science in particular, might be today if not for the holy zeal of powerful enemies of science who vehemently and ruthlessly sponsored ignorance, old s.r, and so disease.
In some countries, even at present, science is persecuted, and the attempt is made to starve scientists, a device often quite as effective as burning at the stake, of which the Tennessee trial and others are examples. But, in spite of all these primitive semantic tendencies, which, unfortunately, are often very efficient, the general time-binding characteristic of man remains unaltered, although its rate can be slowed down by the ignorance of those who control our symbolism - words, money,.
The failure to understand these problems is due to the fundamental fact that, until now, we have had no scientific functional non-el definition of man; neither have we originated any scientific enquiry into tht inherent 'nature of man', which is impossible if we disregard s.r. We should remember that in this commercialized era we offer large incomes to those who preach with great zeal how 'evil' 'human nature is', and who tell us how, without their services, all kinds of dreadful things will happen to a given individual.
In the light of modern enquiry, the above issues come to a very sharp focus. Either these apostles do know that what they promise has only delusional value, yet they want to retain their incomes, or else they live in delusional worlds, and a sane mankind should take care of them. In either case, they are unfit to be any longer entrusted with the care of the further development of culture and the future of mankind. Sooner or later, we must meet this semantic situation squarely, as too many factors of human sanity are at stake.
In my Manhood of Humanity, it is shown that the canons of what we call 'civilization' or 'civilizations' are based on animalistic generalizations taken from the obvious facts of the lives of cows, horses, dogs, pigs., and applied to man. Of course, such generalizations started with insufficient data. The generalizations had to be primitive, superficial; and when applied in practice, periodical collapses were certain to follow. No bridge would stand or could even be built, if we tried to apply rules of surfaces to volumes. The rules or generalizations in the two cases are different, and so the results of such primitive semantic confusion must be disastrous to all of us.
The present enquiry began with the investigation of the characteristic difference between animal and man; namely, the mechanism of time-binding. This analysis, because of the different structure of the language used, had to be carried on independently and anew. The results are, in many instances, new, unexpected even by myself, and