146 IV. STRUCTURAL FACTORS IN A LANGUAGES |
||

impossible to analyse the extremely complex difficulties in which, as a matter of fact, we are immersed.
At present, the doctrinal functions and the system-functions have not been worked out, and even in mathematics, where these notions originated, we speak too little about them. But in mathematics, as the general tendency is to bring all mathematical disciplines to a postulational base, and these postulates always involve multiordinal and oo-valued terms, we actually produce doctrinal or system-functions, as the case may be. In this way, we find the
structure of a given doctrine or system, and so are able to compare the structures of different, and sometimes very complex, verbal schemes. Similar structure-finding methods must be applied some day to all other, at present, non-mathematical disciplines. The main difficulty, in the search for structure, was the absence of a clear formulation of the issues involved and the need for a /?-system, so as to be able to compare two systems, the comparison of which helps further structural discovery. It is not claimed that either the A orsystem-functions have been formulated here, but it seems that, in the presence or absence of identification, we find a fundamental postulate which, once formulated, suggests a comparison with experience. As we discover that 'identity' is invariably false to facts, this A postulate must be rejected from any future-system.It happens that any new and revolutionary doctrine or system is always based on a new doctrinal or system-function which establishes its new structure with a new set of relations. Thus, any new doctrine or system, when traced to its postulates, allows us to verify and scrutinize the initial postulates and to find out if they correspond to experience,.
A few examples will make it clearer. Cartesian analytical geometry is based on
one system-function, having one system-structure, although we may have indefinitely many different cartesian co-ordinates. The vector and the tensor systems also depend on two different system-functions, different from the cartesian; they have three different structures. Intertranslations are possible, but only when the fundamental postulates do not conflict. Thus, the tensor language gives us invariant and intrinsic relations, and these can be translated into the cartesian relations. It seems certain, however, although I am not aware that this has been done, that the indefinitely many extrinsic characteristics which we can manufacture in the cartesian system, cannot be translated into the tensor language, which does not admit extrinsic characteristics.Similar relations are found between other doctrines and systems, once their respective structural characteristics are discovered by the |
||