such as language and its structure, the building of his institutions, laws, doctrines, science, mathematics., which condition his environment, his s.r, which, in their turn, influence and determine his development.
We see that the 'natural history' of animals differs greatly in structure from a future scientific 'natural history1 of man, a structural difference very seldom fully realized. I propose, then, to call the very valuable existing Anthropology the Restricted Anthropology, and to call the generalized science of man General Anthropology, so as to include all his natural functions, of which those covered by the Restricted Anthropology would be a part.
Such a definite General Anthropology would be very different from the existing restricted one. It would include all disciplines of human interest from a special anthropological and semantic point of view. Very often an anthropological discipline - for instance, anthropological psycho-logics, anthropological sociology, law, history, or 'philosophy' - would turn out to be a comparative discipline. Such, by necessity, would have to use a language of four-dimensional structure, which would necessitate, as a preliminary, a fundamental revision of the structure of the language they use - a semantic factor which, up to now, has been largely neglected.
It is to be frankly admitted that the present enquiry has led to some quite unexpected and startling results. In my Manhood of Humanity, I defined man functionally as a time-binder, a definition based on a non-el functional observation that the human class of life differs from animals in the fact that, in the rough, each generation of humans, at least potentially, can start where the former generation left off - a definition which, in the language of this particular structure, is sharp, and corresponds to empirical facts. We should notice, also, that in the case of primitive tribes which apparently have not progressed at all for many thousands of years, we always find, among other reasons, some special doctrines or creeds, which proclaim very efficiently, often by killing off individuals (who always are responsible for progress in general), that any progress or departure from 'time honoured' habits or prejudices 'is a mortal sin' or what not. Even in our own case we are not free from such semantic tendencies. Only the other day, historically speaking, the 'holy inquisition' burned or silenced scientists. The discovery of the microscope and telescope, for instance, was delayed for a long time because the inventor, in fear of priestly persecution, was afraid to write his scientific discoveries in plain language. He had to write them in cipher - a fact discovered only a few years ago. Those afflicted with diseases can easily realize where our science in general, and medical