ON RELATIONS 
203 

depend ultimately on asymmetrical relations. In the technical fields, mathematics and the exact sciences; in the semiscientific fields, economics, politics, sociology.; in the as yet nonscientific fields, 'ethics', 'happiness', 'adjustment'., represent ultimately different forms of evaluation, impossible to formulate adequately under aristotelianism.
Obviously, asystem based on proper semantic evaluation leading to nonpathological reactions, adjustments., must make relations and multidimensional order fundamental for sanity. The semantic connection between mathematical methods and all the other concerns of man becomes also necessary and obvious.
In mathematics, recently, the notion of equality needed a refinement and the notion of 'identity' has been introduced. The present analysis discloses that, although the refinement and the symbol may be retained, yet the name should be entirely abandoned, because it conceals a very semantically vicious confusion of orders of abstractions. If, by definition, we produce new terms, these new terms are of a higher order abstraction than the terms used in the definition, and so the identification of them as to the orders of abstractions is physiologically and structurally false to facts.
The problems discussed in the present chapter have been felt vaguely for more than two thousand years and found their first historical expression in the rift between Aristotle, the biologist, and Plato, the founder of mathematical philosophy. Mathematics is, in principle, A, and so, in the study of mathematics, we can learn most about the principles of nonaristotelianism. In physics, only very recently, do we begin to eliminate the 'is' of identity and elementalism which resulted in the R systems. All sciences strive to become more mathematical and exact and so A. In fact, all advances in science are due to the building of new A languages, usually called 'terminology'. We can go further and say, definitely, that, to have any science, we must make a A revision of the languages used. Similarly with 'man', either we decide to introduce into human affairs scientific evaluation, and so part company with the A and prearistotelian system of evaluation, or preserve A structure, and have no science of man, or science of sanity, but continue in the prevailing^{1} chaos. 


