public enco u rag em en t as other
scientific investigations.
I, personally, have no d oubt th a t th is w ould m a rk th e beginning of
a new era, the scientific era, in w hich all h u m a n desirable characteristics
would be released fro m the presen t anim alistic, psychophysiological, A
semantic blockages, a n d that sanity w o u ld prevail.
T h at this is not a dream , and th a t such nervous m echanism s pro
ducing blockages do exist, has been d em o n stra te d by P avlov on his dogs,
by all psychotherapy, and th e e x p e rim e n ts now being m a d e on the
elimination of th e disturbances of th e s.r. T h e abundance o f geniuses
among younger physicists, since the e in ste in ia n stru ctu ral revolution and
semantic release, is also an im p o rta n t em pirical evidence th a t different
man-made verbal system s can stim u late o r ham p er th e fu n ctio n in g of the
human nervous system .
W h at has been said h ere has v e ry solid stru c tu ra l, neurological
foundations. F o r o u r purpose, we m a y consider a rough stru c tu ra l differ
ence between th e nervous system s o f m an a n d anim al. B riefly, we can
distinguish in th e b ra in tw o kinds o f n e rv o u s fibres, the ra d ia tin g pro
jection fibres a n d th e tangential c o rre la tio n a n d association fibres. With
the increase o f com plexities an d m o d ifiab ility of th e b eh aviour, we find
an increased n u m b e r and m o re c o m p lex interrelations o f association
fibres. T he m a in difference, fo r in stan c e, betw een the b ra in of a man
and the brain o f a h igher ape is fo u n d n o t in the p ro je c tio n apparatus,
but in the association paths, w hich a r e enorm ously enlarged, m ore numer
ous, and m ore com plex in m an th a n in an y anim al. O bviously, if these
association p a th s are blocked to th e p assag e o f n erv o u s impulses by
some psychophysiological process, th e reactions o f the individual must
Cj 0 i'VG[ rd e r an d such blockage m u st give th e effect o f the given
individual s b e in g organically deficient, a n d m ust, th e re fo re , result in
animalistic behaviour.
.. Pr^ s e n *' investigation d iscloses th a t the s.r m ay assum e very
^ 2 ^ T mS' , u f V Which iS th e P ro d u ctio n of v e ry powerful
psychophys.olog.ca1 blockages. T h e se , w h e n once w e u n d e rsta n d their
propria n r ' 2 " el,m "ated b? Pr P education and tra in in g in ap-
 CHAPTER II
TERMINOLOGY AND MEANINGS

T he representation o f m e n ta l p h en o m en a in t h e form of reactions, con

ditioned reflexes, B e c h te re w s psycho-reflexes, lea d s to a tru ly physio
logical schem atization. . . . ( 4 i i ) h e n r i p iSr o n

Now I claim th a t t h e E th n o g r a p h e rs p e rsp e c tiv e is th e one relev an t

and real for th e fo rm a tio n o f fu n d a m e n ta l lin g u istic conceptions and for
the study o f th e life o f la n g u a g e s , w hereas th e P h ilo lo g ist's point of view
is fictitious a n d ir re le v a n t. . . . T o define M e a n in g , to explain th e essential
gram m atical a n d lex ic al c h a r a c te rs of language o n th e m aterial furnished
by th e stu d y of d e ad la n g u a g e s , is n o th in g s h o r t of preposterous in th e
light of our a rg u m e n t. (332) B, m a l i n o w s k i

If he contend, as s o m e tim e s h e will c o n te n d , t h a t he h a s defined all h is

term s and p roved a ll h is p ro p o sitio n s, th e n e ith e r he is a perform er of
logical m iracles o r he is a n a ss; a n d , as y o u k n o w , logical m iracles are im
possible. (264) CASSIUS J . KEYSER

Finally, in se m an tic a p h a s ia , th e full significance of w ords and~phrases

is lost. S eparately, e a c h w o rd o r each d e ta il o f a d ra w in g can be under
stood, but th e g en eral sig n ific a n ce escapes; an a c t is executed upon com
m and, though th e p u rp o s e o f i t is n o t u n d e rsto o d . R e ad in g a n d w riting
are possible a s well a s n u m e ra tio n , th e co rrect u se of num bers; b u t th e
appreciation of a r ith m e tic a l processes is d e fec tiv e . . . . A general concep
tion cannot be fo rm u la te d , b u t d e ta ils c an be e n u m e ra te d . (4ii)
h e n r i p i ron
M oreover, th e a p h a s ic p a ti e n t in his m ode o f life, in h is acts an d in all
his behaviour m ay s e e m biologically a n d so cially n o rm al. B u t he h a s
nevertheless suffered a n u n q u e stio n a b le loss, fo r h e n o longer has a n y
chance of u ndergoing f u r t h e r m od ificatio n s of so c ial origin, and of reacting
in his turn a s a fa cto r in e v o lu tio n an d progress. ( 4 i i ) h e n r i p i ro n

P articularly it e x p re sse s t h a t m o st im p o rta n t s t e p in th e tre a tm e n t, th e

passing over from a m e r e in te lle c tu a l a cc ep ta n ce o f th e fa c ts of th e analysis,
w hether in in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e u n d e rly in g com p lex es o r in recognition of
the ta s k to b e a c c e p te d , t o a n em o tio n al a p p re c ia tio n a n d appropriation
of th e same. In tellectual acceptance can work no cure b u t m ay prove seri
ously m isleading to t h e p a tie n t w ho is a tte m p tin g to g ra sp the situ atio n
and to the b eg in n er in a n a ly s is a s well. (2 4 i) s m it h e l y j e l l if f e

Section A . On sem antic reactions.

The term sem antic rea ctio n is fundam ental fo r th e present work and
non-elementalistic s y ste m s. T h e term sem antic is derived from the
Greek semantikos, sig n ific a n t, from sem ainein to sig n ify , to m ean ,
and was introduced in to lite ra tu re by M ichel B real in his Essai de
Semantique. T h e term h a s been variously u sed in a more or less g e n
eral or restricted sense b y d iffe re n t w riters. O f late, this term has been
used by the Polish School o f M athem aticians, a n d particularly L. Chwis-
19
20 I. p r e l i m i n a r i e s

tek (see Supplem ent I I I ) , A . F . B e n tle y 1, a n d has been g iv e n a mescal

application by H e n ry H ead2 in the stu d y o f different fo rm s o f Aphasias.
A phasia, fro m the G reek aphasia, speechlessness, is u se d to describe
disorders in com prehension o r e x p re ssio n o f w ritte n a n d spoken lan
guage which re su lt from lesions o f th e brain. D isturbances of the
semantic reactio n s in connection w ith fa u lty education a n d ignorance
must be considered in 1933 as sub-m icroscopic colloidal lesions.
A m ong th e m an y subdivisions o f th e sym bolic disturbance, we find
semantic aphasia, to be described ( a f t e r H e a d ) as th e w a n t of recogni
tion o r the fu ll significance o r in te n tio n o f w ords a n d ph rases, combined
with th e loss o f p o w er of a p p re c ia tin g th e ultim ate o r non-verbal mean
ing o f w ords a n d p h rases to be in v estig a ted presently, an d th e failure to
recognize the in te n tio n or goal o f a c tio n s im posed upon th e patient.
T h e problem s o f m eaning a re v e ry com plex and to o little investi
gated, but it seem s th a t psychologists a n d philosophers a re not entirely
in sympathy w ith th e attitu d e of th e n eu ro lo g ists. I t is necessary to show
that in a ^ -s y s te m , w hich involves a new th eory of m eanings based on
non-el sem antics, the neurological a ttitu d e tow ard m ean in g is the only
structurally c o rre c t an d m ost u se fu l one.
T h e ex p lan atio n is quite sim ple. W e sta rt w ith th e negative A
premise that w o rd s a re not th e u n -sp ea k ab le objective level, such as
the actual o b jects outside o f our s k in a n d our personal feelings inside
our skin. I t follow s th at th e only lin k betw een th e o b jectiv e and the
verbal w orld is exclusively s tru c tu ra l, necessitating the conclusion that
the only co n ten t o f all know ledge is stru c tu ra l. N ow stru c tu re can be
considered as a com plex of relatio ns, a n d ultim ately as multi-dimensional
order.
F rom th is p oint o f view , all la n g u a g e can be considered as names
either fo r u n -speakable entities o n th e objective level, b e it things or
feelings, or a s nam es fo r relations. I n fa c t, even objects, a s such, could
be considered as relations betw een th e sub-m icroscopic ev en ts and the
uman nervous system . I f w e e n q u ire w h a t the last relatio n s represent,
we find that a n object rep resen ts a n a b strac tio n of lo w order pro-
uce y our n e rv o u s system as th e re su lt o f the sub-m icroscopic events
acting as stim u li upon the n e rv o u s system . I f th e o b jects represent
s rac ions o som e order, then, o bviously, w hen w e come to the enquiry
as o anguage, we find th a t w o rd s a re still h ig h e r abstractions from
i / eC Tf th n SU conc^ on s' a th e o ry o f m eaning loom s up natur-
order ,n n r J MtSt aSAW 35 W r d s re Presen t a b stra c tio n s o f different
him ancTso th e '^ ' T ' k n W w h a t B ab stra cts, unless B tells
him, an d so th e m eanm g o f a w o rd m u s t b e given by a definition. This
 TERM INOLOGY AND MEANINGS 21

would lead to the d ic tio n a ry m ean in g s o f w ords, provided we could define

all our words. B u t this is im possible. I f we w e re to attem pt to do so,
we should soon find th a t o u r vocabulary was e x h au sted , and we should
reach a set of term s w h ic h cou ld not be any f u r th e r defined, from lack
of words. W e th u s se e th a t all linguistic schem es, if analysed fa r
enough, would depend o n a set o f undefined te rm s. I f we enquire about
the meaning o f a w o rd , w e find th at it depends on the meaning of
other words used in d e fin in g it, and th a t th e eventual new relations
posited between them u ltim a te ly depend on th e m .o meanings o f the
undefined terms, w hich, a t a given period, c a n n o t be elucidated any
further.
Naturally, any fu n d a m e n ta l theory o f m ean in g cannot avoid th is
issue, which m ust be c ru c ia l. H e re a sem antic experim ent suggests
itself. I have p e rfo rm e d th is experim ent rep eatedly on myself an d
others, invariably w ith sim ila r results. Im ag in e th a t we are engaged
in a friendly serious d iscu ssio n w ith som e one, and th at we decide to
enquire into the m ean in g s o f w ords. F o r this special experiment, it is
not necessary to be very e x a c tin g , as th is w ould enorm ously and unneces
sarily complicate th e e x p e rim e n t. It is useful to have a piece of paper
and a pencil to keep a re c o rd o f th e progress.
We begin by a sk in g th e m eaning o f e v e ry w ord uttered, being
satisfied for this purpose w ith th e roughest d e fin itio n s; then we ask th e
meaning of th e w ords u s e d in th e definitions, a n d this process is con
tinued usually fo r no m o re th a n ten to fifteen m inutes, until the victim
begins to speak in circles as, f o r instance, defining space by length
and length by space. W h e n th is stage is reached, we have come usually
to the undefined term s o f a given individual. I f w e still press, no m atter
how gently, for definitions, a m ost interesting fact occurs. Sooner or
later, signs of affective d istu rb a n ces appear. O fte n th e face reddens;
there is a bodily re s tle s s n e s s ; sw eat appears sym ptom s quite similar to
those seen in a schoolboy w h o h as forg o tten his lesson, which he know s
but cannot tell. If th e p a r tn e r in th e ex p erim en t is capable of s e lf
observation, he in v ariab ly finds th a t he feels a n internal affective p res
sure, connected, perhaps, w ith th e rush o f blood to th e brain and p ro b
ably best expressed in so m e su ch w ords as w h at he knows but cannot
tell, or the like. H ere w e hav e reached the b o tto m and the foundation
of all non-elementalistic m e a n in g sth e m eanings of undefined term s,
which we know som ehow , b u t cannot tell. In fa c t, we have reached the
un-speakable level. T h is know ledge is supplied by the low er nerve
centres; it represents a ffe c tiv e first ord er effects, and is interwoven an d
interlocked w ith o th er a ffe c tiv e states, such a s those called w ish e s,
 I. p r e l i m i n a r i e s
22

intentions, in tu itio n s, e v a lu a tio n , a n d m any o th e rs. I t should be

noticed th at th ese first o rd e r effects h av e an objective c h a ra c ter, as they
are un-speakable a re not w ords.
M ean in g ' m u st be co n sid ered as a m u ltio rd in al te rm , as it applies
to all levels o f abstractions, and so h as n o general co n ten t. W e can only
speak legitim ately o f m eanings in th e plural. P e rh a p s, we can speak
of th e m eanings o f m eanings, a lth o u g h I suspect th a t th e latter would
represent th e un-speakable first o r d e r effect, th e affective, personal raw
material, o u t o f w hich o u r o rd in a ry m eanings a re built.
T h e above explains s tru c tu ra lly w h y m ost o f o u r thinking is to
such a large e x te n t w ish fu l a n d is so stro n g ly coloured by affective
factors. C reativ e scientists know v e ry w ell fro m observation of them
selves, that all creative w o rk s ta rts a s a feelin g , in clin atio n , suspicion,
'^intuition, h u n c h , o some o th er u n -sp e ak a b le affective s tate , which only
at a later d a te , a f te r a so rt o f n u rs in g , takes th e shape o f a verbal ex
pression, w o rk e d o u t later in a ra tio n a liz e d , coherent, linguistic scheme
called a th eo ry . I n m athem atics w e h a v e some asto n ish in g examples of
intuitively p ro claim ed theorem s, w h ic h , a t a late r date, h av e been proven
to be true, a lth o u g h the original p r o o f w a s false.
T h e ab o v e explanation, as w ell as th e neurological attitude toward
m eaning, a s expressed by H e a d , is non-elem entalistic. W e have not
illegitimately split organism al p ro c e sse s into intellect and emotions.
These processes, o r the reactio n s o f th e organism -as-a-w hole, can be
contem plated a t different n eu ro logical stag es in term s o f order, but must
never be sp lit o r treated as s e p a ra te entities. T h is a ttitu d e is amply
justified s tru c tu ra lly and em p irically in daily a n d scientific life. For in
stance, we m a y assum e th a t e d u c a te d A n g lo -S ax o n s a r e familiar with
the O x fo rd D ictio n ary , alth o u g h it m u st be adm itted th a t they are handi
capped in th e know ledge o f th e ir la n g u a g e by being born into i t ; yet we
know from ex perience how w o rd s w h ic h have one sta n d a rd definition
carry differen t m eanings to, an d p ro d u c e different affective individual
reactions on d iffe re n t individuals. P a s t experiences, th e know ledge., of
eJ en^ m. lvj ^ u a^s are d ifferen t, a n d so the evaluation (affective) of
e erms is ifferent. W e are ac cu sto m ed to such expressions as it
, , 0t lr)F * m e even in ca se s w h en th e dictionary wording is
indirafp ** m eans f deal to m e , and sim ilar expressions which
or n e rh a n a 6 m eanin s m e a n in g s a re som ehow closely related to,
reactions reP reSem ' * ' * * r d e r " ' ^ a b l e affective states or

lel, ^ h e th e r ^ 'o tT e c t^ e e lin 01 ^ rder u"-sPeakable obiective

eeling. , stru c tu re , an d so relations, becomes
 TERM INOLOGY AND MEANINGS

the only possible content o f know ledge and o f m eanings. O n the low est
level of our analysis, w h e n w e explore the objective level (the u n
speakable feelings in th is c a s e ), w e m ust try to define every m eaning as
a conscious feeling of a c tu a l, o r assum ed, o r w is h e d ., relations w hich
pertain to first o rd e r o b je c tiv e entities, psycho-logical included, and w hich
can be evaluated by p e rso n a l, varied, an d racial again un-speakable first
orderpsychophysiological effects. Because relatio n s can be defined as
multi-dimensional o rd e r, b o th o f w hich term s a re non-el, applying to
senses and m ind , a f te r n a m in g the u n -speakable entities, all experience
can be described in te rm s o f relations o r m ulti-dim ensional order. T h e
meanings of m eanings, in a g iv en case, in a g iv e n individual at a given
moment., represent com posite, affective psycho-logical configurations of
all relations pertaining to th e case, coloured by p a st experiences, state of
health, mood of th e m o m en t, a n d other contingencies.
If we consistently a p p ly th e organism -as-a-w hole principle to any
psycho-logical analysis, w e m u s t conjointly co ntem plate at least both
aspects, the em otional a n d th e intellectual, a n d so deliberately ascribe
emotional factors to a n y intellectual m an ifestation, and intellectual
factors to any em otional o ccurrence. T h a t is w hy, on human levels, th e
el term psychological m u s t be abolished and a new term psycho-logical
introduced, in o rd er th a t w e m ay construct a science.
From what has been said , w e see th a t not only th e structure of th e
world is such th a t it is m a d e u p o f absolute in d iv id u als, but that m ean
ings in general, and th e m e a n in g s of m eanings in particularthe last
representing probably th e u n -speakable first o rd e r effectsalso share, in
common with ordinary o b je c ts, th e absolute indiv iduality of the objective
level.
The above explains w h y , b y the in h eren t stru c tu re of the w orld,
life, and the hum an n e rv o u s system , h um an relatio n s are so enorm ously
complex and difficult; a n d w h y w e should leave no stone unturned to
discover beneath th e v a ry in g phenom ena m ore and m ore general and
invariant foundations o n w h ich hum an u n d e rsta n d in g and agreem ent
may be based. I n m a th e m a tic s w e find th e only m odel in which we can
study the invariance o f re la tio n s under tra n sfo rm a tio n s, and hence th e
need for future p sy cho-logicians to stu d y m athem atics.
It follows fro m th e se con sid eratio n s that a n y psycho-logical occur
rence has a num ber o f a sp e c ts, an affective , a n d an intellectual, a
physiological, a colloidal, a n d w h a t not. F o r the science o f psychophysiol
ogy, resulting in a th e o ry o f san ity , th e above f o u r aspects are of m ost
importance. As o u r a c tu a l lives are lived on objective, un-speakable
levels, and not on verbal levels, it appears, as a problem of evaluation,
 I. P R E L I M I N A R I E S
24

that the objective level, including, o f co u rse, o u r u n - s p e a k a b l e feelmp,

emotions., is th e m ost im p o rta n t, a n d th a t th e verbal levels are oriy
auxiliary, som etim es useful, but a t p re s e n t o ften h a rm fu l, because of the
disregard of th e s.r. T he role of th e a u x ilia ry verbal levels is only ful
filled if these v erbal processes are tra n s la te d back into first o rder effects.
Thus, th ro u g h verbal intercourse, in th e m ain, scientists discover useful
first order a b stractio n s (o b je c tiv e ), an d by verbal in terco u rse again,
culture is b u il t ; b u t this only w h en th e verbal processes affect the un
speakable psycho-logical m a n ife sta tio n s, su ch as o u r feelings, emotions,.
\ Some e x tra o rd in a ry p a rro t c o u ld be ta u g h t to repeat all the verbal
wisdom of th e w o r ld ; but, if he su rv iv e d a t all, he w ould be ju st a par
rot. T h e repeated noises w ould not h a v e affected his first o rd e r effects
his affectsth e se noises w ould m e a n n o th in g to him .
M eanings, and th e m eanings o f m eanings, w ith th e ir inseparable
affective com ponents, give us, th e re fo re , n o t only th e non-elementalistic
foundation on w hich all civilization a n d cu ltu re depends, b u t a study of
the non-el m echanism s of m eanings, th ro u g h psychophysiology and
general sem antics, gives us, also, p o w e rfu l physiological m ean s to achieve
a host of desirable, and to elim inate a larg e nu m b er o f undesirable,
psycho-logical m anifestations.
T h e physiological m echanism is e x tre m e ly sim ple and necessitates a
breaking aw ay fro m th e older elem entalism . But it is usually very diffi
cult fo r any g iv en individual to break aw ay fro m th is older elementalism,
as it involves th e established s.r, a n d to be effective is, b y necessity, a
little laborious. T h e w orking tool o f psychophysiology is found in the
semantic reaction. T h is can be d escrib ed as the psycho-logical reaction
o f a given in dividual to w ords a n d lan g u ag e a n d o ther symbols and
events in connection w ith th eir m eanings, a n d th e psycho-logical reac
tions, which becom e m eanings and rela tio n a l configurations th e moment
the given individual begins to analyse th em o r som ebody else does that
fo r him. It is o f g re a t im portance to realize th at th e te rm sem antic is
non-elementalistic, as it involves c o n jo in tly the em otional as well as
the intellectual facto rs.
From the n on-el point o f view , a n y affect, o r im pulse, or even
uman instinct, w hen made conscious acq u ires non-el m eanings, and
ecomes u tim ately a psycho-logical c o n fig u ratio n of desirable o r undesir-
able to the m d.v.dual relations, th u s re v e a lin g a w orkable non-el mechan-
t i- .S^ * e ra Py ky m aking the u nconscious conscious, an d by ver-
H aT mP? d !scover m i n i n g s o f w hich the p a tie n t was not
revealed the* & If successful a n d th e individual m eanings are
revealed, these a re usually fo u n d to belong to an im m ature period of
 TER M IN O LO G Y AND MEANINGS

evaluation in th e p a tie n ts life. T hey are th en consciously revised an d

rejected, and the given p a tie n t eith er im proves o r is entirely relieved.
The condition fo r a su ccessfu l treatm en t seem s to be that the processes
should be managed in a n o n -elem en ta listic w ay. M ere verbal form alism
is not enough, because th e fu ll non-elem entalistic m eanings to the patient
are not divulged; co n seq u en tly , in such a case, th e s.r are not affected,
and the treatm ent is a fa ilu re .
The non-el stu d y o f th e s .r becom es an e x trem ely general scientific
discipline. The study o f relatio n s, an d th e re fo re o rder, reveals to us
the mechanism o f no n -el m e a n in g s ; and, in the application of an ordinal
physiological discipline, w e g a in psychophysiological means by w hich
powerfully to affect, re v e rse , o r even ann u l, u n d esirab le s.r. In psycho
physiology we find a n o n -e l physiological th eo ry o f m eanings and sanity.
From the presen t p o in t o f view, all affective and psycho-logical
responses to w ords and o th e r stim uli in vo lvin g m ea n in g s are to be con
sidered as s.r. W h a t th e re la tio n betw een such responses and a corres
ponding persistent p sycho-logical state m ay be, is at present not clear,
although a num ber of f a c ts o f observation seem to suggest that th e
re-education of th e s.r re s u lts o fte n in a beneficial change in some o f
these states. But fu rth e r in v estig atio n in this field is needed.
The realization o f th is d ifference is im p o rta n t in practice, because
most of the psycho-logical m an ifestatio n s m ay ap p ea r as evoked by
some event, and so a re to be called responses o r reflexes. Such a
response, when lasting, s h o u ld be called a given sta te, perhaps a sem antic
state, but not a sem antic re fle x . T h e term , sem an tic reaction, will be
used as covering both se m a n tic reflexes and states. In th e present w ork,
we are interested in s.r, fro m a psychophysiological, theoretical an d
experimental point of v ie w , w h ich include th e corresponding states.
If, for instance, a s ta te m e n t o r any event evokes some individual s
attention, or one tra in o f a sso ciatio n s in p re fe re n ce to another, or envy,
or anger, or fear, o r p r e j u d i c e ., we w ould h a v e to speak of all such
responses on psycho-logical levels as s.r. A stim u lu s w as present, and a
response follow ed; so th a t, b y definition, w e sh o u ld speak of a reaction.
As the active fa c to r in th e stim u lu s w as the individual meanings to
the given person, and his re sp o n se had m eanings to him as a first o rd e r
effect, the reaction m ust b e called a sem antic reaction.
The present w o rk is w r itte n entirely fro m th e s.r point of v ie w ,
and so the treatm ent of th e m aterial, an d the lan g u ag e used, imply, in
general, a psycho-logical re sp o n se to a stim u lu s in connection w ith
meanings, this response b e in g ex p ressed by a n u m b e r o f such words a s
implies, follows, b eco m es, evokes, resu lts, feels, reacts, evalu
 I. p r e l i m i n a r i e s
26

ates and m an y others. A ll d ata ta k e n fro m science are selected, and onlj
those which d irectly enter as fa c to rs in s .r are given m an elementary
outline. T h e m eanings to th e in d iv id u a l are d e p en d en t, through the
influence of th e environm ent, ed u catio n , languages and th e ir structure,
and other facto rs, on racial m e a n in g s called science, w h ich , to a large
extent, because o f th e stru ctu ral a n d relational c h a ra c te r of science,
become physiological sem antic fa c to rs o f th e reactions. I n fact, science,
mathematics, logic. , may be c o n sid ered fro m a non-elem entalistic point
of view as g eneralised results o f s.r ac cep tab le to th e m a jo rity of informed
and not heavily pathological individuals.
T o facilitate th e w riting and th e rea d in g o f the w o rk , I am com
pelled to use definite devices. A s in ca se o f stru c tu re , m u ltio rd in al terms,
so in th e case o f s.r, I often em ploy a n o rd in ary fo rm of expression and
use th e w ords stru c tu ra /, m u ltio rd in a i, sem antic, as adjectives, or
structurally, sem antically. , as ad v e rb s, alw ays im plying th e full mean
ings, th a t u n d e r such and such co n d itions o f a given stim ulus, the given
s.r would be su c h an d such. In m a n y instances, th e lette rs s.r o r (s.r)
will be inserted to rem ind th e read er th a t w e deal w ith sem antic reactions
o r the psycho-logical reactions in co n n ec tio n w ith the m eanings of the
problems analysed. I t is not only u se fu l, b u t perhaps essential, that the
reader should sto p in such places and tr y to evoke in him self th e given s.r.
The present w o rk leads to new s.r w h ic h a re beneficial to e v e ry one of us
and fundam ental fo r sanity. T h e c asu a l read in g o f the p re se n t book is
not enough. A n y one who w ants th e fu ll o r partial benefit o f the joint
labours of the a u th o r an d th e read er m u st, even in th e read in g , begin to
re-train his s.r.
A s the o rg an ism w orks as-a-w hole, a n d as th e tra in in g is psycho
physiological in te rm s o f order, re v e rsin g the reversed pathological o rd e r.,
organism -as-a-w hole m eans m u s t be em ployed. F o r this purpose, the
S tructural D ifferential has been developed. T h e re ad er will la te r under
stand th a t it is practically im possible to achieve, w ithout its help, the
m axim um beneficial sem antic results.
F rom a n on-el point of view , w hich m a k es illegitim ate a n y el verbal
sp itting of em otions and intellect. , th ese processes m ust b e analysed
in ^ ri^ s o rd er, indicating th e stages o f th e psycho-neural process-as-
a w o e. E m pirically, there is a difference betw een an em otion which
becomes rationalized and em otions invoked or produced by ideas,
e or e r is d ifferen t in each instance, a n d if, in a given nervous system,
a g n e n m om ent, o r und er som e special conditions, the low er or higher
nerve centres w o rk defectively, the n e rv o u s reactions are n o t well bal
anced and the m anifestatio n s acquire a one-sided character. T h e other
 TE RM IN O LO G Y AND MEANINGS

aspect is not abolished, b u t is sim ply less p ro m in e n t or less effective.

Thus, in morons, im beciles, a n d in m any form s o f infantilism , the th ink
ing is very em otional a n d o f a low g r a d e ; in so-called moral imbeciles,
and perhaps in sc h iz o p h re n ia , th e th in k in g m a y be seemingly norm al!
yet it does not affect th e fe e lin g s , w hich are deficient.
From the n on-el s e m a n tic h u m a n point o f view , any affect only
gains meanings w hen it is c o n s c io u s) o r, in o th e r w ords, when an actual
or assumed set o f relatio n s is p re se n t. I n a n ideally balanced and efficient
human nervous system , t h e em o tio n s w ould b e tran slated into ideas,
and ideas translated in to em otions, w ith eq u a l facility. In o th er
words, the s.r o f a g iv en in d iv id u al w ould b e u n d e r full control a n d
capable of being educated, influenced, tra n sfo rm e d quickly and efficiently
the very reverse o f th e p re s e n t situation. T h e p re sen t enquiry show s
that the lack of psychophysiological m ethods f o r tra in in g and lack o f
analysis and u n d erstan d in g o f th e facto rs involved, a re responsible f o r
this deplorable situation.
The above processes a r e q u ite obvious o n racial grounds, if w e
study science and m a th em atics fro m th e sem antic p o int of view. W ith
very few exceptions, w e o n ly fail individually. F o r instance, a Euclid
and a Newton had h u n c h e s, in tu itio n s. ; then th e y rationalized and v e r
balized them and so affected th e re st of us and established the n atu ra l
feeling for E geom etries, N m e c h a n ic s, . W h en n e w E o r systems w ere
produced, many o f th e o ld e r scientists could u n d e rs ta n d them, could
even master the new sy m bo lic te c h n iq u e ; yet th e ir feelings. , were sel
dom affected. T hey th o u g h t in th e new w ay, b u t th e y continued to feel
in the old; their s.r did n o t fo llo w fu lly the tra n sfo rm a tio n of th e ir
ideas, and this p roduced a sp lit personality.
Any fundam entally n e w sy stem involves n e w s . r ; and this is th e
main difficulty which besets u s w h en we tr y to m a s te r a new system. W e
must re-educate, o r change, o u r o ld e r s.r. A s a ru le , th e younger genera
tion, which began w ith th e new7 s.r, has no such difficulties with the new
systems. Ju st the opposite th e o ld er s.r become a s difficult or impossible
to them as the new wrere t o th e o ld er gen eratio n . T o both generations,
with their corresponding s .r , th e non-habitual s .r a re n e w , no m atter
what their historical o rd e r a n d ho w difficult o r how simple they are.
However, there is an im p o rta n t difference. T h e n e\v er systems, as, fo r
instance, the E , N , and th e p re s e n t co rresp o n d in g A - system, are m ore
general: which m eans th a t th e n e w e r system s include the older as p articu
lar cases, so that th e y o u n g e r g en eratio n h as s.r w h ich a re more Aexible,
more conditional, w ith a b r o a d e r o u tlo o k . , sem antic conditions absent in
the older systems.
 I. p r e l i m i n a r i e s
28

T he p roblem s connected w ith th e j . r are n o t new , because these are

inherent in m an , n o m atter on w h a t low or prim itive le v d or on wtat
high level o f developm ent he m ay b e ; b u t, up to the u n d e rta k in g of the
present analysis, th e problem s o f s .r w ere not fo rm u la te d , their psycho
physiological m echanism s w ere n o t discovered, an d so, to the detriment
of all of us, w e have had no w o rk a b le educational m ean s by which to
handle them effectively.
\ / ^ T h a t is w h y th e passing fro m o n e e r a to a n o th er is usually so diffi-
cult and so p a in fu l. T he new involves n ew s.r, w hile, as a rule, the older
^ ^g feeratio n s h av e enforced th e ir sy stem s, a n d , th ro u g h th e m , by means of
' 11 \^,C - controlled ed ucation and linguistic s tru c tu re and habits, th e old s.r. This
| the younger generation, alw ays h a v in g m o re racial experience, cannot
J( 'accept, so th a t revolutions, scientific or otherw ise, h appen, and, when
^ \ ^ successful, th e new system s are im posed on the o ld er g en eratio n without
'**ithe older g e n e ra tio n s changing th e ir s.r. A ll of w hich is painful to all
t! concerned. T h e n e x t generation a f t e r su ch a revolution does not have
similar difficulties, because from ch ild h o o d they a re tra in e d in the new
?s.r, and all a p p ears as n a tu ra l to th e m , a n d the older as unthinkable,
f silly, .
A s a descriptive fact, th e p re se n t stag e of hum an developm ent is
such th at w ith a very few exceptions o u r nervous system s do not work
properly in accordance w ith th eir su rv iv a l structure. In o th er words,
although we hav e the potentialities f o r c o rrec t functioning in o u r nervous
system, because o f th e neglect of th e physiological control-m echanism of
our s.r, we h av e sem antic blockages in o u r reactions, and th e m ore bene
ficial m anifestations a re very effectively prevented.
T h e presen t analysis divulges a p o w e rfu l m echanism f o r the control
and education o f s . r ; and, by m eans o f p ro p e r evaluation, a great many
undesirable m an ifestatio n s o n th e psycho-logical level can be very effi
ciently tra n sfo rm e d in to highly desirab le ones. In dealing w ith such a
fundam ental ex p erim en tal issue as th e s.r, w hich have been w ith us since
th e daw n of m an k in d , it is im possible to say new things all the time.
V ery often the issues involved becom e com m on sense ; b u t w hat is the
use, in practice, o f th is common sen se , if it is seldom, if ev er, applied,
a n d in fact c an n o t be applied because of th e older lack o f workable
psychophysiological form ulations? F o r instance, w h at could be simpler
o r more com m on sense than th e A p rem ise th a t an object is not words;
yet, to my know ledge, no one fu lly ap p lies th is, or has fu lly acquired the
corresponding s.r. W ith o u t first acq u irin g th is new s.r, it is impossible to
discover this e r r o r and corresponding j . r in o th e rs; b u t as soon as we
have trained ourselves, it becomes so obvious th a t it is im possible to miss
 TERM IN O LO GY AND MEANINGS

it. We shall see, later, t h a t th e o ld e r s.r w ere d u e to the lack o f structural

investigations, to th e old s tr u c tu r e of language, to th e lack of conscious
ness of abstracting, to th e low o rd e r co n d itio n ality o f our conditional
reactions (the semantic in c lu d e d ) , and a long list o f o ther important fac
tors. All scientific d isco v eries involve s.r, and so , once formulated, an d
the new reactions a c q u ire d , th e discoveries becom e common sense, and
we often wonder w hy th e s e discoveries w ere so slow in coming in spite
of their obviousness . T h e s e ex p lan atio n s are given because they also
involve some s . r ; and w e m u st w arn th e re a d e r th a t such evaluations
(s.r): Oh, a p la titu d e ! , A baby know s th a t, a re very effective s.r to
prevent the acquisition o f th e n ew reactions. T h is is w hy the discovery
of the obvious is often s o d iffic u lt; it involves v ery m any o f sem antic
factors of new evaluation a n d m eanings.
A fuller evaluation is only reached a t p re se n t on racial grounds in
two or more generations, a n d n e v e r on in d iv id u al g ro u n d s; which, o f
course, for personal g en era lised a d ju stm e n t and happiness, is very d e tri
mental. Similarly, only in th e s tu d y of racial achievem ents called science
and mathematics can we d isc o v e r the a p p ro p ria te s.r and the nervous
mechanism of these so v a rie d , so flexible, and so fundam ental reactions.
In fact, w ithout a s tr u c tu r a l fo rm u latio n a n d a A revision based on
the study of science and m a th e m a tic s, it is im possible to discover, to con
trol, or to educate these s .r . F o r th is reason it w a s necessary to analyse
the semantic factors in co n n e c tio n w ith b rie f a n d elem entary considera
tions taken from m odern scien ce. B ut, w hen all is said an d done, and th e
important semantic facto rs d isco v ered , the whole issu e becomes extrem ely
simple, and easily applied, e v e n b y persons w ith o u t m uch education. In'"7'
fact, because the objective lev els a r e not w ords, th e only possible aim o f
science is to discover s tr u c tu r e , w hich, w hen fo rm u lated , is always sim ple
and easily understood by e v e ry o n e , w ith th e ex cep tion, o f course, of very
pathological individuals. W e h av e already seen th a t stru c tu re is to b e c o n ^ /'
sidered as a configuration o f relatio n s, an d th a t re latio n s appear as th e
essential factorsTn m e a n in g s, a n d so of s.r. T h e p re se n t enquiry, because ^
structural, reveals vital fa c to r s o f s.r. T h e consequences are extrem ely
simple, yet very im p o rtan t. W e see th at by a sim ple structural re-educa-
tion of the s.r, w hich in th e g r e a t m ass o f people a r e still on the level o f
copying animals in th e ir n e rv o u s reactions, we p o w e rfu lly affect the s.r,
and so are able to im p a rt v e r y sim ply, to all, in th e m ost elem entary edu
cation of the s.r o f th e c h ild , cidtural results a t p resen t sometimes
acquired unconsciously a n d p a in fu lly in u n iv ersity education.
The above co n sid e ra tio n s h av e forced upon m e th e stru ctu re o t e
present work and th e se le c tio n a n d p resentation o f th e m ateria .
 I. p r e l i m i n a r i e s
30
course, the re a d e r can skip m any p a r ts a n d a t once p lu n g e into P art VII,
and discover th a t it is all ch ild ish ly s i m p l e o b v i o u s and common
sense. Such a re a d e r or a critic w ith th is p a rticu la r s.r w ould miss the
point, which can be verified as an e x p e rim e n ta l fa c t in th e m eantime, that
in spite of its seem ing sim plicity, n o one, not ev en th e g re a te st genius,
fu lly applies these p latitu d es o u tsid e o f his special w o rk , which s.r, in
his limited field, rep resen t th e se m a n tic com ponents th a t make up
his genius.
T h e fu ll acquisition o f the n e w s.r req u ires special tra in in g ; but,
when acquired, it solves fo r a given in d iv id u al, w ith o u t a n y outside inter
ference, all im p o rta n t hum an p ro b le m s I know o f. I t im p a rts to him
some of the s .r o f so-called g e n iu s , a n d thus en larg es his so-called
intelligence.
T h e p roblem s o f the stru c tu re o f a given language a r e of extreme,
and as yet u n realized , sem antic im p o rta n ce . T h u s, fo r instance, the whole
Einstein th eo ry , o r an y other fu n d a m e n ta l scientific th e o ry , m ust be con
sidered as th e build in g of a new la n g u a g e of sim ilar s tru c tu re to the
empirical facts kn o w n at a given d a te . I n 1933, th e g en eral tendency of
science, as m ad e p articu larly o bvious in th e w orks of J . Loeb, C. M.
Child, psychiatry, th e E in stein th eo ry , th e n ew quantum m e c h a n ic s., and
the present w o rk , is to build la n g u ag es w h ich take into consideration the
many im p o rtan t in v arian t relations, a condition m ade possible only by
r the use o f n o n -e l languages. I n m y case, I m ust c o n stru c t a non-el lan-
* &uage in w hich senses an d m in d , em o tio n s a n d in te llect. , are no
longer to be v erb ally split, because a la n g u a g e in w hich th e y are split is
not sim ilar in s tru c tu re to th e k n o w n em p irical facts, and all speculations
in such an el lan g u ag e m ust be m isleading.
T h is non-el language involves a n ew non-el th eo ry o f meanings, as
ju st explained. T h e te rm sem antic, sem antically, sem antic reactions,
semantic states . , a re non-el, as they in v o lv e both em otions a n d intellect,
since they depend on m eanings, e v a lu a tio n , significance, an d the like,
based on stru c tu re , relations, an d u ltim a tely m ulti-dim ensional order. All
these term s a p p ly equally to senses a n d to m ind, to em otions and to
intellect they a re n o t artificially sp lit.
It is im p o rtan t to preserve the n o n -e l o r organism -as-a-w hole atti
tude and term inology th ro u g h o u t, b ecau se th e se represent m o st important
actors in our s.r. Som etim es it is n e c e ssa ry to em phasize th e origin, or
the relative im portance, of a given a sp ec t o f th e im pulse or reaction, or to
translate for th e read er a language n o t e n tire ly fam iliar to h im into one
to which he is m o re accustom ed. In s u c h cases, I use the o ld el terms in
quotation m arks to indicate th a t I do n o t elim inate o r d isre g ard the other
 TERMINOLOGY AND MEANINGS 31

aspects a disregard w h ic h otherw ise would be implied by the use of the

old terms.
T he term psycho-logical will always be u se d either with a hyphen to
indicate its non-el c h a ra c ter, o r in quotation m arks, w ithout a hyphen,
when we refer to the o ld elem entalism . Sim ilarly, w ith the term s psycho
logies, psycho-logicians, f o r psychology and pyschologist. T he term s
mental ills, m ental h y g ie n e a re u n fo rtu n ate ones, since they are used
by the m ajority as el. P sy c h ia trists, it is true, u se them in the organism -
as-a-whole sense to in c lu d e em otions. Because of the great sem antic
influence of the stru c tu re o f language on the m asses of mankind, leading,
as it does, through lack o f b e tte r understanding a n d evaluation to specula
tion on terms, it seem s advisable to abandon completely term s w hich
imply to the m a n y the su g g e ste d elementalism, although these term s a re
used in a proper non-el w a y by th e fe w .
I f specialists, to s a tis fy th e ir s.r, disregard these issues and p ersist
in the use of el term s, o r use su ch expressions a s m an is an anim al and
the like, they m isu n d e rsta n d th e im portance of sem antic factors. T hrough
lack of appreciation o r o f p ro p e r evaluation o f the problems involved,
they artificially and m o st effectively prevent th e rest o f us from follow
ing their work w ithout b ein g led astray by th e inappropriate stru ctu re
of their language. T he h a r m done through such practices is quite serious,
and, at present, m ostly d isre g a rd e d . F o r this reason, I either use qu o ta
tion m arks on th e term s m e n ta l, m ental ills, m e n ta l hygiene., or else I
use the term s psycho-logical, sem antic ills, psycho-logical o r sem antic
hygiene, . The above tw o te rm s are not only non-el but also have an
important advantage o f b e in g international. T h e term s affects, affec
tive are little used o u tsid e o f scientific literatu re, w here they are used
mostly in the non-el o rd in a l sense. I use them in a sim ilar way, w ithout
quotation marks.
All the issues involved in th e present w ork are, o f necessity, in te r
connected. T hus, o rd e r leads to relations, relations to structure, an d
these, in turn, to non-el m e a n in g s and evaluations, w hich are the fu n d a
mental factors o f all psycho-logical states and responses, called m ore
specifically sem antic reactio n s, states, and reflexes. T h e reader should
be careful to rem ain at all tim es aw are o f these connections and implica
tions. W henever we find o rd e r, o r relations, o r stru c tu re , in the outside
world, o r in our n erv o u s sy stem , these term s, because of th e ir non-el
character, imply sim ilar o rd e r, relations, and s tru c tu re in our psycho
logical processes, th u s e sta b lish in g m eanings, p ro p e r ev aluations., u lti
mately leading to w ard a p p ro p ria te s.r. T h e rev erse applies also. W hen-
 SvilJ-''*' * '':
i*
t hi, r'i vM;<- f
V'Vv-" ] :i W* VU^HU** v ^ Vt ;..r-;
r.l r* ^ ' ^ i v t a w P ^ W ^

:;*3i

,<, ' . 1. m i&:A^

: . a* '
4;:
.v r ,; o ? iil

. x ; : Jt* v't.i- ,
*' * .mVrlU

vx>bSiteei < ,'VtH; V- (*>>?i

:: !, ;Jp4' ','>' .U!. -
j .;.- .. ;': ;<:* ;.'.:*r
;.isr iji 014
tit*! t " **li* $
wt ^> iy , ' fU M
r ^ .- ir v .- In M v * r.. - - s o
t{ . *h> iTV T ^ " ' V ;.

* - >jir'*'. : .vji >^

t ' * ' - T .

. M * >.iv..f;'C'-; :.
cat!, i . :k. c>Ki lan^vfa;.-- \- r-:.^tfv-s?* ^
; Tijr- tfifc a *.:-. v>. *. '. ...
^v* cs.
 BOOK II
A GENERAL INTRODUCTION
TO NON-ARISTOTELIAN SYSTEMS
AND GENERAL SEMANTICS

Of all men, A ris to tle is th e one of w hom h is follow ers have w orshipped
his defects as w ell a s his excellencies: w hich is w h a t he him self never d id
to any m an liv in g o r d e a d ; indeed, he h a s b e e n accused of th e c o n tra ry
fault. (354) AUG U STUS D E M ORGAN

There is one v e r y m p o r ta n t fact on w hich w e m u st be in no d o u b t, a n d

that is th a t for a n y g iv en d e d u c tiv e th e o ry th e re is not a n y one sy s te m
of fundam ental n o tio n s n o r any one sy ste m o f fu n d a m e n ta l pro p o sitio n s;
there are g enerally se v e ra l eq u ally possible, i . e. fro m which it is e q u a lly
possible to d e d u ce c o rre c tly all t h e th e o re m s . . . . T his fact is v e ry
important, because it sh o w s th a t th e r e a re in them selves no undefinable
notions nor indem onstrable p ro p o sitio n s; th e y a r e o n ly so relativ ely to a c e r
tain adopted o rd e r, a n d t h e y cease (a t a n y r a t e p a r tly ) to be such if a -
order is adopted. T h is d e stro y s th e tr a d itio n a l con cep tio n of fu n d a
ideas an fu n d a m e n ta l tru th s, fu n d a m e n ta l, t h a t is t o say, absolutel
essentially. (120) l o u is c o u i

In th is directio n fin a lity is not so u g h t, for i t is a p p a re n tly u n a tta in a b le .

All th at we can s a y is, in th e w ords of a le a d in g a n a ly s t, "sufficient u n to
the day is th e rig o r th e re o f. (23) E . T. b e l l
In m athem atics i t is new w ays of looking a t old th in g s which seem t o be
the most prolific so u rc e s o f fa r-re a ch in g discoveries. (23) E. t . b e l l

The first will sh o w us how to ch an g e t h e lan g u a g e suffices to re v e a l

generalizations n o t b e fo re su sp ec ted . (4t7) H. p o in c a r 6
In sum , all the sc ien tist creates in a fa c t is the language in which he e n u n ci
ates it. (417) h . p o in c a r

This long discu ssio n b rin g s us to th e final co n clu sio n th a t th e c o n cre te

facts of natu re a r e e v e n ts e x h ib itin g a c e rta in s tru c tu re in th e ir m u tu a l
relations and c e rta in c h a r a c te rs of th e ir ow n. T h e a im of science is to e x
press the relations b e tw e e n th e ir c h a ra c te rs in te rm s of the m u tu a l s tr u c
tural relations b e tw e e n th e e v e n ts th u s c h a ra c te ris e d . (573)
A. N . W H IT E H E A D

We cease to s e e k re sem b lan c e s; we d e v o te o u rselv es above all to t h e

differences, and a m o n g th e differences are c h o se n first the m ost a c c e n tu
ated, not only b e c a u se t h e y a re th e m o st s trik in g , b u t because th e y will be
the most in stru c tiv e . (417) p o in c a re

The m aterialistic th e o ry h a s all th e co m p le te n ess o f th e th o u g h t of th e

middle ages, w hich h a d a c o m p le te answ er t o e v e ry th in g , be it in h eav en
or in hell or in n a tu r e . T h e re is trim n e ss a b o u t it, w ith its in sta n ta n e o u s
367
368 N O N - A R I S T O T E L I A N G E N E R A L SE M A N T IC S

p re se n t, its v a n ish ed p a s t , its n o n -e x is te n t fu tu r e , a n d its inert matter.

T h is trim n e ss is v e ry m e d ie v a l a n d ill a c c o rd s w ith b ru te fact* (573)
A . N . WHITEHEAD

T h e existence of a n a lo g ie s b e tw e e n c e n tra l fe a tu re s of various theories

im p lies th e ex istence o f a g e n e ra l th e o ry w hich u n d e rlies the particular
th e o rie s an d unifies t h e m w ith re sp ec t t o those c e n tr a l features.*
E. H. MOORE

N e ith e r th e a u th o r ity o f m a n alone n o r th e a u th o r i t y of fact alone is

sufficient. T h e u n iv e rse , a s k n o w n to us, is a j o i n t phenomenon of the
o b se rv e r and th e o b s e r v e d ; a n d e v e ry p ro cess of d isc o v e ry in natural science
o r in o th e r b ra n ch e s o f h u m a n know ledge will a c q u ire its best excellence
w h e n i t is in a c c o rd a n c e w ith t h i s fu n d a m e n ta l p rin c ip le . (82)
R . D . CARMICHAEL

I t is ev id e n t t h a t if w e a d o p t th is p o in t of view to w a rd concepts, namely

t h a t t h e p ro p e r d e fin itio n o f a c o n ce p t is n o t in t e r m s of its properties but
in te rm s of a c tu a l o p e ra tio n s , w e need ru n no d a n g e r of having to revise
o u r a ttitu d e to w a rd n a tu r e . (55) p . w. b r id g m a n

T o s a y th e fa c ts a re in c o m p re h e n sib le is a ra tio n a liz a tio n of individual

ig n o ran c e.
Ig n o ran c e , ho w ev er, m a y b e n o fa u lt. I t b e c o m e s so only when the in
d iv id u a l p e rm its h im self t o ra tio n a liz e it, i. e., g iv e it a disguise, which
e ffe c tu a lly blo ck s him in th e u tiliz a tio n of his in tellig en ce, which might
o th e rw is e solve th e p ro b le m in h a n d . (241) s m i t h e l y je l l if f e

T h e sym bol A is n o t t h e c o u n te r p a r t of a n y th in g in familiar life. To

t h e c h ild th e le tte r A w o u ld seem h o rrib ly a b s t r a c t ; so we give him a
fa m ilia r c onception a lo n g w ith it. A w a s a n A rc h e r who shot at a frog.
T h is tid e s o v e r his im m e d ia te d iffic u lty ; b u t he c a n n o t m ake serious prog
re ss w ith w o rd -b u ild in g s o lo n g a s A rch ers, B u tc h e rs , Captains, dance
ro u n d th e le tte rs. T h e l e t t e r s a r e a b s tr a c t, a n d so o n e r o r later he has to
re alise it. In ph y sics w e h a v e o u tg ro w n a rc h e r a n d apple-pie definitions
o f th e fu n d a m e n ta l sy m b o ls. T o a re q u e s t to e x p la in w h a t an electron
re a lly is supposed to b e w e c a n o n ly a n sw e r, I t is p a rt of the A B C of
p h y sic s . (149) a . S. EDDINGTON

N o previous e xisting s y s te m o f th o u g h t h a d p ro p e rly form ed a working

h y p o th e s is to explain w h y fo r t h is or t h a t in d iv id u a l it w as necessary to
go u p th re e s te p s o r e lse b e c o n s tip a te d , " o r t o t a k e pills in multiples of
o r o th e r a n a lo g o u s sy m p to m s w h ic h will o c c u r to th e reader and
w h ich a re found in b e w ild e rin g p ro fu sio n in all p a th o lo g ic a l cases, be they
h y ste ria s, or c o m p u lsio n n e u ro se s, ph o b ias, sch izo p h ren ias, or what not.
(241) SMITH ELY JELLIFFE

T h e D orm ouse . . . w e n t o n : th a t b egins w ith an M , such as mouse*

tr a p s , and^ th e m oon, a n d m em o ry , a n d m u c h n e ssyou know you say
th in g s a re m u ch of a m u ch n ess* did y o u ever se e su c h a thing as a draw
in g of a m u ch n ess!
t h i n ^ e a !!^ now you a s k m e , sa id A lice, v e ry m u c h confused, I dont

T h e n you sh o u ld n t t a l k , s a id th e H a tte r.* * l e w is Ca rro ll

4.1212 W h a t can b e sh o w n cannot b e said. (590) l . W ittgenstein'

M t e i f w o M a Z ? fGeneral Yale Univ. Press.

 PART VII

ON THE MECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

/ ^ There should b e n o th e o re tic a l o b je c tio n t o th e h y p o th esis of th e fo rm a

/ tion of new p h y sio lo g ic a l p a th s a n d new c o n n e c tio n s w ithin th e c e re b ra l
hemispheres. (394) p ^ vlov
r\
It seems d e sira b le in t h is place t o c le a rly e m p h a siz e th e fa ct th a t in th e
use of p sy ch o an aly sis w e a r e d e alin g solely w ith a m eth o d for gaining d a ta .
One occasionally h e a rs t h e s ta te m e n t t h a t p sy c h o a n aly sis is nonsense. A
method, or a to o l, is n o t nonsense. (241) smith ely j e l l i f f e

It is by m eans o f in te r n a l in h ib itio n t h a t t h e signalizing a c tiv ity o f th e

hemispheres is c o n s ta n tly c o rre c te d a n d p e rfe c te d . (394) I. p. p a v l o v

We are d ealin g h e re w ith ty p e s of a sso c ia tiv e reaction peculiar t o th e

cortical system , c o r re c tly opposed to th e u n q u a lifie d affective re a c tiv ity
of the th alam u s a n d u se fu lly an aly se d by H e a d . <4 1 1) h e n r i p iIs ro n

This exam ple a n d o th e r o b se rv a tio n s su g g e st t h a t a g radual d ev elo p m en t

of internal in h ib itio n in t h e c o rte x should b e used for re-estab lish m en t of
the balance of n o rm a l c o n d itio n s in cases of a n u n b a la n ce d nervous sy s te m .
(394) I. P. PAV LO V

A self-satisfied ra tio n a lis m is in effect a fo rm of an ti-ratio n alism . It

means an a r b itr a r y h a lt a t a p a rtic u la r s e t o f a b stra c tio n s. (575)
A. N . W H IT E H E A D
. . . t h e f a l l a c y o f m i s p l a c e d c o n c r e t e n e s s . . . c o n s i s t s i n n c g l e c t i n g t h e
d e g re e o f a b s t r a c t i o n i n v o l v e d w h e n a n a c t u a l e n t i t y is c o n s i d e r e d m e r e l y
so fa r a s i t e x e m p l i f i e s c e r t a i n c a t e g o r i e s o f t h o u g h t . (578)
A. N . W H IT E H E A D
In th e G arden o f E d e n A dam sa w th e a n im a ls before he nam ed th e m :
in the tra d itio n a l sy s te m , c h ild ren nam ed t h e a n im a ls before th e y saw
them. (575) . A. N . W H IT E H E A D
The n e g a t i v e j u d g m e n t i s t h e p e a k o f m e n t a l i t y . (578) A. n . w h i t e h e a d

369
 C H A PT E R X X IV

O N A B S T R A C T IN G

. . . to be a n a b s tr a c tio n does n o t m e a n t h a t a n e n tity is no th in g . It

merely m eans t h a t its e x iste n ce is o nly o n e fa c to r o f a m ore co n crete ele
ment of nature. (573)
A . N . W H IT E H E A D

Aristotle, in b u ild in g his theories, h a d at his disposal, besides his

personal gifts, a g o o d education acco rd in g to his day and the science
current in 400-300 B .C . E v e n in those d a y s, the Greek language was a
very elaborate affa ir. A risto tle an d his fo llo w ers simply took th is lan
guage for granted. T h e problem s o f th e s tru c tu re of language and its
effect on s.r had n o t y et arisen. T o them , th e language they used was
the (unique) language. W h e n I use th e e x p re ssio n the language, I do
not mean anything connected w ith the lan g u age, as G reek; I m ean only
the structure of it, w hich was m uch sim ila r in the other national lan
guages of this g ro u p . T h e language A ris to tle inherited was o f great
antiquity, and o rig in a te d in periods w h e n knowledge was still more
scanty. Being a k e e n observer, an d scientifically and methodologically
inclined, he took th is language fo r g ra n te d and system atized th e modes
of speaking. T h is system atization was called logic. The prim itive
structural m etaphysics u n d erly in g th is in h e rite d language, and expressed
in its structure, b ecam e also the philosophical background of th is sys
tem. The su b ject-p red icate form , th e is o f identity, and the elem ental
ism of the ^ -s y s te m a re p erhaps th e m ain sem antic factors in need of
revision, as they a r e fo u n d to be th e fo u n d a tio n of the insufficiency of
this system and re p re se n t th e m echanism o f sem antic disturbances, m ak
ing general a d ju stm e n t a n d sanity im possible. These doctrines have
come down to us, a n d th ro u g h th e m echanism o f language the sem antic
disturbing factors a r e fo rced upon our ch ild ren . A whole procedure of
training in delusional v alues w as thus s ta rte d fo r future generations.
As the w ork o f A risto tle w as, at his date, the most advanced and
scientific, quite n a tu ra lly its influence w as w ide-spread. In those days,
no one spoke of th is influence as lin g u istic, involving s.r. A risto tle s
work was, and still is, spoken of as philosophy, and w e speak mostly
of the influence o f A philosophy ra th e r th an o f the A stru c tu re of
language, and its sem an tic influence.
As we have a lre a d y seen, w hen we m ak e any proposition w hatsoever
we involve creeds, o r m etaphysics, which a r e embodied silently as struc
tural assumptions a n d in o u r undefined te rm s. T h e use of te rm s not
371
 VII. TH E M ECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

definable in sim pler te rm s a t a given date is inherent and seemingly

unavoidable.
W h e n our p rim itiv e a n cesto rs w ere b u ild in g t h d r language, quite
n a tu ra lly they started w ith th e low est o rd ers o f abstractions, which are
th e m ost im m ediately c o n n ec te d w ith the o u tsid e world. They estab
lish ed a language of se n s a tio n s . L ike in fan ts, they identified their feel
in g s w ith the outside w o rld a n d personified m o st of the outside events.
T h is prim itive sem an tic tendency resu lted in the building of a lan
g u a g e in which th e is o f id e n tity was fu n d a m en ta l. I f we saw an animal
a n d called it d o g and sa w an o th er anim al ro u g h ly resembling the first,
w e said, quite happily, it is a dog, fo rg e ttin g o r not knowing that the
o b jectiv e level is u n -speakable an d th a t w e d eal only with absolute indi
vid u als, each one d iffe ren t fro m the other. T h u s the mechanism of
identification o r c o n fu sio n of orders of ab stractio n s, natural at a very
p rim itiv e stage o f h u m an developm ent, becam e systematized and struc
tu ra lly em bodied in th is m o st im portant tool o f daily use called lan
g u a g e . H av in g to deal w ith m any objects, th e y had to have names for
o b jects. T hese nam es w e re substan tiv es. T h e y built substantives,
gram m atically speaking, f o r o th e r feelings w h ich w ere not substantives,
( c o lo u r, heat, soul, . ) . Ju d g in g by the lo w er o rd er abstractions, they
b u ilt adjectives and m ade a com pletely an th ropom orphised world-picture.
S p e a k in g about speaking, let u s be perfectly a w a re from the beginning
th a t, w h en we m ake th e sim p lest statem ent o f any sort, this statement
a lre a d y presupposes so m e k in d of stru c tu ra l metaphysics. The early
v a g u e feelings and savage speculations about th e structure of this world,
b ased on prim itive insufficient scientific data, w a s influencing the building
o f th e language. O nce th e language w as built, a n d , particularly, systema
tized , th ese prim itive s tru c tu ra l m etaphysics a n d s.r had to be projected
o r reflected on th e o u tsid e w o rld a p ro c e d u re w hich became habitual
a n d autom atic.
W a s such a lan g u age stru c tu ra lly reliable a n d safe ? I f w e investigate,
w e can easily become co n v in ced that it was n o t. L et us take three pails
o f w a t e r ; the first at th e te m p e ra tu re of 10 centigrade, the second at
3 0 , and the th ird at 5 0 . L e t us p u t the le ft h and in the first pail and
th e rig h t in the third . I f w e presen tly w ith d ra w the left hand from the
firs t pail and p u t it in th e second, we feel how nicely warm the water in
th e second pail is. B ut, if w e w ith d ra w the rig h t hand from the third
p ail and put it in the second, w e notice ho w cold the water is. The
te m p e ra tu re of th e w a te r in th e second pail w a s practically not different
in th e tw o cases, yet o u r feelin g s registered a m arked difference. The
difference in the feel d e p e n d e d on th e fo rm e r conditions to which our
 O N ABSTRACTING 373

hands had been su b je c te d . T h u s, we see th a t a language of senses is

not a very reliable lan g u ag e, and th a t we c a n n o t depend on it f o r general
purposes of evaluation.
How about th e te rm dog ? T h e n u m b e r o f individuals w ith which
any one is directly acq u ain ted is, by necessity, limited, and usually is
small. Let us im ag in e th a t som eone h ad dealt only w ith good-natured
dogs, and had n e v e r been bitten by any o f them . N ext he sees som e ani
mal; he says, T h is is a d o g ; his asso ciatio n s (relatio n s) do n o t suggest
a bite; he approaches th e anim al and b e g in s to play w ith him , and is
bitten. W as the sta te m e n t this is a d o g a safe statem ent? O bviously
not. He approached th e anim al w ith sem an tic expectations an d evalua
tion of his verbal d efin itio n , but w as bitten by the non-verbal, un-speakable
objective level, w h ic h has differen t ch aracteristics.
Judging by p re se n t stan d ard s, know ledge in the days of A ristotle
was very meagre. I t w as com paratively easy 2300 years ago to sum
marize the few fa c ts know n, a n d so to build generalizations which
would cover those fe w facts.
If we attem pt to b u ild a ^ -sy s te m , 1933; can we escape th e difficul- f
ties which beset A ris to tle ? T h e an sw er is th a t som e difficulties a re avoid
able, but that som e a re in h eren t in the s tru c tu re of hum an know ledge,
and so cannot be e n tire ly evaded. W e can, how ever, invent new m ethods
by which the h a rm fu l sem antic effect of th e se lim itations can be success
fully eliminated.
There is no e scap e fro m the fact th a t w e m u st start with undefined
terms which ex p ress silent, stru ctu ral creed s o r m etaphysics. If .w e state
our undefined te rm s explicitly, w e, at least, m ake our m etaphysics con
scious and public, a n d so w e facilitate criticism , co -operation,. T h e m od
ern undefined scientific term s, such as o r d e r , fo r instance, underlie the
exact sciences and o u r w id e r w orld-outlook. W e must start w ith these
undefined term s as w ell as th e m odern stru c tu ra l w orld-outlook as given
by science, 1933. T h a t settles the im p o rta n t sem antic point of o u r struc
tural metaphysics. I t need hardly be em phasized th a t in a hum an class of
life, where creeds a r e characterized by h a v in g dates, they should always
be labelled with th is d a te . F o r sanity, the creeds utilized in 1933 should
be of the/issue of 1 9 3 3 /^
Now as to th e s tr u c tu re of o u r language. W h at structure shall we
give to our language ? S h all we keep the o ld stru cture, w ith all its prim i
tive implications a n d co rresp o n d in g s.r, o r shall we deliberately build a
language of new s tru c tu re which will c a rry new m odern implications
and^.r? There seem s to be only one reasonable choice. F o r a /^-system ,
we must build a n e w language. W e m ust ab an d o n the is of identity, to
 VII. T H E MECHANISM O F TIME-BINDING

say th e least. W e h a v e a lre ad y seen th at w e have an excellent substitute

in an actional, b e h a v io u ristic , operational, functional language. This type
o f language involves m o d e rn asy m m etrical implications of order, and
elim inates th e is o f id e n tity , w hich a lw ay s introduces false evaluation.
T o these fu n d a m e n ta l sta rtin g p o in ts, we m ust add the principle
th a t o u r language s h o u ld b e of non-el stru c tu re . W ith these minimum
sem antic re q u ire m e n ts, w e a re read y to proceed.
L e t us tak e a n y o b je c t o f o rd in a ry ex p erience, let us say the one we
u su ally call a p en cil, a n d let us briefly an aly se our nervous relationship
to it. W e can see it, to u c h it, sm ell it, ta s te i t ., and use it in different
w ays. Is an y o f th e re la tio n sh ip s ju s t m en tio n ed an all-embracingone,
o r is o u r acq u ain tan ce th ro u g h an y o f th em only partial? Obviously,each
o f th ese m eans p ro v id e s a n acquaintance w ith this object which is not
only partial, b u t is a lso specific f o r th e n e rv e centres which are engaged.
T h u s, w hen w e look a t th e object, we d o n o t get odor or taste stimuli,
b u t only visual s t im u li, .
I f the object w e call pencil w ere ly in g on the surface of this paper
an d w e w ere to look a t it along th e su rfa c e o f the paper in a perpendicu
la r d irection to its le n g th , it w ould g en erally be seen as an elongated
o b ject, pointed at o n e end. B ut, if w e w e re to observe it along the plane
o f th e pap er at rig h t a n g les to o u r fo rm e r direction, it would be seen as
a disk. T h is illu s tra tio n is rough, b u t se rv e s to show' that the acquain
tan ce derived th r o u g h a n y specific m eans (e.g., vision) is also partial in
an o th e r s e n s e ; it v a rie s w ith th e p o s itio n . , of any specified observer,
S m ith , or a cam era.
F u rth e rm o re , a n y g iv en m ean s p ro v id es, fo r different observers,
d ifferen t a c q u ain tan ces. T h u s, vision sh o w s the pencil to one observer,
S m ith , as a p ointed ro d , a n d to a n o th e r o b serv er, Jones, as a disk. Feel
ing, th ro u g h o th er re c e p to rs , is ju s t as d ep e n d e n t upon m a n y conditions;
a n d d ifferen t o b se rv e rs receive d ifferen t im pressions. This is wdl illus
tra te d by th e fa m ilia r tale o f the five b lin d m en and the elephant.
Because o f d iffe re n c es in sensitiv ity in the receptors of S m ith s and
B ro w n s (p a rtia l c o lo u r-b lin d n e ss, a stig m atism , far-sightedness.,)( ^
given m eans of a c q u a in ta n c e (e.g ., v is io n ) gives to different observers
d ifferen t re p o rts o f th e o n e object. T h e acquaintance is thus personal
an d individual.
A gain, th e re p o rts received th ro u g h particular channels are influ
enced by th e kind o f re p o rts that have a lre a d y come through that channel
T o one w ho has n o t seen tre e s fre q u e n tly , a spruce and a b a l s a m are not
seen to be d iffe re n t. T h e y are ju s t e v e rg re en s. With better educated
seeing, this in d iv id u a l la te r d ifferen tiates, perhaps, four kinds of spruce.
 O N ABSTRACTING 375

Because of this fa c to r o f experience, the resp o n se of each individual to

similar external stim u li is individual W e can only agree on colours,
shapes, distances. , by ig n o rin g th e fact th a t th e effect of th e sam e'
stimulus is different in d ifferen t ind iv id u als. Besides that, we have no
accurate means of c o m p a rin g o u r im pressions.
The time fa c to r e n te rs, in th a t we c a n n o t become acquainted with
our pencil on all s id e s at once. N o r can w e observe the outer fo rm and
the inner structure a t th e sam e time*. W e m ay even neglect to exam ine
the inner structure e n tire ly . E ven m ore im p o rta n t is the fact th at all our
means together give u s only a partial and p e rso n a l acquaintance w ith the
pencil. Continually w e invent e x tra -n e u ra l m eans which reveal new
characteristics and fin e r detail. N o r is th is process ever completed. No
one can ever acquire a com plete acq u ain tan ce w ith even so sim ple an
object as a pencil. T h e chem istry, th e physics, th e uses of the v a rie tie s .,
offer fields of acq u ain tan ce th at can be e x te n d e d indefinitely. N a tu re is
inexhaustible; the e v e n ts hav e infinite n u m b e rs o f characteristics, and
this accounts for th e w ealth an d infinite n u m b e rs o f possibilities in nature.
I used the w o rd acq u ain tan ce deliberately, because it seems vague,
and, as yet, el gam bling on w ords have n o t spoiled this term . I h ad to
avoid the el terms se n se s a n d m in d as m u ch as possible in this analysis.
If we recall the e x a m p le o f p ap er roses in the case o f hay fe v e r, we
shall realize that th e te rm s senses and m in d are not reliable, p articu
larly in humans. A s a fu r th e r instance, w e have but to rem em ber the
experiment with n e w sp a p e r headlines, also cited earlier.
We become b e tte r acquainted w ith th e object by exploring it in
manifold ways, and b u ild in g for ourselves d iffe re n t pictures, all partial,
and supplied by d ire c t o r indirect contact w ith different nerve cen
tres. In these ex p lo ratio n s, different nerve cen tres supply their specific
responses to the d iffe re n t stim uli. O th e r h ig h e r nerve centres sum m arize
them, eliminate w e a k e r details, an d so, g rad u ally , our acquaintance
becomes fuller w hile y e t rem ain in g specific a n d partial, and the sem antic
problems of evaluation, m eanings, begin to b e im portant.
If we try to se le c t a te rm w hich w o u ld describe stru c tu ra lly the
processes which a re e sse n tia l fo r o u r a c q u a in ta n ce with the object, we
should select a term w hich im plies non-allness and the specificity of
the response to the stim u li.
If we pass fro m such a prim itive level to a level of 1933, and
enquire w'hat we a c tu a lly kn o w about an o b je c t an d the stru ctu re of its
material, we find th a t in 1933 we know positively th a t the internal stru c
ture of materials is v e ry d iffe re n t from w h a t we gather by our rough
senses on the m acroscopic level. I t ap pears o f a dynam ic character and
 VII. THE M ECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

o f an extrem ely fine s tru c tu re , w hich n either lig h t, n o r the nerve centres
affected by light, can re g iste r.
W h a t we see is s tru c tu ra lly only a specific statistical mass-effect of
h ap p en in g s on a m uch finer g rain ed level. W e see w hat we see because
w e m iss all th e finer d e ta ils. F o r o u r pu rp o se, it is usually enough to
d eal only w ith s ig h t; th is sim plifies w ritin g , and th e comments made
a p p ly to all oth er se n se s, th o u g h perhaps in d iffe re n t degrees.
In 1933, in o u r h u m a n econom y, we h a v e to take into account at
le a st th re e levels. T h e o ne is th e sub-m icroscopic level of science, what
science know s about i t . T h e second is th e g ross macroscopic, daily
ex p erien ce level o f ro u g h objects. T h e th ird is th e verbal level.
W e m ust also ev alu a te a n im portant se m an tic issue; namely, the
re la tiv e im portance o f th ese three levels. W e know already that to
becom e acquainted w ith an object, w e m ust n o t only explore it from all
possible points o f view a n d p u t it in contact w ith as many nerve centres
a s we can, as th is is a n essential condition o f know ing, but we must
also n o t forget th a t o u r n e rv e centres m ust su m m arize the different par
tia l, abstracted, specific p ic tu re s. In th e h u m a n class of life, we find a
n ew facto r, n o n -ex isten t in an y other form o f lif e ; namely, that we have
a capacity to collect all k n o w n experiences o f d iffe re n t individuals. Such
a capacity increases en o rm o u sly the nu m b er o f observations a single
in d iv id u al can handle, a n d so o u r ac q u ain tan ce w ith the world around,
a n d in, us becomes m u c h m o re refined and e x ac t. T his capacity, which
_^I call th e tim e-binding capacity, is only possible because, in distinction
fro m Ure^imtfnaTs, w e~haW 5volved, o r p erfec ted , extra-neural means by
w hich, w ithout alte rin g o u r nervous system , w e can refine its operation
a n d expand its scope. O u r scientific in stru m e n ts record what ordinarily
w e cannot see, h e a r ,. O u r n eu ral verbal c e n tre s allow us to exchange
a n d accum ulate experiences, although no on e could live through all of
t h e m ; an d they w ould b e soon fo rg o tten if w e had no neural and extra-
n e u ra l m eans to record th em .
A g ain the o rg an ism w o rk s as-a-w hole. A ll form s of h u m a n activi
tie s are interconnected. I t is im possible to select a special characteristic
a n d tre a t it in a d elu sional el isolation as th e m ost important. Science
becom es an e x tra -n e u ral ex ten sio n o f th e h u m a n nervous system.
m ig h t expect th e s tru c tu re o f th e nervous system to throw some light on
th e stru ctu re o f sc ie n c e; a n d , vice versa, the stru c tu re of science might
elucidate the w orking o f th e h u m an nervous system .
T h is fact is very im p o rta n t, sem antically, and usually is not suffi
ciently em phasized or a n a ly se d enough. W h e n we take these u n d e n ia b le
fa c ts into account, we fin d th e resu lts already reached to be quite n atu ral
 ON ABSTRACTING 377

and necessary, a n d w e u n d erstan d b e tte r w hy an individual cannot be

considered entirely sane if he is wholly ig n o ra n t of scientific m ethod and
structure, and so re ta in s prim itive s.r.
For a theory o f sanity, all th ree levels are im portant. O u r senses
react as they do because they are united as-a-w hole in one living struc
ture, which has poten tialities o r capacities fo r language and science.
If we enqu ire w h at we do in science, we find that we observe
silently and then reco rd o u r observations verbally. From a neurological
point of view, w e a b stra c t w hatever we a n d th e instrum ents c a n ; then
we summarize; a n d , finally, w e generalize, by which we m ean the
processes of a b stra c tin g carried fu rth er.
In our acq u ain tan ce w ith daily objects, we do substantially a sim ilar
thing. W e ab stract w h atev er we can, a n d , according to the degree o f
intelligence and in fo rm a tio n we have, w e sum m arize and generalize.
From the psychophysiological point of view , the ignorant is neurologically
deficient. But to k n o w o r to believe so m eth in g which is false to facts
is still more d an g ero u s an d akin to delusions, as psychiatry a n d daily
experience teach u s.1 I t is a neurological fallacy to treat science in
isolation and d isre g a rd its psychophysiological role.
In the b uilding of o u r language, a sim ilar neurological process
becomes evident. I f we w ere to see a series o f different individuals,
W'hom we might call S m ith , Brow n, J o n e s . , we could, by a process of
abstracting the characteristics, segregate th e individuals by sizes o r
colours.; then, b y concentration on one characteristic and disregarding
the others, we could build classes o r h igher abstractions, such as w hites,
blacks, . A b stractin g again, w ith rejection o f the colour d iffe re n c e ., we
would finally reach th e te rm m an. T his p ro ced u re is general.
Anthropological stu d ies show clearly how th e degree of culture'
among primitive p eoples can be m easured by th e orders of the abstrac
tions they have p ro d u ced . Prim itive languages a re characterized p articu
larly by an enorm ous num ber of names fo r individual objects. Some
savage races have n am es fo r a pine or an o a k ., b u t have no tree, which
is a higher ab straction fro m pines, oaks, . Some other t.ibes have the
term tree, but d o n o t hav e a still higher abstraction woods. I t does
not need much em p h asis to see th at h ig h er abstractions are extrem ely
expedient devices. T h e re is an enorm ous economy which facilitates
mutual u n derstanding in being able to be b rief in a statem ent a n d yet
cover wider subjects.
Let us consider a prim itive statem ent I have seen tr e e i, follow ed
by a description o f th e individual characteristics I have seen tree2\ with
minute individual d e s c rip tio n ., w here tre e i, tre e 2 . , stand for nam es of
 VII. TH E M ECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

o f an extrem ely fine s tru c tu re , w hich n eith er lig h t, n o r the nerve centres
affected by light, can re g iste r. _
W h a t we see is s tru c tu ra lly only a specific statistical nmss-effect of
h appenings on a m uch fin er g rain ed level. W e see w hat we see because
w e m iss all the finer d etails. F o r o u r p u rp o se, it is usually enough to
deal only w ith s ig h t; th is sim plifies w ritin g , an d th e comments made
ap p ly to all other se n se s, th o u g h perhaps in d iffe re n t degrees.
In 1933, in o u r h u m a n econom y, we h a v e to take into account at
least th ree levels. T h e o n e is th e sub-m icroscopic level of science, what
science know s about i t . T h e second is th e g ross macroscopic, daily
experience level of ro u g h objects. T h e th ird is th e verbal level.
W e m ust also e v a lu ate an im portant sem a n tic issue; namely, the
relativ e im portance o f th ese three levels. W e know already that to
becom e acquainted w ith an object, w e m ust n o t only explore it from all
possible points o f view a n d p u t it in contact w ith as many nerve centres
a s w e can, as this is a n essential condition o f know ing, but we must
also not forget th at o u r n e rv e centres m ust su m m arize the different par
tial, abstracted, specific p ic tu re s. In th e h u m a n class of life, we find a
new facto r, n o n -ex isten t in an y other form o f l i f e ; namely, that we have
a capacity to collect all k n o w n experiences o f d ifferen t individuals. Such
a capacity increases en o rm o u sly th e n u m b er o f observations a single
in d iv id u al can handle, a n d so o u r acq u ain ta n ce w ith the wrorld around,
a n d in, us becomes m u ch m o re refined and ex a ct. T his capacity, which
I call th e tim e-binding capacity, is only possible because, in distinction
fro m the^animaTs, we~have"~evWed, o r p e rfe c te d , extra-neural means by
w hich, w ithout a lte rin g o u r nervous system , w e can refine its operation
a n d expand its scope. O u r scientific in stru m e n ts record what o rd in a rily
w e cannot see, h e a r ,. O u r neu ral verbal c e n tre s allow us to exchange
a n d accum ulate ex periences, although no o n e could live through all of
t h e m ; an d they w ould b e soon fo rg o tten if w e had no neural and extra-
n e u ra l m eans to record them .
A gain the o rg an ism w o rk s as-a-w hole. A ll form s of h u m a n activi
tie s are interconnected. I t is im possible to select a special characteristic
a n d tre a t it in a delu sional el isolation as th e m ost important. Science
becom es an e x tra -n e u ra l ex tension o f the h u m a n nervous system.
m ig h t expect th e s tru c tu re o f th e nervous sy stem to throw some light on
th e stru ctu re o f s c ie n c e ; an d , vice versa, th e stru ctu re of science might
elucidate the w orking o f th e h um an nervous system .
T h is fact is very im p o rta n t, sem antically, and usually is not suffi
ciently em phasized or an a ly se d enough. W h e n we take these u n d en iab le
fa c ts in to account, we fin d th e resu lts already reached to be quite natural
 ON a b s t r a c t i n g 377
and necessary, and w e u n d e rsta n d b e tte r w h y a n individual cannot be
considered entirely sa n e if h e is w holly ig n o ra n t o f scientific m eth o d and
structure, and so re ta in s p rim itiv e s.r.
For a theory o f san ity , all th re e levels a re im portant. O u r senses
react as they do b ecau se th e y are united a s-a-w h o le in one living struc
ture, which has p o te n tia litie s o r capacities fo r language and science.
If we enquire w h a t w e do in science, we find th a t we observe*
silently and then re c o rd o u r observations verb a lly. From a neurological
point of view, we a b s tra c t w hatev er we a n d the instrum ents c a n ; then
we summarize; a n d , finally, w e generalize, by which we m ean the
processes of a b stractin g carried fu rth e r.
In our acquaintance w ith daily o b jects, w e do substantially a sim ilar
thing. W e abstract w h a te v e r we can, a n d , according to the degree of
intelligence and in fo rm a tio n we have, w e sum m arize and generalize.
From the psychophysiological point of view , th e ignorant is neurologically
deficient. But to k n o w o r to believe so m eth in g which is false to facts
is still more d an g ero u s a n d akin to delusions, as psychiatry a n d daily
experience teach u s .1 I t is a neurological fallacy to tre a t science in
isolation and d isre g a rd its psychophysiological role.
In the building of o u r language, a sim ilar neurological process
becomes evident. I f we w ere to see a se rie s o f different individuals,
whom we might call S m ith , B row n, J o n e s . , w e could, by a process of
abstracting the c h aracteristics, segregate th e individuals by sizes o r
colours.; then, by concentration on one characteristic and disregarding
the others, we could build classes o r hig h er abstractions, such as w hites,
blacks, . A bstracting again, writh rejection o f the colour d ifferen ce., we
would finally reach th e te rm m an. T his p ro c e d u re is general.
Anthropological stu d ies show clearly how th e degree of culture
among primitive peoples can be m easured by the orders of the abstrac
tions they have p ro d u ced . P rim itive languages are characterized p articu
larly by an enorm ous num ber of names fo r individual objects. Some
savage races have nam es fo r a pine o r an o a k ., b u t have no tree , which
is a higher abstraction fro m pines, oaks, . Som e other t.ibes have the
term tree, but d o n o t hav e a still higher abstraction woods. I t does
not need much em phasis to see th a t h ig h er abstractions are extrem ely
expedient devices. T h e re is an enorm ous economy which facilitates
mutual u n derstanding in being able to be b rief in a statem ent a n d yet
cover wider subjects.
Let us consider a prim itive statem ent I have seen tree!, follow ed
by a description o f the individual characteristics I have seen tree 2\ with
minute individual d e sc rip tio n ., w here tre e i, tree 2 . , stand for nam es of
 VII. TH E M ECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

th e individual trees. I f a n ev en t of interest h a d happened in a place

w h ere th e re w ere a h u n d re d tre e s, it w ould ta k e a long while to observe
fa irly w ell the individual tree s and still lo nger to give an approximate
d escrip tio n of them . S u c h a m ethod is no n -ex p ed ien t, fundamentally
e n d le ss; th e m echanism is cum bersom e, involves m any irrelevant charac
te ris tic s ; and it is im possible to ex p ress in a fe w w o rd s much that might
be im portant. P ro g re ss m u st be s lo w ; the g e n e ra l level of development
o f a given race o r in d iv id u al m u st be low. I t sh o u ld be noticed that the
p ro b lem o f evaluation e n te rs, a t once im p ly in g m any most important
psycho-logical and sem an tic processes. S im ila r rem arks apply to the
a b s tra c tin g of in fan ts, m e n ta lly deficient g ro w n -u p s, and some men
ta lly ill.
Indeed, as th e re a d e rs of m y M anhood o f H u m a n ity already know,
th e h um an class of lif e is chiefly d iffe re n tia ted from animals by its
ra p id ra te of p rogress th ro u g h the ra p id ra te o f accumulation of past
ex p erien ces. T h is is p ossible only w hen e x p e d ie n t m eans of communi
catio n a re estab lish ed ; th a t is, w hen h ig h er a n d h ig h er orders of abstrac
tio n s are w orked out.
A ll scientific law s, a n d o th e r generalizatio n s o f higher order (even
single w o rd s), are p recisely such m ethods of expediency, and represent
ab stra c tio n s of very h ig h o rd e r. T hey are u n iq u e ly important because
th e y accelerate p ro g ress a n d h elp the fu rth e r su m m arizing and abstract
in g of results achieved b y o th ers. N aturally, th is process of abstracting
h a s also unique practical consequences. W h e n chem ical elements were
p e rm a n e n t and im m utable, o u r physics a n d chem istry were much
undeveloped. W ith the a d v e n t o f higher ab stra ctio n s, such as the monis
tic and general dynam ic th e o rie s of all m a tte r an d electricity, unitary
field th e o rie s ., the c re a tiv e freedom of science and the control over
n a tu r e have increased e n o rm o u sly an d will in c re ase still more.
P sy ch iatry also seem s to give data in d icatin g th at mental illnesses
a r e connected eith er w ith a rre ste d developm ent or with regression to
phylogenetically older a n d m o re prim itive levels, all of which, of course,
involves low er o rd e r a b stra c tio n s. F ro m the p o in t of view of a theory of
san ity , a sharp d ifferen tiatio n betw een m an a n d anim al becomes im
p erativ e. F o r w ith m a n , th e lack o f know ledge of this difference may
le a d to th e copying of a n im a ls, w hich w ould involve semantic regression
a n d ultim ately become a m e n ta l illness.
A lthough o rg an ism s have had acq u ain tan ce w ith objects for many
h u n d re d s or thousands o f m illions of years, the higher abstractions
w hich characterize m a n a re o nly a few h u n d re d s of thousands of ycaf5
old. As a result, the n e rv o u s c u rre n ts have a n a tu ra l tendency to select
 ON ABSTRACTING 379

the older, m ore travelled, nervous p a th s. E ducation should counteract

this tendency w hich, fro m a hum an p o in t of view, represents regression
or under-developm ent.
By now w e know how im portant it is fo r a A -system to abandon
the older im plications an d adopt an actional, behaviouristic, operational,
or functional language. O n the neurological level, w hat the nervous sys-
lHLdo is a b s tractin g, of w hich the s iim m a ri^ Hnn, m tpgratm n , ,
only special aspects. H ence, I select th e te rm abstracting as fundam ental.
T h e stan d ard m eaning of ab stra c t, abstracting implies selecting,
picking out, se p a ra tin g , sum m arizing, deducting, rem oving, om it
ting, disengaging, tak in g aw ay , strip p in g , and, as an adjective, not
concrete. W e see th a t the term a b stra c tin g implies structurally and
semantically th e activities characteristic o f th e nervous system, and so
serves as an ex cellen t fu n c tio n a l p hysiological terni.
T here are o th e r reasons fo r m aking the term abstracting funda
mental, which, fro m a practical point o f view, are im portant. A bad
habit cannot be easily elim inated except by form ing a new semantic
counter-reaction. A ll o f us have some undesirable but thoroughly estab
lished linguistic habits and s.r which have become almost autom atic,
overloaded w ith unconscious em otional evaluation. This is th e reason
wrhy new n o n-system s are, in the beginning, so extremely difficult to
acquire. W e hav e to break down the old stru ctural habits before we can
acquire the new s.r. T h e E geom etries o r the N systems a re not any
more difficult th a n the older systems w ere. P erhaps they are even simpler.
The m ain sem antic difficulty, fo r those accustomed to the old, consists
in breaking the old structural linguistic habits, in becoming once more
flexible and receptive in feelings, and in acquiring new s.r. Sim ilar
remarks apply in a m ore m arked degree to a A -system. The m ajo rity of
us have very little to do directly with E o r N systems (although indirectly
we all have a good deal to do w ith th e m ). B ut all of us live o u r imme
diate lives in a h u m an w orld still desperately A . Hence a ^ -sy stem , no
matter what benefits it m ay give, is much handicapped by the old semantic
blockages.
In building such a system, this n a tu ra l resistance or persistence of
the old s.r m ust be taken into consideration and, if possible, counter
acted. One of th e m ost pernicious bad habits which we have acquired
emotionally fro m the old language is th e feeling of allness, of con
creteness, in connection with the is of identity and elementalism. O ne
of the main poin ts in th e present A -system is first to remove entirely
from o u r s.r th is allness and concreteness, both of which are struc
turally unjustified and lead to identification, absolutism, dogm atism , and
380 VII. TH E M ECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

c d istu rb a n ce s. U sually, the te rm abstract is contrasted

w hich is connected w ith som e vague feeling of allness.
.e fu n c tio n a l te rm abstracting fundam ental, we establish a
m o st efficient sem antic co u n te r-reac tio n to rep la ce the older terms which
h a d such vicious s tr n c tm ^ U m p lic a tio n s._ In d e e d , it is comparatively easy
to accept the term ^ a b stra c tio n s of different ~ o rd ers^ and any one who
does so will see how m u c h clarity a n d how ffilich semantic balance he
w ill autom atically a cq u ire.
F ro m a non-el p o in t o f view , th e te rm abstracting is also very-
sa tisfa c to ry . T h e s tr u c tu r e o f the nervous sy stem is in ordered levels,
a n d all levels go th ro u g h th e process o f a b stra c tin g from the other levels.
T h e term im plies a g e n e ra l activity, not on ly of the nervous system
as-a-w hole, b u t even o f all living protoplasm , as already explained. The
characteristic activities o f th e nervous system , such as summarizing,
in te g r a tin g ., a re also in clu d ed by im plication.
I f we w ish to u se o u r term s in the stric tly non-el way, we must
a b a n d o n the older division o f physiological ab stractio n s, which implies
b o d y , and of m ental a b stra c tio n s, which, in tu rn , implies mind, both
ta k e n in an el w ay. W e can easily do that by postulating abstractions of
d iffe re n t orders. W e sh o u ld notice th at th e above use of the term
a b stra c tin g differs fro m th e old usage. T h e sem antic difference is in
u n itin g all the ab strac tio n s o u r nervous system perform s under the one
te rm , an d in d istin g u ish in g betw een d ifferen t abstractions by the order
o f them , which is fu n c tio n ally , as well as stru c tu ra lly , justified.
T h e term first o r d e r ab strac tio n s or ab stractio n s of lower order
d o es n o t distinguish b etw e en body and m in d . Practically, it corres
p o n d s roughly to se n ses o r im m ediate feelings, except that by implica
tio n it does not elim inate ,m in d >. N e ith er does the term abstractions of
h ig h e r o rd ers elim inate b o d y or senses, although it corresponds
ro u g h ly to m en tal processes.
F ro m the point o f view o f o rd e r, the te rm abstracting has a great
deal in its favor. W e have seen w h at serio u s structural and s e m a n tic
im poi tance the term o r d e r has, a n d how th e activity of the n e rv o u s
system has to be spoken o f in term s of o rd e r. I f we establish t h e term
ab stra c tin g as fu n d am en tal f o r its general sem antic implications, w e can
easily m ake th e m ean in g s m o re definite a n d specific in each case by
h av in g abstractions of d iffe re n t o rd e rs.
W e have seen also th a t th e term s we select should involve environ
m e n t by im plication: it is n o t difficult to see th a t the term abstracting
im plies abstracting fro m som ething and so involves the e n v ir o n m e n t
a s an implication.
 ON ABSTRACTING 381

T he term abstractions o f differen t o rd e rs is, in this w ork, as

fundamental a s th e term tim e-b in d in g w as in the au th o rs earlier
Manhood o f H u m a n ity . H ence, it is impossible to be comprehensive
about it at this s ta g e ; m ore will be forthcom ing as we proceed.
B ut we h av e alread y come to som e im portant semantic results. W e
have selected o u r stru ctu ral m etaphysics, and decided that in 1933 we
should accept th e m etaphysics of l'933, w hich is given exclusively by
science. W e h a v e decided to abandon th e false to facts is o f identity
and to use, in stead , th e best available language; namely, a n actional,
behaviouristic, fu nctio n al, operational language, based on o rd e r. A nd,
finally, we have fo u n d a term which is functionally satisfactory and has
the correct stru c tu ra l and neural im plications, and which represents a
non-el term, a n d of w hich the m eanings can be expanded a n d refined
indefinitely by assig n in g to them d ifferent orders.
In passing on to th e general scientific outlook, similar structural
remarks upon a non-el point of view apply, and are semantically of
importance. B ecause of the non-el ch aracter o f the w ork of th e w riters
on the E instein an d newr quantum theories, m uch use is m ade of this
material in the p re se n t work. T here is a m arked structural, m ethodo
logical, and sem a n tic parallelism betw een all modern non-el strivings,
which are extrem ely effective psycho-logically. More m aterial on this
subject is given in P a rts IX and X.
Now, re tu rn in g to th e analysis of th e object which we called pencil,
we observe th a t, in spite of all sim ilarities, this object is unique, is
different from an y th in g else, and has a unique relationship to th e rest of
the world. H en ce, w e should give th e object a unique nam e. F o r
tunately, we hav e already become acquainted with the way m athem a
ticians m an u factu re an endless a rray of individual names w ithout unduly
expanding the vocabulary. If we call the given object penciU, we
could call an o th er sim ilar object p e n c iV ,. In this way, we produce
individual nam es, and so cover the differences. By keeping the main
root w ord pencil, we keep the im plications o f daily life, and also of
similarities. T h e habitual use of such a device is structurally and seman
tically of extrem e im portance. I t has already been emphasized repeatedly
that our ab stracting from physical objects o r situations proceeds by m iss
ing, neglecting, o r forgetting, and that th o se disregarded characteristics
usually produce e rro rs in evaluation, resu ltin g in the disasters of life.
If we acquire th is extensional m athem atical habit of using special
names fo r unique individuals, we become conscious, not only of the
similarities, but also of the differences, w hich consciousness is one of the
382 VII. THE M ECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

m echanism s fo r helping th e p ro p er ev aluation and so preventing or

e lim in atin g sem antic d istu rb a n c e s.
So w e now have b e fo re us a unique o b je c t w hich we call by a
u n iq u e nam e pencili. I f w e enquire w hat science 1933 has to say about
th is object, we find th a t th is object re p re sen ts stru ctu rally an extremely
com plex, dynam ic p rocess. F o r our purpose, w hich is intuitive, it is of
little im portance w h e tn e r w e accept the object as m ade up of atoms and
th e atom as m ade up o f w h irlin g e le c tro n s ., o r w hether we accept the
n e w e r q u antum theory, a s giv en in P a r t X, a c c o rd in g to which the atom
is fo rm u lated in term s o f electrons but th e electron is the region
w h e re som e w aves re in fo rc e each other, in stead o f being a bit of some
th in g . I t is of no im p o rtan ce from o u r point o f view whether the atoms
a r e of a finite size or w h e th e r they ex ten d indefinitely and are noticeable
to us only in th e regions o f rein fo rcem en t o f th e w aves. Naturally, this
la s t hypothesis has a s tro n g sem antic appeal, since it would account,
w h e n w orked out, fo r m an y other facts, su c h as fulness, in a non-el
la n g u a g e ; but probably it w ould necessitate a postulation of some sub-
electro n ic structures.
W h a t is im p o rtan t fo r o u r s.r is th at w e realize the fact that the
g ro s s m acroscopic m ate ria ls w ith w hich we a r e fam iliar are not simply
w h a t w e see, f e e l. , b u t con sist of dynam ic p ro cesses of some extremely
fine s tr u c tu r e ; and th a t w e realize fu rth e r th a t our senses are not
a d a p te d to reg ister th e s e processes w ithout th e help of extra-neural
m ean s an d hig h er o rd e r abstractions.
L et us recall, in th is connection, the fa m ilia r example of a rotary
fa n , w hich is m ade up o f se p arate radial blades, but which, when rotat
in g w ith a certain velocity, g ives the im pression of a solid disk. In this
case the disk is
not reality, but a
nervous integration,
o r abstraction from
the rotating blades.
We not only see the
disk (b) where
there is no disk,
but, if the blades
rotate fast enough,
F ig. la F ig . lb w e could not throw
, s a n d through them,
I.6 w ou^ ^ slow to get th ro u g h b efo re being struck by one
o f the blades.
 ON ABSTRACTING 383

T he disk re p re se n ts a jo in t phenom enon of the rotating blades (a )

and of the a b stra c tin g pow er o f o u r n erv o u s system, which registers
only the gross m acroscopic aspects an d slow velocities, but n o t the finer
activities on su b tle r levels. W e cannot blam e the finite m in d for the
failure to reg ister the separate blades, because physical instrum ents may
behave sim ilarly. F o r instance, the illu stra tio n s (a) and ( b) are photo
graphs of a sm all fan which I use in lectures, and the photographic
camera also m issed th e rotatin g blades an d registered only a disk, in
Fig. lb.
Som ething ro u g h ly sim ilar may b e assum ed fo r our purpose as
going on in w h a t we usually call m a te ria ls. These are composed of
some dynamic, fine-grained processes, n o t unlike the rotating blades of
our exam ple; a n d w hat we register is th e disk, be it a table o r a chair
or ourselves.
F o r a sim ilar reason, we m ay assum e th a t we cannot put o u r finger
through a table, as o u r finger is too th ic k and too slow, and that, for
some m aterials, it takes X -rays to be agile enough to penetrate.
T he above analogies are helpful fo r o u r purpose only, but are over
simplified and sh o u ld not be taken as a scientific explanation.
T his neural process seems to be v e ry general, and in all our daily
experiences th e dynam ic fine stru ctu res are lost to our rough senses.
We register d is k s, although investigation discovers not d isk s, but
rotating blades. O u r gross m acroscopic experience is only a nervous
abstraction of som e definite order.
A s we need to speak about such problem s, we m ust select the best
language at o u r disposal. This ought to be non-el and, structurally, the
closest to facts. Such a language has been built, and is to be found in
the differential an d four-dim ensional language of space-time, and in the
new quantum m echanics. In practice, it is simple to ascribe to every
point of space a date, but it takes som e training to get this s.r. T he
language of space-tim e is non-el. T o th e new notion of a point in
space-time, su ch a p o in t, alw ays hav in g a d ate associated w ith it and
hence never iden tical w ith any oth er p o in t, the name of point-event, or
simply event, h a s been given.
H ow to p ass from point-events to exten d ed macroscopic events is a
problem in m athem atical logic. Several quite satisfactory schemes have
been given, into the details of which w e do not need to enter here. A s
the non-el stru c tu re of the language of space-tim e appears different from
the older el language of space and tim e, quite obviously the old term
matter, w'hich belonged to the descriptive apparatus of space and
time, should be abandoned also, and the b its o f m aterials we d ealt w ith
 VII. THE M ECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

should be re fe rre d to b y s tru c tu ra lly new te rm s. In fact, we know that

th e old term m a tte r c a n be displaced by som e o th er term connected with
th e c u rv a tu re of sp a c e -tim e .
T h e re is on re c o rd a strik in g exam ple o f w hat the structure of a
fo rm o f rep resen tatio n m ea n s. In a pap er p rin te d in the Proceedings of
th e N ational A cad em y of Science, F e b ru a ry , 1926, Professor G. Y.
R ain ich , the m ath em atician , tried to in tro d u c e m ass into space-time,
th e term s belonging to fo rm s of re p re se n ta tio n of different structure.
H e succeeded, but a t th e p ric e of sp littin g space-tim e into the original
space and time. T h is is, as f a r as m y k n ow ledge goes, the first proof of
h o w intim ately a fo rm of represen tatio n is in w ardly and structurally
interconnected. T h is fa c t is o f e x tra o rd in a ry sem antic importance for
psycho-logicians and p sy c h ia trists, w ho alw ay s stu d y symbolism of some
so rt. I t w ould be o f g r e a t in terest to have such problems worked out
by them .
A s abstractin g in m a n y orders seem s to be a general process found
in all form s o f life, b u t p articu larly in h u m a n s, it is of importance to be
c le a r on this subject a n d to select a lan g u ag e of proper structure. As
w e know already, we u se one term , say a p p le , fo r a t least four entirely
d iffe re n t en tities; n am ely, ( 1 ) the event, o r scientific object, or the
sub-m icroscopic physico-chem ical processes, ( 2 ) th e ordinary object manu
fa c tu re d from the e v e n t by o u r low er n e rv o u s centres, (3) the psycho
logical picture p ro b ably m a n u fa c tu red by th e h ig h er centres, and (4) the
v erbal definition of th e te rm . I f w e use a language of adjectives and
su b ject-p red icate fo rm s p erta in in g to sense im pressions, we are using
a language w hich deals w ith entities inside o u r skin and characteristics
e n tire ly non-existent in th e outside w orld. T h u s the events outside our
sk in a re neither cold n o r w arm , green nor re d , sweet nor bitter., but
th ese characteristics a r e m a n u fa c tu red by o u r nervous system inside our
sk in s, as responses o n ly to different en erg y manifestations, physico
chem ical p ro cesses, . W h e n w e use such te rm s, we are dealing with char
a c te ristic s w hich are a b se n t in th e ex te rn a l w orld, and build up an
an th ro p o m o rp h ic an d d elusional w o rld n on-sim ilar in structure to the
w o rld aro u n d us. N o t so if w e use a lan g u ag e of order, relations, or
s tru c tu re , w hich can b e ap p lied to sub-m icroscopic events, to objective
levels, to sem antic levels, a n d w hich can also be expressed in words. In
u sin g such language, w e deal w ith c h aracteristics found or d is c o v e r e d on
all levels which give u s stru c tu ra l d ata uniquely im portant for knowledge.
T h e o rdering on sem antic levels in th e m eantim e abolishes id e n tif ic a tio n .
I t is o f extrem e im p o rtan ce to realize th at th e relational., attitude is
o p tio n al and can be a p p lied everyw here a n d always, once the above*
 ON ABSTRACTING 385

mentioned benefits are realized. T hus, an y object can be considered as a

set of relations o f its p a r t s ., any sense perception may be considered as
a response to a stim ulus . , which again introduces relations,. A s relations
are found in th e scientific sub-m icroscopic world, the objective world,
and also in th e psycho-logical and verbal w orlds, it is beneficial to use
such a language because it is similar in structure to the external w'orld
and o ur nervous sy ste m ; and it is applicable to all levels. T h e use of
such a language leads to the discovery of invariant relations usually
called laws o f n a tu re , gives us stru ctu ral data which make the only
possible content of know ledge, and elim inates also anthropom orphic,
primitive, and delusional speculations, identifications, and h a rm fu l s.r.
 VII. TH E MECHANISM OF TIME-BINDING

I f we are not conscious of ab stracting, w e m ust identifyin other

w ords, w henever w e co n fu se the different ord ers of abstractions, un
avoidable if we use th e is of identity, we duplicate or copy the animal
way o f th in k in g , w ith sim ilar em otional responses. In the following
chapters, this tra g e d y will be explained in detail, and it will be shown
th at practically all h u m an difficulties involve this semantic factor of
copying anim als in o u r nervous reactions a n d evaluation as a component.
A theory w hich n ot only throw s light on this serious problem, but
w hich also gives m ean s of replacing the o ld h a rm fu l s.r by more bene
ficial ones, m ay be-u sefu l, in spite of various tem porary difficulties which
are d ue to th e old identity-reactions and th e lack of familiarity with
the new .
T h e old id en tity -reactio n s are ex trem ely ingrained, particularly with
grow n-ups. Serious effort and perm anent rem inders are necessary to
overcom e them . T h e S tru c tu ra l D ifferential represents such a structural
visual rem inder, w hich we should keep co n sta n tly before our eyes until
the pernicious d istu rb an ces of evaluation have been overcome. For
Sm ith, the fu n d am en tal evaluation can be ex p ressed in simple and quite
prim itive language T h is is not th is.
T h e above m ost vital sem antic factors o f evaluation indispensable
fo r ad ju stm en t an d san ity are conveyed to him whenever he looks
at th e stratification in d icated on the D ifferential. The hanging free
strin g s indicating th e non-abstracted ch aracteristics train his s.r to be
aw are of th e non-allness o f, and the la ck of identity between, his
abstractions.
O u r old s.r w ere sim ilar to F id o s ; w e w ere never fid ly conscious
of abstracting. T h ro u g h w ro n g evaluation w e identified what is inher
ently different and lo nged fo r, or assum ed som e impossible allness in
o u r know ings.
P ractice has sh o w n m e, definitely, th a t to acquire these new reac
tions o f consciousness o f abstracting is difficult and requires time and
effort to accom plish, in sp ite of th e exceptional, nearly p rim itiv e , sim
plicity of th e m eans em ployed. T h e silence on the objective levels
sounds very in n o c e n t; yet it is extrem ely difficult to acquire, as it in
volves a complete c h eck in g o f all sem antic disturbances, identifications,
.confusions o f o rd ers o f abstractions, hab itu al em otions, preconceived
ideas. , practically im possible w ithout the u se of th e objective Differen
tial to which w e can p o in t o u r finger and be silent, to begin w ith. In
fact, to d isregard th is p o int, actually m eans failu re in ac c o m p lish in g the
desired sem antic re su lts. A t present, as f a r as experience has gone, the
m ain results w ere achieved w hen a given individual had conquered this
 ON T H E STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIAL 411

first, simple, a n d obvious sem antic obstacle. If the simple rules and
conditions given in th e present system fo r abolishing identification are
followed persisten tly in the tra in in g w ith th e Differential, a complete
and very beneficial stru ctu ral and sem antic change in the character and
mental capacities of a given individual occurs, seemingly all out of pro
portion w'ith th e sim plicity of the train in g . B u t if we consider the con
tent of all know ledge as uniquely structural, and if the m ajority of us
are semantically tied up, blocked, w ith antiquated, animalistic, primitive,
infant-like, m en tally -ill and A stru c tu re and identity-reactions, owing
to the lack o f consciousness o f abstracting, which we renounce in toto
by acquiring th e consciousness of ab stractin g , such rem arkable tran s
formation becom es intelligible.
T he publication o f the S tru c tu ra l Differential in separate, con
veniently large copies has been forced upon me by experience and by
various difficulties fo u n d in th e re-educating o f our s.r, w ithout which
a/1-system, a d ju stm e n t, sanity, and all th e desirable results which depend
on them, are im possible.
 V II. T H E M E C H A N IS M O F TIME-BIXDING

I f w e a re n o t conscious o f a b s tra c tin g , we must identifyin^

w ords, w h e n e v e r w e c o n fu se th e d iffe re n t orders of abstractions,&
avoidable if w e u se the is o f id e n tity , w e duplicate or copy the a*
w ay o f th in k in g , w ith sim ila r e m o tio n a l responses. In the foB^
chapters, th is tra g e d y w ill be e x p la in e d in detail, and it will be sb
that p ra c tic a lly all h u m an d ifficulties involve this semantic facter
copying a n im a ls in o u r n e rv o u s re a c tio n s and evaluation as a compos
A th e o ry w h ich not only th r o w s lig h t on this serious problen;h
w hich also g iv e s m eans o f re p la c in g th e old harmful s.r by morefo
ficial ones, m a y beTuseful, in sp ite o f v ario u s temporary difficulties nt
are d ue to th e o ld id e n tity -re a c tio n s a n d the lack of familiarity r.
the new .
T h e o ld id e n tity -re a c tio n s a r e ex tre m e ly ingrained, particularly*r
g ro w n -u p s. S e rio u s effo rt and p e rm a n e n t reminders are necessan:
overcom e th e m . T h e S tru c tu ra l D iffe re n tia l represents such a star,
visual re m in d e r, w hich w e sh o u ld keep constantly before our eyesr
the p e rn ic io u s d istu rb a n c e s of e v a lu a tio n have been overcome, fc
S m ith, the fu n d a m e n ta l e v a lu a tio n can be expressed in simple andp
prim itive la n g u a g e T h is is n ot t h i s .
T h e a b o v e m o st vital se m a n tic fac to rs of evaluation indispeoii:
fo r a d ju s tm e n t a n d sa n ity a re co n v ey e d to him whenever hete
at th e s tra tific a tio n ind icated o n th e Differential. The hanging i-
strin g s in d ic a tin g th e n o n -a b stra c te d characteristics train his J.r tsV
aw are o f th e n o n -alln ess o f, a n d th e lack of identity between, i
a b stractio n s.
O u r old s .r w e re sim ilar to F id o s ; w e were never fully cons'1
of a b stra c tin g . T h ro u g h w ro n g e v a lu a tio n we identified what is
ently d iffe re n t a n d longed fo r, o r assu m e d some i m p o s s i b l e alln&1
our k n o w in g s.
P ra c tic e h a s sh o w n m e, d efin itely , th a t to acquire these new18
tions o f c o n sc io u sn e ss o f a b s tr a c tin g is difficult and requires tin**
effort to a c c o m p lish , in sp ite of th e exceptional, nearly primitive51
plicity o f th e m e a n s em ployed. T h e silence on the objective fc-i
sounds v ery in n o c e n t; y e t it is e x tre m e ly difficult to acquire, as^
volves a c o m p le te ch eck in g o f all sem a n tic disturbances, identified
.co n fu sio n s o f o rd e rs of a b s tra c tio n s , habitual emotions, precoj
1 eas . , p ra c tic a lly im possible w ith o u t th e use of the objective^

ial to w hich w e c a n p o in t o u r fin g e r and be silent, to begin^

act, to d is re g a rd th is p o in t, a c tu a lly m eans failure in accomplish
s ire se m a n tic re su lts. A t p re s e n t, as fa r as experience has g01*
m ain re su lts w e re ach iev ed w h en a giv en individual had conquer*
 ON T H E STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIAL 411

first, simple, an d obvious sem antic obstacle. If the simple rules and
conditions given in th e present system fo r abolishing identification are
followed persistently in the train in g w ith the Differential, a complete
and very beneficial stru ctu ral and sem antic change in the character and
mental capacities of a given individual occurs, seemingly all out of pro
portion with th e sim plicity o f the train in g . B u t if we consider the con
tent of all know ledge as uniquely structural, and if the m ajority of us
are semantically tied up, blocked, w ith antiquated, animalistic, primitive,
infant-like, m en tally -ill and A stru c tu re and identity-reactions, owing
to the lack o f consciousness o f abstracting, which we renounce in toto
by acquiring th e consciousness of ab stractin g , such rem arkable trans
formation becom es intelligible.
The publication of the S tru c tu ra l D ifferential in separate, con
veniently large copies has been forced upon me by experience and by
various difficulties fo u n d in the re-educating of our s.r, w ithout which
a ^[-system, a d ju stm e n t, sanity, and all th e desirable results which depend
on them, are im possible.