SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

course, the reader can skip many parts and at once plunge into Part VII, and discover that it is all 'childishly simple', 'obvious' and 'common sense'. Such a reader or a critic with this particular s.r would miss the point, which can be verified as an experimental fact in the meantime, that in spite of its seeming simplicity, no one, not even the greatest genius, fully applies these 'platitudes' outside of his special work, which s.r, in his limited field, represent the semantic components that make up his genius.
The full acquisition of the new s.r requires special training; but, when acquired, it solves for a given individual, without any outside interference, all important human problems I know of. It imparts to him some of the s.r of so-called 'genius', and thus enlarges his so-called 'intelligence'.
The problems of the structure of a given language are of extreme, and as yet unrealized, semantic importance. Thus, for instance, the whole Einstein theory, or any other fundamental scientific theory, must be considered as the building of a new language of similar structure to the empirical facts known at a given date. In 1933, the general tendency of science, as made particularly obvious in the works of J. Loeb, C. M. Child, psychiatry, the Einstein theory, the new quantum mechanics., and the present work, is to build languages which take into consideration the many important invariant relations, a condition made possible only by the use of non-el languages. In my case, I must construct a non-el language in which 'senses' and 'mind', 'emotions' and 'intellect'., are no longer to be verbally split, because a language in which they are split is not similar in structure to the known empirical facts, and all speculations in such an el language must be misleading.
This non-el language involves a new non-el theory of meanings, as just explained. The term 'semantic', 'semantically', 'semantic reactions', 'semantic states'., are non-el, as they involve both 'emotions' and 'intellect', since they depend on 'meanings', 'evaluation', 'significance', and the like, based on structure, relations, and ultimately multi-dimensional order. All these terms apply equally to 'senses' and to 'mind', to 'emotions' and to 'intellect' - they are not artificially split.
It is important to preserve the non-el or organism-as-a-whole attitude and terminology throughout, because these represent most important factors in our s.r. Sometimes it is necessary to emphasize the origin, or the relative importance, of a given aspect of the impulse or reaction, or to translate for the reader a language not entirely familiar to him into one to which he is more accustomed. In such cases, I use the old el terms in quotation marks to indicate that I do not eliminate or disregard the other