SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

But the so-called normal person practically never abides by his beliefs, and when his beliefs are building for him a fictitious world, he saves his neck by not abiding by them. A so-called 'insane' person acts upon his beliefs, and so cannot adjust himself to a world which is quite different from his fancy.
Let me repeat that the nervous system of the human child is not physically finished at birth: and, therefore, it is easy to give it quite harmful semantic twists, by wrong doctrines. To eliminate the vicious and fictitious el outlook and s.r, it is of paramount importance to try to educate a child to be neither an extreme extrovert nor an extreme introvert, but a balanced extroverted-introvert.
In psychotherapy, the attempt is often made to re-educate these tendencies. The physician usually tries to make an extrovert more introverted, and an introvert more extroverted. In case of success, the patient either recovers altogether or improves considerably.
In practice there is a considerable difference between the re-education of an extrovert to an introvert and that of an introvert to an extrovert. We have already seen that the balanced person should be both. In daily el language, the introvert is 'all thought' and has not much use for the external world, while the extrovert is 'all senses' and has little use for 'thought'. It often happens that it is easier to re-educate an introvert, because at least he 'thinks', but difficult to re-educate an extrovert, as he has not cultivated his capacity to 'think'. He may be a remarkable player on words, but all his verbal plays, though clever, are shallow.
Now we shall be able to understand why Aristotle, the extrovert, and his doctrines have appealed, and still appeal, to those who can 'think' but feebly. The fact that the fuller linguistic system of the extrovert Aristotle was accepted in preference to the work of the introvert, Plato, is of serious semantic consequence to us. It is evident that mankind, in its evolution, had to pass through a low period of development; but this fact is not the only reason why the A doctrines have had such a tremendous influence upon the Aryan race. The reason is much more deeply rooted and pernicious. In his day, over two thousand years ago, Aristotle inherited a structurally primitive-made language. He, as well as the enormous majority of us at present, never realized that what is going on outside of our skins is certainly not words. We never 'think' about this distinction, but we all take over semantically from our parents and associates their habitual forms of representation involving structure as the language in which to talk about this world, not knowing, or else forgetting, that a language to be fit to represent this world should at least have the structure of this world.