SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

'intentions', 'intuitions', 'evaluation', and many others. It should be noticed that these first order effects have an objective character, as they are un-speakable - are not words.
'Meaning' must be considered as a multiordinal term, as it applies to all levels of abstractions, and so has no general content. We can only speak legitimately of 'meanings' in the plural. Perhaps, we can speak of the meanings of meanings, although I suspect that the latter would represent the un-speakable first order effect, the affective, personal raw material, out of which our ordinary meanings are built.
The above explains structurally why most of our 'thinking' is to such a large extent 'wishful' and is so strongly coloured by affective factors. Creative scientists know very well from observation of themselves, that all creative work starts as a 'feeling', 'inclination', 'suspicion', 'intuition', 'hunch', or some other un-speakable affective state, which only at a later date, after a sort of nursing, takes the shape of a verbal expression, worked out later in a rationalized, coherent, linguistic scheme called a theory. In mathematics we have some astonishing examples of intuitively proclaimed theorems, which, at a later date, have been proven to be true, although the original proof was false.
The above explanation, as well as the neurological attitude toward 'meaning', as expressed by Head, is non-elementalistic. We have not illegitimately split organismal processes into 'intellect' and 'emotions'. These processes, or the reactions of the organism-as-a-whole, can be contemplated at different neurological stages in terms of order, but must never be split or treated as separate entities. This attitude is amply justified structurally and empirically in daily and scientific life. For instance, we may assume that educated Anglo-Saxons are familiar with the Oxford Dictionary, although it must be admitted that they are handicapped in the knowledge of their language by being born into it; yet we know from experience how words which have one standard definition carry different meanings to, and produce different affective individual reactions on, different individuals. Past experiences, the knowledge., of different individuals are different, and so the evaluation (affective) of the terms is different. We are accustomed to such expressions as 'it means nothing to me', even in cases when the dictionary wording is accepted; or 'it means a great deal to me', and similar expressions which indicate that the meanings of meanings are somehow closely related to, or perhaps represent, the first order un-speakable affective states or reactions.
Since 'knowledge', then, is not the first order un-speakable objective level, whether an object, a feeling.; structure, and so relations, becomes