SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search




INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION           xli
totelian 'logic', which is not the case. They are somehow not able to take the natural science point of view that all science, mathematics, 'logic', 'philosophy', etc., are the product of the functioning of the human nervous system, involving some sort of internal orientations, or evaluations, which are not necessarily formalized. The analysis of such living reactions is the sole object of general semantics as a natural empirical science.
These 'philosophers', etc., seem unaware, to give a single example, that by teaching and preaching 'identity', which is empirically non-existent in this actual world, they are neurologically training future generations in the pathological identifications found in the 'mentally' ill or maladjusted. As explained on page 409, and also Chapter XXVI, whatever we may say an object 'is', it is not, because the statement is verbal, and the facts are not.
It is pathetic, if not tragic, that society should invest millions of dollars to support such specialists who train future generations in maladjustments just because they disregard the unavoidable neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic effects of their teachings on the lives of their pupils. Most scientists and educators are either entirely innocent of these problems, or indifferent and passive, or even negativistic. Like some animals that can outwit humans because of their keen observations, the cunning, often pathological, thoroughly ignorant present day totalitarian leaders are not unaware of the academic shortcomings based on inertia, verbalism, etc., and openly proceed to utilize these human nervous weaknesses destructively, with very telling results. Nazism, wars of and on nerves, wars of verbal distortion, etc., with their following disasters are in 1941 only too obvious examples. I will return to this subject at the end of this introduction.
The terms 'philosophy', 'system', etc., as ordinarily used, stand for too broad generalizations. Different 'philosophies' represent nothing but
methods of evaluation, which may lead to empirical mis-evaluation if science and empirical facts are disregarded. Different systems may be very broad and general, such as, say, the aristotelian system (A) (see Fig. 1), within which is a more limited and less general system such as 'Christianity' (C), within which is, for instance, the leibnitzian system (L), and within which there are individual, personal systems (P). Every Smith has an individual interpretation of broader systems, and so in actuality has a